20/10/2011 Newsnight Scotland

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, the SNP celebrate their election

victory at their annual conference in Inverness. But of course, the

main objective of the party is supposed to be independence. Are

they still committed to that, or would they settle for something

less? Good evening. It's bigger than ever,

with 2000 attending and diplomats and media from around the world.

They say it will add more than �3 million to the economy of Inverness.

It sounds like a showbiz awards ceremony and actually, the SNP

conference which started today may be more like the Oscars than a

policy forum. The opinion polls continue to run their way, but its

devolution max or independence lite, depending on your choice of jargon,

that people seem to want more than independence. In a moment, we will

discuss how nationalists can square that particular circle. But first,

Derek Bateman returns to the scene of past SNP glories, not far from

here. For some nationalists, you can

forget Bannenberg demand Holyrood it for a place that still zings

with the resonance of a Bellion and victory - here in Sunny Govan.

SNP have won the constituency of Thatcher wanted to take over

Scotland and make this just another little bit of Tory England or. The

message from here is, you are not on. In the '70s and '80s,

devolution seemed a distant prospect, never mind independence.

The old joke round - what is the difference between devolution and

evolution? The answer - devolution takes longer. Govan Town Hall was

the crucible of momentous events in nationalist history, but events

flared briefly and died. So different from today. Tom, do you

think the people who came here for the by-elections that the SNP won

in the '70s and '80s, would they ever have thought the SNP would be

in the position it is in today? can't imagine that they would have

expected that in a relatively short time after what happened here. That

the SNP would be the party of government in Scotland and that

they would be the establishment, despite their past of being an

anti-establishment party, in particular when you look at the

electoral system we use in Scotland, the proportional system that was

meant to prevent one party winning a majority, it is remarkable.

with a surprise election majority, the pressure has come on the

nationalists, with obvious questions. Why delay the

referendum? Scotland has already waited 300 years. And why is there

no finely detailed policy on areas like defence, pensions and can see?

For the time being, they need to avoid being too specific, because

if they are specific, they will give ammunition to their opponents

to use against them. So for the time being, they should avoid

saying too much. Eventually, as the referendum is scheduled, they will

have to be more specific. Almost every test of opinion is good news

for the nationalists. Even be being England seemed to back independence.

So BP's investment in another a huge oilfield and the killing off

in London of the carbon Catcher project he this week leave the

other parties floundering. Maybe the Unionist parties are not

thinking very much about Scotland. The UK-based politicians certainly

do not seem to take Scotland seriously. The Unionist parties

here also seen to be focused more on the UK level of governance

rather than the Holyrood level. That is a problem. But there is a

glaring hole in any opposition demands for answers. What is their

own solution? To Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories think this is

enough? Can any of them craft a narrative that says more than no to

independence and stop the SNP? think the SNP is driving this

agenda. They have managed to get the opposition parties to react

rather than come up with their own positive vision of a devolved

Scotland and how Scotland can remain in the UK. The Commission

recommendations were timid, in my opinion. Some economists have said

that if this is an active as planned, it could hurt Scotland. So

they need to come up with a more radical plan. We have to move in

the direction of fiscal autonomy, or they will not have any positive

alternative to offer the Scottish people. This may, Alex Salmond had

his Govan moment, a surprise electoral majority. If he settles

for independence lite, he may please the Scots. But nationalists

like Margo MacDonald who won here may never forgive him.

I am joined now live from the Inverness conference by Alex Neil,

the SNP's minister for infrastructure and capital

investment. Are you convinced that some sort of

fundamental constitutional change is inevitable? I think it is. And

the reason for that is not just the fact that people want to run up a

Saltire that is independent above the castle of Edinburgh. It is

because the economic situation is now such that many of the solutions

to Scotland's problems lie within Scotland, and the Scottish

parliament should have the powers to implement those solutions. It is

obvious that even if you make maximum use of the limited powers

we have, they are not nearly enough to tackle the fundamental problems

This talk about a second question on referenda -- on a referendum,

and Alex Salmond was talking about it today, what is that about?

