27/11/2013 Newsnight Scotland

Has the White Paper raised more questions than it has answered? And

where is the alternative blueprint? Good evening. It is the day after

the big launch. The dust has settled, the media crews have

decamped from Holyrood and the truly dedicated have been trawling through

the small print of White Paper. So, on Newsnight Scotland this evening,

we're giving you a special offer. You're getting three for the price

of one. Gordon, Glenn and I will be asking the questions you want the

answers to. And, on the spot, please welcome the Scottish Finance

Minister, John Swinney, and the Scottish Labour Leader, Johann

Lamont. Jackie has the first question.

We have this. Where is your 670-page tome chocked full of ideas and

vision? This document is two separate things. It claims to be the

prospectus to get as an independent Scotland but also says what the SNP

would do in power. That is a manifesto. I think what we do need

to focus on is the big decision that people in Scotland had to make next

year. Are we better together and stronger as United Kingdom and what

are the benefits of separating off? This document does not answer some

of the fundamental questions. For about a year now, every time I

talked to SNP politicians and they get stuck with something, they say,

wait for the White Paper. It has become apparent that, within a day,

all the answers are not there but in a whole series of questions, not

just currency but energy and the rest of it, the answers cannot be

there because they depend on the goodwill of others. Your immediate

ambition with the White Paper has failed, hasn't it? We wanted to set

out the mechanics and process by which Scotland would become an

independent country. We have set that out in comprehensive detail. Of

equal importance, what we were aiming to do with this white paper

was to give people a picture of what we could do with the powers of

independence to make Scotland more prosperous and fairer. What the

document is crammed full of is ideas of how we can use the powers and

responsibilities of independence to make Scotland a truly successful

society. That is what we look forward to debating in the next few

months. The paper does not tell us how we will get independence. It

does not give certainty that you claimed. You are trying to change

the referendum into some kind of election, that appears under

costed. They are things we would be looking at in an election period

anyway. We go through all the difficult issues, setting out, as

far as we possibly can do, in the absence of negotiations with the

United Kingdom government, about how we can resolve and give clarity

about some of these issues. It assures us we are going to still be

Scotland and the weights and measures will be the same. Despite

the fact we have argued that the currency would be the pound, we know

perfectly well it is not your gift to make that happen. We are going to

break this into bite sized chunks. Let's start with one of the issues -

the issue of EU membership. That is a developing story tonight with an

intervention from the Prime Minister of Spain. He said it would need to

be approved by all 28 member states. What we have set out in the document

is the process and manner by which Scotland would move to being within

the European Union as an independent state. We have set that out under

the principle of continuity effects which should enable us to argue for

an amendment to the treaty. You accept that such an amendment would

need to be approved by parliament is in all 28 member states. Used to say

it was automatic. Various the requirement for that treaty

amendment to be agreed by all the member states. What would be the

dynamics and circumstances of that? Scotland is already a participant in

the European Union. What we are arguing for is the ability to move

from the status of membership as part of the United Kingdom to being

a member state in our own right. Surely if you accept... Scotland is

currently a member of the European Union. We are not an aspiring or

membership applicant. We are in the European Union by virtue of the

United Kingdom. Our citizens are from the European Union. It is said

that if part of a member state becomes independent, it would

cannot be the case. We are members of the European Union. As you have

just said, when Scotland votes for independence in the yes vote in

September 2014, we still remain in the European Union and independence

does not happen until 2016. We are doing this from within the European

Union as part of our mothership of the European Union. This is not a

commentator. -- our membership. I presume you have to contemplate the

possibility that somebody might disagree, otherwise it is automatic.

These are separate things. In my be self interest of each individual

country but that is for them to decide whether it is in the

interests or not. Let's explain the reasons why Scotland should be able

to sustain that. There is a fundamental problem. What you are

now telling us is that when it comes to Scotland's entry in the European

Union, we should not believe the Prime Minister of Spain, we should

not believe the president of the European Union. Just as we should

not believe George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer about

currency or David Cameron. They were engaging in political gesturing. For

people who are confused trying to make up their minds, is there anyone

they should not believe who is not a member of the SNP Cabinet? The

rational reasons why Scotland should be able to sustain membership of the

European Union through the transition I have talked about is

plain and simple. We have shared interests with the European Union.

