:00:00. > :00:08.Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: What kind of lives will we live in the
:00:09. > :00:12.future and does the result of the independence referendum have much
:00:13. > :00:16.bearing on them? In a special programme I'm joined by a panel of
:00:17. > :00:19.experts on the way we live from earliest childhood to our last
:00:20. > :00:23.years. Are we asking the right questions about childcare? Do we
:00:24. > :00:27.really want a more equal society? And does anyone know the answers to
:00:28. > :00:37.the problems posed by an ageing population?
:00:38. > :00:42.Good evening. We hear a lot of what the
:00:43. > :00:44.politicians promise in the referendum campaign. Tonight, we're
:00:45. > :00:48.asking a panel of highly qualified and impartial experts to identify
:00:49. > :00:50.and discuss some of the problems and possible solutions which Scottish
:00:51. > :00:58.society will face in the coming years, whatever the constitutional
:00:59. > :01:01.arrangements may be. Professor Susan Deacon wrote the report on early
:01:02. > :01:05.years care for the Scottish Government. Professor Kirstein
:01:06. > :01:09.Rummery researches childcare, elderly care, social care and gender
:01:10. > :01:15.equality. Professor Phil Hanlon is an expert in public health.
:01:16. > :01:18.Professor Pauline Banks is Director of the Institute of Older People's
:01:19. > :01:22.Health and Wellbeing. David Watt is Executive Director of the Institute
:01:23. > :01:25.of Directors, Scotland. Professor Jo Armstrong is an economist with the
:01:26. > :01:28.Centre for Public Policy for Regions. And Dave Moxham is Deputy
:01:29. > :01:34.General Secretary of the Scottish TUC.
:01:35. > :01:39.Let's start with early years which has been a subject of much debate in
:01:40. > :01:42.the referendum particularly about childcare costs, Susan Deacon. I'm
:01:43. > :01:48.wondering whether you think that's the right debate to be having? Well,
:01:49. > :01:50.I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm delight that had
:01:51. > :01:54.we are talking about a really important issue that affects
:01:55. > :01:58.children and families, but the way that we have arrived at this debate
:01:59. > :02:04.and the way that we are conducting is it is odd. We don't need
:02:05. > :02:07.constitutional change to improve childcare in this country and that's
:02:08. > :02:13.just a fact. I am not alone in having a concern that we are having
:02:14. > :02:18.this debate predicated on the notion that all these women, would, could
:02:19. > :02:21.and should suddenly go back to work this they have more childcare
:02:22. > :02:24.available. We're not talking about children. We're not talking about
:02:25. > :02:28.choice. But most of all, my concern would be that we're still failing to
:02:29. > :02:33.have a grounded and rounded conversation about the things that
:02:34. > :02:37.make a difference to a child's early life experience and so much of that
:02:38. > :02:41.goes on in the home and in the community. The objection, I suppose,
:02:42. > :02:45.to the way the debate has been framed at the moment, that it is not
:02:46. > :02:52.a debate about children, it is a debate about adults? Well,
:02:53. > :02:58.absolutely and you know, yes, it is important. It is crucially important
:02:59. > :03:02.that we talk about the economy in the same breath as we talk about
:03:03. > :03:08.social issues. I don't think we do that nearly enough, but we have
:03:09. > :03:12.extracted this one very narrow, you know, scenario that affects a narrow
:03:13. > :03:15.group of women, or supposedly affects a certain number of women in
:03:16. > :03:21.the population that we are going to flick a switch and it is all going
:03:22. > :03:26.to change. As I say, we need to broaden this right out. Not for the
:03:27. > :03:30.first time we are over simpifying a really important issue that affects
:03:31. > :03:34.not just all of us as individuals, but has a huge impact on our
:03:35. > :03:39.society. Jo Armstrong, the other thing that's going rather
:03:40. > :03:46.undiscussed is whether there is any economic rational. Some of the
:03:47. > :03:53.charities and all of rest of it who are campaigning on it. They are
:03:54. > :03:58.saying it is great we are taking this serious. Some would say
:03:59. > :04:07.providing childcare is great, but there is no economic reason for it
:04:08. > :04:11.in I think you would be investing in early years for the life chances of
:04:12. > :04:16.individuals and that would hopefully reduce inequalities and help develop
:04:17. > :04:19.economic productivity from those individuals in later years, but it
:04:20. > :04:23.is difficult to see the evidence that says a significant economic
:04:24. > :04:27.benefits from intervention of childcare... What about increasing
:04:28. > :04:33.childcare payments so that people go back to work? Is there an economic
:04:34. > :04:37.case for that? Again, unless it is targeted, you are giving money to
:04:38. > :04:44.people who would be paying for it in any case. It maybe unproductive
:04:45. > :04:48.redistribution. Whenever politicians say we will pay for this because of
:04:49. > :04:54.the economic benefits it would bring, you would caution a healthy
:04:55. > :04:58.dose of scepticism? Yes, it is very difficult to see. Phil Hanlon, what
:04:59. > :05:03.do you make of this? Do you think this debate has been framed in the
:05:04. > :05:10.right way? I agree with Susan, it is too narrow. If you ask is there an
:05:11. > :05:15.economic, social, health and benefit of giving children the best possible
:05:16. > :05:21.start in life? The evidence is unequivocal. Are there many children
:05:22. > :05:26.in Scotland who aren't having that? Yes, definitely. If you could deal
:05:27. > :05:31.with that... The point is, paying more childcare so that people go
:05:32. > :05:35.back to work is not necessarily the same issue as the one you are
