:00:05. > :00:08.weight to the �30 million cut depending on where you include the
:00:08. > :00:11.15 million, the 6 million, the other figures that he mentioned.
:00:12. > :00:15.But it is a step in the right direction. Colleges which provide
:00:15. > :00:23.mainly vocational courses have been lobbying hard to get the scale of
:00:23. > :00:27.the cuts reduced, and they welcomed the news. The funding will be
:00:27. > :00:33.around �20 million less this year, which may not sound like a huge sum,
:00:33. > :00:35.but it is significant to colleges. Clearly, we obviously want to
:00:35. > :00:39.maximise the number of opportunities we provide for young
:00:39. > :00:45.people and older students as well, and clearly managing those
:00:45. > :00:50.reductions in funding will still be a challenge, but it is an easy
:00:50. > :00:53.challenge perhaps that it was hitherto. The National Union of
:00:53. > :00:57.Students staged a write-in campaign to the Scottish government, which
:00:58. > :01:02.they say resulted in 80,000 e-mails to MSPs about the importance of
:01:02. > :01:05.further education to young people at a time when one in a four is
:01:05. > :01:09.unemployed. We are very happy with the overall result. Of course, we
:01:09. > :01:13.are concerned because they are still being cut, and we will be
:01:13. > :01:16.watching very closely over the next two to three years to see how the
:01:16. > :01:23.Government's reforms go through, making sure that the government
:01:23. > :01:28.maintains its promises. The overall budget bill, which covers �30
:01:28. > :01:31.billion worth of government spending, was passed by 70 to 52.
:01:31. > :01:38.Mr Swinney achieved consensus with the Lib Dems, but not the
:01:38. > :01:42.Conservatives, Greens and Labour. Earlier, the Finance Secretary came
:01:42. > :01:47.into our Dundee studio, and I asked him to clarify the position about
:01:47. > :01:51.the funding of further education colleges. His there now no cut in
:01:51. > :01:54.spending? There have been reductions in funding for further
:01:54. > :01:59.education within Scotland, but that is part of the reform programme
:01:59. > :02:02.that the government is taking forward. Going back a few weeks, I
:02:02. > :02:06.put in place a college transformation Fund which was
:02:06. > :02:09.designed to help colleges adapt to that a regional model of governance
:02:09. > :02:13.that the government is putting forward and the programme of
:02:13. > :02:17.increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the sector. The
:02:17. > :02:21.resources we have put in will help that process. Right, but when
:02:21. > :02:26.Labour say that you were planning a �40 million cut, and as a result of
:02:26. > :02:30.the measures he announced today, it is a �20 million cut, would you
:02:30. > :02:34.dispute those figures? It all hinges essentially on how you want
:02:34. > :02:38.to treat the college transformation but that I have put in of �15
:02:38. > :02:43.million. The purpose of that fund was to assist the college is in
:02:43. > :02:48.managing the transition to a new financial climate that we think is
:02:48. > :02:52.necessary, where the college is to operate much more closely together
:02:52. > :02:55.and we deploy provision in a way that meets the needs of the student
:02:55. > :02:59.community and also the needs of employers throughout the country.
:02:59. > :03:03.So I think the key point to take out of this discussion is the fact
:03:03. > :03:06.that the government is putting in more resources to the college
:03:06. > :03:10.sector than we had originally planned, and as a consequence I
:03:10. > :03:13.would have thought that was a strong enough foundation to enable
:03:13. > :03:21.the Labour Party to vote for the Budget, which they decided not to
:03:21. > :03:25.do. But if I were running and FT College, what percentage cut now in
:03:25. > :03:29.the resources I have to spend can I expect to have next year? --
:03:29. > :03:32.Further Education College. Education Secretary wrote to
:03:33. > :03:37.principles just after the turn of the year, and before the resources
:03:37. > :03:41.that I have allocated today were put into the system, indicating
:03:41. > :03:45.that no College would receive a reduction in funding of greater
:03:45. > :03:49.than 8.5% in this financial year. Now, clearly the number will be
:03:49. > :03:53.lower than that as a consequence of the resources... But you do not
:03:53. > :03:59.know how much? I have not made at High Commission tonight, but what
:03:59. > :04:02.is important we have put in additional resources,... -- I have
:04:02. > :04:08.not made that calculation tonight. Are you talking in cash terms or
:04:08. > :04:12.real terms? I am talking in cash terms. So it is more like 12%.
