11/07/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Welcome to this special edition of the Daily Politics,


So, will the Kingdom stay united or does Scotland go it's own way?


The polls and the bookies favour the union.


But Nationalists say don't underestimate this man, Alex


He has a habit of confounding the pollsters and the bookies.


Scottish voters have been bombarded with stats and spin.


Many say they're also bamboozled - and some have even managed to avoid


the whole thing all together, as our Adam's been finding out.


You don't know what it is? The independence referendum? I've never


heard anything of it. And here in Westminster, a committee


of MPs says the taxpayer lost ?1 Was the 500-year-old business


sold off too cheap? Is the Government's flagship


universal credit programme Labour say so -


the Government insist not. And with us


for the whole programme today are Lesley Riddoch from the Scotsman


and Alex Massie from the Spectator. Ten weeks to go. Some of the state


of the campaign as you see it. There are two campaigns, the official one


full of party leaders, Alex Salmond, keynote speakers. There is a


grassroots one happening all over the country. I've been at 107


meetings since September the 9th. I've been counting. That's a lot!


Change happens in different ways. It can happen a little all over the


place and underneath the radar. Is there a difference between the two


campaigns? A difference in tone and what is being said? Yes. The yes


campaign is a generally optimistic, buoyant one. It has to be because it


is looking to a different future. But the no campaign is a might is


right campaign. How would you sum up the state of the campaign ten weeks


to go? Well, the state of the campaign is that the yes side are


losing. On that everyone agrees. There is a difference between


pollsters as to exactly by how much the yes campaign are losing but, at


the moment, it's quite clear that no are winning. It's a bit like if


you're playing roulette. You have ten spins of the wheel and if the


yes side bets on red, they need Reg to come up seven or eight times of


ten if they are to prevail. They say the polls are long, are skewed, not


capturing the mood on the ground. That could be true but this is not a


question where you have 100 things the pollsters have to try and find.


Are you worried that the yes campaign has lost momentum? They


seemed to have been doing very well in the spring and then the gap began


to widen again. I know people say this when they are perceived to be


on the losing end of opinion polls but they do fluctuate a locked and


the key things are, for example, things like the missing million.


There are folk who have never voted in Scotland in the large housing


estate. They've been canvassed by some young folk and they have been


incredibly insubordinate independent if they turn out. Which is


interesting, and we don't know. -- incredibly supportive of


independence. Has there been a compelling and agreed case for the


union? That is a concern. It runs on the


risks of uncertainties of independence but they are not


necessarily a case against independence or for the union and


it's true that the no campaign has relied more on dreary pros rather


than Ellie element of pro-tree. -- any element of poetry. The


referendum is on September the 18th. The campaign has been going on


for ever. But we'll soon be moving


into the final stretch. So let's have a look


at how the polls are shaping up. Only those on the Scottish


electoral register can vote. They will be asked


a simple question - should Scotland But in together each of the last


polls put together by this six main polling comprising Scotland and


leaving aside those who don't know, 43% intend to vote yes to


independence with 57% intending to vote no. 48% of men said they would


vote yes, compared to 38% women. Older people need more persuasion on


the independence merits. 64% of over 60 said they would vote no with 36


saying they would vote yes. This will be the first national action


where 16 and 17-year-olds are able to vote. What do they think? That is


not good news for the yes campaign either. Taking out the undecided,


36% said they would vote yes and 64% said no. What of English people


living in Scotland? There are nearly 400,000 people born in England but


living in Scotland, about 8% of the population, with only about a


quarter of them intending to vote yes for independence.


We're joined now by Professor John Curtice,


from Strathclyde University, who knows exactly what Scotland thinks,


Your latest poll of polls has yes on 43, no on 57, so roughly 65 and 40.


That would suggest the campaign hasn't changed much. -- 60-40. But


it has been generating excitement and interest. If we go back to last


Christmas before the Scottish Government published its White Paper


on independence, the polls were pointing on average to something


like 61% for no and 39% four yes. All the opinion polls agree that


during the winter, the yes side made progress such that by the end of


March we were all looking at around 53% for the yes side. The worry for


the yes side is that it's much less clear that they've made much


progress since the end of March, in other words the second quarter of


2014, which is not looking anything like as good as the first quarter


and with just over two months to go, they have a long way to go. The


second reason we have uncertainty and why this campaign will be fought


very strongly to the end is that the polls do not all agree with each


other. 43% is an average of some polls that say it is between 45 and


47 and a poll out this morning says it is 47, another says it is 41, 42.