:05:36. > :05:39.talking about. It could be one small component and that's the frustration
:05:40. > :05:41.many people in Scotland are feeling about the debate and about the
:05:42. > :05:46.referendum is they recognise, people understand what it takes to raise a
:05:47. > :05:51.child and the complexity of it all. If you said to a mother who has just
:05:52. > :05:55.seen their child leave secondary school who has flourished in all
:05:56. > :05:59.ways, what was the one thing that achieved it? The mother would think
:06:00. > :06:04.it is a ridiculous question. Equally so, the idea that one intervention
:06:05. > :06:09.will transform early years in Scotland is equally ridiculous, but
:06:10. > :06:14.the question needs to be asked because we need to debate things
:06:15. > :06:19.policy by policy, could that policy be part of a more comprehensive set
:06:20. > :06:22.of interventions that make a real difference to the early years? Well,
:06:23. > :06:31.that's a question worth asking and it depends it is done and what else
:06:32. > :06:36.is put alongside it. If there were a economic rational behind it, you
:06:37. > :06:40.would expect employers to be lobbying like mad for State to pay
:06:41. > :06:45.more childcare? Employers want, I think they want to see the best
:06:46. > :06:51.possible at long-term end of the education system whenever it starts.
:06:52. > :06:55.So they want to see suitable potential employees coming out of
:06:56. > :06:59.the school system whether at 16 or 18 or out of universities. They
:07:00. > :07:03.would understand the sooner they start, the better, from that
:07:04. > :07:08.economic point of view and secondly, they would be happy to see a number
:07:09. > :07:11.of parents male or female being more available for the workforce through
:07:12. > :07:15.better childcare being provided, but that's back to the debate, is it
:07:16. > :07:19.about the child or is it about the employer or the employee and the
:07:20. > :07:24.adult or is it about the child and if we are trying to improve the
:07:25. > :07:29.child in the next generation then, you know, employers would want to
:07:30. > :07:34.see that happen, but as Jo said, how long can they wait for that benefit
:07:35. > :07:39.to come? In general terms, they would be in favour of it, but they
:07:40. > :07:45.are not expecting it to have a massive economic benefit to them or
:07:46. > :07:56.the economy tomorrow. Various parties are proposing certain
:07:57. > :08:01.things. Our members would want better funded childcare. The range
:08:02. > :08:05.of benefits is the right approach to this. There is a fundamental
:08:06. > :08:08.difficulty that no one is really addressing as part of the referendum
:08:09. > :08:15.debate which is nobody would blink at the thought of paying tax to
:08:16. > :08:19.educate a five-year-old in school, but the political argument has not
:08:20. > :08:24.been won as to why you might pay more tax in order to provide the
:08:25. > :08:29.wrap around childcare that a five-year-old might need. No one has
:08:30. > :08:38.grasped that nettle yet and for all of its positive noises, some of the
:08:39. > :08:44.things the White Paper did was distract us from that argument.
:08:45. > :08:46.Could I take issue with the separation of the economic and
:08:47. > :08:50.social policy and the idea that it is about either working parents or
:08:51. > :08:54.children? What the international evidence shows is if you invest in
:08:55. > :08:59.early years t has several benefits. One, is it gets more women and lower
:09:00. > :09:06.paid men into work and that is very good at tackling child poverty and
:09:07. > :09:13.family poverty. Secondly... When you say when you invest in early karks
:09:14. > :09:19.you mean -- early care, you mean giving more parents work? Partly
:09:20. > :09:24.that, but also investing in an infrastructure that vow vids --
:09:25. > :09:28.provides high quality childcare. You are seeing it as an economic
:09:29. > :09:33.investment just as you would in an investment rather than a cost and a
:09:34. > :09:36.drain. We know investment in early years benefits children, extremely
:09:37. > :09:40.and the outcomes in terms of both their employment prospects in the
:09:41. > :09:44.fewer and their educational attainment in the future is much,
:09:45. > :09:49.much better. When you say investment in early years here in that respect,
:09:50. > :09:53.that it benefits the children. What do you mean? It is better to have
:09:54. > :09:55.children in nurseries rather than at home with the families? The
:09:56. > :10:00.international evidence shows that a mix of both is the best outcome. If
:10:01. > :10:04.you have children who are just at home with parents their outcomes are
:10:05. > :10:12.poor. If you have children who spend a lot of time in early years,
:10:13. > :10:17.particularly at an early age, the outcomes are poorer, but it is very,
:10:18. > :10:21.very complex. One of the main things that investment in childcare
:10:22. > :10:25.achieves, it tackles family poverty because it gets parents into work
:10:26. > :10:30.and that's the surest way of getting those parents out of poverty and it
:10:31. > :10:37.is poverty that has the severely negative impact on children rather
:10:38. > :10:42.than the actual lack of childcare. If you invest in the family being
:10:43. > :10:44.able to work and you invest in childcare as an industry, you are
:10:45. > :10:48.getting more people into work and you are putting money into poorer
:10:49. > :10:55.families who are more likely to spend it in the local economy to
:10:56. > :11:00.build up the infrastructure. But you would say case unproven? They may
:11:01. > :11:08.spend it in the local community, but they would be spending their
:11:09. > :11:12.benefits in the local community. OK. Pauline Banks, I'm curious as to
:11:13. > :11:17.what you make of the way the debate has been framed?
