:00:15. > :00:20.On Newsnight Scotland, a former First Minister enters the debate
:00:20. > :00:22.over the independence referendum. Jack McConnell calls for the vote
:00:22. > :00:27.to be held within 18 months to avoid uncertainty and disagreements
:00:27. > :00:30.hampering economic recovery. And how will planned changes to the
:00:30. > :00:35.UK's welfare system affect families in Scotland? A charity issues a
:00:35. > :00:41.dire warning over increasing poverty levels.
:00:41. > :00:43.Good evening. Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, that's former
:00:43. > :00:50.Labour First Minister Jack McConnell to you, has published his
:00:50. > :00:53.submission to the consultations on the referendum. In it he calls for
:00:53. > :01:01.the vote to take place in the next 18 months and outlines his views on
:01:01. > :01:06.the wording of the question. To Jack McConnell has been a strong
:01:06. > :01:09.supporter of devolution since his days in Scottish Labour Action in
:01:09. > :01:10.the 1980s so it is little surprise he has chosen to weigh in on this
:01:10. > :01:13.debate. In his submission to the
:01:13. > :01:17.consultations, he said that both the UK and Scottish governments
:01:17. > :01:21.should be willing to compromise in order to get a fair and decisive
:01:21. > :01:25.result. On timing, he says, the referendum should take place within
:01:25. > :01:29.the next 18 months at a date to be agreed by both governments. He
:01:29. > :01:34.believes that, the rules for the campaign and for voting should be
:01:34. > :01:39.set out by the Electoral Commission. He says, he is sympathetic on the
:01:39. > :01:43.case for voting at 16 but, it would be wrong to experiment with a
:01:43. > :01:47.different franchise for this most important of votes. He says there
:01:47. > :01:56.should be only one question on the ballot paper. The voters should be
:01:56. > :01:59.asked to choose between us to take -- two statements: I agree that
:01:59. > :02:01.Scotland should become an independent country or that it
:02:01. > :02:10.should remain part of United Kingdom.
:02:10. > :02:13.Lord McConnell joins me now from Westminster. Why is having a
:02:14. > :02:20.referendum by next year anyway in the national interest? I'm trying
:02:20. > :02:23.to deal with the reality of the situation. Those who were of, those
:02:23. > :02:26.Scots who have been pressurising the Prime Minister to intervene
:02:27. > :02:33.have been calling for an immediate referendum. The Scottish government
:02:33. > :02:37.wants to have won the late 2014, it seems to me that what we need to
:02:37. > :02:42.have here is compromise on both sides and coming together to agree
:02:42. > :02:46.a date that is somewhere in the middle of that. I think... There is
:02:46. > :02:50.no reason for saying it is in the muscle in front -- national
:02:50. > :02:54.interest, you just want to split the difference. A it's in the
:02:54. > :02:59.national interest to get a clear outcome as quickly as possible. A
:02:59. > :03:03.recognised through decision has to reflect the views of those in power
:03:03. > :03:08.and therefore, and suggesting that rather than going in one direction
:03:08. > :03:11.or the other, we try to reach an agreement that will see a speedy
:03:11. > :03:19.conclusion but one that is much too fast for the Scottish government.
:03:19. > :03:25.You say you want a compromise, so that the referendum is put on a
:03:25. > :03:28.legal basis through section 30 mechanism. What if that doesn't
:03:29. > :03:32.happen and the Scottish parliament holds a referendum off its own
:03:32. > :03:36.back? What do think the implications of that could be?
:03:36. > :03:43.I take you back to the core element of my submission, which I think
:03:43. > :03:48.justifies that position? That is, this is a vital decision for the
:03:48. > :03:52.future of Scotland. This is about our constitutional future inside or
:03:52. > :03:56.outside the UK. That decision first of all needs to be clear cut but
:03:56. > :04:00.secondly it needs to be a decision that those who are on the losing
:04:00. > :04:03.side can accept. Therefore, we need to make sure that the decision
:04:03. > :04:08.itself is binding on everybody afterwards and for that reason, it
:04:08. > :04:13.has to has a leave -- have a legal basis. Secondly, it has to be based
:04:13. > :04:16.on a clear-cut choice with rules that are perceived to be fair by
:04:16. > :04:21.all so that when the outcome is finally achieved, and the people of
:04:21. > :04:24.Scotland have their decision... This has been a long time coming
:04:24. > :04:28.but they will have it. They will have their decision on this matter
:04:28. > :04:31.and everybody must be able to accept the result and move forward.
