:00:05. > :00:14.few days have shown the determination of Germany, in
:00:14. > :00:22.particular, to defend the currency. On Newsnight Scotland, there are
:00:22. > :00:26.increasing calls for a clear definition devolution max. Why does
:00:26. > :00:31.the SNP you seemed to wanted and what, if anything, is wrong with
:00:31. > :00:35.that? And it may have been friendly on the service but a major donor to
:00:35. > :00:44.the Scottish Conservatives believes the party cannot recover from a
:00:44. > :00:47.bitter leadership campaign. The First Minister has made it
:00:47. > :00:50.clear he's keen to include the option of devolution max in a
:00:50. > :00:54.referendum on independence. Less clear is what the terms "devo-max"
:00:54. > :01:00.or "independence lite" actually mean. Opposition parties want to
:01:00. > :01:03.know what extra powers it would transfer. The First Minister called
:01:03. > :01:06.for a clear-cut referendum based on a single question. We will be
:01:06. > :01:11.speaking to a leading expert on constitutional referendums about
:01:11. > :01:16.what is needed for a fare third, but first this.
:01:16. > :01:23.-- for a fair vote. It is an idea the First Minister
:01:23. > :01:26.agrees is worthy of discussion. Devolution max. The Fiscal
:01:27. > :01:32.responsibility, Financial Freedom, real economic power. It could allow
:01:32. > :01:37.us to control our own resources, introduce tax, and their personal
:01:37. > :01:46.taxation. All good and necessary, but not enough. Worthy of
:01:46. > :01:51.discussion but not for what the SNP will campaign. The consolation
:01:51. > :01:56.prize if Scots cannot be persuaded to back independence and self. Will
:01:56. > :02:01.a practical scheme for devolution max emerge? The problem just now is
:02:01. > :02:06.that nobody has decided what the recipe it is. Is it a kind of
:02:06. > :02:11.halfway version of independence? Independence lite, if you like. My
:02:11. > :02:17.did become a glorified tidying-up exercise. Could it mean what the
:02:17. > :02:22.Liberals call home rule? Former Lib Dem leaders -- former Lib Dem
:02:22. > :02:27.leader is charing a commission to come up before I plan for his party.
:02:27. > :02:32.I do not know what these phrases mean. You could to find that.
:02:32. > :02:37.are going to define it in the context of home rule. Very easily
:02:37. > :02:43.understood, something that needs to be -- to have a fresh on the bow
:02:43. > :02:47.and. This might not be an option, though. It might be easier to
:02:47. > :02:53.define this by what it wouldn't change. Scotland would be part of
:02:53. > :02:57.the UK. There would be no separate Scottish defence force, no Scottish
:02:57. > :03:02.embassies, and no question of ditching the pound the or joining
:03:02. > :03:07.you read by ourselves. What is not agreed is what exactly the powers
:03:07. > :03:14.the Scottish Parliament would have it. Could Hollywood gain complete
:03:14. > :03:23.control over taxes, so-called this court a, a -- autonomy? What about
:03:23. > :03:31.pensions and benefits? Broadcasting? Even the Coast Guard?
:03:31. > :03:37.In 1979, the referendum proposal was clear. If you wish it, an
:03:37. > :03:47.elected assembly is yours for the taking. A precise plan with details
:03:47. > :03:48.
:03:48. > :03:54.of what would and would not be devolved. Too few said yes.
:03:54. > :03:57.1997 was actually a little vaguer. Even at this time of the outcome
:03:57. > :04:04.was resounding. The questions were in the concept of a Scottish
:04:04. > :04:08.Parliament and whether it should have tax levying powers. There was
:04:08. > :04:18.a clear blueprint based on years of discussion by the Scottish
:04:18. > :04:20.
:04:20. > :04:24.constitutional Convention. We say Independence is a clearly defined
:04:24. > :04:29.concept, even if it's practical complicate - member occasions they
:04:29. > :04:36.have changed over the years. Those who want more powers for Holly Road
:04:36. > :04:40.with in the UK will not agree a definitive version of independence
:04:40. > :04:44.lite or whatever they choose to call it.
