16/02/2012 Newsnight Scotland

targeting those people on work fair Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, the

Prime Minister came north to neat First Minister, shook hands and

agreed to disagree. Mr Cameron said Scotland could vote no and be given

more powers. Alex Salmond says such an offer needs more detail and

sounds suspiciously like something that has been heard of before.

Good evening, so the basis of the referendum battle is clearer,

should there be one or two questions on the ballot paper? The

Prime Minister came with a deal to offer. He said he'd consider giving

Holyrood more powers but only after the issue was settled. The Scottish

Government say they have heard this sort of promise before and would

like to see more detail before they trust it again. We have been

looking at the day the Prime Minister came to town.

If you're going to start a fight, you need a power breakfast. Yes,

the Prime Minister began his tour north of the border in a porridge

factory. While resisting swapping his spoon for a sparkle, he thought

he'd stir up a new row all of his own. The Scottish weather means his

televised speech was a little broken up, but the message was

clear... I believe in devolution, not because I see it as a mechanism

for obtaining power - hardly the case for my party in Scotland, but

because I believe in giving people choice and a real say over their

own affairs. I passionately believe that local is best and the

decentralisation of power is one of the core aims of the coalition

Government that I lead. And let me say something else about

devolution. This doesn't have to be the end of the road. When the

referendum on independence is over, I am open to looking at how the

devolved settlement can be improved further, and yes, that does mean

considering what further powers could be devolved. But that must be

a question for after the referendum when Scotland has made its choice

about the fundamental question of independence or - or the United

Kingdom. The Scottish people have heard this

before - back during the 1979 referendum, the country was offered

something better if they said no to independence. But a no vote does

not and need not imply any disloyalty to the principle of

devolution. A fact not lost on the First Minister as he headed in to

today's talks. We have heard that before in Scottish politics.

Douglas Hume said they could vote no in '79 to devolution and would

get a much better form of devolution from the Tories. What

happened to Scotland was 17 years of Conservative Government from

London. We got fooled once on that prospectus. If the if the Prime

Minister has an offer to make to the people of Scotland, then he

should make it now. Finally, the two shook hands for

the cameras. Everyone took their seats, although David Cameron might

not have liked his view of Scotland's elect oral -- electoral

map - a clever piece of positioning, but then this turned out to be a

day of shadowboxing, not of political consensus. I am afraid

there wasn't much progress. I think we have moved on subtially for two

reasons. I believe we need to put a straight-forward, simple, fair

legal question to the Scottish people in good time, which is to

ask the straight forward question, do you want to stay in the United

Kingdom, and I hope that's what people will vote for, or do you

want to leave the United Kingdom? think it's now pretty clear that -

what the nub of contention is, and the Prime Minister may think it's

frustrating, but nonetheless it's something very important to the

people of Scotland, and that is whether there should be one or two

questions on a ballot paper and who should decide that? My position -

Mr Cameron's position - should be one question - my position is,

let's listen to the people of Scotland in the consultation period.

Ironically, the UK Government's own consultation asks that question.

Should there be one or more questions? You can't foreclose that

before you listen to the people. think we need to get on with that

and there needs to be a simple question. On those issues, we

haven't made progress, which is frustrating. We have been told on

the table there is another proposition. I am saying quite

clearly, fine. Let's hear what it is. Give us the detail, the beef.

You can't seriously expect the people of Scotland to go into this

huge debate, the biggest debate for 300 years about the future of our

country and have people say, look, we're thinking about giving you

something else, but we're not going tell you what it is. That's not a

tenable position. In this first referendum face-off, David Cameron

says he came here with humility, that he'd fight for the union with

his head, heart and soul. The two may fight for very different causes,

have very different profiles, but in that regard, at least, the pair

are evenly matched. Mr Cameron followed something of a

tourist photo opportunity in his visit to Scotland. He headed to a

porridge factory in the Forth Bridge.

I think it's important we have this question answered that we have this

debate about whether Scotland wants to stay in the United Kingdom or

not. My argument is very simple. I am not saying that Scotland

couldn't make it on her own. Of course Scotland could just as

England could, but I dearly hope that this doesn't happen. I believe

in the United Kingdom head, heart and soul. We've achieved so much

together. We can go on achieving great things together, so I hope

that when the time comes, Scots will vote to stay in our shared

home. Do you worry that Scots voters may reject you and your

party and the arguments you're making in this referendum in the

way they tend to do in elections? Well, I am only one voice amongst

many, as the British Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of the whole of

the United Kingdom, I want to be here making the argument, helping

to make the debate, there will be many others. There will be Labour

politicians, Liberal Democrat politicians, people of no political

party, people who hate politics - will all step forward and make

arguments about whether Scotland should stay in the United Kingdom

or not. And I think this has really in the end got to be the people's

referendum. It's got to be their choice. As I say, I will be one

person making the argument we have achieved a lot together. I hop we

stay together. Doesn't it make it uncomfortable for you to have to

subcontract much of this campaign to others? No, because it's not a

campaign of any one politician or party. I think it's important we

open this debate up and allow the Scottish people themselves -

they're the ones who must make the decision about whether to stay in

the United Kingdom with all of the combined and shared strengths we

have or to go their own way. Let's be clear - is it your view that an

independent Scotland could be a successful country? I think, of

course, if Scotland chose to go it alone, there would of course be

challenges. All countries face challenges. It's never been part of

my argument that Scotland couldn't make it on her own. There are small

countries in Europe that make it on their own, but my argument is we're

better all. We're stronger together, fairer together, richer together.

