28/04/2014 Newsnight Scotland

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: What kind of lives will we live in the

future and does the result of the independence referendum have much

bearing on them? In a special programme I'm joined by a panel of

experts on the way we live from earliest childhood to our last

years. Are we asking the right questions about childcare? Do we

really want a more equal society? And does anyone know the answers to

the problems posed by an ageing population?

Good evening. We hear a lot of what the

politicians promise in the referendum campaign. Tonight, we're

asking a panel of highly qualified and impartial experts to identify

and discuss some of the problems and possible solutions which Scottish

society will face in the coming years, whatever the constitutional

arrangements may be. Professor Susan Deacon wrote the report on early

years care for the Scottish Government. Professor Kirstein

Rummery researches childcare, elderly care, social care and gender

equality. Professor Phil Hanlon is an expert in public health.

Professor Pauline Banks is Director of the Institute of Older People's

Health and Wellbeing. David Watt is Executive Director of the Institute

of Directors, Scotland. Professor Jo Armstrong is an economist with the

Centre for Public Policy for Regions. And Dave Moxham is Deputy

General Secretary of the Scottish TUC.

Let's start with early years which has been a subject of much debate in

the referendum particularly about childcare costs, Susan Deacon. I'm

wondering whether you think that's the right debate to be having? Well,

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm delight that had

we are talking about a really important issue that affects

children and families, but the way that we have arrived at this debate

and the way that we are conducting is it is odd. We don't need

constitutional change to improve childcare in this country and that's

just a fact. I am not alone in having a concern that we are having

this debate predicated on the notion that all these women, would, could

and should suddenly go back to work this they have more childcare

available. We're not talking about children. We're not talking about

choice. But most of all, my concern would be that we're still failing to

have a grounded and rounded conversation about the things that

make a difference to a child's early life experience and so much of that

goes on in the home and in the community. The objection, I suppose,

to the way the debate has been framed at the moment, that it is not

a debate about children, it is a debate about adults? Well,

absolutely and you know, yes, it is important. It is crucially important

that we talk about the economy in the same breath as we talk about

social issues. I don't think we do that nearly enough, but we have

extracted this one very narrow, you know, scenario that affects a narrow

group of women, or supposedly affects a certain number of women in

the population that we are going to flick a switch and it is all going

to change. As I say, we need to broaden this right out. Not for the

first time we are over simpifying a really important issue that affects

not just all of us as individuals, but has a huge impact on our

society. Jo Armstrong, the other thing that's going rather

undiscussed is whether there is any economic rational. Some of the

charities and all of rest of it who are campaigning on it. They are

saying it is great we are taking this serious. Some would say

providing childcare is great, but there is no economic reason for it

in I think you would be investing in early years for the life chances of

individuals and that would hopefully reduce inequalities and help develop

economic productivity from those individuals in later years, but it

is difficult to see the evidence that says a significant economic

benefits from intervention of childcare... What about increasing

childcare payments so that people go back to work? Is there an economic

case for that? Again, unless it is targeted, you are giving money to

people who would be paying for it in any case. It maybe unproductive

redistribution. Whenever politicians say we will pay for this because of

the economic benefits it would bring, you would caution a healthy

dose of scepticism? Yes, it is very difficult to see. Phil Hanlon, what

do you make of this? Do you think this debate has been framed in the

right way? I agree with Susan, it is too narrow. If you ask is there an

economic, social, health and benefit of giving children the best possible

start in life? The evidence is unequivocal. Are there many children

in Scotland who aren't having that? Yes, definitely. If you could deal

with that... The point is, paying more childcare so that people go

back to work is not necessarily the same issue as the one you are

talking about. It could be one small component and that's the frustration

many people in Scotland are feeling about the debate and about the

referendum is they recognise, people understand what it takes to raise a

child and the complexity of it all. If you said to a mother who has just

seen their child leave secondary school who has flourished in all

ways, what was the one thing that achieved it? The mother would think

it is a ridiculous question. Equally so, the idea that one intervention

will transform early years in Scotland is equally ridiculous, but

the question needs to be asked because we need to debate things

policy by policy, could that policy be part of a more comprehensive set

of interventions that make a real difference to the early years? Well,

that's a question worth asking and it depends it is done and what else

is put alongside it. If there were a economic rational behind it, you

would expect employers to be lobbying like mad for State to pay

more childcare? Employers want, I think they want to see the best

possible at long-term end of the education system whenever it starts.