:04:31. > :04:37.Coming back to my question, your concern would be that should this
:04:37. > :04:40.go ahead without first section 30 order, the problem would be that
:04:40. > :04:44.not everyone would think it is illegitimate affair that could lead
:04:44. > :04:48.to more wrangles later on. A there could be legal questions about that
:04:48. > :04:52.before and afterwards. I don't think that is the way to go ahead.
:04:52. > :04:56.But the UK government is willing to make some compromise and devolve
:04:56. > :04:59.the legal authority here, and I think the Scottish government
:04:59. > :05:02.should be able to accept that a legal authority. I think that is a
:05:02. > :05:07.good thing for everyone concerned. What is also important is that both
:05:07. > :05:10.sides seek to work in a consensual basis in all the arrangements
:05:10. > :05:14.around that and don't seek to impose in one direction or the
:05:14. > :05:20.other Ferrand used for party advantage. Why are you so against
:05:20. > :05:24.having another question? What I am in favour of is a clear choice. I
:05:24. > :05:28.despair at the way the debate has been conducted over the last two
:05:28. > :05:31.months. We've seen on the one hand a knee-jerk reaction to the
:05:31. > :05:34.intervention of the Prime Minister but then also a knee-jerk reaction
:05:34. > :05:39.by the other side to the First Minister's proposals. What I have
:05:39. > :05:42.tried to do is rather than oppose the First Minister's suggestion for
:05:42. > :05:45.the wording of the question, has proposed that we in fact use
:05:45. > :05:50.something that is identical to all very similar to the wording he
:05:50. > :05:54.wants, which is Scotland should become an independent country. But
:05:54. > :05:58.them match that with a similar statement that says Scotland should
:05:58. > :06:01.remain in the United Kingdom. That gives people a clear choice between
:06:01. > :06:05.two options. It moves us away from that debate that has been taking
:06:05. > :06:09.place about who gets to be the yes on the ballot paper and he gets to
:06:09. > :06:13.be on the know. There is no place for that in this debate. We'd be
:06:13. > :06:17.clear choice between the two options. When I said an extra
:06:17. > :06:22.question I meant this proposal that there should be a question on more
:06:22. > :06:26.devolution. That something that the opinion polls show most trouble
:06:26. > :06:29.actually want. I got that, Gordon, you are trying to talk about
:06:29. > :06:34.something that wasn't a core part of the submission and I was trying
:06:34. > :06:38.to concentrate on a key proposal that nobody else is suggesting. I'm
:06:38. > :06:43.glad I've had a chance to explain that because I think so bad
:06:43. > :06:46.appraisal... For Alex Salmond, that the core issue. Let me answer. As
:06:46. > :06:50.far as I'm concerned, the question I have suggested, the choice
:06:50. > :06:53.between those statements, hasn't been suggested by anybody else.
:06:53. > :06:56.It's a compromise but Betty -- better than anybody else's
:06:56. > :07:00.suggestion and I hope it will be taken seriously by both sides in
:07:00. > :07:02.the debate. I think that choice them makes very clear that we
:07:02. > :07:06.should and muddy the waters by having a debate about something
:07:06. > :07:09.else as well. All of the parties are quite able to have a debate
:07:09. > :07:15.about the current levels of more powers for the Scottish Parliament
:07:15. > :07:19.over the next few years and from time to time but that choice and...
:07:19. > :07:23.That is not a core choice in this debate. This is a once-in-a-
:07:23. > :07:26.lifetime, once and for all decision about whether or not Scott and his
:07:26. > :07:32.inside or outside the UK. Am happy to have that debate and accept the
:07:32. > :07:38.outcome. -- I'm happy. If surely this is an opportunity for you and
:07:38. > :07:44.people like queued to make different options part of the
:07:44. > :07:49.debate. -- people like you. You are a former First Minister of Scotland
:07:49. > :07:54.and you are the late... That misses the point. You are the latest
:07:54. > :07:59.person telling people that they cannot vote for what they want.
:07:59. > :08:02.That is not the case and you are missing the point. This is not a
:08:02. > :08:07.multi- option choice between a whole variety of different
:08:07. > :08:12.possibilities. It could be full Stock this is about two different
:08:12. > :08:14.sets of government, different forms of government. It is not about the
:08:14. > :08:18.number of powers the public -- Scottish parliament has, it's about
:08:18. > :08:22.whether or not Scotland should be governed as an independent country
:08:22. > :08:28.or whether it should be governed as part of the United Kingdom. Thus a
:08:28. > :08:32.very fundamental constitutional choice. -- that is. I think the SNP
:08:32. > :08:37.should welcome that clear choice. I think those on the other side
:08:37. > :08:40.should start to welcome but clear choice. I think if we get a fair
:08:40. > :08:45.organisation of a referendum, a fair statement and questions on the
:08:45. > :08:49.ballot paper and a mad, everybody can accept, then whatever that
:08:50. > :08:54.outcome is, Scott and can try to move forward. At the moment, we got
:08:54. > :08:58.a serious problem on our hands. Unemployment has gone above the
:08:58. > :09:01.rest of the UK and we have growth below the rest. Until we resolve
:09:01. > :09:11.this issue, we are not going to see the level of investment in Scotland
:09:11. > :09:19.