The European Union invites members in context expands, grows and tries

to evolve. A rational explanation is not important. He has expressed no

opinion about whether he would support or otherwise Scotland's

membership of the European Union. We have acquired rights as a member of

the European Union, which we have today, and under the principle of

continuity effects, seek an amendment to the treaty and be able

to sustain that membership. Your argument is automatic. We would hear

one person suggesting he may not use the vote in that way. It is

difficult to say rationally we might end up in such and such a place. You

have said it is certain and there is no doubt about it. It would now

appear that is assertion and not documented fact. We may well come

back to the issue of Europe but let's go to one headline - a" use in

free childcare. Would you agree with this? We're more than happy to work

with the Scottish Government on this. Work with is one thing. Is it

a policy as it stands? Will it make a difference? Can we afford it? What

would you do to make that happen? It is self-evident and true. There are

folk in work. There are grannies and grandads, more than any other part

of the United Kingdom, to allow mums and dads to go out to work. If they

were able to get childcare, they would work. One successful thing we

did when we were in power was to put together childcare and people who

wanted to work. The theory is fine. John Swinney said he was going to do

that in 2007. I certainly recognise we can work together on that. It is

not conditional on constitutional arrangements. You agree with it in

principle. U2 something you said you would bring some of it in. -- it is

something you said. Can we look forward to this kind of policy in

the Labour Party manifesto? Psion macro it goes absolutely with the

grain of my politics. People do need support of childcare. For people who

are working and are paying a lot for childcare or using grannies and

extended families to do that, this would make a difference to them. It

is hard to make sure you have the funding to make that happen. I am

more than happy to work with John on that. Eye-catching, headlining. Alex

Salmond himself said, of everything that is in this tome, that is what

he is most proud of. Who is eligible for free childcare? We are hoping

that every child from the age of one, every child with have childcare

provided. 140 hours per year, which would enable more and more women

within the workplace to get back into the workplace and contribute.

Would I have to pay it? That service would be provided by the state. What

is interesting is that over the course of the last six years, we

have improved and strengthen the amount of childcare that is

available in Scotland. There were 412 hours. It has been put up to

475. What joy in Scotland. There were 412 hours. It has been put up

to 475. What Joanne Lamont is saying, it is about the increased

taking place. With my discussions with the Labour Party, not once have

they talked about childcare. What we have done today and what we did

yesterday in the document is sent a very ambitious agenda as to how we

can really engage a whole range of different people, particularly women

into the Labour market. What if I decide to take advantage of it but I

do not feel like going out to work? Is there anything to stop me doing

that? Nothing. The clear incentive is to move the obstacle of the

absence of childcare or the and affordability of childcare to enable

people to go out into the labour market. If you need tax receipts to

pay for it and if enough people say, thank you very much, I will take

free childcare and go shopping, then it is not going to add up. Those who

could benefit from it may be in work and paying tax but they have

grannies or whoever managing the childcare. You would have to put the

money in first. How would it all start otherwise? There is an issue

also. I argued that what we should be doing is coming together to

understand what is the demand for childcare. There is no nursery care.

Those working mums, it is out of school care and holiday times. How

do you manage premises and so on? My point is, I would not necessarily

move to the whole ambition but it is not necessary to change the

constitution of the country. The issue then comes down to

affordability. Let's explore that issue. I am frequently involved in

discussions where I have to balance the budget, I must provide the

resources to meet all the costs of public services, and I get met with

demands for extra public services, extra commitments from other

political parties, including the Labour Party, with no idea as to

where the money can come from. My point about where we have reached

the issue of childcare is, if we want to deliver the type of

transformative contribution of childcare, which will be a cost of

something in excess of five to ?600 million, which we simply cannot find

within the budget we have available today, we have to do use the levers

and the opportunities of independence to do something about

that. We have been clear about this in the White Paper. We would reduce

the amount of expenditure that we spend on defence, we don't want

weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde, we don't want to pay for