:11:18. > :11:22.It is a difficult one for me to come in at this stage because it is not
:11:23. > :11:27.the area that I'm working in. For families to work together and there
:11:28. > :11:32.are a lot of grandparents involved in childcare and the changes in the
:11:33. > :11:37.pension age will make a difference to the availability of grandparents
:11:38. > :11:43.to do that. Every different policy has a different impact on the age
:11:44. > :11:46.group. Everyone talks about the phrase now, University of Mum and
:11:47. > :11:52.dad for the problems that young people are having on the housing
:11:53. > :12:02.market, but there is a labour force of grandma and grand dad? There is a
:12:03. > :12:09.huge amount of child care out by grandparents. But surely the more
:12:10. > :12:17.you argue an economic case for child care support, the more likely you
:12:18. > :12:21.are to reduce early years? Finland, for example, everyone says the
:12:22. > :12:29.education system there is marvellous but they do not send their children
:12:30. > :12:34.to school for a long time? We must be very hurtful about this sort of
:12:35. > :12:43.comparison. I remember in a former life being dispatched to the land.
:12:44. > :12:52.-- dispatched to thin land. -- we must be very careful about this. It
:12:53. > :12:57.is a different cultural context and a different political context.
:12:58. > :13:07.Everything is different. They have a different set of problems. It has
:13:08. > :13:10.become very fashionable to compare ourselves with the Nordic nations.
:13:11. > :13:15.But this must be treated with caution. On this issue of
:13:16. > :13:21.investment, if I could pick up on some points. The point about
:13:22. > :13:26.recognising importance, in the broadest sense, about early years
:13:27. > :13:30.intervention, the best thing I would say is that the family is hugely
:13:31. > :13:34.important. That is not centrestage enough in our discussions. We have
:13:35. > :13:39.touched on some issues regarding employment. Often when we talk about
:13:40. > :13:43.the skills that we need in this country we talk about the things
:13:44. > :13:48.that we do with or for youngsters from the age of 16 onwards. The
:13:49. > :13:56.foundation stones are laid in the first few years of life. It is shown
:13:57. > :14:07.in boundaries, communication, the general parameters. What I would
:14:08. > :14:13.also say... Talking about the point about grandparents being involved in
:14:14. > :14:18.the family, the thing that worries me is that grandparents are an
:14:19. > :14:22.unpaid labour force, but that fundamental relationship can be one
:14:23. > :14:31.of the most valuable relationships that there is. We must broaden the
:14:32. > :14:40.discussion. We must not just think about professional intervention. We
:14:41. > :14:45.must invest in our children. If you are correct in what you say about
:14:46. > :14:57.the economics of this is the referendum in itself particularly
:14:58. > :15:05.relevant? Is it a broader debate? Whatever mechanism we use, if we
:15:06. > :15:12.want more childcare are, we must paper it through taxes. That debate
:15:13. > :15:17.has not been had yet? At the moment, we are being told that full paper
:15:18. > :15:21.itself. It is difficult to see how that would work. There are no
:15:22. > :15:25.numbers to support that. Talking about early years intervention, the
:15:26. > :15:32.statistics would argue that if you want to sit for children through the
:15:33. > :15:37.early years and right the way through to university, you must
:15:38. > :15:44.spend more at early years stage. I want to move on now. In working
:15:45. > :15:53.life, I want to tackle head on a pertinent issue. Everyone is
:15:54. > :15:59.competing with their visions of making Scotland a more rounded
:16:00. > :16:07.society. I wonder if that is what people want. Some of the polling
:16:08. > :16:15.evidence shows that we want to be better off. That seems to be
:16:16. > :16:19.correct. From a health point of view, I think there is no doubt that
:16:20. > :16:28.three things go together and that his health and well-being, equity
:16:29. > :16:32.and sustainability. Any country that wants to have a healthy population
:16:33. > :16:39.that is genuinely flourishing, an equal ovulation, socially and
:16:40. > :16:49.economically. They must buy into the whole culture. -- and equal
:16:50. > :16:53.population. The population must be able to have confidence in its
:16:54. > :17:02.future. These are bigger issues which we are not discussing yet. We
:17:03. > :17:07.have been disappointed that both sides of the date are only concerned
:17:08. > :17:12.with persuading Scottish people that there are a side would put more
:17:13. > :17:19.pounds into the economy. That is a very low level debate. This could be
:17:20. > :17:24.a grand debate about the type of Scotland that we would all like to
:17:25. > :17:30.live in. What would you say to someone who would say in reply to
:17:31. > :17:33.that, is that I do not want able to become disadvantaged but I would
:17:34. > :17:38.like us all to be better off. But if that means some people get even more
:17:39. > :17:46.rich than they are ready, who would care about that? What I would say is
:17:47. > :17:50.that all the evidence shows that once a country is wealthy, and
:17:51. > :17:57.Scotland is now well be, becoming more prosperous and wealthier
:17:58. > :18:03.without more equality and a change in culture, does not improve our
:18:04. > :18:06.health and well-being. If we want to flourish, it simply having that
:18:07. > :18:13.narrow vision of more money in your pocket will not cut the mustard. It
:18:14. > :18:19.is that straightforward. Is there any economic evidence for that? The
:18:20. > :18:23.evidence is once you get over a certain income per head, you do not
:18:24. > :18:30.need any more. But we must grow and we must use and create more taxes.