:04:12. > :04:14.There are many aspects of public spending provision which are a
:04:14. > :04:18.challenge for as given the reduction in public expenditure
:04:18. > :04:23.which are being undertaken as a consequence of the pressures we
:04:23. > :04:25.face in the United Kingdom. The key point, Gordon, is that the
:04:25. > :04:29.government has listened carefully to the views that have been
:04:29. > :04:32.expressed around the country. We have taken account of those, we
:04:32. > :04:37.have increased the resources that we have put into the sector. We
:04:37. > :04:40.have maintained the necessity for us to undertake the college reform
:04:40. > :04:44.programme, and we will continue to pursue that approach, but clearly
:04:44. > :04:48.we have put in resources to support the provision of further education
:04:49. > :04:56.within Scotland, and I think that... And try to get a sense of what this
:04:56. > :05:00.means. 12% in real terms, maybe a bit less, 10%. Deal at any estimate
:05:00. > :05:03.of how many young people at a time of very high youth unemployment,
:05:03. > :05:07.how many extra young people will be able to go to college in the next
:05:07. > :05:11.financial year as a result of the budget you have announced today
:05:11. > :05:16.than would have been able to go before the additional money you put
:05:16. > :05:23.in today? The best way to approach that question is to look at the
:05:23. > :05:27.guarantee the government has given that every 16-90 will, if they are
:05:27. > :05:32.unable to secure employment, they will be guaranteed training or
:05:32. > :05:36.education opportunities within Scotland. -- 16-19 year-olds. That
:05:36. > :05:40.is an absolute guarantee to those people within Scotland, and it is
:05:40. > :05:45.an indication of the way in which the government has adapted to the
:05:45. > :05:49.enormous pressures that we face within the public expenditure
:05:49. > :05:52.accounts. It is a response to what we are dealing with in the economy
:05:52. > :05:55.and the labour market, and to make sure that every young person in
:05:55. > :06:00.Scotland as an opportunity to develop their skills and
:06:00. > :06:05.capabilities. Why are you reducing your proposed tax on supermarkets
:06:05. > :06:09.which sell booze? Well, I have had a discussion with the retailers. I
:06:09. > :06:13.have listened to the arguments that they have put forward, and I set
:06:13. > :06:17.out at the beginning of the budget process that this would be a
:06:17. > :06:23.revenue-raising measure that would be designed to raise �30 million in
:06:23. > :06:27.the first year in which it was applied. In looking at the numbers
:06:27. > :06:34.in non-domestic rates, looking specifically at the change that is
:06:34. > :06:39.taking place in England, we do not require to raise �30 million from
:06:39. > :06:42.the public health supplement. could have done and not raised the
:06:42. > :06:46.large business poundage. The problem is the one-hour time
:06:46. > :06:50.limited. This is such a terrifying measure that he will only have to
:06:50. > :06:54.pay for three years. It is an adjustment, a recognition of the
:06:54. > :06:57.fact that at a time when the government has a number of
:06:57. > :07:00.priorities, at a time of public expenditure constraints, we want to
:07:00. > :07:03.shift the balance of public spending into preventative
:07:04. > :07:07.expenditure. We have got to raise that money from somewhere, and we
:07:07. > :07:10.have had the courage to do that by applying a public health
:07:10. > :07:14.supplements, and by deploying those resources in assisting the
:07:14. > :07:19.government to manage transition at a time of enormous financial
:07:19. > :07:23.pressure... You would accept that his new tax has got nothing to do
:07:23. > :07:27.with stopping people drinking, has it? It is just to get more money.
:07:27. > :07:30.have been clear that this is about raising revenue, and I have had the
:07:30. > :07:34.courage to do it. It is ridiculous for Members of Parliament to stand
:07:34. > :07:37.in debate and say, yes, we are in favour of preventative spending,
:07:37. > :07:41.but not be prepared to take the decisions to allocate the money or
:07:41. > :07:45.raise the revenue. We have been prepared to do that at a time of
:07:45. > :07:48.fiscal constraint, and I think it is important to do that, because if
:07:48. > :07:52.we get the preventative measures correct within Scotland, we will
:07:52. > :07:58.start to ensure the sustainability of our public finances and public
:07:58. > :08:02.services in the years to come. Swinney, that's fine match. I am
:08:02. > :08:05.joined by Conservative leader Ruth Davidson and Liberal Democrat
:08:05. > :08:11.leader Willie Reni, and here in Glasgow, Ken Macintosh of Labour.