We don't know which of those sets of results is more accurate. If only


men had the vote, Scotland would be independent. If only men had the


vote there would be a very tight race. Some of the polls suggest that


a majority of men are in favour and there is an enormous gender gap and


this is a gap which has long been noticed in Scottish politics so far


as willingness to vote for the SMB and support for independence. That


gap seems to have remained constant. -- the SNP. Does the polling tell us


why women are more resistant? Two reasons seem to emerge. One is that


women are more likely to feel the consequences of independence are


uncertain and voters who think they are uncertain are less likely to


vote yes, weathermen or woman. Secondly, women seem to be less


convinced that independence will bring economic benefits to Scotland


and all the issues the campaign is about, the one that matters most to


voters is whether they think independence will be economically


beneficial or not. If the yes side are going to win, that is the issue


on which they need to make progress above all. Why is the independence


campaign struggling to get women's votes? Or women are more able to say


when they don't know than men. You think a bigger number of them are


saying they don't know? They are more likely relatively to say yes.


If I can get a word in... The point is that when you say something, you


can get folk jumping down your throat. It is very much easier to


keep your powder dry and hide behind what ever vote responses going to


keep some distance and allow you to have time to think things through


and I think it's no coincidence that Christmas allowed a bit of a Philip


for the yes campaign because it allowed intimate, ordinary campaigns


between people that were sincere and less localised. You get the very


contested public space and I think tactically everyone ran screaming


from it. They are not running, they are saying no. The view on the yes


side is that if you can move people a little bit over time, that is


good. Time is running out but the opinion polls wouldn't have even put


us here because they wouldn't have predicted the last two SNP election


victories. Has it come predicted the last two SNP election


Alex Salmond that young folk are not anywhere near as enthusiastic about


independence as he thought? It might be a disappointment but in truth it


was always a mistake to assume that the SMB and franchised 16 and


17-year-olds on the grounds that it would be to their benefit. I think


we have to accept that they believe in principle that they should have


the vote. I'm suggesting to you that it was not the principal


motivation. Here is one example where probably a government did


something because it believed in it rather than necessarily because it


simply thought it was to its own benefit. Are you surprised that


young people are distinctly less in favour of independence than their


parents? Not necessarily because young people have grown up in an era


where you have the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh, where some


of the political aspirations of the Scottish people have been met,


whereas people in their late 30s and so on were the generation that were


campaigning for that Parliament and so the institutional apparatus of


Scottish politics is perhaps more important than it is for newly


franchised young people. It's also the case that we don't really know


exactly how many 16, 17 and 18-year-olds are all that engaged


with politics anyway. They tend not to vote in huge numbers but I'm


surprised that they are not more nationalist minded. There is still a


large chunk of those who don't know in all the polls, a decent amount.


The Nationalists are kind of betting the farm on the don't knows skewing


their way. But I noticed a recent polls adjusted they were actually


falling away of people that had already made up their minds. We had


a couple of opinion polls today and one last weekend which suggest that


the number of don't knows, which are not particularly large, look as


though they are beginning to come down and the truth is that so far


the evidence is that if they are coming down it isn't making any


difference at all to the relative strength of yes and no so if the yes


side were hoping to gain from the decisions of the undecided, there


isn't any evidence of that so far. One final question. You hear it said


again and again by those in favour of independence and the SNP and


their supporters in the media that in 2011, ten weeks before the


Hollywood elections to the parliament here, Labour had a


double-digit lead over the SNP but Alex Salmond went on to win by 18


points. Is that relevant to where we are now? Not entirely because it is


very clear that why that happened in 2011 is that the Labour Party messed


up its election campaign and it was a judgement on the failure of the


Labour Party, together with the fact that people think the SNP have been


rather good at governing Scotland. But if you look at what happened to


the opinion polls during that campaign, you discover that they did


identify a swing to the SNP but at the same time no swing in terms of


more people being in favour of independence. The SNP won because


they were regarded as capable of providing Scotland with government,


not because it was a vote in favour of independence. Thanks for joining


us. Let's go back to Joe in London. Now, here in Westminster a


cross-party group of MPs is accusing the Government of making a royal


mess of the Royal Mail sell-off. The Business Select Committee says


that poor advice and a fear of failure


on the Government's part caused the Royal Mail to be significantly


undervalued - depriving taxpayers Business Secretary Vince Cable,


who oversaw the sale, was defended by his boss Nick Clegg


on LBC radio this morning. Share prices gyrate wildly and the


Royal Mail's share prices have gyrated wildly and will continue to


do so, I suspect the stop there has been a 25 per cent drop in the share


price. The idea that Vince cable, wise though he is, should be a


soothsayer and should have been able to predict that, I think is


something... And by the way, in the process, he's given thousands of


people working in Royal Mail a piece of it.


