10/09/2014 Daily Politics

Morning folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Just eight days to go until the people of Scotland decide whether or

The fate of the 300-year-old union hangs in the balance,

with polls suggesting the Yes and No campaigns are neck-and-neck.

The Prime Minister makes an impassioned plea for Scots to

He's cancelled his normal question time appearance,

along with the other main party leaders, to head north to Scotland.

Alex Salmond says the No campaign is falling apart at the seams.

But with fresh warnings from the Governor of the Bank

of England, and as investors continue to take fright, can the Yes

With Messrs Cameron and Miliband off to Scotland, it'll be Hague

We'll have all the action and expert analysis live at midday.

And the journalist Alice Thomson says it's time to end the culture

of politicians wining and dining with big donors.

The Queen costs each taxpayer 56 pence a year. In return, we don't

have to worry, she is wining and dining people, for a stack of cash

to keep the show on the road. That should be the example for all our

All that in the next 90 minutes, and with us for the whole of the

programme today, the new Secretary of State for Wales, Stephen Crabb,

and the Shadow Housing Minister, Emma Reynolds. Welcome to you both.

Now, it's Wednesday, and usually that means we'd be gearing up for

our weekly bout of verbal pugilism between the Prime Minister and the

Leader of the Opposition. But wait - what's that? They're not going to be

there? Why? The referendum? Yes, that's right. Messrs Cameron and

Miliband have agreed to suspend hostilities in order to campaign in

Scotland. They've even taken Nick Clegg with them - probably to carry

their bags. Actually, I jest. The leaders aren't travelling together,

and they certainly won't be sharing any stages.Yes, the Prime Minister

and they certainly won't be sharing any stages. Yes, the Prime Minister

is doing a Q in Edinburgh this morning with voters, Nick Clegg will

be visiting an energy company in Selkirk at lunchtime, and Ed

Miliband will be making a speech this afternoon in Glasgow. A short

while ago, I spoke to our political correspondent, Norman Smith, just

before he went in to hear the Prime Minister speak.

It is a huge gamble by the three main unionist parties but it

reflects the fact that the polls have tightened, they know they have

to step up the intensity of their campaign and they have to try and

seize the initiative, which is why they have taken the decision to set

aside Prime Minister's Questions and make the case for the union, we will

see the tone of the campaign changing. There has been criticism

too much has been focussed on the economy, sterling and now there is

to be a conscious effort to make a more emotional case to the people of

Scotland, to site family, to reframe the argument, but it is a huge, huge

gamble. The gamble is this, that they come up here and are seen as

the Westminster elite, coming up to Scotland, to lecture the Scots at

the very last gasp of this referendum campaign, that is the

narrative we have been hearing from Alex Salmond, who insists it is a

last minute panic measure and it might backfire, because if you look

at their ratings, north of the border, let us be candid, David

Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are not highly regarded here. They

advertise the fact they are the Westminster party, and that

reinforces Alex Salmond's case, that Scotland would be better governing

itself. O so it is a big risk and a big move by the three main party

leaders. Norman Smith there let us pick up on

that point. Aren't you playing into Alex Salmond's hands? He has said he

will pay for the bus fares for all of them to travel up. Not at all. We

knew the last days of the campaign would feel very intense indeed. We

knew that the polls were tightening. You didn't think they would be this

tight, did you? That is is right for the party leaders to make a stand,

to go to Scotland and say this matters. Tell people of Scotland how

much we want them to stick with the family, stick with the family of

nations. You look cynical at this point, why wasn't it done before? It

is only because the polls have shown one or two of them that they are

tied the or the yes campaign is slightly ahead, that there is what

looks like a desperate attempt to make appeal to Scottish voters?

David Cameron has been going back and forward to Scotland since he

became Prime Minister, speaking from his head and heart about why he

wants Scotland to stick with the family of nations that is the United

Kingdom. He isn't popular in Scotland, so could it make it worse?

. I don't believe it will make it worse, I think it is a really

important step that the party leaders take, today, it is not

uncommon for the Prime Minister to miss PMQs for extraordinary

occasion, this is an extraordinary momentous moment nor the United

Kingdom. What difference is Ed Miliband going to make, bear in mind

they have had to ask Gordon Brown, a previous Labour Prime Minister to

step in to save the union? It is right that the three party leaders

are up in Scotland. We expected all along the polls would narrow. One

poll suggested that 20% of people have not made up their minds, so it

is right that politicians across the political spectrum are there and

Gordon Brown, a towering figure in British politics and Scottish

politics has been involved in the campaign for quite some time, and

again, it is unsurprising that he has started to come Pape more

intensely in the last couple of weeks. Looking now, xue excuse me,

Stephen crab, do you think there should have been another question on

the ballot paper, that promised more powers to Scotland, in the event of

a no vote? No, the decision that the people Scott land are taking is a

complicated one, a difficult one. Having a choice between independence

or remaining part of the UK... Was that the wrong decision? Would we be

in this situation if there had been another choice on the ballot paper?

It is difficult presented with that. There is a strong appetite within

Scotland for more decision making to be taken within the boundaries of

Scotland, the parties at Westminster are united in saying we are going to

meet that appetite. But it is right for the people Scott land to make

this decision whether they want to stick with the United Kingdom, stick

with the family of nations or to go it alone as independents. Let us

One of the things Mr Cameron et al will be talking about

while they're north of the border will be more devolution as

Yesterday, the leaders of the Scottish

Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats stood on a joint platform

to offer the Scots further powers if they vote No next Thursday.

They hope this will be enough to dissuade people from voting

The Yes Campaign says it's just a last minute panicky bribe.

Stewart Hosie is deputy leader of the SNP group in Westminster, and

Given all the uncertainties that are associated with independence, would

it not be better to keep the certainty of the union, and all the

extra devolutionary powers that are being promised to you? No, because

the certainty with independence is that the Scottish people will have

all of the power in their hands. The Scottish Government elected

democratically, it will take all the decisions. When we talk about

uncertainty, we have had this week Gordon Brown, our backbench Labour

MP making a promise he can't keep, expecting the Scottish people to

believe a Tory Government will implement a Labour plan. The weakest

of the three plans on offer from the three unionist parties. I think the

First Minister is correct. It this is a last ditch panic move. It is

desperation at the heart of the no camp. Nobody is buying it. If you

accept more Home Rule, Scotland's position in the EU, that is firm,

its position in NATO, that is firm, monetary union with the rest of the

United Kingdom, that is guaranteed. Independence, you can't guarantee

any of these things, that is uncertain. I know I have made the

case as to why a currency union is in the best interest of Scotland and

the rest of the UK. You can't guarantee it. . I am certain that

the arguments we have laid out, in terms of the currency are correct.

There is not a serious commentator thinks we will be outside of the EU.

I think the language that was used is Scotland be treated as a special

and unique case. It could take time. It is not seamless, you party used

to say it was automatic, the you wouldn't even have to apply again,

you would remain a member of the EU. We although that is not the case

now, it is uncertain. Andrew, I think it is the case that because

there is no provision to pebbling a state or part of a state -- expel

where there will be negotiation, they will be from the inside. You

know, there are no more uncertainties with independence as

there are risks as staying part of the union, this is a union with ?1.5

trillion worth of debt. When the main parties travel to Scotland to

tell the Scottish people what they can't do, they can't be seen to be

photographed together. No-one is taking this seriously. The most

serious point if there isn't uncertainty ant independence, why

are investors pulling their cash out of Scotland, sinsing is on exit

clauses in commercial property deals and the value of sterling is

falling? That sounds like uncertainty. . In terms of sterling

we saw a 1% dip two days ago, that has happened 16 times in the last

year against the euro. Can I just point out against the dollar,

sterling only a month ago was 1.72, it is now 1.61. That is a big fall.