:18:31. > :18:39.As health and well-being a function of equality? I bow to my
:18:40. > :18:43.colleague's that knowledge than me. I am merely a simple economist!
:18:44. > :18:52.People want to be incentivised to work and do things. We all do. We
:18:53. > :18:58.compete for everything. We compete for medical research funding, new
:18:59. > :19:02.jobs, new business. That mechanism, unfortunately, brings with it the
:19:03. > :19:15.idea that if you compete and win, you own more. That is the reality of
:19:16. > :19:19.the world we live in. The paradox is if you do that and individuals, by
:19:20. > :19:32.their nature, are inclined to do that, but we are also corporate.
:19:33. > :19:37.Countries that have greater social inequalities have outcomes which are
:19:38. > :19:45.generally pro-. -- group generally worse. This has to do with the
:19:46. > :19:49.culture which encourages distribution and we must concentrate
:19:50. > :19:55.on that. There is an appetite for fairness in Scotland. I remember
:19:56. > :20:00.Alistair Darling talking about being asked at a conference what are women
:20:01. > :20:06.going to vote for? What is in it for them? Is there gender equality? And
:20:07. > :20:09.he said women will vote for it in the same way as men do stop a care
:20:10. > :20:18.about economic prosperity, about the money in their pockets. Myself and
:20:19. > :20:23.the other women in the audience went that is not what we mean at all. We
:20:24. > :20:28.mean a fairer society for us and our families and communities. What is
:20:29. > :20:34.the distinction you are making? It is about better access. It is about
:20:35. > :20:42.access to opportunities, debtor education that is not the bicep.
:20:43. > :20:48.Education policy, we do not need independence for a different
:20:49. > :20:56.education policy. -- better education that is not divisive. You
:20:57. > :21:02.can have a fairer society, but it does not necessarily have been more
:21:03. > :21:19.equal? But there has to be a smaller gap. It is divisive when people see
:21:20. > :21:25.that there are other people with lots more than them. Scotland would
:21:26. > :21:31.probably have a vision for itself. When I have spoken to policymakers,
:21:32. > :21:36.in terms of the more a Gallic Terry and fairer society, more women
:21:37. > :21:38.involved in politics, for example, if Eric distributional of
:21:39. > :21:49.resources, that would not necessarily mean equal. Can I be
:21:50. > :21:53.boring for a moment? There is bruised more rhetoric about equality
:21:54. > :22:06.unit a good thing. If we lead the spare room subsidy to one side, do
:22:07. > :22:10.you find any policy is being proposed by anyone in this
:22:11. > :22:17.referendum debate, even relevant to the issue of whether Scotland would
:22:18. > :22:22.become a more equal society? I do, to the extent that what we see from
:22:23. > :22:24.the Scottish Government is a recognition that the workplace
:22:25. > :22:31.matters and the quality of work matters. To be fair, it has probably
:22:32. > :22:37.not emanated from any government in the UK for about 30 years.
:22:38. > :22:43.Translating that desire, if you like, to improve the quality of work
:22:44. > :22:47.and workplace equality, we are involving unions and other workers
:22:48. > :22:54.in ups killing and development of industry and that is an important
:22:55. > :23:01.goal. -- ups killing. -- improving skills. I think it is absolutely
:23:02. > :23:09.fair to recognise that there is a desire through workplace equality to
:23:10. > :23:20.affect inequality in a way that we have not seen so far. But not actual
:23:21. > :23:27.policies? Not actual policies. The other side is looking at the pro-UK
:23:28. > :23:34.parties, do you see anything there? It has been encouraging to see, for
:23:35. > :23:42.example, the Labour Party talking about action on living wages. I
:23:43. > :23:45.think from a number of parties at a UK level, there has been reasonable
:23:46. > :23:54.action on improving skills for workers. But they have not done as
:23:55. > :23:59.much as I would like them to do. I believe it to you, David Watt, to
:24:00. > :24:05.point out that rather like with childcare, we like talking about how
:24:06. > :24:10.great it would be to have more equality but we do not want to talk
:24:11. > :24:13.about how we would pay for it. The thing I despair about on both sides
:24:14. > :24:23.of this debate is that there is no emphasis on wealth creation. People
:24:24. > :24:30.don't care about how politicians spend their money, within reason.