Well, here in the studio are Billy Hayes, General Secretary


of the Communication Workers Union, which represents postal workers,


and Adam Memon from the Centre for Policy Studies - a think tank


Welcome to both of you. A stake in the Royal Mail. The taxpayer me have


been short-changed but postal workers got almost 3500 free shares


each in a workers got almost 3500 free shares


done well. Postal workers were given the Royal Mail. The taxpayer me have


been short-changed but shares as an attempt to buy them off. When we


polled our members, they were against privatisation. Vince Cable


says it is all about hindsight. What is clear is that Vince Cable never


had foresight. He lost the British public ?1 billion. If you are a


postal worker and you lost an important package and you face the


prospect of the SAC... Vince Cable has an opinion on everything. Postal


workers have done well, haven't they? If you calculated how much


they would make, they would make ?5,000. Not many people would say


that was a bad deal. I think they would. Really? ? Only 368 turned the


shares down. They did not have a choice. They did not have to do


anything. The shares were put in their pay packet. Both the workers


were against the sale of Royal Mail. 60% of the British public from all


parties were opposed to the sale of Royal Mail. Vince Cable made a


botched sale, he panicked, he did not have the foresight and he is


trying to blame everybody else. It looks a bit of a disaster for


taxpayers of a committee of MPs have said it was -- it was undersold.


This is ?2 billion that taxpayers have got which they otherwise would


not have. As the National Audit Office says taxpayers are no longer


liable for the losses Royal Mail me or may not make. If you look back at


what Royal Mail was doing in the past, yes, they are making profits,


but after so many decades of trying to do that, finally the government


has been able to do this, and the ordinary people who have bought


these shows, many of whom have not bought shares before, these are


average people who have benefited. If you are saying it was a


successful thing to do, the price has rose as high as 1600 and 18p,


how did he get it so wrong in terms of how to price it? The share price


is a reflection of expectations of future earnings. Partly it is


because of the fact that so many employers decided to accept --


employees decided to accept these shares which meant strike action was


unlikely and it was more stable and investors see that and see it as a


better bet and a good opportunity to invest. The fact that the share


price has gone up is not a bad thing. It means the 700,000 people


across the country are benefiting. These are not institutional


investors, these are people on average incomes. What do you say to


that? I know you have said hindsight is a wonderful thing, but could you


or I have estimated how much we could have got for selling off Royal


Mail and the figures that have been given sure that long-term it could


be very successful? I am not a city banker. I am not an institution


advice in the government on the sale and then another section of my


company making a profit on the sale. I do not know if you run a business,


but if I had something for sale that was worth ?3 billion and I sold it


for ?2 billion and then I argued that is good for me because I made


?2 billion... It was sold. There was a doubt about whether you could


sell. Absolutely. It was almost free money. The company was worth a lot


more. City institutions got it wrong. 24 times oversubscribed. The


great British public lost ?1 billion. The point you made earlier,


the company 's which were advising and the companies which sold


them... The indication was there was a conflict-of-interest. That is


quite a big allegation. I do not know, but it seems odd to me that a


company that is advising on the sale on one hand and another part of the


company is benefiting and the select committee said there was not... You


think there was? The ordinary person in the street would not understand


somebody advising and benefiting. It is wrong of you to say that. There


are firewalls. If you are saying they have broken firewalls and


committed mass corporate fraud... I am saying if there was not a problem


why has Vince Cable ask someone to come in and look at what happened?


Everybody recognises it was botched. Not everybody. The National Audit


Office. Vince Cable himself is looking at the sale and that is a


little bit like judging your all homework, but the fact is that ?1


billion went adrift. Let us ask about the pension liability, that


had to be put onto the taxpayer. That is not great for the taxpayer.


Not in the long term but obviously it is not desirable but it had to be


done to get the Royal Mail into the market. It is a necessary cost


because of the benefit of having the Royal Mail in the market in terms of


the freedom it gives it and the people who benefited from


investing, the employees, all of that is worthwhile. We only have a


few seconds, you said it would destroy the Postal Service, has it?