There are many reasons why currency prices change. I think to put all of

that at the door of Scottish independence is wrong. To be honest,

the smart commentators are suggesting as much of this is to do

with the lack of preparedness of the UK government than independence

itself. In terms of the stock price, if you look at Scotland's lives

company, apart from cairn which has share problems unrelated to

independence, their rise since the no campaign was at peak last

September, it was 4.7%, that is against a 3.7% average for the FTSE

100. It is wrong to suggest share prices are falling, because of

independence. Except it was largely on Scottish prices that the big

share prices fell. Why are investors pulling their money out of Scotland?

Why are they moving their bank accounts south? The FTSE is down 1%

already, that is across the entire inDerek this is not to do with

Scottish independence. Why are people pulling their money out of

Scotland? I have heard this scare story from our opponents many time.

You know and I know over the past two years as the debate has

happened, yes I have we have taken the lead, investment in Scotland,

massive investment, not least the 14 billion of investment in the North

Sea last year. It is wrong to say people are pulling out of Scotland

at and it is wrong four our political Pope innocents to be

spooking the market in this way. You say, just before I bring in our

studio guests. A Scottish investment fund, we have moved hundreds of

millions south of border, on the record. Another firm in Edinburgh.

We have moved our bank account south. Resident commercial property

investors now insisting on exit clauses should Scotland vote yes.

That is uncertainty. It is on uncertainty if it is talked up.

There are lots of reason to put an exit clause in deal if you think it

might not go through. Doing it before? We are certain and I am sure

the smart investors know this very well, that I will be huge

opportunities in an ind Scotland, a country with a fundamentally robust

economy, with huge plans to grow the economy, to create more wealth. I

think investors will be flocking to Scotland to take advantage of the

opportunities after the 19th September. I want you to listen to

what our studio guests are saying. I will come back for a brief reaction

from you. Why did Labour, which is basically calling the shots in this,

in the no campaign, why did it wait to offer this new Home Rule package

after all the postal votes had been cast? Well, Ed Miliband's been

talking about further devolution for some time. You didn't spell it out

until the postal votes had been cashed. The only conclusion is you

are panicking The three party leaders have decided there should be

further devolution of tax powers in addition to all the other powers the

Scottish Parliament has. You are not going to take them way, are you.

There has been a significant devolution of powers already in the

time that we were in Government, and I think it is right now, in the

closing weeks of campaign, that there is further clarity on the

timetable. Let us have some clarity. Give us collarly. What extra tax

powers will the Scottish Parliament get? We have talked about further

devolution of income tax, obviously the details of that will need to

be... You can't give clarity on what the details would be or a broad

strategic description of what the income tax powers would be? There

would be significantly more powers. What does that mean And that the tax

now paid into the Treasury would go into Scottish coffers and there

would be more control over that for the Scottish Parliament. How much

income tax would be devolved? Detail would need to be worked out. Surely

the people of Scotland are being asked to vote on their future, there

is two alternative, one is clear, it is independence and they can take

out a view on that. The alternative is not the status quo. We have been

clear about that. You are saying further devolution, Gordon Brown

calls it Home Rule. Don't the people of Scotland have a right to know

what that would mean in terms of income tax, VAT, would the taxation

on oil be devolved to Scotland? We have talked about the devolution of

housing benefit. The devolution of income tax. I think it is very clear

that there will be further devolution of power and I think that

is right. I understand that but you promised clarity and I am not

getting it. Will that taxation of oil be

devolved? That is one of the things that will need to be worked out. I

know that, I would like you to tell me will it all wanted or don't you

know? The powers being put forward will fundamentally change the fiscal

equation for Scotland. It will be a situation where most of its money

gets handed down from Westminster and all they can decide to do is how

they spend it to actually taking responsibility for raising when most

of them may themselves. Whether that's from energy resources, or

from income tax, corporation tax. So a home ruled Scotland would have its

own powers over the taxation of oil would go to the Edinburgh

parliament? We are not saying that exactly. You said taxation over

energy policy. I said there were a lot of resources available from

which governments can raise money, and what Scotland will get is a huge

swathe of new powers, giving it responsible to the raising most of

its money and then deciding how to spend it. That changes fundamentally

the devolution equation for Scotland. Or are you hitting the

panic button because you are about to lose the referendum? You say most

taxation powers would be in Scotland. All the figures I have

seen, whether you take the rather reluctant devolution of the Labour

Party or the more enthusiastic devolution of your party is that

actually about 40% of revenues raised in Scotland would go to the

Scottish parliament. That's not most. Most income tax raised will be

the responsibility. Income tax will become the responsibility of the

Scottish Government. Do you agree that most income tax should be

raised in Scotland? I think the decisions about text have wider

implications for the rest of the union, and in that sense it is

absolutely right. The direction of travel has been set, but the further

detail needs to be considered with care and attention. But not by next

Thursday, correct? Scots will have to vote blind on this matter. We

have said income tax to a certain extent will be devolved and there

will be further tax raising powers for the Scottish parliament. The

direction of travel is clear. It is just the actual destination is not

clear. Stewart Hosie, I will come back to you for the final word. A

huge open goal in front of you? Reign just be serious for a second,

the Scottish Government just a 600 page white paper, detail, questions,

answers, everything, massive amount of detail. We can't even get a clear

answer from Unionist parties about the proportion of income tax that

will be devolved or if any other taxes will be devolved. It is simply

not good enough, it is the bag of a -- back of a fag packet calculation.

I can't wait till next Thursday. Neither can I, probably for

different reasons. It's just that I'm working, you will be spectating.

Stewart Hosie, thanks for joining us.

We've heard plenty over the last few months and weeks about what Scottish

independence would mean for Scotland - but what about the rest of the UK?

What would a Yes vote next Thursday mean for people in England,

Alex Salmond has said an independent Scotland would remove Trident

nuclear sub Marines from their current base on the Clyde by 2020,

leaving the rest of the UK with an expensive relocation bill. UK

defence spending without Scotland would be reduced by 10%. Without

Scotland, UK's role in the world could also change will stop if it is

seen as less influential, United Kingdom would not be up to retain

her permanent suit -- seat on the UN Security Council. Whether Scotland

will be allowed to keep the pound would have an impact on the money

markets. There will also be tough negotiation about how much of the

national debt Scotland agrees to take on. Without Scotland, the rest

of the UK's GDP would be about 8% smaller than now and the Westminster

Treasury would take a hit from the loss of North Sea revenues fostered

but some economists argue GDP per may actually increase in England,

Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland's average expenditure per

person is ?1300 higher than the UK average. Politically, there is talk

of a constitutional crisis. There could be cause for the Prime

Minister and other party leaders to resign. An early general election

could be triggered before Christmas. If the May 2015 election does go

ahead, then any MPs elected in Scotland would only serve until the

proposed Independence Day in March 2016. So if Labour is elected by a

small majority, or there is a hung parliament, we could face another

general election in 2016, once the 59 Scottish MPs are taken out of the

equation. Let's look at some of the implications, if there is a yes vote

next week, or even if there is not. A lot more home rule on offer for

Scotland. Gordon Brown calls at home rule. Why shouldn't Wales have it?