:08:11. > :08:15.Why did you vote for this Budget? We argued for more spending on
:08:15. > :08:21.colleges, on social housing, and an early intervention. That is what we
:08:21. > :08:23.argued with John Swinney, and the priorities that were set out today
:08:23. > :08:28.reflected that the additional spending. We felt it was
:08:28. > :08:32.appropriate to give its support. he had come up with anything, you
:08:32. > :08:37.were that said, that is fine, we will vote for it? That is silly,
:08:37. > :08:42.corn. We argued for those things I have set out, the early
:08:42. > :08:45.intervention, social housing, and a reverse to the cuts at the colleges.
:08:45. > :08:50.We are good for that, and it was reflected in the additional
:08:50. > :08:56.spending today. We thought it was reasonable. Ken Macintosh. You were
:08:56. > :08:59.asking for the same things. Well, we asked for several things. The
:08:59. > :09:03.thing to remember about this is the key talking about the additional
:09:03. > :09:08.spending today. This is not about additional spending. This is about
:09:08. > :09:12.a series of cuts, this is about people losing their jobs, people
:09:12. > :09:15.losing the services they get from local government. I understand that,
:09:15. > :09:21.but John Swinney has got a shed load of money from Westminster
:09:21. > :09:23.because of various factors, and he distributed it largely on the
:09:24. > :09:28.projects that both you and the Liberal Democrats wanted him to
:09:28. > :09:33.spend the money on, so why not just say, tough economic times, we
:09:33. > :09:39.accept you are going in the direction that we wanted? Just
:09:39. > :09:42.stick colleges alone. If you take a �74 million cut to colleges and in
:09:42. > :09:47.19 back, that is not addressing the needs of the Scottish economy. That
:09:47. > :09:51.is not a Budget for jobs and growth, it is a cut with a little bit of
:09:51. > :09:54.moderation. You are deliberately ignored the point I made. I am
:09:54. > :09:59.addressing it wholeheartedly. To give you an idea of what this
:09:59. > :10:03.process was like, John Swinney asked Des two weeks ago for a half-
:10:03. > :10:07.hour conversation and then gave us the figures an hour before the
:10:07. > :10:10.Budget today. That is not a process of involving the opposition in
:10:10. > :10:16.constructing a set of priorities. That is not about winning support
:10:16. > :10:21.for tackling economic growth for an employment market in Scotland. That
:10:21. > :10:25.is simply a political device designed to buy off the worst sort
:10:25. > :10:28.of uproar about the decisions he has made. Ruth Davidson, what is
:10:28. > :10:31.your problem with this? Particularly given that John
:10:31. > :10:35.Swinney can reasonably argue that a lot of the constraints young
:10:35. > :10:39.working and are imposed by the Tory government in London. Why didn't
:10:39. > :10:49.you vote for it? We wanted to see a budget based on growth and jobs,
:10:49. > :10:54.
:10:55. > :11:04.and it was lacking in both cases. We wanted to stop putting a
:11:05. > :11:05.
:11:05. > :11:12.Scotland only tax on big retailers. We also wanted to see support for
:11:12. > :11:22.small businesses and town-centre as. What would you have cut, then?
:11:22. > :11:23.
:11:23. > :11:27.identified areas where there was money available. Also, the �142
:11:27. > :11:33.million reserved as lending to Scottish water, which would have
:11:33. > :11:39.covered what we asked for. But his idea that you don't like his so-
:11:39. > :11:44.called Tesco tax to raise money on preventative medicine, argues
:11:44. > :11:53.saying spending that money on preventative medicine is wrong if
:11:53. > :12:02.it harms big supermarkets? -- argues saying. Putting a Scotland
:12:02. > :12:10.only tax on large retailers damages the economy. I get that. But we do
:12:10. > :12:15.not spend the extra money in the health service? -- but would you
:12:15. > :12:23.not. You can make extra money to the health service. For example, we
:12:23. > :12:33.don't believe that rich people should get free prescriptions.
:12:33. > :12:34.