Look at what has happened to Post Office counters today. It is going


to cause major problems. It has not done so, has it? They are talking


about universal sale, Vince Cable should be sacked.


Labour used to rule the roost here in Scotland.


In 2011 the Nationalists did what the voting system was


They won a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament.


Scottish Labour is now the largest opposition party.


I'm joined by their leader, Johann Lamont.


Alistair Darling said this week that the red percussion is of a yes vote


would be worse than the 2008 banking crisis for Scotland. More of the


same scaremongering. I do not think it is scaremongering. I think it is


important to be put out there what the consequences are. How would he


know? Regardless of what the consequence would be people would


want Scotland to be a separate country, I understand the passion,


but on the other said it is important for the ball who are not


sure to understand the scale of the challenge we would be facing --


people. There would have to be cuts or taxes. That may or may not be


true but that is not a 2008 scale banking crisis. How would anybody


know that would be a consequence? He was a great deal closer to the


banking crisis than I was so I would respect what he says. I love the


fact that I live in a country where I can be Scottish, proud of my


identity, my many identities, a Glaswegian and an islander, and be


part of the country where we can work together, find ways of sorting


out our differences, and in tough times we can share a re-source, and


cool resource and risk. There are many people who feel the same and


said to me, please tell people we feel is passionately about being in


the United Kingdom as the yes people feel about Scotland leaving. Only


23% of Scots regard themselves as British. What label you put on


yourself is not the same as how people feel... It tells you how you


feel... You feel Glaswegian. I call myself Glaswegian because it is


where I was born. I, is self an islander because that is where my


heart is. I know that very many people look at the United Kingdom


and think we have achieved something pretty special. It is finding a way


of protecting our Scottish institutions... As John Curtis


explained to us, Labour was well ahead in the polls against Alex


Salmond, you spectacularly collapsed and Alex Salmond won an overall


majority. What is to stop another spectacular collapse? That is why we


are far from complacent, out every gay. -- day. We know that in our


hearts we do not have the confidence just to say that the polls are OK.