them, and we want to devote the resources available for that to

something much more productive in our economy, the provision of

childcare in a passion I have set out. That is about getting our

priorities right, and I hope that Joe Ham might accept that we use

money wisely and effectively, but those purposes are not as a ball

weapons of mass attraction. The money has been spent half a dozen

times, but if it matters to the economy, it matters now. It is not

just about tax receipts. What other priorities? Let me finish. If I am

paying for a private nursery, and provision comes in to allow me to

get access very small contributed their work contribute a rear mount,

a better level of childcare, that will stimulate the economy now. We

don't have to rid wait for tax receipts. My priority is, that will

lose the answer. Pre-2011, it wasn't. In 2007 to 2011, he went to

individual parties and asked, what do you need to get me to vote? You

secure the votes of the Tory party, who said that an SNP budget was the

next best thing. Why can't we do it supportively? Why can't you and I

worked together? Why have you turned it into a dividing line between us,

rather than looking at the budget together and saying, where are the

places we can find this? I think there were simpler want to know

where the money should be coming from to do that. Johann Lamont, on a

related issue, you made what is now a famous speech a while back where

you talked about how Scotland can be a something for nothing society.

Which bits of John Swinney's policies do you think I something

for nothing society? Where you targeting his policy on tuition

fees, for example, or his policy of free bus passes, or free

prescription charges? I think the point I was making was that there is

literally not something for nothing. If you spend something in

one place, you can't spend it elsewhere. Exact to the point John

Swinney has made just now. We have a contradiction. But he has all the

policies, so what is your objection two my point is, he has a balanced

budget, slogan, a policy, but the ground is not happening. We have

every bus pass, but no buses. We have free predictions, and people

can't get access to them. So which are you suggesting should be

abolished? We have free personal care, and eight or nine minute

visits. What I at actually thought would happen, because I know John

agrees with me, because you said it privately, he has commissioned a

lease to reports, and Campbell Christie said the same thing. In

tough times, broader shoulders to carry the hardest burden. What are

these tough shoulders? John says in public what the tough choices are.

You haven't said anything you would get rid of that he supports. You'll

agree you can look actually or example, someone who is in work at

60 years of age, should they have a bus pass? Washer we do to make these

things affordable? Know I don't. He has said in private pensions may not

be available. He commissioned a lease to reports. He commissioned at

least two reports, in relation to what we should do. The whole

question of the gap in public services, we will not allowed to

implement or even have a debate where we had a consensus. Everybody

knows the slogan on its own is not enough will stop vision without

action is daydreaming. That is a real problem with us. We are ending

in every place with a debate appear. It is easy for me to just debate

slogans with John, but every week and my surgeries, people are worried

about children with learning disabilities, elderly parents in

care homes, and politics has to be about more than that. I genuinely

know that John cares about these things as much as I do. Why can we

have a mature debate about what our priorities are in terms of

spending? Obviously, you have a shared interest in prioritising

childcare. Just to be clear on that, if you support the proposals to

expand childcare, do you also support the idea that John Swinney

has equal access for all to any additional free childcare? What I

said is, it has to be affordable, access, and you can't just promise

something and then in terms of the quality of the care, how you would

roll it out. I would want, if children's organisations said, that

we must look at after school care. Would be means tested would parents

have equal access to it regardless of personal circumstances? If you

look at these proposals as they come through, the easiest thing to say

is, yes, make it accessible to everyone at any point. We need to

make sure it is affordable. So a universal principle is not one that

you automatically subscribed to? It is not one currently applies. John

Swinney did say it would apply to childcare. After he has decided it

is not the spending priority now. Would it be better in the short into

her targeted childcare? I think it be. For example, you could look at

targeting vulnerable to old and Soviet don't -- so on. We know also

that people suffering from the cost of living crisis, people working,

mums who are nurses, going out during the day, in order to manage

their childcare. We don't make good the enemy of excellence here. What

we say is, what can we do with the money we have? I recognise that

childcare as an issue goes beyond the blue are out of work. It is very

often people, for example, who are paying more in childcare costs than

they pay on a mortgage. As look at it rationally and look at what we

can do, and that is what we did when we were in power. I'm sure John

Swinney would agree, extending it, you might want to extend it further.