Basically, we are saying some people have said they would like to

see a second question when it comes to the referendum. What he is

saying and the Scottish government are saying are, we will listen to

what they have to say. Malcolm Chisholm, the laid-back SNP, has

said he is in favour of devolution max. He needs to tell us what that

is. So you do not propose to tell us? How can you have a referendum

which is a question about something you are not prepared to define?

is not up to us to define devolution max, because we are

defining independence and that is what we are primarily concerned

about. If others put amendments to the bill, like he could, all other

members of the parliament, they are very clearly have to tell us what

is there -- what is it they want and what is the definition? So you

are inviting Labour up all the other parties to come up with a

detailed alternative plan and you are offering on their behalf to put

that plan to the voters, is that what this amounts to? They have not

made any formal proposals as parties so far, but we have said at

this stage we are taking an open mind that we will listen to what

people have to say. And clearly at the end of the day, whatever the

question and timing and result, we want to make sure there is

democratic legitimacy. And so we are prepared to look at

entertaining a second question. are you so keen on this? You have a

specific mandate from your manifesto for a referendum which

says, do you want to be independent or not? We have got a mandate for a

referendum but we have always been a career and said many times -- we

have always been clear and said many times than maybe walk -- more

than one question in the referendum. Would you entertain a question

where people could vote for the status quo? What might not -- which

might be now as well as the Scotland Bill. I do not know who is

advocating the status quo. There is talk of fiscal autonomy, but that

has not been defined by the Conservatives. The Labour Party do

not know what they want. So nobody has argued for the status quo, as

far as I know. Given that the opinion polls and surveys tend to

show that people would probably be in favour of something like

devolution Max -- devolution max, rather than independence, why not

go for that? What is devolution max? If the other parties are

advocating that, they have to spell it out. It is not up to the SNP. We

are spelling out a case for independence and not putting a case

for devolution max, however you define it. We are Democrats and if

people are arguing for another democratic option, the First

Minister has said he will look at that. But a vote for some sort of

fiscal autonomy would in your book be an awful lot better than having

a straightforward referendum on independence and losing it, that is

why you are proposing the second question, isn't it? We are not

proposing the second question at this stage. We are prepared to

contemplate a second question on the ballot paper. It is a very

different proposition indeed. And it is not up to us. If somebody

wants to put an amendment -- an amendment to the bill when it comes

before the Scottish Parliament arguing for his second question on

devolution max, he has to tell the people of Scotland, what is

devolution max? What does it mean? Were we have control over all

taxation in Scotland, they say in defence policy, elements of control

over economic policy -- a say in the. Representation in the European

Union, and what kind? They have to define what they mean. Thank you

very much indeed. I'm joined now by two SNP-watchers. Gerry Hassan

writes blogs, books and articles on the subject. And Ewan Crawford used

to work for the party, and now lectures on media. In a way, what

does interest me about this second question, and I take what he says

about the other parties having to define what it is, Alex Salmond

seems to talk about little else at the moment, so they are clearly

very keen on it. One think the SNP are doing, they want to park

themselves on the majority rising tide of Scottish opinion and they

dare not Park on the minority and lose a referendum. But he is

fascinating, he is out sourcing the devolution max option to the

opposition parties which is not how would works out. If you are in

favour of devolution max, the government is duty-bound to come up

with proposals rather than just say, it is down to Malcolm Chisholm and

the opposition parties. It is slightly odd! This is a referendum,

do you want independence like we the Government, and we will have

produced a white paper by that time, do you want, what? The SNP believes

an independence and if you look at what they said before the election

when they published a white paper on the referendum, the same wording

was there. They were inviting other parties to join in a debate. And

this is what is going on. The SNP wants to be inclusive, it has a big

tent approach. It recognises a reality, devolution max, financial

independence, does seem to be a population -- a popular option. So

it seems to be reasonable to say that if you want that on the ballot

paper, spell it out. It is important the direction of travel.

It is interesting to me the centre of constitutional gravity has moved

at some pace towards much greater powers. Obviously, that is

interesting for the SNP. cynical translation would be to

quote David Cameron... It is a win- win for them, this second question.

Unless people reject both, the SNP get a considerable amount on one

version or all of what they want. It is not a disaster for the SNP,

is it? We will get substantial constitutional change. The decision

for people in Scotland is between substantial extra powers for the

parliament or independence. But if you take out devolution max from

opinion polls, independence against the status quo becomes much tighter.