The polls tell us something important but it will never be a


substitute for talking to people and arguing and listening to what they


are saying. The polls tell us that although you are the leader of the


biggest party against independence only for 2% of Scots now you do you


are -- who you are. That is a work in progress. I will have a critical


role, but the debate is beyond party. One of the things that has


come to this is that when politicians argue with each other


people stop listening. We need to make sure that the voices that are


here are the people who understand the consequences for them and their


families. How long have you been leader? Two and a half years. 64% of


people in Scotland think Ed Miliband is doing badly. Why should they


listen to him about independence? I was out with Ed Miliband on two


occasions in Scotland. At the time of the carrier being launched and


four armed services day and what struck me was how popular he is. The


extent to which people want to come and speak to him. 64% of bee pollen


Scotland said he is doing badly -- people in Scotland. The Scots think


worse of him than in London. If you ask people what they think of as


idea of taking on the big energy companies ripping them off, people


support him. They are behind him on some of the very big issues. Talking


about zero hours contracts, he is on the side of people and I see it


myself in working with them. He has that passion to make sure that


politics is about a different kind of way of doing business. It is not


getting through in the polls. You may be right. If Scotland votes no,


can you tell us, can you commit to what extra devolution Scotland would


get? Our commitment is to add proposal... Two things, on one side


is the importance, if you have a Parliament that does not have


accountability for raising money you end up not taking on the really


difficult debates. That is how your party designed it. We have to face


that... I think in the early stages we put in tax-raising powers. The


SNP allowed them to fall into disuse. It was not... The SNP said


we could not use them. I think we should have tax raising powers. On


the other side, I think the argument about powers should not be about


institutions arguing with each other it is about how these are used. That


is why we also talk about what it would take to meet the needs of


cities so that we can have strong economies and what we do in the


island communities. You say you want more tax-raising powers, dead Ed --


did Ed Balls veto that? No. What we said in our interim report was that


we would be ready to look and we tested it and what I wanted was on


the one hand fiscal accountability at on the other hand you do not


break that sharing, you do not create unnecessary tax... What about


Phil devolution of income tax? We came to a conclusion that we struck


the right balance between making sure there is accountability but


also that we did not put ourselves in the place where we were losing


the benefits of sharing resources. What was Ed Balls view on film did


-- Phil devolution of income tax? I do not know. You cannot do it


without the Shadow Chancellor agreeing. Of course we do. What did


he say? Through the period between the interim report and the full


report the conclusion became too across a united movement was that


was the way to strike the balance. Your party told us that independence


would be killed stone dead with Scottish devolution. That did not go


according to plan. Why would more devolution kill independence? That


was not the purpose. I was very clear, I said, the first thing the


SNP will says it is not good enough. It's a more fundamental question. We


would told by the Labour Party that if Scotland had its own parliament


with a limited array of powers on domestic matters, that would kill


independence stone dead. That was 1999. This is 2014 and we're having


able referendum on independence. I didn't say would kill independence


stone dead because you will never kill something stone dead simply by


setting up an institution. You have to win the political argument. The


argument is not between institutions but how they use power, how you get


people involved and that's the debate we have to have, rather than


one that just asks with stitch -- which institution is stronger. Let


me get some thoughts on our journalists. You see the


intellectual bankruptcy of the party which hasn't had a decent idea in


years. Labour haven't really recovered from the shock of losing


in 2007, let alone in 2011. It was a party that had the arrogance and


complacency to think it spoke as the voice of the people. It turns out


that the people actually don't think the Labour Party represent them. The


SNP is Goldie of some of the same mistakes but Labour's devolution


proposals are utterly incoherent. On the one hand they say that while we


need to do something with income tax, they put in a mechanism that


says they could only increase it, not decrease it. A quick thought


from you? Scots have been voting for your party for the best part of 80


years. That is distinctly different. A lot of folks south of the border


can recognise that. It's not distinctly different. If I could


finish... Andrew asked me a question. That's not the


distinction. The reason we're sitting here today is not just


opinion polls. It's not all of the rest of that. The question is, don't


you recognise that the Scots want a social democracy and the rest of


Britain doesn't? I don't see the world in that way. I think what has


happened, when people rejected Tory politics across the UK, in some


parts of England, historically, people in the North voted Labour and


people in Scotland did. The SNP afforded people to vote for an --


afforded people an opportunity to vote for another party. I can't


accept your construction that says the people in Newcastle and Glasgow


and Cardiff don't believe in the same things and warrior at the same


things. Wires Gordon Brown not involved in the no camping? He is.


He does his own thing. That's not true. He was at a Better Together


event. He was at one recently. We were having a discussion. He is a


powerhouse of ideas. A powerhouse? Yes, in terms of this campaign, as


has Alistair Darling been. Are they speaking yet? Of course they are.


More importantly, ordinary people right across the country are saying


they want to hear more about this debate. Baxter Jo in London.


The Government's flagship welfare reform - the introduction


of a new universal credit, which it's promised will ensure that


people are always better off in work, has been a long time coming.


The Prime Minister has made it clear he was happy to see


the project phased in slowly, to ensure any problems are ironed


But this week more questions have been raised about universal credit's


long-term future - with confusion over whether or not the Treasury has


Labour tabled what's known as an urgent question


There has been so much beating about the bush that it feels as if this


House has been misled by a Government engaged in a deliberate


act of deception. The truth is that the department is relying, month by


month, on hand-outs from the... The truth is, the department is relying,


month by month, on hand-outs from the national food bank. How ironic!


Mr Speaker, that has been the most pompous, ludicrous statement that I


have ever heard. I know what the right honourable gentleman did. He


wrote this down before he heard the answer. I made it quite clear - and


I stand by what I said - the strategic outline business case


plans for this Parliament have been approved.