:12:34. > :12:39.that point, all these things are about political decisions. You are
:12:39. > :12:44.validating the political decisions of that John Swinney has made,
:12:44. > :12:51.saying, for example, cutting money to further educational colleges is
:12:51. > :12:57.worth doing rather than stopping better-off people getting free
:12:57. > :13:03.prescriptions? If we had a majority in parliament, at which we don't,
:13:03. > :13:11.we would do things differently. But we argued strongly for a reversing
:13:11. > :13:16.of the cuts, a more social housing. And we got it. We thought it was
:13:16. > :13:23.reasonable to recognise that change happened. We wanted to use the
:13:23. > :13:28.funds locked up in Scottish water and put that into capital spending,
:13:28. > :13:34.on science, the digital economy, making sure early intervention got
:13:34. > :13:41.a bigger boost, and energy savings for homes. I offered to help the
:13:41. > :13:51.SNP, but they refused. Nevertheless, the mood in the right direction.
:13:51. > :13:54.
:13:54. > :13:59.What would you have cut, Ken Macintosh? The Budget itself didn't
:13:59. > :14:06.deliver on the SNP's own objectives. It is not a budget for jobs and
:14:06. > :14:12.growth. It is not a radical attempt to galvanise the Scottish economy.
:14:12. > :14:16.If you look at the steps the SNP took, for example the Tesco tax and
:14:16. > :14:25.enterprise zones, neither of those have been assessed for their impact
:14:25. > :14:31.on jobs. That there is not the mark of a government that wants to
:14:31. > :14:39.tackle joblessness in Scotland. you are against third supermarket
:14:39. > :14:49.tax? In principle. In the world of abstract theory, you think it is a
:14:49. > :14:49.
:14:49. > :14:55.great idea? Exactly the opposite. We would be willing, and still are
:14:55. > :15:00.at this moment, to work with the SNP, to produce a Budget that would
:15:00. > :15:07.work for Scotland. If they wouldn't do in assessment and prove its
:15:07. > :15:14.impact on business... Would you, Willie Rennie? We wouldn't have
:15:14. > :15:21.done that if we were in charge ourselves. Nevertheless, we
:15:21. > :15:29.supported the budget. I am not clear still what you want to cut?
:15:29. > :15:35.There are two things wrong with its budget... You have said all that!
:15:35. > :15:45.We would ask the SNP to intervene far more robustly in the economy.
:15:45. > :15:46.
:15:46. > :15:51.Why not use procurement, for example? We have got a multi-
:15:51. > :15:55.billion pound contract... This may be fantastic, but it doesn't answer
:15:55. > :15:58.the question. If you are saying John Swinney should not have cut
:15:58. > :16:08.�20 million from the further education budget, you might have
:16:08. > :16:16.made the money in the future, but what would you have cut? Gordon, I
:16:16. > :16:22.am sorry! If you bring in opposition parties, and ask them to
:16:22. > :16:32.help you shape your priorities, you can expect our support. I am asking
:16:32. > :16:34.
:16:34. > :16:42.what you would have cut! If the SNP can demonstrate that what they are
:16:42. > :16:49.doing one make a difference, tackle employment in Scotland,... What
:16:49. > :16:54.would you take -- or would it take for you to support this? I want to
:16:55. > :17:00.see a budget that would address joblessness and youth unemployment.
:17:00. > :17:04.You had John Swinney there saying they would be a guarantee of
:17:04. > :17:10.vocational, further education or training for every young person in
:17:10. > :17:16.Scotland. If that is true, how can you say they are not doing anything
:17:16. > :17:22.for young people? Youth unemployment is at 100,000 across
:17:22. > :17:32.Scotland at the moment. What we have seen today is a budget for
:17:32. > :17:33.
:17:34. > :17:38.next year, when John Swinney has �250 million more. He has got a
:17:38. > :17:46.decrease in real terms, but he has slashed college budgets by more
:17:46. > :17:51.than 8%. He will put a Tesco tax on the retail centre. It affect the
:17:51. > :17:58.number of people who go to college. Could you answer the question?! How
:17:58. > :18:02.many extra people could go to college? How many fewer people do
:18:02. > :18:11.you think will be able to go to college as a result of this?
:18:11. > :18:18.have got to �20 million taken out. 1,000 college staff have gone. The
:18:18. > :18:28.colleges are asking us what is going on. If I can finish my
:18:28. > :18:30.
:18:30. > :18:32.original point, Gordon. We added time, I am afraid. -- we are out of
:18:32. > :18:42.time. Now a quick look at tomorrow's
:18:42. > :18:55.