There isn't the appetite in Wales for independence, we know that.

Devolution has worked in Wales, in the sense that it has killed off in

the Tennents as a movement within Wales but what I believe is that the

appetite for decision making within national borders, Wales, Northern

Ireland and Scotland, that appetite should be met. So there should be

more devolution of power to Wales? There will be in future if that's

what the public opinion once. But are you in favour of it? I am

open-minded about how devolution progresses in Wales. The important

thing is that we need stability and a constitutional setup that helps

foster unity rather than division. You once said devolution was as big

a threat to this country as uncontrolled immigration, why do you

want more of it? I was one of a great number of people in Wales who

felt that devolution was a very risky path to go down, 12 years ago.

It could cause huge and permanent damage to our country? In that time,

devolution has worked in Wales, it has fostered unity and I think it's

right. Every time the people of Wales when they asked you want more

or less devolution, they say more please, but we don't want

independence. Would a future Conservative government, if you win

the election next year, will you give Wales more devolved powers?

It's happening anyway. We have a bill going through Parliament which,

for the first time, gives taxation powers to Wales. They are banking

that, that's going through now. Will there be more, as a result of all

the power unspecified in some areas that you are planning to give to

Scotland, will there be more for Wales as well? If the appetite is

therefore more powers, and Carl Wyn Jones has said he does not

necessarily believe that Wales should have exactly the kind of

devolution settlement Scotland, so it is not a case of whether Wales

should have the same... I didn't ask that, I simply asked if there would

be more? I said yes, Wales is getting more. Would that be true

under Labour too? It is important to talk about devolution in England. We

will come to that in a second, but let me sign off on the Wales

question, would a future Labour government devolved more power to

the Welsh Parliament or a semi? I think the Welsh assembly has already

got a number of powers. We know that, but would it get more? I am

not entirely confident that there is appetite for significantly more

devolution of powers in Wales full stop let's come on to England, 85%

of the United Kingdom by population. If Scotland is to get a

lot more power, including almost complete control over its divest it

affairs and substantial taxation powers, does that not mean that you

have to answer the West Lothian question, that Scottish MPs cannot

vote on English only matters? I think what is an important question

is actually more so what does it mean in terms of the centralised

nature of our country? We are more centralised than many other European

countries. Why don't you devolve and have an English only Parliament

Sundays in the Commons when Scottish and Welsh MPs can't vote on English

matters? What it actually points to is that we need to devolved powers,

responsibilities and perhaps resource, which we have talked about

in recent months, to local authorities in England that come

together and work together. That is, for me, a more significant move, in

terms of devolution. Why would it be right for a Scottish MP, who under

the Gordon Brown scheme that you signed up to, would have no say

whatsoever over domestic Scottish matters, or over income tax, why

should that Scottish MP have any say over England's domestic matters?

Because there will still be domestic affairs we continue together and I

believe in the integration of the UK Parliament. If this Scottish MP has

no say over Scottish education or how it is to be funded, why should

he or she have a vote over English education, which doesn't affect its

constituency? We already have that situation, and I do think it is

important that the body politic that sits in Westminster, that represents

every corner of our family of nations, have the same rights. Is it

conceivable that you can agree to all this extra devolution for

Scotland without coming up for something with England as well, that

allows English MPs... Alex Salmond says constantly the Scots should

decide their own future. When will the English be allowed to decide

their own domestic affairs without Scottish or Welsh MPs voting on the

same issues? I don't think it is conceivable to devolve this new

suite of powers to Scotland and leave the constitutional settlement

affecting Northern Ireland, Wales and England in tact. You think there

has to be a UK... Absolutely, there needs to be a UK wide response. Yes,

we have given a commitment to give more powers to the people of

Scotland, because that is what they want, but we need to look at the

other nations as equal nations. We talk the language of being a family

of nations, in the United Kingdom. For the first time, we need to look

at the Constitution as if we are generally a family. The primers to

has told the audience in Edinburgh that he would be heartbroken if --

the Prime Minister. Arguing, I love my country more than I love my

party. There we go. As we have been discussing, the latest ploy is to

reach out to voters in Scotland to tell them that they really do want

them to stay. We have heard from David Blunkett saying it is time for

people in the UK to phone a Scottish friend.

David Cameron and Ed Miliband urged homes and offices

across the country to fly the saltire, and it was even raised

It happens every day on Saint Andrew stay, but never mind.

But in what the superstitious might regard as something

of a bad omen for the unionists, the flag fell down, and it took several

But, wherever you stand on Scottish independence, there's one thing that

we know is universally popular, from Land's End to John O'Groats.

No, not the Great British Bake-Off, I speak of course of the

We'll remind you how to enter in a minute, but let's see if you

MUSIC: "Don't Stop Till You Get Enough" by Michael Jackson.

I've always maintained I was innocent

MUSIC: "Message in a Bottle" by The Police.

I inherited a dairy industry in whch costs had risen, and producers

MUSIC: "I Don't Like Mondays" by The Boomtown Rats.

To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug, send your

answer to our special quiz email address, that's [email protected].

And you can see the full terms and conditions for Guess The Year

on our website, that's bbc.co.uk/dailypolitics.

What are the full terms and conditions? Have you got half an

hour. No. It's coming up to midday here,

just take a look at Big Ben, yes, Prime Minister's Questions is

on its way, minus the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition,

of course. Other than that, it's going to be

great! LAUGHTER And that's not all,

James Landale is here. So we have got the B team, all eyes

are north of the border, does any buddy rarely care what Mr Hague or

Miss Harman have to say? Only if they make a mistake. I would expect

them to stick to safety first, talk about Scotland, they don't want to

portray an image of disunity today. They will agree. Just to let you

know, you quoted some of the premise's words, can you also tell

you something else -- tell you something Ozzie said, he said this

was a decision that would last for centuries. It was not, I quote, if

you are fed up with the Tories, you can give them a kick. That is what

the primers to said, -- Prime Minister said the premise to said

effing Tories. Feeling more to the heart than the head. He saying to

Scots, this is not an occasion if you are fed up with the effing

Tories give them a kick, this is a decision that would last for

centuries. Let's go straight to the house. I hope the language is

better. To listen and talk to voters about

the huge choice they face, and their message to the Scottish people is

simple, from the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we want

you to stay in the United Kingdom. I join the Prime Minister in the

tribute he paid on Monday to Jim Dobbin who died at the weekend. He

was a proud Scot and a hard-working and principled particletarian who

was respected op both sides of this House. He will be very sadly missed

and I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with his family and

his friends. Mr Speaker, this morning I had meeting with

ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in this

House I will have further such meetings later today.