We asked the Department for Work and Pensions for a minister


I'm joined now from Leeds by Shadow Work and


Welcome to the programme. We heard in that film but Chris Bryant -- we


heard that film from Chris Bryant. Well see right or wrong when he said


the House had been misled by the Government? He is absolutely right


because four months, Iain Duncan Smith has been saying that universal


credit and on budget and it clearly isn't and it took a civil servant to


servant to come to Parliament last week and expose the fact that the


Treasury still hadn't signed the business case. Universal credit is


this Government's flagship welfare reform, merging six benefits and tax


credits into one. We've always supported this in principle but so


far the Government has been spending taxpayers' money for a benefit that


now just over 6000 people are claiming it should have been over a


million by now. There are serious questions to answer, which is why


we've said the Government should call in the National Audit Office to


do independent review to find out whether we can achieve value for


money from this project or whether it should be abandoned. But you seem


to be conflating two issues. On one hand, you say you support the


universal credit programme in principle, on the other you say it's


cost a lot of money, and then you say they haven't been given the


money by the Treasury. As far as I understand it, the money has been


released but it has been released in a gradual way. Surely you would want


the programme to be given a blank cheque? I would want it to be rolled


out gradually, absolutely, but before you start spending money on


something you have to do a business case to work out whether you think


the project is value for money. That happens in businesses and I worked


in the business sector before I was an MP. You wouldn't start spending


money on a project before you had confidence you were going to get


value for money. That's what hasn't happened in the case of universal


credit. New business case was submitted - because the first one


had to be rewritten - at the end of last year and we are now into July


and it hasn't been signed off and yet taxpayers' money is still being


spent on this project, even though we have no reassurance that it is a


chilly going to deliver value for money. That is the issue and the


Prime Minister and Iain Duncan Smith need to urgently get a grip of this


flagship welfare reform. But they are releasing the money, albeit bit


by bit, and you've made your point about the business case, but what


real difference does it actually make to the emperor mentation of the


programme? As it's being rolled out, it gets the money every three or


months. It doesn't actually change anything materially to the


programme, does it? First of all, you shouldn't be spending


taxpayers' money, our money, unless we have that certainty that it's


going to deliver value for money. The second problem is that this is


being rolled out at such a gradual rate that so few people are on it,


?600 million has been spent so far and it has rolled out to just 6000


people. That is around ?1000 per person... Sorry, ?100,000 per person


on universal credit. It is costing a huge amount of money without that


certainty that it is going to deliver value. Yes, roll it out


gradually, but let's make sure that we're getting value for money and


not throwing good money after bad. Would you argue that some of the


programmes rolled out under Labour the last government were successful,


like the tax credit system or the NHS IT system? If you look at tax


credits, it helped to lift more than 600,000... But was the roll-out a


success? There were massive problems. This Government need to


learn from mistakes of the past and I'm not saying the last Labour


government got everything right, but what I am saying is that this


Government should not be spending money on a project when there no


reassurance as it is going to deliver value for money and they


need to learn lessons from past IT problems. We have said right from


the beginning when the Government embarked on this in 2010 that there


were very serious risks and that they needed to understand the risks


before they started spending money. This is a ?12.8 billion programme,


the largest IT project this Government is pursuing, and we know


now - because of what a civil servant told us, not because of


ministers - that the business case has been signed off and that is a


huge worry. Of course cynics would say that you agree with that in


principle and are using this to score points against the Government.


You have called for a three-month pause in the universal credit


roll-out if you come to power. How will that help it? At the moment,


the Government are spending millions of pounds every month on universal


credit. How would your pores improve the roll-out? If we paused it and we


stopped spending that money, we could bring in the National Audit


Office and do a full review of universal credit. That would cause


chaos. What is causing chaos is a system where money is being spent on


a project and we don't know if it will deliver value for money. Let's


pause the spending of money and bring in the National Audit Office


to assess whether the project can succeed. And if it said no, you


would stop the? If they say it can't succeed, I'm not going to throw good


money after bad. What about all those people that would have been


put on the universal credit? A complicated manoeuvre as it was, you


would stop it dead in its tracks? And what would you do with all those


people who were on universal credit? As you know, fewer than 6000 people


are on universal credit but if universal credit didn't succeed, the


existing benefits that are still being paid today... Universal credit


is only being paid out at a very small number of job centres for a


tiny subset of claimants, so single people on job-seeker's allowance


without children who don't own their own homes. It's only going to a


small number of people. You could move people back to the existing


benefits. We want universal credit to succeed but we think it will only


succeed if we have greater transparency, and that's why we


would pause it and call in the National Audit Office. That's how


you get value for money for taxpayers. Thank you and with that,


time to go back to Andrew. The turnout is predicted


to be very high. But have most already made up


their minds? Will the don't knows break


differently from those who What do voters feel


about the campaign? We sent Adam out with


his scientific mood box. I've come to the seaside town of


Largs on the West Coast of Scotland but don't worry, I've remembered the


mood box. We are going to ask people if they feel informed or not about


the referendum, though I'm not sure it's going to work on here!