:09:19. > :09:24.we need in order to take 5th So you would compromise a proposal?
:09:24. > :09:32.You're not compromising at fault. Alex Salmond has not said that is
:09:32. > :09:36.his preference. I have not ruled out... You are ruling out. I have
:09:36. > :09:40.asked the other side in this debate to except Alex Salmond's wording in
:09:40. > :09:44.this debate, but I am asking Alex Salmond to consider that there
:09:44. > :09:49.needs to be a different choice of word in for the other questions. I
:09:49. > :09:56.think that is a reasonable proposal. This will give people in Scotland a
:09:56. > :10:01.clear choice between those two systems. Thank you very much.
:10:01. > :10:04.The UK Government's reform of welfare and loss -- is being
:10:04. > :10:13.discussed. The Government says it will be fair and encourage people
:10:13. > :10:19.back to work. Charity says it will make people poorer. Julie Peacock
:10:19. > :10:23.reports. Life is busy for Tracey. She is a
:10:23. > :10:28.single mum who juggles looking after her young son with a part-
:10:28. > :10:33.time job. Children's tax credits and benefits help balance the books,
:10:33. > :10:38.but the proposed well-filled reforms are were in her. I am
:10:38. > :10:43.petrified. We do not know exactly what is going to happen. Although
:10:43. > :10:48.they agree with it the uniformity of that process inside of the new
:10:48. > :10:53.benefits, I do not agreed that even though they say we are going to be
:10:53. > :10:57.better off, my personal belief is that eventually they will start to
:10:57. > :11:02.-- start chipping away and to we're given that the minimum or nothing
:11:02. > :11:09.at all. Do you think it occurred just you to go back to the work
:11:09. > :11:16.this? No. -- encourages you to go back to the workplace. Know. I
:11:16. > :11:20.would need their -- I would have to give up my job altogether and live
:11:20. > :11:24.in that the benefits system again, of which I am loath to do but given
:11:24. > :11:31.the choice between studying for an extra two were �3 a week or being
:11:31. > :11:35.an at home mum it is not a hard decision. How discerned maybe
:11:35. > :11:41.justified. Save the Children's says some families will be worse off
:11:41. > :11:47.under the new scheme. A single parent with a child under five
:11:47. > :11:50.could be �65 a week worse off after welfare reform. The chat -- the
:11:51. > :11:56.Department of work and pensions says the charity has been
:11:56. > :12:01.disingenuous. It says that many single parents will be better off
:12:01. > :12:07.under the new scheme. At today's welfare committee in Holyrood, QC
:12:07. > :12:12.and to realise that version of events. The big picture here is an
:12:12. > :12:19.increase in poverty which wind the clock back to the date when thus
:12:19. > :12:24.far it -- this Parliament began. If nothing else changed, that is the
:12:24. > :12:27.track that we are all on as a result of welfare reform. A our
:12:27. > :12:31.main concern is that the extraordinary impact on levels of
:12:31. > :12:37.child poverty that are being forecast as a result of these
:12:37. > :12:41.welfare reforms. If you look at the trends, we're looking at up to
:12:41. > :12:46.100,000 children more at living in poverty at the end of the decade.
:12:46. > :12:49.Sometimes we get blinded by these numbers, at the reality is that is
:12:49. > :12:53.tens of thousands of children who will be growing up in families
:12:53. > :12:58.without the resources to give them the best start in life. There were
:12:58. > :13:02.concerns that some of the reforms could it Scotland harder. The
:13:02. > :13:07.reforms are being sold as a way of getting more people back to work.