There's solidarity together when one part of the United Kingdom

suffers a setback, whether it's a drought or a flood or severe

weather or economic dislocation, we're there for each other. There

is real solidarity in the United Kingdom, and we've achieved all of

these things together, and I think to throw that away would be deeply,

deeply sad. Isn't it possible thaw independent Scotland with oil

revenues flowing could be better off than it is now? I think you'd

have the advantages of oil, but you'd have the disadvantages of an

overextended banking system. There would be pluses and minuses on the

sheet. There would be future costs of pensions. You can have the

argument, and of course, we can look at all the facts and figures,

but this comes down to more than economics. It's about who we are,

about this shared history, shared country and shared United Kingdom

that we have and its future potential, and the real question is

not just are we going to be richer in the United Kingdom, which I

think we will, but also are we going to be stronger? A we going to

have more influence? Are we going to be able to help each other

through difficult things? All of these things we have had over 300

years point the way to the future. This will be decided in a

referendum. On Alex Salmond's timetable it would be held in

autumn 2014. Is there any way you would agree to there being another

question on the ballot paper about more devolved power for Scotland

short of independence? No, I don't think that is appropriate. I think,

look, there is a simple question here that we have to settle which

is, does Scotland want to stay in the United Kingdom? As I said, I

hope she does. I hope people will vote that way, but it seems to me

we have to settle that question - a question that arises because

there's an SNP majority in Scotland. We have to settle that question

before then going on and asking - I think quite legitimately - is there

more that we can do to improve the devolved settlement? Are there

other powers that can be devolved? How can we make the United Kingdom

work better? I believe in devolution, and I don't just mean

devolution in terms of power. I mean devolution in terms of giving

people greater control over their own lives. I want to see more

Scottish homeowners, more successful Scottish businesses,

more people being able to keep their money as they choose. I

believe in really devolving power to people, but as I say, after we

have settled the independence question, if the answer to that

question is that Scotland wants to stay in the United Kingdom - and I

hope that is the answer - of course then we can have a further

conversation about how much - how best to arrange the devolved

settlement so it works for everybody. I am joined from

Edinburgh by the journalist and critic Joyce McMillan and here in

Glasgow by Professor John Curtis of Strathclyde University. John Curtis,

where are we on the referendum - amicable agreement or not, do you

think? The truth is neither the meeting between the First Minister

and Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary on Monday, or today's

meeting between the Prime Minister and Alex Salmond has done anything

in a sense to move forward the debate between the two governments

about the process of the referendum. In truth, there was never any

prospect that these meetings would move things forward because both

governments have now put the issue out to public consultation, and

therefore neither can seen to be giving ground until their

consultation is over, so to that extent nothing was going to happen.

What we have seen, however, today is we have seen the Prime Minister

as, in effect, the Conservative leader in this respect accepting

that should Scotland vote against independence there might then be

further debate about more devolution. Now, in that respect,

he's moved his party's position closer to that of the Labour Party

and the Liberal Democrats in recent weeks and in some sense cut across

what the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson said, which

is we shouldn't move beyond the Scotland powers... The point is

this Section 30 - the British Government says to the Scottish

Government, you can legally hold a referendum. It's then not

challenged in the lower courts. If Alex Salmond goes ahead with his

referendum, it is open to a legal challenge. There's got to be some

sort of... Exactly. But don't expect that issue to resolve any

time soon. The SNP's consultation goes on until early May - in fact,

probably quite deliberately it goes on to the other side of the local

elections we're having in Scotland. I don't think you should expect the

SNP to make any concession on the referendum until those are over. I

think we'll be looking into the summer, early autumn before we know

whether either of the two governments are going to come to

some agreement, or if not, what Mr Salmond is going to do instead.

The more powers offer from David Cameron, what did you make of that?

Well, you know, it really does conjure up that historic memory of

Alec Douglas Hulme, accidents it, and how far Scots will remember

that and decide not to be impressed by the idea of a Tory Prime

Minister offering better devolution if we just say no to independence.