The problem with this is, it is all terribly vague. Johann is talking

about the cast of living. We are possibly to council tax freeze which

has frozen the council tax. It is underfunded. It is not. It is linked

to inflation. ?70 million were every year to support the council tax

freeze. What is that doing? It is protecting households that are

struggling in the current environment. Johann can deliver

speeches saying we want to end the council tax freeze, and has

frontbencher saying things all over the place, and we must buy more

money per childcare, and there is nothing specific that comes out of

the Labour Party other than proposals. All this talk about

taking the hard choices is just vacuous. We have had to take the

hard choices to balance the books. I have had to deal with all the

spending cuts from the UK Government, we happen to reduce the

budget here, and we're done that in a responsible fashion to protect

people are struggling financially and to protect public services. We

don't get any specific funding for that. Beyond 2016, the less vague in

more specific you are, except you don't actually costed. This looked

like an Argos catalogue, but with no prices attached. They ask. We know

aspiration isn't enough. We can have an IQ at about that. It needs to be

in the real world, how will be costed unfunded. -- and funded. $1

million the SNP are the greatest unionists in this debate. You could

argue an independent Scotland should join Europe. That would put to bed a

lot of problems with joining the European Union. The euro survived

the global crisis that was supposed to destroy it. It is so important to

you that we keep the pound that you handed the initiative to your

political opponents who will consistently say, no, we do not

agree to a currency union we think it is unlikely we would agree a

currency union. It is as if you do not have the courage of your own

convictions. You do not really believe that Scotland could take a

different path on the really important stuff. The purpose of

independence is to give Scotland and Scottish Parliament the ability to

take decisions in terms of our economy. Let's just explore the

issue of the currency and why it is right we should maintain sterling as

the currency of independent Scotland. The principal reason for

me is we have a significant amount of trade with companies south of the

border and for companies south of the border back into Scotland. Why

don't we have an independent currency? I want to make that

process as efficient and effective as possible. There is a very easy

way to do that and that is to vote no. Surely part of the point of

independence is to get over difficulties. What she felt to open

up is the opportunity to shake different economic decisions. --

take different economic decisions. We could have taken decisions not to

reduce capital expenditure. We could have invested instead in the

construction industry in Scotland and building Scottish

infrastructure. You can do that with an independent currency or as part

of the Eurozone. These things are linked together. If you want to

ensure you are operating in the most effective trading environment, the

same currency makes the strongest argument for that. What you get with

independence is the ability to shape decisions. Whether there is a

currency union is up to the United Kingdom and not up to you. You have

handed on a plate that argument, which will be made time and time

against you. You do not have an argument. You say how rational it

would be to have a currency union but it does not matter what you say.