:24:31. > :24:33.But they would actually quite like Scotland to be a very prosperous
:24:34. > :24:42.society, more prosperous than it is, and to some degree, that wealth will
:24:43. > :24:50.be part of the decision on how we vote and how we live afterwards. But
:24:51. > :24:53.how will we change the economy? One of the principles is to make it more
:24:54. > :24:58.equal and that has not come out yet. There is no fundamental flash of
:24:59. > :25:06.light on either side that will make any difference. Wealth creation, and
:25:07. > :25:11.how we spend well, might be politically divisive, but we would
:25:12. > :25:19.like to see more in issue to and innovative thinking from both sides.
:25:20. > :25:29.-- we would like to see more initiative. We want to see wealth
:25:30. > :25:34.earners using their wealth. We spoke earlier about the integration of
:25:35. > :25:42.public spending and public services and the economy. We need a broader
:25:43. > :25:47.vision over the next 20 years about how different economies operate in
:25:48. > :25:53.Scotland. We need to know how the public sector and private sector can
:25:54. > :25:58.integrate to a greater extent. If we want rater equality, it is striking
:25:59. > :26:02.that one of the arguments for independence is that Scotland would
:26:03. > :26:13.have complete control over the tax system. -- if we want greater
:26:14. > :26:18.equality. I do not know any proposal from any party that does anything at
:26:19. > :26:27.all to promote equality I changing the basic rate of tax. -- to promote
:26:28. > :26:31.equality by changing. They seem to want to say they want all these
:26:32. > :26:38.powders but will do nothing with them. We need to have a reality
:26:39. > :26:45.check about all of this. I am as keen as the next person about how to
:26:46. > :26:48.debate what is going on. But we are part of a global world and the
:26:49. > :26:51.global economic system. We might dislike some of the character is
:26:52. > :26:58.sticks but it is they are nonetheless. We also need to have a
:26:59. > :27:02.broader discussion about the global influences that affect what is going
:27:03. > :27:08.on in Scotland. I will illustrate this. One thing that annoys me most
:27:09. > :27:14.is the wages that go on in sport, especially football. I do not know
:27:15. > :27:23.how you break that cycle because it is a global market. We must get real
:27:24. > :27:31.here. The leaders of domestic policy are ever more limited in what they
:27:32. > :27:37.can actually do. Growing concern over many years that I have had is
:27:38. > :27:43.how in Scotland, we have put Bart too much emphasis in terms of what
:27:44. > :27:58.can be achieved by particular powers. -- we have put far too much
:27:59. > :28:07.emphasis. I just think that we have over eight the pudding.
:28:08. > :28:11.Pauline Banks, I am going to ask you about inequality and that involves
:28:12. > :28:15.older people because again, I'm not aware of this having been debated in
:28:16. > :28:19.the referendum campaign. All this talk about generational conflict.
:28:20. > :28:25.Now, one argument is that actually what we are seeing is not
:28:26. > :28:29.generational conflict, but the next generation, inequality being
:28:30. > :28:34.increased because what matters amongst elderly people is asset
:28:35. > :28:38.wealth and the divisions for young people is what you inherit will be
:28:39. > :28:43.more important as generations go on, particularly given the way that
:28:44. > :28:48.house prices are? That's true, but there is a lot of older people who
:28:49. > :28:51.pass money down to their children and help them. There is a lot of
:28:52. > :28:54.unemployment amongst the younger people. There is a lot of movement
:28:55. > :28:58.of money between the generations. Older people helping younger people
:28:59. > :29:03.get through their education and helping them buy flats and get
:29:04. > :29:09.started in the housing market. If you are fortunate to come from a
:29:10. > :29:15.family that has any money in the first place. That's the point. A
:29:16. > :29:20.certain class of younger people will benefit and another class of younger
:29:21. > :29:23.people won't and that promotes increased inequality? That's
:29:24. > :29:28.possible. Then you have got to look at whether people, it depends on
:29:29. > :29:33.your luck with your health when you are older whether you have to go
:29:34. > :29:41.into care, you might have to sell your house to pay for it. There are
:29:42. > :29:45.all sorts of complexities that can come into it. Would you just like to
:29:46. > :29:51.see your members getting more money and it doesn't really matter or...
:29:52. > :29:59.We would like to see our... I'm assuming you would. I mean if you
:30:00. > :30:03.look over a period of time at pay demands put in by unions, you will
:30:04. > :30:07.always find they have a bottom level and at least at the bottom. The work
:30:08. > :30:12.that we do around promoting minimum wages and living wages has an
:30:13. > :30:16.implicit knock on effect in terms of the middle to higher earners, the
:30:17. > :30:20.company deals with the minimum wage increase by trimming wages somewhere
:30:21. > :30:27.up the ladder. It is part and parcel of what we do is an attempt to
:30:28. > :30:31.equalise pay or make it more equal. We talked about the social impact of
:30:32. > :30:36.that. The economic importance of ensuring that more, if you like,
:30:37. > :30:42.baseline jobs are better skilled and better paid and frankly, better
:30:43. > :30:48.recognised within the workplace is absolutely fundamental and equality
:30:49. > :30:54.matters. David, what I want you do to confront directly, what Phil
:30:55. > :30:59.Hanlon said at the beginning of the conversation, would you challenge
:31:00. > :31:03.this idea and argue that wealth creation and making everyone in
:31:04. > :31:08.society is better off is a greater good if it produces more wealth than
:31:09. > :31:14.perhaps limiting the amount of wealth you can produce making people
:31:15. > :31:19.more equal? I don't think that, I must admit we have some severe
:31:20. > :31:28.inequalities in certain probably FTSE companies. If you scratch the
:31:29. > :31:33.surface in Scotland. The number of high earners is extremely small.