So it is not an open and shut case for the SNP. What do you think the

SNP should be wanting? There has been a lot of talk about post

something, posts nationalism. And we have had people saying, it is

all fashioned, what is the difference between posts

nationalism and old-fashioned nationalism? It means that you are

quite comfortable with sharing sovereignty. In a Scottish context,

that would mean that wherever we end up, close to independence,

there would be an element of British cooperation. So it

recognises independence as relevant. The language of voting for

separation. As people try to nail that. It deals with those realities.

There will be the British Union that is beyond, I think, a Social

Union. Even in the most independent scenario. Do you agree with that?

Inevitably, even in the European Union, you do have substantial co-

operation. And it is interesting that you're talking about David

Cameron talking about Alex Salmond and Labour talking about, it has to

be independence or the status quo. Because what they do want is for us

to be completely polarised. But the SNP understand it is not that, we

do not have Albania any more. Even if you want it to be separate, it

could not. This sounds so lovely that it could not possibly be

negative. But what does it mean? That is the problem with the SNP.

Does that mean, we do not have a British Army or foreign service?

Presumably, the answer is yes? What is this British dimension? This can

federalism? The SNP is not in favour of that. It is in favour of

independence. The reality of independent nations is that we do

share sovereignty. We do in the European Union all the time. It

would not mean a fiscal Union. It means having control of Euro tax

policy. It would mean having Scottish defence forces and a

Scottish foreign policy. Would that be cooperation in those areas?

Absolutely. And that is what countries do. When you have

sovereign power, you have the opportunity to share its sovereign

power. I used to live in East Anglia and they have American air

bases. Why? Because it suits the interests of the British Government

to do that. Presumably, if a Scottish government thought there

was defence co-operation, some sort of defence co-operation, it could

do that just as Britain does with America. It does not mean it is

independence lite, it is just reality. I do not see a British

dimension to that, that happens with a lot of countries in northern

Europe. Can you be pregnant or half pregnant? In the state of the world,

you cannot be half pregnant. You have nations there are like... Is

green land a nation or a nation at peace -- or in nation-state? There

is a lot of ambiguity. The issue is not devolution max or independence

lite. What motivates party members from the SNP? They are very

flexible. What is the bottom line? Scottish Treasury, Scottish

economic policy and the issue of nuclear weapons. It is very, very

flexible. I still do not see what this British dimension is, this

Social Union. We are going to have a social union in that we are going

to watch Neighbours... There is going to be an element of political

union and co-operation. The reality of it... Are you suggesting an

independent Scotland and the rest of the UK would go to walk? I do

not -- a lot of what you said seems to suggest that would not happen,

but nobody imagines that would happen, so the content of what

you're saying about this British dimension is pretty vacuous, it

isn't it? The debate is polarised. We have a house of Commons Scottish

Affairs Committee having an inquiry into separation, that is the way

they want to frame the debate. But the reality of independence is that

countries are not separate. And I think people in Scottish political

classes are just waking up to that, that countries have not moved on --

that countries have moved on. continued!

A front pages are all about the death of Colonel Gaddafi. Have we

got the Scotsman? A picture of Colonel Gaddafi after he is dead.

Battered and bloody, he pleads for his life, says the Scottish Daily

Mail. Gaddafi is killed by rebel fighters. And the same pictures and

the Scotsman on the front of the Telegraph.

Hello, much more cloud across the country tonight compared to last

night, so it will not be anything like as called first thing. It

should turn bright in eastern areas and it will -- and there will be

some sunshine. For most of England and Wales, it should be a dry day.

A bit of sunshine will come through, lifting the temperatures higher

than Thursday. The breeze will pick up and it will come in from the

South West, bringing much to from the Atlantic and parts of south-

west England. -- bringing the moisture. We may get breaks in the

cloud and sunshine. Brighter in the east of Northern Ireland. Some rain

of early on. And soggy day through parts of western and Central

Scotland. Is could brighten up through the Moray Firth and that

could lift the temperatures -- thinks. Rain on Friday and Saturday

in Northern Ireland. And Scotland. The breeze will pick up elsewhere