The Bank of England, it may be called the bank of England, but it

is actually the bank of the United Kingdom. We have a stake in that

bank. It is to operate on our behalf as part of the United Kingdom. It is

part of the assets of the United Kingdom and we have a stake in that

as an institution and an organisation and a currency. We need

to get what is right in the interests of the people of Scotland

out of our access to that particular asset. That is why we argued for

that. It compels the United Kingdom to have a currency in Scotland. You

have interviewed the Chancellor of the ecstatic and you have asked him

to rule it out. -- the Chancellor of the exchequer. On every occasion, it

has not been ruled out as a possibility. Car when Jones has said

he will take an awful lot of persuading. Staying part of the

United Kingdom, they would listen to his voice. It seems odd to me. You

will have less control over monetary policy. Even if it is what you

aspire to, you cannot deliver it. You must have a plan B. If Ed

Miliband becomes Prime Minister in 2015, and so he is leading the

negotiations after a yes vote, would you be advising him to offer some

sort of currency union? If Ed Miliband is the Prime Minister, his

first responsibility is to the people he represents. He would have

to apply that test and it is quite a difficult test. He might ask, what

should I do? Somebody in Scotland does not have an influence over

that. He has stood aside in the interests of people. It is a kind of

ludicrous position to be in. We have got to a place where we have two and

treat the rest of the United Kingdom, which has basically done us

down the last 300 years, be nice to us. That is why it does not make

sense. We should not rule it out. His test must be, what are the

interests of the people in the rest of the United Kingdom? You want to

stay in the United Kingdom but it is a hard thing to take. Having said we

would need to be liberated from the rest of the United Kingdom, we say,

would you do us a favour and let us be part of the United Kingdom? I do

not agree that it should be a separate currency. It makes logical

sense. He cannot admit there is a plan B. If there needs to be, he

knows how important that is. Ed Miliband would be representing the

rest of the United Kingdom in 2015. He said after a yes vote. In 2015,

he would be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as these negotiations

were going on. Wouldn't he had to take into account the interests of

all the United Kingdom? In Scotland has voted to leave the United

Kingdom, that is the choice of Scotland. It will be the jobs of

those who are negotiating on behalf of Scotland to get as good a deal as

possible. They do not need to take the interests of Scotland into

account. I am glad that Scotland is inside the United Kingdom. I know

that Ed Miliband will serve the interests of the whole of the United

Kingdom. We will share risks and pool resources. The us dirty

programme of the Tories is damaging. -- the austerity programme

will stop we have had families right across the United Kingdom. I want to

stop the Tory government being able to impose... The SNP existed when we

were creating the welfare state. We are facing a bedroom tax. We have to

put up with this. We are mitigating it to the full of our legal ability.

I can assure you that. You could have supported that. Why can't you

take the decision? Why on earth are we allowing the UK Government to cut

our capital? It is your job to worry about the financial markets. When I

spoke to Alex Salmond last night about whether a currency union would

be permanent, he seemed to be on the one hand saying the SNP would enter

as if it would be a permanent union but was careful to say what an SNP

government could leave that. If you have a currency union you want, it

would have to be permanent. You would have to convince the financial

markets it was permanent, or it would be an open invitation to mark

up the rates in Scotland with bonds and speculate on a possible break-up

of the union. It is a once and for all choice. I think the currency

union is a long-standing choice for Scotland. The point the First

Minister was making... You mean we would have to enter into it. About

not having a currency union, as soon as you get your currency, that is

out of the window. There are political choices which could be

exercised by people in Scotland after independence. Parliament would

be elected. It would be free to make the decisions it thinks appropriate.

From our point of view, our proposition is it is a long-term

commitment to sterling. At the heart of the whole White Paper is the

notion of choice of the people of Scotland being able to decide on

their own priorities. It is important for a parliament to decide

about welfare. Not just resign ourselves to the fact the UK

Government can impose a bedroom tax. What if the markets got a smidgen of

a hint that Scotland was not serious? You know what would

happen. The point to the First Minister makes in his introduction

in the White Paper, which he was talking about tonight, is to

acknowledge the fact we would live in a democracy. I think we should

try to change the pace for a few minutes and try and be good and ask

short questions if you could give us short, brief and to the point

answers. Hopefully we'll get a number of questions in our quickfire

round. Do you support the SNP proposal to bring the Royal mail

back into public ownership in the event of independence? I had an

uncle who was a postman. I understand the pressure that would

put on the Royal mail. My instinct is to say we would want it back in

public but we need to be able to deliver on that commitment. And

independence Scotland would have powers over drugs calcification.