Informed or not? Yes, I am informed. Informed enough? Informed enough, I


should think. I think he needs to give us some more answers, Alex


Salmond, but I think we know a lot about it. Thank you very much. Where


have you got most of your information from? Some through the


postal stop I had a phone call. Who phoned you up? The SNP. Do you feel


informed? Not totally because I still don't think they're telling


the whole truth about the financial side.


still don't think they're telling the whole truth about the I don't


really know. I don't really think about. You don't even know what you


don't know about? You don't know what it is? The independence


referendum? I haven't heard anything of it? Have you been living in a


cave? I don't really know until we actually make the decision. What


does the UK Treasury say the union is worth per person in Scotland? The


UK Treasury says ?1400. He is well-informed! That is what they


say. What does the yes campaign say in return? I think they were trying


to bump it up a bit. There is a Yes Scotland shop over there. I wonder


if we will see any campaigners come to vote. Have you been doing a


referendum at school? Yes. What have you learned? It's complicated. That


is a very good summary! What is the most unbelievable thing you've


heard? We can carry on with the pound. They save that we are going


to have it on all the English guys are turning round and saying we're


not, so what's it going to be? It's started raining. I know the perfect


place to take cover, a famous Largs landmark.


Do you feel informed and simultaneously not informed enough?


Exactly. Informed. You are an expert? Oh, definitely. People are


getting so overloaded, they're getting fed up with it. Everyone has


their own opinion so I'm just waiting. I might say that's a little


bit lazy. It's lazy but also... waiting. I might say that's a little


Well, yeah, it's lazy. It's stopped raining now. Here comes the ferry


from the island so loads of people should be about to get off. Do you


feel informed about the referendum? Have you got enough information? No.


What would you like to know? Everything. What is the crucial


piece of information you'd like to know? How it's going to affect me


and my grandchildren and the next one is coming up.


About 50% of people say they don't feel very


well informed about the referendum. No, I have left it behind!


Bye! With us now is Blair Jenkins who


leads the Yes Campaign. Why, according to the polls, our


young Scots rejecting your independence message? That is not


what the polls show. Normally we do well. It is 2-1. Not samples. --


some polls. You have lost in every school in the country. That is


untrue. I have taken part in some personally. You have lost the Bates.


The average is that young Scots are to do one against independence. Why?


I find that young Scots are very open to this debate. People are


capable of changing their minds and move around perhaps more than the


older part of the population. I am confident that young Scots will vote


yes. Why are women rejecting the arguments for independence? I think


women are going to make their minds up later than men, that may a


sweeping statement. It is funny, I was in a public debate with someone


who said that he thought 70% of the population were up for grabs, people


who might change their minds -- Levantine percent. You would not


push the parallel too much. It is the case that the gender gap for


people who are going to vote SNP closed by polling day. It is


worrying the Labour Party. You can see that. Maybe one of the reasons


is uncertainty or risk because you say an independent Scotland should


keep the pound, still have monetary union with the UK, continue seamless


membership of the EU, membership of NATO, these are things Scotland has


at the moment as part of the UK and although that is what you want, you


cannot guarantee a single one of those things. You're right, and a


couple of those at least it is not possible to be absolutely certain


but the reason is evident and I think people are switching on to


this, the reason for some of the uncertainty for things like the


precise method by which we continue in EU membership is because the


British government is the only one that can get that clarified at EU


level and will not do it. You may say this is perfectly legitimate, we


are up against the campaign whose main strategy is uncertainty and to


maintain as much uncertainty as possible. As you sit here today,


there's not one of these you can guarantee an independent Scotland


would have. What we can guarantee is that an independent Scotland will


get government it elects. I understand that. You cannot


guarantee any of these things. I accept entirely for instance that


the currency union is one. People are going to have to make up their


minds who they trust. From every single poll that has been done


people of Scotland trust the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish


Government more than they trust the Westminster government. Let us take


Scotland's membership of the EU. It is the Scottish Government's


intention that it would do these negotiations, it says it would have


to renegotiate while the negotiations with London are going


on. EU membership could not be taken for granted. That is what the


commission president said. He has said it could be very difficult.