:04:44. > :04:49.I am joined from London by the referendum expert Professor Matt
:04:49. > :04:59.Qvortrup who has agreed to advise the Parliament on how to conduct a
:04:59. > :05:07.ballot on this. He will be expressing himself in his own words
:05:07. > :05:12.tonight. First of all, if there was a two question referendum on
:05:12. > :05:20.Scotland, question one, earthing Max, questioned two, independence,
:05:20. > :05:23.you saw no, would that be fair? could argue that in 1997 there was
:05:23. > :05:31.quite ticket question which was do you want a Scottish Parliament? And
:05:31. > :05:38.in the event do you want it to have more powers? Constitution the
:05:38. > :05:44.speaking, -- constitution me speaking, there would be a
:05:44. > :05:48.President for that. Most referendums about independence,
:05:48. > :05:57.about 40 around the world since 1945, have only had one question.
:05:57. > :06:02.There is nothing in legal theory or practice that would for bit such a
:06:02. > :06:09.construction. -- that would forbid. The question I asked his would it
:06:09. > :06:15.be fair? Fairness is a fairly wide concept because fairness is what is
:06:15. > :06:20.seen as legitimate as well. It would be fair as in so far people
:06:20. > :06:24.would expect what they are voting on. As far as constitutional
:06:25. > :06:31.practices concerned, Canada would be the obvious example that we
:06:31. > :06:38.compare ourselves with, with Quebec being analogous to Scotland, an
:06:38. > :06:42.area with a push for independence, there has been a push for clarity.
:06:42. > :06:48.There was a court case in the late 1990s that said that as long as you
:06:48. > :06:51.are clear on what you are voting on, that is fair. You said in the Times
:06:51. > :06:54.newspaper that under these circumstances, there is a good
:06:54. > :07:00.chance you would end up not knowing what people want. What did you
:07:00. > :07:08.mean? If we can take the Times newspaper, I was quoted out of
:07:08. > :07:13.context. What I wanted to say was that it was important that there is
:07:13. > :07:21.clarity as to what the question is. In 1997, there was clarity as to
:07:21. > :07:25.what the options were. The clarity was do you want devolution? And if
:07:25. > :07:31.you want devolution, do you want a little bit more than that. If we
:07:31. > :07:35.take the referendum I have described, what would happen if it
:07:35. > :07:45.voters said yes to both devolution max and to independence, what would
:07:45. > :07:45.
:07:45. > :07:50.we get? You would get independence. But, again... Even at 99% said yes
:07:50. > :07:54.to devo-max and only 51% to independence? Then you would have a
:07:54. > :08:00.situation where there is less clarity, but, again, the situation
:08:00. > :08:04.would then be that after a referendum... A referendum in
:08:04. > :08:08.constitutional theory, I am sorry I am sounding like a solicitor, but a
:08:08. > :08:13.referendum would be advisory only. It would provide a mandate for the
:08:13. > :08:18.Scottish Government to go to Westminster and negotiate what the
:08:18. > :08:22.terms of, as it were, the divorce settlement should be. I think it is
:08:22. > :08:27.probably less likely they would then push for the maximum option if
:08:27. > :08:31.they only have a slight majority in favour of that. The referendum in
:08:31. > :08:39.any case is not binding, can never be binding under British
:08:39. > :08:44.constitutional system or under international law. I gathered from
:08:44. > :08:48.speaking to you previously and reading remarks you had made, you
:08:48. > :08:52.thought there was a better way of putting good independence and
:08:52. > :08:59.devolution max to people in Scotland, a fair way of doing it?
:08:59. > :09:06.do not know if there is a fair way. It depends on the Scottish
:09:06. > :09:09.Parliament decide to do. I think, you know, it is perfectly
:09:09. > :09:14.legitimate and possibly even fair to do it in this way, it is just it
:09:14. > :09:20.has not been done exactly like this before. Then again, looking around
:09:20. > :09:24.the world around the referendums, like the one in Montenegro, the
:09:24. > :09:31.cessation from Serbia, which was also a slightly different from
:09:31. > :09:38.previous referendums in that it required a special majority, I
:09:38. > :09:42.think, you know, if you look around, there is also in Puerto Rico a
:09:42. > :09:46.referendum where there were four questions... I thought it was a New
:09:47. > :09:51.Zealand example you were keen on. The New Zealand example is not
:09:51. > :09:56.unlike what Alex Salmond is proposing. That was not a
:09:56. > :09:59.referendum around independence but about changing the electoral system.