Would you legalise cannabis? -- classification. No. I would like to

have Trident removed. I want a serious engagement about nuclear

weapons. David Cameron said he would prevent new migrants from claiming

out of work benefits for up to three months. Would you like to match that

policy? I would need to know more detail about what he is proposing. I

think we have to look at the consequences, sometimes, in terms of

what Ed Miliband has said where people are encouraged to undercut

people who work in this country. Automatic rights to claim benefits,

yes or no? I would need to look into it. We need to allow people into the

country who could make an economic contribution to our country. It is

about ensuring we get into our labour market people who could make

a valuable economic contribution to Scotland. The debate the Prime

Minister is engaging in and I see Ed Miliband playing along with as well

is a slogan I is debate about immigration. We need a good and hard

look about maintaining these talented people. What would be

better and independent Scotland run by a Labour government or being part

of Britain and run by a Conservative government? We would have a Scottish

parliament. I would fight with every bit of me to deliver a Labour

government in 2016. Should we be in the United Kingdom, we would look

for support in the Scottish Parliament elections as well. You

have said you want to see workers on the boards of companies. We would

discuss this with industry. We have seen a number of examples in our

country. We have good, strong employee participation in the

management of companies which has really helped those companies. We

need to take that a stage further. How would you answer that question?

Very often workers have more of a feel of industry than shareholders.

The best example is in the shipbuilding industry. You saw the

company and workforce coming together to try to secure jobs in

the Clyde. I would not make it compulsory. We would consult broadly

on that. It is not something that any board should be frightened of.

It would strengthen decisions they make because they would be

representing it workforce with a long-term commitment.