Can I join the the leader of the House in paying tribute to Jim

Dobbin, he was a kind and decent man and he he will be sorely missed. Our

thoughts and prayers are with his wife Pat and the family. The bedroom

tax is discriminal nay Troy. It is damaging amend not even working. On

Friday, this House was very very clear, will the Government now

listen, will it scrap this wretched pod sip -- policy because if they

won't, we will. Well, Mr Speaker, this is a basic

issue of fairness here, because if you live in private rented

accommodation and receive housing benefit the rules apply throughout

the whole of the last Labour Government and we had a situation

which neighbouring households could be treated unequally. She asked

about the Private Members Bill, the proposal in that bill could cost the

country up to ?1 billion and because we have introduced a cap on overall

spending, making the changes would mean finding savings elsewhere. I

haven't heard suggestion from the party opposite for that. Assuming a

no vote in the Scottish referendum, who in the Government will respect

England for the new devolution settlement? Who speaks for England,

because we need a voice and a new deal? Well, there are many of us who

having represented Yorkshire for 25 year, I can claim to speak for

England, from time to time. -- years.

Your shire men are keen for a far bigger area than they represent

themselves. Of course, all of these debates are to be had once the

referendum is concluded. Can I thank the Right Honourable member for the

word he said about our good friend and colleague Jim Dobbin, and add my

tribute to him on his sudden and tragic death at the weekend. He was,

as has been said a accident man who stuck to his principles and at a

time when it is fashionable to say politicians are in it for themselves

he was the opposite of that. Our deepest sympathies are with Pat and

their children and we will miss him greatly. -- a accident man. Historic

is is a much overused word in politics, does he agree in eight

days people the people of Scotland will make a truly historic decision?

This is their vote, but I want the message from this side of the House

to be heard loud and clear, we want Scotland to stay. I do agree with

the Right Honourable lady and that is a clear message from her side of

the House and from our different political perspectives, from the

side of the House as well. I hope therefore the message the people of

Scotland will hear from this House, where Scottish Parliamentarians have

made an imminence -- immense contribution for generations we want

to stay together and cannot imagine life on these isles without him

them. She is a London MP and speaks for millions in what she has said.

As, as I fleshed, I am a Yorkshire MP who served as Secretary of State

for Wales and we are all proud to be British, combining those identities.

There is no doubt we would all be diminished if Scotland was separated

from the people of the rest of UK. The roots of our party are deep in

Scotland, and we deliver devolution and the Scottish Parliament, but we

need to go further. Will he confirm that there will be further

devolution and a Scotland Bill setting is out new powers, published

in January? Well, as the Right Honourable lady knows that the three

main party leaders have come together to agree a programme for

change, the member for Cowdenbeath has set out a process for how it

could be delivered, to a tight timetable, all three main parties

have endorsed that timetable and it mean, immediate action, the day

after the referendum, to start the legislative process, it means a

command paper, including proposals at the end of October, with a full

draft Scotland Bill published by the end of January. And the introduction

of a bill, after the general election, regardless of who forms

the Government. So that is a clear timetable, and it shows that Scots

can have change, without irreversible separation and without

risks to jobs and their future. For the clarity of that answer, as we

set about devolving further powers to Scotland does he agree that time

has also come to devolve further power to Wales and crucially to the

great cities and regions of England too? The decision next week, of

course, as we know is a matter for the people of Scotland, the

implications will be felt by all the people of the United Kingdom, we are

already steadily devolving increased power to the, to parts of England as

well as have been doing so in Wales, under this Government, Wales has

received more primary law making power, we are moving to devolving

tax and borrowing powers for the first time, we want to see

devolution in Northern Ireland succeed, in England the Lokalism act

devolves power of business rates to Local Authorities an city deals have

given local areas more of a say. The great strength of the United Kingdom

is that it is not a rigid union, it's a living, flexible union, and

that is one of its greatest strengths of all. For us, on this

side of the House, a fundamental principle of our politics is

solidarity, we want the UK to stick together in the cause of social

justice. Does he agree with me it is wrong to set the different countries

of the UK against each other, whether it is on workers' rights or

corporation tax? Well, the Right Honourable lady makes a powerful

point about solidarity in the UK. For 300 years we have sat in this

House, with Scottish Parliamentarians and their

predecessors and they have sat together, from the 18th century to

implement a range of together, from the 18th century to

causes, from the abolition of the slave trade to our pursuit of human

rights and development across the world. We have often led the way at

times of world crisis, and been an inspiration to democratic peoples

elsewhere. The next 300 years could be as turbulent and dangerous at the

last 300 year, so to tear apart a union so proven, so precious, and so

valuable, would be a tragic mistake for all our people. People in

Scotland can now be certain that with a no vote there would be

change, and more powers for Scotland. Does he agree with me that

posed against that certainty, is the uncertainty that a yes vote would

bring on so many issues like job, pensions, mortgages and the

currency? The uncertainty would bring, as impossible to list in the

answer to one question, but a letter signed last week by more than 120

job creators from across the whole range of Scottish business concluded

that the business case for independence had not been made. They

said uncertainty surround vital issues including currency,

regulation, tax, pension, EU membership and support from for our

exports round the world. They said uncertainty is bad for business. The

Governor of the Bank of England said yesterday that sovereignty and the

currency union are incompatible and he is right. Many of us have pointed

that out for many years in relation to another currency. And be certain

of this. Be certain of this. This is not an opinion poll where you can

change your mind the next day. It is not an election where you can

reverse the result four or five years later. It is a permanent

decision that will affect generations, and therefore, the

votes cast next Thursday will probably be the most important vote

that can be cast in any country, at any time, and the voters must

therefore weigh that vote heavily. While jobs, pension, taxes are

important, next week's decisions, as he rightly says is about much, much

more than that. For sure, there must be change. We must have that and we

will, but not by tearing this country apart. We must stay as

family, not become foreigners to each other. She puts it very well.

We all want the best for Scotland as we want the best for our own

constituents, from all parts of the UK in many. The people of England,

Wales and Northern Ireland believe Scotland is better off in the UK and

the UK is better off with Scotland in it. So this referendum is the

most important choice the people of Scotland will ever make. A choice

between the opportunity and security of staying in the UK, or of leaving

for ever, without the pound, without the UK's influence in the world,

with Scotland as part of the UK, we have the best possible situation and

a great future together in the United Kingdom. Mr Speaker, since

2012, my right honourable friend and I have been supporting the policy of

the Government, not to offer so-called Devo Max as a consolation

prize in the event of a no vote, in the Scottish referendum. If this is

no longer the policy of the Government, when and why did it

change, and what opportunity has there been for this House to express

its view? It has been the policy of the Government for some time, to be

open to further devolution and I gave examples of what we have done

in Wales for instance, during the lifetime of this Government. The

statements by the party leaders, made on this in the last few day,

are statement by party leaders, in a campaign, not a statement of

Government policy but a statement of commitment from the three main

political party, akin to statements by party leaders in a general

election campaign, of what they intend to do afterwards, it is on

that basis they have made those statements.

In 2012, the Chancellor set himself a target to double exports to 1

trillion by 2020. I wonder whether he could won firm his Government is

on course to miss this tart get by a massive -- this target by a massive

300 billion. Nobody can claim to know what the figure will be in 2020

since we are only in 2014 at the moment. A great deal of work, a

great deal of work has to be done, but we have greatly intensified the

promotion of British e ports, that is why and in my time as Foreign

Secretary opened nearly 20 new embassies and Consulates, including

many that the party opposite closed when they were in power, that is why

we have revamped UK TI. We have huge increases in exports to countries

like China and India and Brazil, and everybody, of all parties and

business, must join in making a success of that by 2020. Mr Speaker,

my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister

and the Leader of the Opposition are rightly campaigning today, for the

future of our union. On a dally day sips, with Gatwick in my

constituency, I see the strong family and business links between my

local airport and Scottish airports. Does my right honourable friend the

leader of the house agree with me, that our great kingdom is better

together, as a united Britain? I say that as somebody with proud Scottish

ancestry. Yes, I absolutely agree with my honourable friend and what

he can see at Gatwick Airport and what we all experience round other

parts of eping England and Wales is a very good example of his point. In

fact two thirds of Scottish exports are exported to the rest of the

United Kingdom. Twice as much as to the rest of the world put together.