I just don't know. I think that's possibly one of the least important

aspects of what he said today. I mean, I'm struck by how much better

he is at playing this game of handling of devolution question or

the whole Scottish question than Margaret Thatcher ever was. He's an

equally right-wing Conservative Prime Minister, we've found out. In

many ways the Scottish people will reject him as they did Margaret

Thatcher. But I think he is better at playing this issue. I think he

is wise toint deuce the dimension of emotion and the mention of his

own family background and all the rest of it into this debate,

because that is what you hear people saying in pubs, that oh,

well, yeah, I quite like the idea of independence, but these

connections between Scotland and England are very, very strong. I

have kids down there or family down there, how's it going to pan out,

etc. Making this kind of positive, warm, emotional case for the union

is probably the best way for him to go. I think he did it quite well

today. How much influence it will have on Scottish voters remains to

be seen. I think Alex Salmond would be unwise to write it off

completely. There's been a vacuum where the positive and sort of,

emotional arguments for the union should be and that David Cameron

has started to fill it. Were you equally impressed? I'm not quite so

impressed. I agree with Joyce that a potent part of the speech today

was he began to flush out what he understood the positive case for

the union to be. And he's moved away from what has long been too

much of the standard Unionist tune to say frankly, Scotland just isn't

credible as an independent country. He's moved away from that territory.

The emotion he was trying to sell was very much the owe motion of

somebody who believes in Britain and has a strong sense of British

identity. He was trying to sell the idea of the United Kingdom

collectively being strong together. What he wasn't doing was saying how

Scotland would be better off within the union and he certainly wasn't

trying to wrap his argument in terms of Scottish identity or in

terms of the as opposed to Britishness. If the unionists want

to cement their case they need not to simply tug into British emotions,

they need to tug into Scottish emotions. At the end of the day,

it's Scottish emotions which are the most dominant for people in

Scotland. Yes, people do feel the ties to tkphraen, but for most

people they are now secondary to their sense of Scottishness. The

unionists have to say yes, we are going to give Scotland a positive

vision that enables Scotland's identity to be expressed adequately

within the UK. Do you agree with that? I suppose you mite argue that

he did try to make a positive case, but it's just he didn't talk about

the things we're used to hearing about. He did try. I thought one or

two of the things he said were quite powerful. It doesn't make

much sense for him to talk about fairness. If Scots were primarily

concerned with fairness, they would probably leave the union. When he

talks about solidarity, not having the kind of problem in Europe about

whether to help Greece or not, that is true. There's an automatic

exchange of resources in the UK, which still goes on. So some of

these arguments are strong. The personal argument about people's

personal tie sz strong. The argument about the ever closer

economic links between Scotland and England is quite strong. This is

the strongest speech in favour the union, I mean, the competition is

lamentable. But this is nonetheless the strongest speech in favour the

union, the most positive that we've heard in Scotland for maybe a

decade or more, perhaps half a century, in some ways and quite a

warm, emotional one too. It seems to me that the question now is what

the heck are the lamentable Unionist parties going to do? They

cannot really have David Cameron as John Curtice says, leading this

campaign from London and talking only about the British dimension of

it. Where are they? Where is their positive argument for new Scottish

rule in the union and for a new wave of constitutional reform?

Their silence is really shocking. I think it's actually becoming a

problem for Alex Salmond. If there is going to be a devo max option,

then you need some parties that are willing to stand up and speak for

that option. That can't really be the SNP because it's not a core

policy. Where are the parties that are supposed to support devo max.

In an odd way that question that Joyce McMillan has asked was sort

of there is David Cameron's speech. He was careful to say look, my

party, I know we're a bit unpopular in Scotland, but don't you think he

played that bit quite well? I mean, there was a very open

acknowledgement that he was not going to be capable as the Prime

Minister of the United Kingdom to lead the campaign for the union.

And an open acknowledgement that he would need to be working alongside

Labour and the Liberal Democrats. That is one of the crucial

questions, will the three parties be willing and able to coordinate

and collaborate and come up with a common campaign vision? His move on

devolution helps to make that possible. We still at some point

need for example, the Labour Party to indicate, yes, they are indeed

willing to stand on the same platform0s David Cameron in defence

of the union. If they're not willing to engage in that kind of

collaboration, the truth is the Unionist campaign will be at risk

of being fragmented and the immediate political interest of the

parties will look as though they're more important than apparently wish

to maintain the existing state. wasn't all positive, Joyce McMillan.

It was threaded with some of these things, that the SNP have been

accused of being unclear of what they mean by independence. There

seems to be a policy in London of being unclear as well. Mervyn King

didn't want to talk about whether Scotland could be part of the pound

and what the role of the Bank of England would be. David Cameron

talked about if Scotland was part of a pound zone, he said it would

have to negotiate, the phrase was, have to negotiate things it now

gets as right. There was little detail there. I don't think anyone

in this debate is big on detail. Alex Salmond is not big on detail.

He's big on creating mood music about the possibility of a positive

Scottish future, with a vague sense of energy wealth in the background

to pay for some of it. By the same token, David Cameron is now trying

to create positive mood music about the future of the union or at least

more positive than we've heard for a while. I think that does change

the game slightly. I think if the SNP are as good as strategy as they

think they are, they'll be taking this reasonably seriously. I think

there is a big vacuum in the Scottish-based arguments for the

union. I'm increasingly, as an observer of Scottish politics,

shocked by the weakness of the Scottish Unionist parties. And by

their lack of creativity in this debate. Today, David Cameron looked

very good by comparison with them. And that wouldn't have been the

situation 15 or 20 years ago. It's actually very telling about their

weakness. We have to leave it there. Thank you both very much. A very