We will now return to issues in greater depth again. Johann, when as

Labour's commission and devolved powers going to report? It is in the

spring. I will give you a backstop date, which is our party conference

in March. I am very clear that we had an interim report, we are now

consulting on that, we had interest Inc evidence, and anyone who has

taken the time to look at our interim report would respond in

terms of how they see devolution being strengthened. One would

presume this is a priority be used to get this reporter? One of the

first things that as leader was announced the devolution commission

would take place. And it took seven months for the first meeting. I am

very clear now that we want to this information for people ahead of the

decision, we want to do it in the spring, and the Test of what we do

will not be in order to get it out there, but to make sure it is a

strong contribution to the debate about how we make devolution work

inside the United Kingdom. You said you were minded to fully devolving

from tax. I wonder whether between now and the referendum, you will be

able to reach some sort of agreement with the other parties in Better

Together to come up with a joint offer that people will be able to

pursue in the event of a no vote? I think where we come together is in

our desire to make sure the devolution works, and there are a

number of different options. I would never turn away from agreeing with

people and strengthening our position, but as I said, we have a

distinct set of proposals we are bringing forward. One thing I am

keen to look at, and it follows from the agenda of the islands, local

authorities, how you devolve power down out of the Scottish parliament

into local communities. If you want to do that and the Liberal Democrats

want to, and the Conservatives are looking at doing that, shouldn't you

come together and reach some kind of common position in advance of the

referendum so that people have a clear idea what happens if it goes

ahead? I think of it as an honest agreement, yes, if it is a force

want to make it look as we're unified no. It must be about being

genuine and the offer we are making. We stood in the

Constitutional Convention and work with other people to try to get the

proposal I ahead of getting the parliament established in 1997. I

would hope that people recognise there will be distinctive Labour

messages around how we seek evolution working, and particularly

for me, it is about taking power away from politicians, down into

communities where people can make a decision. We know in island

communities how important that is, and some of the urban communities I

represent, how important that is too. On that, one of the thing that

puzzles me about you, I said I was puzzled by John Swinney's commitment

to currency union at all costs. What puzzles me about Labour's approach

to this debate is that you are doing it entirely on John Swinney's

ground. Labour is supposed to be a socialist party. It has a

tradition, it would claim, of International is in, you have set

the entire agenda rather than saying, as I am sure some people in

Scotland would say, this debate is just a relevant the Big issues going

on in the world. Why not say, here is our vision, this is what we want

to lament in Britain, I will take part in independent debate, but we

frankly think it is a relevant? I can understand the argument, but do

not need that it is an SNP position. If you look at what they have done

since taking control of the Scottish Parliament, power has been sucked up

into the centre, and... Can I ask about the Labour Party? I want to

expand the point. What I think is entirely consistent with my politics

is to make decisions at the lowest level possible in the interests of

communities. That is no vision to better what is in this. With

respect, there are certain things I think should stay at Westminster,

and I would argue that. There are some decisions whether in housing or

whatever, that are better made at the local level. The success of the

Housing Association movement, the cooperative movement, has been

because they understood the people who are to live with the decisions

are more likely to make the correct ones. It is in that frame that I

argue around powers, not simply, this is the SNP ground. If you look

at what they do, I want to see power down in our communities, where

people with their talents and abilities are liberated to make

decisions that will benefit them. John Swinney is looking increasingly

frustrated. Yellow marker we have been around the house with this

before. The Liberals and Conservatives and the commission

after we became the minority government in 2007, and that was

meant to be a stock take a devolution to give the parliament

all the powers are required. It reported, we got able whisper of

extra powers. Now, Johann is that it again, suggesting there are more

powers around the corner and all this. Yellow matter you don't

describe as a whimper when you are exercising them. As for power being

exercised at local levels in all this, to macro has been part of

administration... Before the Thatcher period, as a young woman, I

thought everything should be done at a British level. That is my vision

of the world. As a schoolteacher, I stood in a classroom and watched

children and the hope disappearing from their faces. But I also knew

there were children in Newcastle, and Cardiff, who were experiencing

the same thing. Thatcher attack vulnerable people. What I understood

then, the lesson I learned, if you bring power closer to vulnerable

people, if you bring power closer to people, you can make a difference.

At the balance between the two. It is possible to have decisions of the

UK level, or a Scottish level, but what John does not understand, we

should allow liberation of decisions at a local level. We have done that

with our local government plans. Know you haven't. What Johann is

doing, that rate at the nation are about the evils of Thatcherism, she

is allowing the evils of Thatcherism to be carried on by his successors

who are applying a bedroom tax in Scotland, attacking the vulnerable,

the most vulnerable in our society, and Johann is quite happy to leave

the decisions. You have the opportunity to supporters. Against

the wishes of the people of this country. If Johann was to follow

their argument is a logical conclusions, she would want to have

the power in Scotland to protect people from the type of policies

that have been inflicted on Scotland. I'm not sure how cutting

corporation tax by 3p in the pound is going to help that. John Swinney,

you are warning of as you see it, the evils of Thatcherism and

Conservative government, but this document also suggest that if there

is a no vote, the Scottish budget would be cuts, that you wouldn't

have any new powers transferred in those circumstances. Is this your

version of Project Fear? I think it is an honest reflection of the

likelihood of the circumstances we will face if there is a no vote. It

is hardly positive campaign, though. It is two pages at a very

substantial number. It illustrates to people the dangers of voting no

on this referendum, because we have been around the houses of this

before, we have promises of extra powers that have not materialised,

and what is clear, and you can see from the all-party movement from the

House of Commons, there is a growing consensus of opinion in the UK

Parliament that if Scotland votes no in the referendum, and will be an

assault on the funding formula spacing Scotland, and Carl Wynn

Jones is a signed up member of the cup the Scottish public funding

campaign. That would be hugely damaging to the interests of the

people of Scotland. Johanne, you have 30 seconds. Time after we got

this parliament because we we committed to it, and if you want to

hear negative campaigning, you should listen to the Prime Minister

delay, saying the rest of the country would be at their budgets.

These are the same people to negotiate within the sterling zone.

That is entirely irrational. They can't both be monsters and your

friends. I don't recognise this characterisation of people across

the United Kingdom and the hostility to Scotland. It drives the politics

of the SNP. It is not the live reality people across Scotland. We

see them genuinely as friends and neighbours. Let's agree to disagree.

It will probably continue right up until a certain date next year. That

is really all we have time for tonight. And Q2 both of you for

joining us. From us, good night.