:31:34. > :31:38.There is 12,000 people in Scotland on the 45 pence tax rate. Even if
:31:39. > :31:43.they emigrate, we are not going to make a lot of machine out of them if
:31:44. > :31:47.they all stay. The thing I would challenge as well is why are
:31:48. > :31:56.Government taxing people that earn the minimum wage? The Government
:31:57. > :32:00.taxes them. I also don't think employers, I am not sure that some
:32:01. > :32:05.understand enough, but bigger employers understand that having a
:32:06. > :32:09.healthy and happy and content workforce is economically productive
:32:10. > :32:15.and it makes their business a success. I don't see them as massive
:32:16. > :32:18.differences. Let's give Phil Hanlon the last say on this. If you have
:32:19. > :32:23.two individuals and their incomes are both rising, and they are quite
:32:24. > :32:29.happy with that. If I'm the person who has got less of an income, it is
:32:30. > :32:33.not clear to me why I should be any healthier because the other person
:32:34. > :32:41.is getting richer than I am? That logic is correct. I have no argument
:32:42. > :32:47.with that, but if you look at a societal level. In country A, there
:32:48. > :32:50.is competition, dog eat dog, massive distribution of wealth, opportunity
:32:51. > :32:55.and no sense of cohesion. The same amount of money. This same amount of
:32:56. > :33:02.money, but social cohesion, sense of wanting to solve the problems and
:33:03. > :33:06.all in it together, across generational support, that equally
:33:07. > :33:10.wealthy country has better health and social outcomes. All the
:33:11. > :33:15.international data suggests that to be true. Now, what you do with that
:33:16. > :33:19.insight isn't straightforward. You get back to the individual debates
:33:20. > :33:24.about the workplace and about each part of the workforce wanting the
:33:25. > :33:29.best for themselves and so on. It doesn't solve the problem, about if
:33:30. > :33:32.you -- but if you want a country that's already wealthy to do better,
:33:33. > :33:36.you need to take the whole population along with you and in
:33:37. > :33:39.Scotland, in particular, if we talk about inequality, I don't think it
:33:40. > :33:43.is about the highest paid and the bankers and so on, I think it is
:33:44. > :33:46.what we do about a fifth of the population, who haven't receipt
:33:47. > :33:53.recovered from the industrialisation when those high skilled, good jobs,
:33:54. > :33:58.breadwinner jobs disappeared, they will never come back and there are
:33:59. > :34:02.individuals who found their way out that, but there are many communities
:34:03. > :34:07.who have yet to have a route out of that reaction to
:34:08. > :34:11.de-industrialisation. A future Scotland could confront that. The
:34:12. > :34:14.fact we don't ha solutions at the moment, doesn't mean that we
:34:15. > :34:20.couldn't yet have them. I want to move on. Older people and people
:34:21. > :34:25.becoming old. Pauline Banks, your specialist subject. This is a
:34:26. > :34:28.complex area, I want to ask you something basic. If you are an
:34:29. > :34:32.elderly person or someone approaching retirement age and you
:34:33. > :34:36.see the arguments about the referendum campaign, it is not a
:34:37. > :34:40.question of what side you are on, isn't it, it is almost so
:34:41. > :34:44.complicated you don't know how to think about this stuff? I think
:34:45. > :34:48.people know very well how to think about it. We're talking about people
:34:49. > :34:53.approaching retirement age. You are talking about people from their 60s
:34:54. > :34:58.up to 100s, you are talking two or three generations there. You can't
:34:59. > :35:00.put everybody who is older in the one category. There are significant
:35:01. > :35:03.things people are concerned about their pensions, whether their
:35:04. > :35:06.pensions are going to change. We have been assured that they will not
:35:07. > :35:13.change. There are issues about the pension age rising when we have
:35:14. > :35:16.poorer health in Scotland. The White Paper suggested that they will put
:35:17. > :35:23.the pension age up to 66, the same as England, but they will look at it
:35:24. > :35:27.again before they put it up to 6 or 6 -- 67 or 68 on the basis what is
:35:28. > :35:32.appropriate for Scotland. While we have more older people in Scotland
:35:33. > :35:36.than England, they don't live as long of the it is a hugely complex
:35:37. > :35:41.picture to be looking at. Do you reckon it all evens out? I can't
:35:42. > :35:45.tell you. I'm not the economist. What do you make this David Watts?