They -- he was dismissed but the new president has said that he agrees


with him. Are you going to dismiss him? What he has been trying to do


this week in various meetings is to say as little as possible about the


Scottish referendum. He has said it is a decision for the people of


Scotland that he and their EU will respect the outcome. You know what


else he said? He has said many things. When asked if he agreed did


not agree, with the President of the commission, he said, they were


perfectly clear, I do not have to change a word as far as they --


their declarations are concerned. Earlier this year when that was said


we had people distancing themselves from his remarks. The reality of


this is that there is will not be a legalistic decision taken by civil


servants in the commission. It is a political decision which will be


reached in the future of the EU. Are you dismissing what he said? I think


he was very diplomatic. He agrees with his predecessor. I think it is


incredible. It is incredible to think that the Beeb all Scotland


exercise their right of self-determination, as I believe


they well, that this will somehow lead to hostility, exclusion. That


is not the issue. The issue is how long it may take. How -- what you


may have to renegotiate and the different terms you may get. Getting


a share of the British rebate. All the Scottish Government's


calculations depend on oil revenues making up for the loss of public


spending money that currently comes from the London Treasury. Every


calculation the Scottish Government has made has overestimated oil


revenues. Why should we trust you? Lots of people have it on different


future projections. I am not talking about future projections. I am


talking about projections the Scottish Government made in


2010-2011 up until now the real malady of the revenues they got is a


lot less -- reality. There were particular reasons. There are always


reasons. That is right. Why should we trust you? The future off oil,


one cannot be certain about the price, but one can be certain about


the volume of oil that remains and the companies operating there are


making regular of investment. There is every reason to believe that


North Sea oil, which is not the basis of the argument for Scottish


and -- Scottish independence, is very important. Higher than the UK


average, the government is saying, we will get the oil revenues which


currently go to London, we will be able to afford it, but if you're


projections, you were out by almost ?4 billion... Not me personally. Not


you personally. If you are owed by that much you cannot guarantee that


these revenues will pay for your public spending. There were


particular circumstances where at the companies were unable to take


advantage of the investment they had made is to reduce tax liability so


that resulted in the loss of revenue. You knew that when you made


the projections. I did not make the projections. There are highly


credible people in the industry themselves to have much more


optimistic projections than the UK Government. A forecast today on the


current lines, you would probably be denied the existence by the time we


get to the temper -- September 2018. Now, if you have vote on Scottish


independence and you're still undecided,


despite the best efforts of any of Our Giles has been


following the campaign. You know, for some, because, let's


face it, not everybody is fussed, the dream of Scottish independence


or the concept of Britain as The tartan glitterati have not been


shy of raising their proverbial kilts and showing us what they


really think on the big question. Brian Cox, the gritty Hannibal


actor, not the boyish physicist, You are in favour of Scottish


independence. As for coming together,


Alan is not so sure. After independence,


and I am a supporter and I hope it We will still be a part


of the British Isles. However, Mike Myers is


so ogre the idea of independence. Shrek wants what the will


of the Scottish people want. That is interesting, and conclusive,


coming from a man who is Canadian Captain Jack Harkness from


Doctor Who and Torchwood. Let's stand together and let us not,


like snarling currs, Apparently that meant he is


for unionism. Harry Potter author JK Rolling


conjured up a ?1 million donation to And brought herself a bout


of online abuse. We are in the middle


of a huge terrible terrifying I think now is the time


for stability. That is a magic that is not working


on Irvine Welsh, who has been spotted boarding a train leaving


the British union station. That sense of Britishness,


I do not think it is served Frankie Boyle agrees,


funnily enough, or unfunnily I've kind of romanticised about


Scotland being this foreign country. Our culture is actually very vibrant


and something we should try to Thinking of culture, there is


even musicians in each camp. The first pop stars with thick


specks and huge mouths when they We are voting yes


for an independent Scotland because we believe we should take


responsibility for our own lives. We are voting yes for an independent


Scotland because we want to see You will recognise him


at these awards coming up. He is the one who is not there and


is being represented by Kate Moss. The big issue is not


so much will they won't they, He told a magazine he absolutely


supported David Bowie's viewpoint, especially if Miss Piggy could


become the Queen of Scotland. Are these celebrities making any


difference? It is astonishing that there is even 40% still considering


voting yes, but when David Bowie came out with that we had the


greatest fun. Everybody was looking at the titles. We had the man who


fell to Perth. Let us hope not. Why not? The idea that someone's vote on


something of this importance should be influenced by what some two bit


actor, pop star or other reality TV consistent as disease strikes me as


being beyond depressing. Thanks to our guests,


especially Lesley and Alex. We'll be back in this spot


in September, when we'll be just In the meantime,


I'll be back on Sunday with the Sunday Politics, when I'll be


speaking to Scotland's Deputy First DRUMBEATS CONTINUE




Download Subtitles