Why would anyone choose to place an international border, where those

exports are going? And do so unnecessarily. So he makes a very

powerful point. Mr Speaker, the leader of the house

is right. Next Thursday, the Scots go to the polls to make what is

undoubtedly the most historic momentous decision we have had the

privilege to consider. Will the Leader of the House join me

in congratulating the Scottish people for the way they have gone

around conducting this incredible debate? Well, I'm happy... He is

right, it was a gentle understatement that we want

different things from this process. LAUGHTER

But of course we applaud the people of Scotland for taking such an

immense interest in this on all sides. And of course it's very

important that there is a high turnout in any such referendum, so I

absolutely congratulate the people of Scotland, but I don't

congratulate those such as his own party who have failed to be straight

with the people of Scotland. Who have never explained what money

Scotland will use, and what its value will be, who have never

explained how long it would take to rejoin the European Union and on

what terms, who have never explained how they would fund schools and

hospitals, when there would be a ?6 billion black hole in their

finances, who haven't explained that their threat not to pay debts would

be disastrous for Scotland's long-term future. They are

passionate about Scotland, and they are passionate about separation but

they are not passionate about telling the truth to the people of

Scotland. Embracing three centuries, the garrison town of

Colchester has welcomed thousands of Scottish soldiers, many with their

families. We wish that to continue. Does the Leader of the House agree

with the Defence Select Committee that if Scotland ceased to be part

of the UK, and we have the best Armed Forces in Europe, this would

pose serious security and defence risks for a separate Scotland,

without the capacity to defend itself? My honourable friend makes

an extremely important point. He sees the participation and the work

and the sacrifices of members of the armed Forces from Scotland when they

are deployed in cultures to. I see the garrison in my own constituency.

He makes an important point about the security of all of us --

deployed in Colchester. It is important for Scotland's security.

Her Majesty's Naval base, Clyde, is the largest employment site on the

whole of Scotland and is going to get vigour with the deployment of

all of our submarines. These things are put at risk. Last Thursday, I

attended a public meeting in my constituency, where the doctors were

consulting their patients about how they were going to deal with a

budgetary cut of 22 to 24% by the year 2018. This cut of 22 to 24% has

officially been notified to them by NHS England. Will the Leader of the

House confirmed that if the Conservatives are in power after the

general election, these are the cuts that my constituents can expect? I

can confirm that this government has raised the NHS budget in line with

inflation, which his party was not committed to do at the last general

election. I know the Secretary of State for health will want to

discuss with him the details of the local situation, but I hope he did

explain to them that, overall, since the last election, the number of

nurses is up 3700, the number of doctors is up 6500, the number of

people who say they are treated with dignity and respect is up 10%, and

we've now been ranked as the top health system in the world,

according to the Commonwealth fund, moving from seventh in the world

four years ago. Would my right honourable friend

applaud the initiative of Prince Harry, in creating the Invicta 's

games, and welcome all the participants to this country on our

behalf? Absolutely -- Invictus Games. This is an important

continuation of the immensely proud sporting history we have in this

country. We are established again as one of the great sporting nations of

the world, and we are also a country that thinks deeply about the welfare

of service veterans and his Royal Highness, Prince Harry, has been one

of the great champions of this and we wish him and everyone involved in

the game is very much well. In 2012, the primers to said he wanted to see

economic growth that meant rising living standards for all. Can the

Leader of the House tell us why Britain has seen one of the largest

falls in real wages of any EU country, beaten only by Cyprus,

Portugal and Greece? He might remember that there was a debt

fuelled recession that came about under the previous government. And,

of course, that has to be paid for. But after four years now of the

disciplined policy of my right honourable friend, the Chancellor of

the Exchequer, we now have the fastest growth of the G-7 economies.

We have employment nearing a record high. We have nearly 2 million new

apprenticeships who have started in this time. This is a remarkable

economic turnaround from a catastrophic situation we were left.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Leader of the House agree with me

that Scottish independence is not about getting one over Westminster,

is not about embarrassing the Prime Minister or the leader of the

opposition, it's not about defeating the old enemy, but it is about

Scotland turning its back on 300 years of successful union and

rejecting so much that this country has made to make us all so proud of

being part of Great Britain? My honourable friend is right, it is

not about any individual or party or election, it is a far longer term

decision than that. And, I must say, in my experience all over the world,

other nations regard the UK with admiration and sometimes even envy.

If Scotland voted yes, all over the world, people who share our values

and count on our contribution to peace, stability and human rights,

would be disappointed, while those who don't share those priorities and

beliefs would be quietly satisfied, and that is another thing we all

have to bear in mind. At the end of last month, my constituent

disappeared in Qatar. He had been arrested by the Secret Service there

because he was investigating the human rights abuses of workers who

were working to build the infrastructure for the 2022 World

Cup. I thank the Foreign Office for their help in securing his release,

but what action will he take to speak to the Ambassador of Qatar

about the disgrace of arresting him in the first place and the treatment

of those preparing those facilities? The honourable member 's right to

say the Foreign Office has pursued it and achieved some success in

doing so, as we will in any parallel cases in the future. I know that the

embassy and the Foreign Office will want to follow up these matters.

That is for my successor, the Foreign Secretary, to determine, so

I will draw his attention to the question asked by the honourable

member and ask him to write to him about it. With mounting evidence of

an innovative, very vibrant and growing real economy, especially in

manufacturing and engineering, does the first Secretary of State agree

with me that Scotland should remain with us, first to share in the

fruits of that success, and second to give us a bigger footprint in the

global trade? Yes, I do. This is another very good point, and the

economic turnaround that has now been brought about by the UK means

that employment in Scotland is now at a record high. There have been

seven consecutive quarters of economic growth in Scotland. And

there are a quarter of a million more private-sector jobs in Scotland

than there were four years ago. That is a reminder of the potential, if

we continue to work together, and that is the message that I again

repeat to the people of Scotland today. I welcomed suggestions that

the premise to will attend the crucial climate summit at the end of

this month. Will he confirm the primers to will go and will he tell

us what bold new initiative is the prime list will be taking with him,

because that's what my constituents in Brighton say they want. They want

to protect what they want, they want urgent action on climate change.