:35:46. > :35:49.Well, I think what's very interesting from an economic, from a
:35:50. > :35:54.business prospective, there is a real worry about the future of -
:35:55. > :35:58.somebody not far away from going off on a pension, I would be interested
:35:59. > :36:02.to know who is going to pay for my pension, where is the next workforce
:36:03. > :36:07.going to come? And that's a real challenge with the demographic. I'm
:36:08. > :36:10.curious whether, there is this issue, isn't there, about
:36:11. > :36:15.cross-border pensions and whether there might be European rules which
:36:16. > :36:20.would mean that say if an English company which was, if you were
:36:21. > :36:25.ogging in Scotland -- working in Scotland, it would have to be fully
:36:26. > :36:30.funded. Is that an issue? It is an issue. There is the personal issue
:36:31. > :36:35.and the structural issue. The private pension industry, the EU
:36:36. > :36:39.rules have been put in place, you have to be residing in the country
:36:40. > :36:45.where the majority of your business is done and hence the reason
:36:46. > :36:48.Standard Life has taken recautionary -- precautionary steps they may have
:36:49. > :36:51.to follow. They have done a risk assessment and assessed most of
:36:52. > :36:57.their business is south of the border and they have to set up
:36:58. > :37:02.company structures there which they may or may not have, depending on
:37:03. > :37:06.vote and whether the EU will move from that. There is no question
:37:07. > :37:10.whatsoever, so pick an industry that's most concerned because of the
:37:11. > :37:14.regulatory nature and the costs, there is no question the financial
:37:15. > :37:18.services industry is seriously concerned about independence and it
:37:19. > :37:28.has the right to be concerned because of the two factors. What do
:37:29. > :37:31.you think if you are an elderly person, you should be thinking about
:37:32. > :37:35.when you think about the referendum? I would be less concerned about
:37:36. > :37:39.pensions and very, very much concerned about care and long-term
:37:40. > :37:46.care and nursing care and what was going to happen to my money and my
:37:47. > :37:51.benefits and my assets. I think what is interesting is that we have in
:37:52. > :37:56.Scotland a very complex system of welfare with certain areas like
:37:57. > :38:01.benefits and welfare benefits and pensions decided in Westminster and
:38:02. > :38:08.other areas like social care decided on a very local area and not just
:38:09. > :38:13.Scotland, but local authorities controlling that system and what we
:38:14. > :38:18.see is a lot of waste in the system and a lot of unfairness in the
:38:19. > :38:24.system. We have 32 different local authorities in Scotland and that
:38:25. > :38:32.means 2 #3 32 different systems of social care and entitlements to
:38:33. > :38:37.care. Have you not put your finger on? What you have just said, I have
:38:38. > :38:46.not heard addressed by either side? I find it shocking as somebody, well
:38:47. > :38:53.you will know my from my accent I am the only non-Scot. I have a stake in
:38:54. > :38:58.this and my family have a stake in this. Neither side are grasping the
:38:59. > :39:01.nettle. We have a crisis in the funding and delivery of long-term
:39:02. > :39:05.care for elderly people in the whole of the developed world. We need to
:39:06. > :39:10.really do something quite serious about this. Now, we would have, to
:39:11. > :39:15.link it back to the referendum, we could have a very interesting debate
:39:16. > :39:20.about the linking of welfare benefits and social care and for
:39:21. > :39:23.example, putting packages of Attendance Allowance and personal
:39:24. > :39:27.independence payments that would enable people to plan for their
:39:28. > :39:31.future and plan for their care. We could look at having a system of
:39:32. > :39:35.long-term care insurance that's devolved to Scotland, such as
:39:36. > :39:41.Germany has, but neither side is ragz these -- raising these options.
:39:42. > :39:45.These are schemes which individuals would pay into the scheme if you are
:39:46. > :39:50.lucky enough to own a house, your house wouldn't be taken away?
:39:51. > :39:56.Exactly. Rather than it being an assess the based thing -- asset
:39:57. > :39:59.based thing. It is a three-way relationship. Scotland could do
:40:00. > :40:04.that. It could only do that with independence because it has got to
:40:05. > :40:07.control the taxation system and the economic policy as well as the
:40:08. > :40:11.social care system. It is interesting that, you know, I go
:40:12. > :40:14.back to David's point saying the White Paper had some interesting
:40:15. > :40:20.ideas about what it thought some of the problems were, but it didn't
:40:21. > :40:26.really present us with any exciting or innovative or ground breaking
:40:27. > :40:29.solutions. I wonder if we can take a step back? We are in danger of
:40:30. > :40:35.saying some of the shortcomings shall we say of the political debate
:40:36. > :40:37.begun and will end with the referendum debate. These are
:40:38. > :40:43.shortcomings with our political debate and our politics in this
:40:44. > :40:49.country. You know, we have not... Presumably across the UK? Well, yes
:40:50. > :40:55.across the UK, but it manifests itself in a particular way in
:40:56. > :41:00.Scotland. I am probably the ex-politician on the panel here. For
:41:01. > :41:06.the 14 years since we had or 15 years since we had devolution, you
:41:07. > :41:10.know, if you monitor this as some of us have been sad enough to do from a
:41:11. > :41:14.distance and from within, if you monitor the debates that we have had
:41:15. > :41:16.about health and education, say, forget about the constitutional
:41:17. > :41:22.question and further powers for a minute. We have not had fundamental
:41:23. > :41:28.searching discussions that cut across party lines about how we
:41:29. > :41:33.create a sustainable flourishing NHS or how we tackle some of the issues
:41:34. > :41:37.in our education system. I'm not going to fling your political past
:41:38. > :41:43.at you too much! But Labour were as at least as
:41:44. > :41:46.complicit as anyone else... I agree. In not having a debate about public
:41:47. > :41:56.service reform in Scotland, even if you don't like the Blairites they
:41:57. > :42:03.had in England? I agree with you. I have been on record for a number of
:42:04. > :42:09.years in saying that. It is our wider political debate and the way
:42:10. > :42:17.our parties organised and the way that they compete for votes that is
:42:18. > :42:21.the fundamental problem. Unless and until we see some fundamental
:42:22. > :42:25.changes in how we discuss these issues, and frankly the only way
:42:26. > :42:32.forward I concede is having a lot more voices and I don't mean
:42:33. > :42:38.so-called expert voices, but many more wider voices. They must be
:42:39. > :42:44.prepared to enter into that space. I think we have a problem because we
:42:45. > :42:53.are not as King the hard questions. -- we are not asking. The government
:42:54. > :43:01.has engaged with the survey population in a far more
:43:02. > :43:10.constructive way since devolution. -- has engaged with the population.