:09:59. > :10:03.There was first a referendum on whether you wanted to change the
:10:03. > :10:07.electoral system and then having ascertained the people wanted that,
:10:07. > :10:12.further down the ballot paper there was the option of choosing one of
:10:12. > :10:19.four different systems, so it is you get a mandate first of all for
:10:19. > :10:24.a particular change, and having got that mandate, you then can choose
:10:24. > :10:32.which one from a menu you want to have. And that is, in many ways,
:10:32. > :10:36.seen as the way to do it. In constitutional referendums for
:10:36. > :10:40.independence, there are many ways to skin a cat, and many options
:10:40. > :10:49.there are regarded as being fair, but the New Zealand option gives
:10:49. > :10:54.you the opportunity to say no at different stages. I just wanted to
:10:54. > :10:58.come back to you on the original discussion about all of this and to
:10:58. > :11:03.give you the chance to clarify. To the Scottish Government tried to
:11:03. > :11:08.nobble you on this decision? It was an honest mistake. They didn't.
:11:08. > :11:13.What kind of apology to the First Minister of a? When I spoke to him,
:11:13. > :11:17.I said this was an honest mistake and that is where we left it. He
:11:17. > :11:23.was very apologetic for the misunderstanding. I think that
:11:23. > :11:28.issue is pretty much been and gone. And you've agreed to advise him?
:11:28. > :11:32.That is still to be ironed out. There hasn't been an agreement made.
:11:32. > :11:36.I am happy to advise the Scottish Parliament on this matter because
:11:36. > :11:42.it is obviously important is somebody who lives in the southern
:11:42. > :11:47.part of the United Kingdom and also for the Scottish people so I am...
:11:47. > :11:57.I am open to negotiation about how I can be available and how I can
:11:57. > :11:57.
:11:57. > :12:04.The election may be over, the new leader of the Scottish
:12:04. > :12:10.Conservatives declared, but there are concerns that the campaign has
:12:10. > :12:16.created a rift so deep that it may be impossible to heal.
:12:17. > :12:21.The successful candidate is Ruth Davidson MSP. I have much pleasure
:12:21. > :12:28.in declaring Ruth Davidson elected leader of the Scottish Conservative
:12:29. > :12:36.and Unionist Party. Ruth Davidson beat her main rival, more prone
:12:36. > :12:41.Davidson Comer -- Murdo Fraser, in both boards and he was quick to
:12:41. > :12:45.declare his loyalty to did you leader.
:12:45. > :12:48.I was disappointed I could not persuade more of our members that
:12:48. > :12:53.my vision for the future was the correct one but I wish her all the
:12:53. > :12:59.best. It is unlikely to be so simple, it was a bitterly fought
:12:59. > :13:04.campaign. There were accusations that Ruth Davidson was favoured by
:13:04. > :13:11.a Downing Street and the party machine in Scotland. A majority of
:13:11. > :13:16.MSPs backed Murdo Fraser. leadership election is the forum
:13:16. > :13:21.where different members of the party put forward their ideas of
:13:21. > :13:27.where they want the party to go. It is one-member, one-vote in this
:13:27. > :13:32.election. The party decide on the direction the party want to go on.
:13:32. > :13:35.I came through as the leader of that direction. The party will come
:13:35. > :13:42.together now, because that is what political parties do after an
:13:42. > :13:47.election such as this. Paul McBride quit the party over its failure to
:13:47. > :13:52.back and two sectarian legislation, saying they had to replace the one
:13:52. > :13:58.nice women with one that not so nice women. One senior Tory told
:13:58. > :14:06.the BBC that he would be surprised if she out lasted Wendy Alexander
:14:06. > :14:16.was Max Bell in charge of Scottish Labour. -- Wendy Alexander pause
:14:16. > :14:20.
:14:20. > :14:24.There are some concerns about whether the party can recover from
:14:24. > :14:33.the bitter campaign in the leadership elections. Who did you
:14:33. > :14:38.support? I supported Murdo Fraser. I felt he offered a clear and
:14:38. > :14:47.different vision for the Scottish Conservative Party. If you look at
:14:47. > :14:54.the lack of electoral cess, success, it was clear we needed a new
:14:54. > :14:57.direction. Ruth Davidson has a difficult task ahead of her to
:14:57. > :15:06.build her team within the parliament and within the
:15:06. > :15:11.membership and then appeal to the country. Like Murdo Fraser, do you
:15:11. > :15:18.give her your support? I will support the Conservative Party, I
:15:18. > :15:24.always have. I want to support the Conservative Party, I really do.