Order, can I just say, for future reference, it is disorderly to

display images in that way, and I say with all courtesy to the

honourable lady, whose principal and commitment I respect, that if

everybody did that on every cause, it would make a mockery of this

place. I asked the honourable lady to take a view much wider than her

own immediate preoccupation. Leader of the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The answer is the Prime Minister will attend the UN General Assembly

later it is September. We haven't yet issued or finally decided his

precise schedule, but of course we are looking at attending the meeting

the honourable lady refers to, and Britain will continue to play a

leading role in the world in bringing about legally abiding

agreement on climate change. The next 15 months is a very important

period on this, leading up to the meeting in Paris at the end of next

year. We are one of the most active countries in the world on climate

change diplomacy, and the prime list and other ministers in New York will

be fully conveying that, whoever attends the meeting. Will my

honourable friend explained to the house why it is that with the

possibility that there could be a yes vote, finance is leaving

Scotland, many businesses are thinking of leaving Scotland? Surely

if economic arguments were so good for the Yes campaign, the reverse

would be happening? My honourable friend makes a very powerful point,

the anxieties of big businesses are very clear to see. And while we can

understand people doubting the word of politicians about economic

events, it's very important to listen to what businesses say they

will do with their jobs, with their headquarters, with their

investments, because a country that has separated itself from the

fastest-growing economy of the G-7, that put itself outside the European

Union without thinking about implications of doing that, and that

ended up with no central bank and unsure which currency was going to

use would of course find it difficult to attract new business to

its shores. The transatlantic trade and investment partnership believes

the health service vulnerable to some of the worst possible outcomes

of this government's privatisation programme. Private investors will be

able to hold the government and devolved ministrations through the

investor state settlement tribunal, in that respect how can the Leader

of the House guarantee that the health service, including the health

services in the devolved administrations, will be except? My

right honourable friend has been dealing with these matters and has

held a briefing about such matters, so I have no doubt we can furnish

her with more details on these issues. But it is very important to

maintain a commitment to free trade that has been a characteristic of

the United Kingdom over many centuries, and which has invariably

brought greater prosperity to the people of the UK, as well as to

people all over the rest of the world. The transatlantic trade and

investment partnership is another major opportunity to boost free

trade across the world. Mr Speaker, a vote next week in favour of an

independent Scotland would have major damaging implications for

Wales. Does my right honourable friend agree with me that my fellow

Welsh citizens, who care about the future of our Welsh nation, should

be hoping and praying for rejection of the break-up of the United

Kingdom? Yes. Absolutely. I think they are. I regularly consult with

at least one Welsh citizens, and on the evidence of that, they are very

much hoping and praying that the UK will not be broken up, and my

honourable friend I know speaks very well for his constituents in mid

Wales. All of us in the United Kingdom would be diminished by the

break-up of the United Kingdom. We are something greater than the sum

of our parts, and that is well understood across the UK, and the

impact upon Wales would be a mistake of all.

Six in ten people couldn't get a GP's appointment within two days of

them needing one. Can the Secretary of State explain to the house why

his party won't support Labour's patrol Sams to guarantee an

appointment withinle hours. Professionals in the health system

have said going back to that target would be a counter productive thing

to do. And the honourable member knows that the number of people

treated by GPs has increased by many millions over the last four years,

that is a trend that is continuing, of course, we are always trying to

seek further improvement but reintroducing the old failed target

is not the way forward. When I travel abroad, and I am asked

where I come from, I am proud to say, I am British. Does my right

honourable friend agree with me that you can be proud to be British but

still have your own identity of being English, Scottish, Welsh or

from Northern Ireland and we should remain together and continue as

Great Britons. I don't think anybody could have put it better. My right

honourable friend has his own identity in different ways, he has

expressed that beautifully including his identity with the United Kingdom

and that is how so many of us think in Britain and let us hope it is

possible to continue to do so. Mr Speaker, can I support the visit

of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the

opposition, speaking directly to people of Scotland, my right

honourable friends and myself, and honourable member, speaking on

behalf of the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland, they

want the United Kingdom to stay together, and it is my hope, that

some of those who are crowing today, may be disappointed after the

referendum. That is certainly my hope as well, and I am very pleased

the right honourable gentleman has been able to make this point. It

means in this short Question Time, we have heard from members from

England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with very clear message to the

people of Scotland, that we want them to stay. Mr Speaker, my parents

will soon celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary. My mother was

born in Aberdeen, and my father in Cambridge. Is my right honourable

friend reassured there is no need for any senior politicians to come

to their anniversary event, because my parents know in their heads, and

in their hearts, that in their union, as in the other union, they

are happier together and better together.

CHEERING AND APPLAUSE

Well I extend the congratulations of Her Majesty's Government to his

parents. And indeed, of the whole of the House of Commons, and I think

all the political parties in it. Even of the Scottish National Party

on this occasion, they are an example to us all, particularly

after 60 year, and I hope that example will be one that will

continue to be heeded and respected all over the UK.

Mr Speaker, contrary to the previous question, from temperature member

from Perth, this campaign has been fraught by fear and intimidation.

But is somewhat ironic, Mr Speaker, that the majority of the Scottish

separatists, have turned out for today's debate, yet just last fried

when we were discussing the important factor of welfare reform,

less than half of them turned out to a debate that justified, that

justifies their priorities to come here, to whinge rather than debate.

I don't think I needed a to the honourable member's description of

the Scottish National Party. Mr Scottish pro unionist friends have

reminded me that the Middle East peace envoy reportedly said he

welcomes the publication of the Chilcott report. Will he tell the

House when we can expect the report to be published? I can tell him this

work continues, that Lord Chilcott said he intends to publish the

report as soon as possible. There is no, I don't have any fixed date I

can give to my honourable friend. I will only observer had that inquiry

been set up when I and others first called for it and voted for it, in

2006, it would have reported long ago. It was set up late, it is

therefore reporting late an we look forward to it. Is it acceptable for

young people to be fed take away pizza at lunchtime, because the

government has failed to prepare schools properly for the

introduction of a free nutritious meal? Well, I think to put that into

perspective, I think the latest figures are that 98.5% of schools

are now providing a hot meal as they were intended to do, to infants,

that is going up all the time. There are Government funds of course to

help those schools who need new facilities to do so. It think it

would be right to welcome the entirety of that picture, rather

than trying to find fault with one small aspect of it.

STUDIO: It was like Hamlet without the Prince there. It was a bit of a

love in as well. Almost as if I am sure this is not the care, almost as

if the two frontbenches has choreographed their love for the

union and their hatred of Scottish independence as they cooed at each

other across the despatch box. Even the backbenchers got in on the act

with a lot of anti-independence questions coming from MPs, except

from the one Scottish Nationalist who asked a question, we didn't

learn anything new, some will have heard the sound of stable doors

closing as the horse has already bolted. Let us see what you thought

of it There was less of a love in among the viewers. This came from

Joan. It is undemocratic to offer more powers after many people have

posted their votes. Although it doesn't breach the Edinburgh

agreement it does breach the spirit of it. I don't want to be governed

by a bunch of Charlatans. This from Alistair. "We in non-Metropolitan

England need a concrete plan for real equal devolution, not LEP,

grand council or glorified unity authorities but devolution for all.

This from Bill. "Leaders have long their reason. Vote no and we will

give you more independence. No should mean no. Yes should mean yes.

Let us get rid of the Scottish Parliament. If we are better

together it is better to have one Parliament." This from Linda. "Let

them go. Move air and sea bases to Northumberland, be careful what

rights Scots are offered or we will all be up in arms." There we go.

Perhaps the most significant intervention came from John red wood

hen he asked the question who speaks for England? The English voice has

not really by heard in this campaign. It is clear we will hear

from England if the vote is yes. If it is no, then in other ways I think

we will be hearing from England as well.

Any way, the real action was not in the Commons today, it was north of

the border, with the Prime Minister being there, the leader of the

opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister too. While we were on air

David Cameron has been speaking in Edinburgh, to an audience there. Let

us have a look at what he has to say.