:13:07. > :13:11.Some charities argue that it could in fact to do the opposite, and
:13:11. > :13:16.that Scottish families will be hardest hit. That is because south
:13:16. > :13:24.of the border around 40% of tools qualify for free child care. That
:13:24. > :13:30.is not the case here in Scotland. 40% of two-year-olds. Alex Salmond
:13:30. > :13:34.has pledged to match England's childcare provision. But with
:13:34. > :13:38.welfare reforms due to come into force, it may not be quick enough
:13:38. > :13:42.for some families. Charities say more children could be pushed into
:13:42. > :13:47.poverty and it is a constant fear for parents who are already being
:13:47. > :13:52.squeezed. If we were to go back to having a lower income, I would be
:13:52. > :13:58.back to missing meals almost every day and my child will be going back
:13:58. > :14:06.to missing bills and not having clothes that fit him. -- missing
:14:06. > :14:11.meals. I cannot say no to buying a new clothes so why will fall back
:14:11. > :14:15.into debt. Welfare is a reserved matters so there is a limit to what
:14:15. > :14:20.Holyrood can do. But charities say the Scottish Government needs to
:14:20. > :14:24.act fast to soften the blow. A earlier, I spoke to Douglas
:14:24. > :14:29.Hamilton, -- head of Save the children in Scotland and asked him
:14:29. > :14:34.if this report did indeed cherry- pick figures as the Government can
:14:34. > :14:39.-- Government claims. The situation is going to be bad for many parents,
:14:39. > :14:45.particularly single working mothers. Universal credit as a concept has
:14:45. > :14:50.many redeeming features. It will simplified if system and help work
:14:50. > :14:55.pay for many families, but it has a significant blind-spot when it
:14:55. > :15:02.comes to certain family types, single mothers who work 16 hours a
:15:02. > :15:06.week and couple families will lose out. The Government says that for
:15:06. > :15:13.example to get you a figure of three and a have 1000 a year to
:15:13. > :15:18.work, you have to be a lone parent with three children under school
:15:18. > :15:23.age and use a child care for 40 hours a week and the currently
:15:24. > :15:27.claiming both tax credit and housing benefit. It may be that
:15:27. > :15:31.those people are very common, but the Government clearly is
:15:31. > :15:36.suggesting that they are not. Government is not suggesting that
:15:36. > :15:41.those figures are wrong. Yes there are some families that have three
:15:41. > :15:45.finger at -- have three children who will be �68 a week worse off. A
:15:45. > :15:50.single mother working full-time will shoot -- with two children
:15:50. > :15:57.will be worse off. But you seem to be suggesting that 100,000 people
:15:57. > :16:00.in Scotland alone would be in that situation. Is that the case? We are
:16:00. > :16:04.suggesting that 96,000 councils in Scotland are at risk of losing
:16:04. > :16:09.benefits and entitlements that they currently have, being worse off
:16:09. > :16:12.under the new system than they currently are. It is a very complex
:16:12. > :16:16.situations. People are genuinely worried and do not know how they
:16:16. > :16:22.are to be affected. But the impression that you are giving with
:16:22. > :16:25.the publicity for this report was that there are almost 100,000
:16:25. > :16:29.people in Scotland to could end up being several thousands of pounds
:16:29. > :16:34.worth a year worse off. And now you're saying that is not really
:16:34. > :16:37.the case. There may be some examples in extreme cases and up to
:16:37. > :16:42.100,000 people may be worse off, but perhaps just by a marginal
:16:42. > :16:49.amount. Some will be worse off depending on their fat -- depending
:16:49. > :16:54.on their family types. Households where to parents are working part-
:16:54. > :16:59.time could be nearly �2,000 -- �2,000 a year worse off. We have
:16:59. > :17:04.tried to present a range of family types and a range of impact. That
:17:04. > :17:11.goes against the Government was a call principle for the Universal
:17:11. > :17:19.credit system is. It is not going to be the case that every family
:17:19. > :17:23.will be better off. We are proposing changes to that system so
:17:23. > :17:28.that it does help everybody. You're research suggests that more people
:17:28. > :17:32.will be better off than worse off under the new system. Is your
:17:32. > :17:36.argument that is not the point? That everyone should be at the same
:17:36. > :17:40.level? I think our point is that particularly the poorest households
:17:40. > :17:44.should be better off under the new system and that is clearly not
:17:44. > :17:48.going to be the case. The Government's figures show that
:17:48. > :17:52.there are winners and losers in this. They say that 600,000 single
:17:52. > :17:58.parents will be better off, but there same report says that 500,000
:17:58. > :18:02.single parents will be worse off. 400,000 councils across the UK will
:18:02. > :18:05.be worse off by more than �50 a week. So the Government can say
:18:05. > :18:08.that there are going to be some families that will be better off
:18:08. > :18:11.and we acknowledge that and welcome those improvements, but we are
:18:11. > :18:15.saying we have to have a fair system. We have to make sure that
:18:15. > :18:22.it really helps the poorest households to get the income they
:18:22. > :18:25.needed to provide for their children. Thank you very much.
:18:25. > :18:31.A quick look at tomorrow's front pages.
:18:31. > :18:37.The Herald League's on Rangers. Craig Whyte duped us all for sale
:18:37. > :18:42.of Rangers. The Scotsman says hopes were high street revive fault are