:43:11. > :43:14.At that is not what delivers change. If I can just finished. If you gave
:43:15. > :43:17.Scotland more powers to do that it would do it more effect of late and
:43:18. > :43:25.much more in the interests of the country. We have broadened this out
:43:26. > :43:28.in exactly the way that I wanted. I want to ask the question, all of
:43:29. > :43:35.these issues that we have discussed, is the referendum debate relevant to
:43:36. > :43:43.them and if it is relevant, does it address them? We have heard here
:43:44. > :43:47.tonight that all sorts of issues, including public sector reform, are
:43:48. > :43:54.not being talked about. It is not addressing them but it is relevant
:43:55. > :43:58.to them. This debate has illustrated how we are all in this together. The
:43:59. > :44:05.average Scottish person will have 19 years of chronic illness bit or if
:44:06. > :44:13.he or she dies. That is something to cheer us all up. You will be fine.
:44:14. > :44:18.But we need a public debate. We need a debate in society about how we
:44:19. > :44:22.shorten that. Scotland performs badly against the rest of Europe in
:44:23. > :44:27.life expectancy. Life expectancy will probably continue to rise. But
:44:28. > :44:34.we must talk about how well we all are. That will depend on a number of
:44:35. > :44:40.factors. The referendum debate is absolutely crucial and relevant to
:44:41. > :44:46.all of this. But not necessarily what is being debated. Professor Jo
:44:47. > :44:49.Armstrong, what do you make of all of this? It has started to force
:44:50. > :45:02.people to think about ends differently. -- to think about
:45:03. > :45:07.things differently. For me, the issue is not about policy ideas and
:45:08. > :45:13.some of them are really good, but it is about where we are now and fire
:45:14. > :45:16.we think we are going to get to. We cannot afford what we have at the
:45:17. > :45:21.minute. But that must have factored into the debate. If we cannot tax
:45:22. > :45:26.the super-rich and we do not have the capacity to grow the economy as
:45:27. > :45:31.fast as we would like, then in order to deliver them, we must do things
:45:32. > :45:37.differently and effectively we must cut services. The funding question
:45:38. > :45:49.is essential. Or you could put taxes up there is no talk about that. Is
:45:50. > :45:58.the referendum important when discussing these issues? It is under
:45:59. > :46:03.camouflage about the other 90% of things that we must talk about to
:46:04. > :46:16.get through to the population. The issues have not been debated
:46:17. > :46:22.effectively so far, in my opinion. We must grab hold of the issues.
:46:23. > :46:31.These discussions cannot end at the time the referendums have -- the
:46:32. > :46:41.referendum happens. Irrespective of the result, people should not field
:46:42. > :46:45.completely defeated. How would you sum this up? You're talking about an
:46:46. > :46:53.SNP government, writing the white paper. I do not think the population
:46:54. > :46:57.is ready for some of these debates. Talking about the care per older
:46:58. > :47:01.people, we have to get down to the roots in society and think about
:47:02. > :47:06.changing things. People like myself, we should be thinking about
:47:07. > :47:10.how we are going to change things in later life. It is not up to other
:47:11. > :47:22.people. Last word to the bosses as usual. Very briefly. The referendum
:47:23. > :47:28.has not brought about enough debate on issues like social care and that
:47:29. > :47:32.must change. Thank you all very much for your contributions. That is all
:47:33. > :47:59.from me for tonight. I will be back tomorrow we think. Good evening.
:48:00. > :48:04.With more sunshine it should be a warmer day than today. Northern
:48:05. > :48:08.Scotland seeing more cloud so temperatures won't be as high. We
:48:09. > :48:11.had 22 Celsius in Aviemore, across Southern Scotland with the sunnier
:48:12. > :48:15.skies here, temperatures will be higher. Looking at around the
:48:16. > :48:17.mid-teens across England and Wales. We could get one or two showers
:48:18. > :48:20.across northern hills.