Sometimes because it is an election, a ballot, I think people can feel it

is like a general election, that you make a decision and five years later

you can make another one, if you are fed up with the Tory, give them a

kick and maybe we will think again this is tote definitely represent to

a general election this is a decision about not the next five

years, it is a decision about the next century. That was the Prime

Minister speaking in Scotland. James, this must have been put

together at the last minute. It was only yesterday we found out they

were going to Scotland. Yes it is. When we spoke to the Prime

Minister's spokesman we said when he is going up, we were told in the

last week. A decision was clearly taken, I think the moment of change

happened on Monday afternoon, after the Prime Minister's statement on

NATO. He and Ed Miliband met behind the speaker's chair in the Prime

Minister's offices there. They said we have to go up, they hatched this

plan to abandon PMQs and go up. Is it last minute? Yes, we saw the

Prime Minister not speaking from note, he swiftly moved off those,

talking passionately using words we don't normally here from a Prime

Minister, but clearly. Not publicly. Trying to inject a bit, this is not

just to use his words a chance to have a go at the effing Tories but a

wider decision. He was close to tears towards the end I have seen in

some reports. We will no doubt see that later. The Prime Minister said

in this speech, if Scotland did vote yes he would have to handle the

negotiations, up until 2015 when we see the result of the election.

Which suggests that he, that sort of reinforces his claim he will not

resign, if he loses Scotland. But my sources tell me there is a lot of

Tory MPs will want him to resign. There will be some Conservatives who

will call for him to go if a yes vote wins. The question to look for

is, are those conservative MPs the same ones who called for him to go

before or are there news one? If you are a Conservative MP you might be

furious, passionate and angry if that is what happen, the loss of the

union, you will be thinking what are the best chances for me in 2015? Do

they think a divisive leadership contest, is that the best way to do

it, or do they try and say, look, this, the Prime Minister has taken

the hit, he will be forever known as the Prime Minister who presighed

over the loss of the union and hope he goes, you know, at the time of

the election. So, he is making very clear, and privately his people made

clear he is not going to, because they believe there will be enough

people who will say, no, now is not the to lose a Prime Minister,

because will not, you will get saying do we want have that

uncertainty? Probably not. It is having an effect on your party, the

Conservative Party's, standing and reputation, the before this, what

you might call the crisis in the friend came up, you were almost

getting nip and tuck with Labour, you are seven points behind. There

is no appetite among my Conservative colleagues for any change in

leadership. It is above party politics. It is not a destroy of

strength. David Cameron is our Prime Minister now, he will be ourpm after

the friend because there will be huge decisions that have to be

taken. The leader of the Conservative and unionist party will

have lost the union. Some Tory backbenchers are describing him as

the Lord north of the 21st century. The Prime Minister who lost the

American colonies. We have provided the opportunity for the people of

Scotland to have this discussion, they are taking the decision, it

isn't about David Cameron, Ed Miliband or any Westminster

politician, it is about what the people of Scotland choose, we want

them to make the right decision, which is to stick with the UK. If,

is it not something of a crisis for Ed Miliband as well, because the

Labour Party has dominated the better together campaign, they have

called the shots, we saw that again with Gordon Brown this week, and if

it is a yes vote, it will be because Mr Miliband could not convince

enough of his own supporters to vote for the union. He couldn't get them

out. So therefore, he will go down as being a man who lost the union.

We don't know what is going to happen. I am saying if it is a yes

vote. This is a distraction, the most serious implication of a yes

vote next week is separation of Scotland from a 300-year-old union

and a real risk it diminishes our voice in the world, in terms of the

UN, we heard from from your report, these are the serious implications

of separation. We know that but the men, you know, when China went

Communist there was a huge debate who lost China, in America. There

are, who lost Iran was a great debate after 1979 and the people in

power at the time, have to take some of the responsibility. Now, Mr

Cameron is the Prime Minister, so he is the man who would be leader at

the time if this was to happen. But we know from the polls that 95% of

Scottish Conservatives intend to vote for the union, we also know

from the latest polls that maybe 30-35% of Labour voters are going to

vote for independence. Now that is pure surely a major problem for Ed

Miliband. We don't know yet how the voters are going to vote. We won't

know until polling day. We have seen the trends. Why prematurely engage

in a blame game. We don't know what is going to happen. What is

important is we make the arguments, that Scotland should stay within the

family of nation, for all the positive reasons but we outline the

risks and to be frank I think this is a bit of a distraction, having a

potential blame game scenario, it trikes me as... The better together

campaign was about 20 points ahead and it is closed. Who is to blame

for that? There has been a significant percentage of people in

Scotland who are undecided. Now, according to a poll yesterday there

are still 20% of people, that is a massive number of people, one in

five people in Scotland still undecided. There is still all to

play for, you know, the polls were always going to narrow. The better

together campaign has been ahead for the last weeks and month, it was

always going to be closer to the time of the referendum, I really

think you know discussion about David Cameron's future and Ed

Miliband's future is a distraction. When the focus should be on the real

issue at hand which is what will happen to Scotland, and the rest of

us, if they vote for separation. I understand we are a week away from a

referendum in which the polls are nip and tuck. It is only right that

the rest of the United Kingdom should start to think more than it

has, about the consequences of a yes vote, so let me ask another question

along these line, if it is a yes vote should the general election in

May be postpones. I don't see a clear reason why. Why

should Scotland get to vote if it has already voted to depart the

United Kingdom? I think we continue as business so far, work that is set

back in primary legislation, you need to come act of Parliament and

reworked the legislation to do that. The simplest thing is you

press ahead and at the point in 2016 if Scotland does vote yes for

independence, that is the point the Scottish MPs, we lose them from

Westminster. You could be in a position of Labour forming the next

government, only because of the 40 or so MPs cut from Scotland. MPs

will be temporary, will be leaving with Independence Day on 2016. That

would make you a government of the walking wounded right from the

start. Under the eyes of the English, illegitimate. Firstly, I

think there is no question that we could go beyond a parliament of five

years. I think, if I'm right in saying, that would not be

constitutional, and it certainly would set a kind of dangerous

precedent for elections in the future. And secondly, we just simply

don't know what's going to happen next week. Obviously, I hope that we

win the general election next year with a significant majority. This is

kind of uncharted territory, in terms of the what ifs and the

wherefores. Until we know what happens on Thursday next week, I'm

not sure this is where the date is at. Westminster, that YouGov poll

has concentrated minds in Westminster and they are now

thinking about the consequences of this. For example, if Mr Miliband

wins the next general election in 2015, I would suggest he could not

appoint a Scottish minister in any department because every government

department will be involved in setting up the rest of the UK's

divorce terms, so you can't put the other side on your side. That will

have to be decided by legislation. It is very clear the negotiating

teams on both sides will have to be specifically set out, and that...

You say Westminster is waking up, and yet the most astonishing thing

is that Westminster and Whitehall have not made contingency plans.