:15:24. > :15:29.There is a tough job ahead to get people like me and others to say
:15:29. > :15:34.that this party is ready for change to embrace the country. Supporting
:15:34. > :15:40.the Conservatives is different to supporting Ruth Davidson. What does
:15:40. > :15:45.she need to do to get you on side? She needs to send a letter of
:15:45. > :15:50.apology to a candidate who was treated appallingly badly in the
:15:51. > :15:56.election process. He was top of the Glasgow list prior to the holiday -
:15:56. > :16:01.- the Holyrood election. Ruth Davidson replaced him. I think that
:16:01. > :16:07.is why she should personally deal with this matter. There has to be a
:16:07. > :16:14.further investigation by the party as to why Malcolm was removed.
:16:14. > :16:18.not want to get into the details of that. Ruth Davidson said yesterday
:16:18. > :16:24.that the party will come together now. You think she is wrong? That
:16:24. > :16:30.depends what she does in the next 24 or 48 hours. There are a group
:16:30. > :16:37.of MSPs meeting tomorrow. With the very few MSPs backing the campaign,
:16:37. > :16:41.she needs to get that group on side. The key principle of leadership is
:16:41. > :16:48.that people have to want to follow. If people do not want to follow, it
:16:48. > :16:52.is very difficult to lead. If the MSPs say that they are run side,
:16:53. > :16:58.then you're on side? No, that is the beginning of the task, not the
:16:58. > :17:00.end of the task. Ruth has to prove that she is capable of coming up
:17:00. > :17:07.with policies that will resonate with the people of Scotland in the
:17:07. > :17:16.way that model Fraser dead. She's not going to have a breakaway party.
:17:16. > :17:22.What else can she do? There is not a team of people behind Ruth
:17:22. > :17:32.Ferrara's new and than panic team. -- behind Ruth who are new and
:17:32. > :17:34.
:17:34. > :17:41.dynamic team. What are you going to do with your money? Used will
:17:41. > :17:49.donate to the party? I have not made any decisions on that at all.
:17:49. > :17:54.I want to support the party. People who are in business only want to
:17:54. > :18:01.support successful entities. that were the case, you would not
:18:01. > :18:06.have been putting money in four years now! We have a Prime Minister
:18:06. > :18:13.in Westminster. He is doing very well as prime minister. What do
:18:13. > :18:23.other donors say? There are mixed views. Some have said that they are
:18:23. > :18:23.
:18:23. > :18:30.relaxed, others are saying, do not bother telephoning me and asking me
:18:30. > :18:34.to fund-raising dinners. Once people make opinions, it is
:18:34. > :18:41.difficult to change them. You seem to have made a fairly negative
:18:41. > :18:46.opinion of this leader so far. Why is that? To give Ruth a bit of
:18:46. > :18:56.sympathy, she has been caught up in a campaign... She is not looking
:18:56. > :18:56.
:18:56. > :18:59.for sympathy, she has won a with interference. What kind of
:18:59. > :19:04.interference? A spin-doctor has been suspended. I do not believe
:19:04. > :19:10.that he would be suspended without a case to answer. He has been
:19:10. > :19:20.reinstated. Who looked into it? The same people who looked into
:19:20. > :19:31.
:19:31. > :19:41.previous cases? Thank you. That is the Home Office Row which
:19:41. > :19:48.
:19:48. > :19:54.That is the Home Office Row which Good evening. After a chilly start
:19:54. > :20:00.to the night in Scotland and Northern Ireland, it will be
:20:00. > :20:10.slightly warmer tomorrow morning. There will be some light rain and
:20:10. > :20:10.
:20:10. > :20:15.drizzle at times. Winds are generally light easterly. We could
:20:15. > :20:23.see one or two heavier showers towards the south coast. We should
:20:23. > :20:27.also see some brightness in the Isles of Scilly and west Cornwall.
:20:27. > :20:35.It will be mostly grey skies overhead. Temperatures mild for
:20:35. > :20:45.this time of year. Some rain or drizzle in Northern Ireland. In
:20:45. > :20:46.
:20:46. > :20:56.western Scotland, still a few bits of brightness. Ensue states,
:20:56. > :20:58.
:20:58. > :21:05.through Tuesday into Wednesday, there will be a chance of rain in