Whenever I am told this, I say, surely not, but all these officials

say they are not doing it, even the Cabinet Secretary said before

Parliamentary committee this week we have not done it because we have

been told by our political masters not to do it. And yet, if a Yes vote

is successful, there are hundreds of questions about how you and stitch

Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. What happens to all the

civil servants who work for the UK in Scotland, what happens to the

civil servants who work in England or Wales or Northern Ireland for

Scotland? Do they lose their jobs, do they have to move anywhere? On

top of all the other issues we have talked about, currency and defence,

they're all of those issues too, and yet there is no contingency plan for

that matters the most extraordinary thing about this. If there is a Yes

vote, they will be very busy from the early hours of 19 September

onwards. Until 2016. Now, as the general election looms,

all the parties are desperately trying to raise enough cash to

finance their campaigns. At the 2010 general election,

parties spent more than ?31 million on the campaigns, and this was down

from the 2005 general election, But how do party officials persuade

people to part with their cash, and is it always done

for the right reasons? Here's the journalist Alice Thomson

with her soapbox on why we need state funding

for our political parties. We all enjoy a nice lunch,

but it seems politicians, especially our leaders, are being forced to

eat more than the rest of us. Leading figures across all parties

are expected to wine and dine influential businessmen

and celebrities, in order to try to It's time we looked at alternatives

- not least because of our In smart restaurants

and boardrooms across London, We have Labour cosying up to

the unions. Since Ed Miliband became leader,

they've provided ?8 out of every The Tories host balls

and auctions to win a drink with the Chancellor or a tennis match

with the Prime Minister. In the first three months of this

year, they raised ?6.6 million. As next year's general election

looms, all the parties need to raise enough cash to pay for

their general election campaigns. It's not enough to have

a manifesto and candidates, So instead of focusing ideas,

they are wasting time and energy on entertaining rich potential

donors desperate for influence The solution is state funding

of political parties. Spending limits should be cut

and donations capped. Parties would then be forced to

concentrate After all, there are more people

signing up to the Caravan Club But they refuse to do this,

worried that voters will recoil at having to pay more

for the antics of this venal lot. They should find

the courage to make their case. The Queen costs each

taxpayer 56 pence a year. In return,

we don't have to worry, she is and dining people for a stack

of cash, to keep the show on road. That should be the example

for all our politicians. Alice Thomson joins us now from that

rather swanky restaurant. Are you saying that politics rarely is that

correct, that is the only way to clean it out, to have state funding?

It's not that it's corrupt, it is just that they waste an awful amount

of time wining and dining, and have the Prime Minister spending that

amount of time is a waste. It is the same with the unions, they are far

too influential. It is not exactly corrupt but I think the worst it

probably gets is that there are so many peers in the House of Lords who

have given money to one of the parties. I just don't like that, I

would prefer to give the money myself actually. I would not mind

spending 40p a year. Dare I say it come you may be alone or in a very

small minority, because generally people just don't want to give money

in that way to the funding of political parties. It is not in

fashion. It is not in fashion because of the ways MPs have

behaved, but that is not to say it is wrong. I actually think it would

rarely help politics and it would clean it up, and then you would get

better people in the House of Lords, and also you would get the

politicians concentrating on the right issues. I don't want them to

spend a lot of time with very rich people and unions, I would like them

to spend a lot of time with more normal people, campaigning and being

in their constituency. But even if there was some state funding, even

if people did give donations or there was more money coming from

individual electors, wouldn't that still go on? Wouldn't there be

wining and dining anyway? You're not going to end that whole industry in

itself with state funding. I think they would be lobbying, but it would

be more lobbying campaigns, and it would not be individual very rich

people and the unions having much more sway than they would be able to

have if the money was not involved. And you would get better people in

the House of Lords. Stephen Crabb, are you convinced by that argument?

I'm not. Alice herself said we do not have a corrupt system in the UK,

actually the UK has one of the best systems are financing the business

of politics. In Germany for example, you have a large amount of state

funding and that does not tackle all the problems there either. The

public would say what about MPs expenses, cash the question is, what

about MPs being secretly filmed by your colleagues. That does say there

is a level of corruption that might not be there with state funding. And

all of that has led to improvements in the system, greater

transparency, greater accountability, so the system is

getting better. We need to go further, we need to have a cap on

donations, screen out some of the wrong influence there is a system

but we are getting better. It is an easy thing to knock your own

political system but it is an awful lot better than so many others out

there. As a party, we feel it should fall around ?50,000, the cap, we

think that is an acceptable limit in somebody wanting to donate their own

money they have turned to a political party. Do you ever think

there will be state funding introduced? Wane ever ever? Let's

talk about the next few elections. Certainly not in the foreseeable

future. I think there is still a lack of trust in politicians,

unfortunately. The MPs expenses scandal looms large. I am very

synthetic to what Alice says. In terms of House of Lords, there is a

much simpler solution, have an elected House of Lords to get around

this phenomenon new speak about. I would certainly -- that you speak

about. I would like to see a cap on donations, I think 50 grand is far

too high. I do access the argument that politicians are spending quite

a bit of time raising this kind of money. But, unfortunately, I think

you have outlined, Jo, the public appetite, and I'm sure we will get a

lot of responsiveness on Twitter, it is not really there for state

funding. A lot of responsiveness on Twitter, it is not really there for

state funding. It doesn't sound like more pay, but what I'm saying is

what we will give you is more money for your party for you to do that so

you can concentrate on all the potent issues. We are not saying we

want more pay, let's be clear about that. The authority have told us. I

think they are wrong, because in the public sector for example... But you

haven't got a say in it, do you? This morning has brought

an announcement of an important new line up; no, it's not

the starting XI for this Saturday's Arsenal squad, it is, of course, the

role allocations for Jean Claude Lord Hill is the British

representative So let's take

a look at what he ended up with, It is not quite a key job at the

moment. There are other more important jobs. The economic one was

one that Britain might have got, the internal market as well.

The top economics position goes to Pierre Moscovici,

a French Socialist, who will now be responsible for EU economic policy.

This will pose questions about the EU's approach to deficit

This particularly now that the French manners in there, perhaps

Brussels won't be as strong on deficit reduction as it was before.

Here's what Juncker had to say earlier this morning.

We are at the beginning of a new commission. We have an exceptional

opportunity, but also an obligation to make a fresh start and get down

to work to address the very difficult geopolitical situation, to

strengthen the economic recovery, and to build a united Europe that

delivers jobs and growth to its citizens. I think I have the right

team to do so. That was Jean-Claude Juncker, joining me now from

Brussels a la Europe correspondent, Chris Morris. How did Jonathan Hill

actually get that job? We didn't think he would get any of the top

jobs, certainly not in financial services. The joke was he would be

in charge of multilingualism, but David Cameron has pushed hard to get

a senior economic job, and I think if you had offered Downing Street

the job of Commissioner in charge of financial stability and financial

services six weeks ago is they would bitten your hand. It involves

supervision of banks and other matters which really affect the City

of London, so I think what it is as quite a big olive branch, if you

like, from Jean-Claude Juncker, because don't forget it was only a

couple of months ago that Cameron said he was absolutely the wrong man

for the job. And I don't think the Juncker team have forgotten that

level of criticism. But they have put it to one side to get on with

business. We are almost running out of time.

There's just time to put you out of your misery, and give you

All that rotting rubbish and the strikes should have been enough. It

was also the year of the referendum on Scottish devolution, that was the

one they lost, they won the 197, the Jeremy Thorpe trial, Stephen, you

get to press the buzzer. And the winner

The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.

I'm off to Scotland for a special This Week live from Edinburgh,

then I'll stay in Auld Reekie for a Daily Politics special on Friday.

But don't worry, I'll be back here at noon tomorrow with all the