So they want to see suitable potential employees coming out of

the school system whether at 16 or 18 or out of universities. They

would understand the sooner they start, the better, from that

economic point of view and secondly, they would be happy to see a number

of parents male or female being more available for the workforce through

better childcare being provided, but that's back to the debate, is it

about the child or is it about the employer or the employee and the

adult or is it about the child and if we are trying to improve the

child in the next generation then, you know, employers would want to

see that happen, but as Jo said, how long can they wait for that benefit

to come? In general terms, they would be in favour of it, but they

are not expecting it to have a massive economic benefit to them or

the economy tomorrow. Various parties are proposing certain

things. Our members would want better funded childcare. The range

of benefits is the right approach to this. There is a fundamental

difficulty that no one is really addressing as part of the referendum

debate which is nobody would blink at the thought of paying tax to

educate a five-year-old in school, but the political argument has not

been won as to why you might pay more tax in order to provide the

wrap around childcare that a five-year-old might need. No one has

grasped that nettle yet and for all of its positive noises, some of the

things the White Paper did was distract us from that argument.

Could I take issue with the separation of the economic and

social policy and the idea that it is about either working parents or

children? What the international evidence shows is if you invest in

early years t has several benefits. One, is it gets more women and lower

paid men into work and that is very good at tackling child poverty and

family poverty. Secondly... When you say when you invest in early karks

you mean -- early care, you mean giving more parents work? Partly

that, but also investing in an infrastructure that vow vids --

provides high quality childcare. You are seeing it as an economic

investment just as you would in an investment rather than a cost and a

drain. We know investment in early years benefits children, extremely

and the outcomes in terms of both their employment prospects in the

fewer and their educational attainment in the future is much,

much better. When you say investment in early years here in that respect,

that it benefits the children. What do you mean? It is better to have

children in nurseries rather than at home with the families? The

international evidence shows that a mix of both is the best outcome. If

you have children who are just at home with parents their outcomes are

poor. If you have children who spend a lot of time in early years,

particularly at an early age, the outcomes are poorer, but it is very,

very complex. One of the main things that investment in childcare

achieves, it tackles family poverty because it gets parents into work

and that's the surest way of getting those parents out of poverty and it

is poverty that has the severely negative impact on children rather

than the actual lack of childcare. If you invest in the family being

able to work and you invest in childcare as an industry, you are

getting more people into work and you are putting money into poorer

families who are more likely to spend it in the local economy to

build up the infrastructure. But you would say case unproven? They may

spend it in the local community, but they would be spending their

benefits in the local community. OK. Pauline Banks, I'm curious as to

what you make of the way the debate has been framed?

It is a difficult one for me to come in at this stage because it is not

the area that I'm working in. For families to work together and there

are a lot of grandparents involved in childcare and the changes in the

pension age will make a difference to the availability of grandparents

to do that. Every different policy has a different impact on the age

group. Everyone talks about the phrase now, University of Mum and

dad for the problems that young people are having on the housing

market, but there is a labour force of grandma and grand dad? There is a

huge amount of child care out by grandparents. But surely the more

you argue an economic case for child care support, the more likely you

are to reduce early years? Finland, for example, everyone says the

education system there is marvellous but they do not send their children

to school for a long time? We must be very hurtful about this sort of

comparison. I remember in a former life being dispatched to the land.

-- dispatched to thin land. -- we must be very careful about this. It

is a different cultural context and a different political context.

Everything is different. They have a different set of problems. It has

become very fashionable to compare ourselves with the Nordic nations.

But this must be treated with caution. On this issue of

investment, if I could pick up on some points. The point about

recognising importance, in the broadest sense, about early years

intervention, the best thing I would say is that the family is hugely

important. That is not centrestage enough in our discussions. We have

touched on some issues regarding employment. Often when we talk about

the skills that we need in this country we talk about the things

that we do with or for youngsters from the age of 16 onwards. The

foundation stones are laid in the first few years of life. It is shown

in boundaries, communication, the general parameters. What I would

also say... Talking about the point about grandparents being involved in

the family, the thing that worries me is that grandparents are an

unpaid labour force, but that fundamental relationship can be one

of the most valuable relationships that there is. We must broaden the

discussion. We must not just think about professional intervention. We

must invest in our children. If you are correct in what you say about

the economics of this is the referendum in itself particularly

relevant? Is it a broader debate? Whatever mechanism we use, if we

want more childcare are, we must paper it through taxes. That debate

has not been had yet? At the moment, we are being told that full paper

itself. It is difficult to see how that would work. There are no

numbers to support that. Talking about early years intervention, the

statistics would argue that if you want to sit for children through the

early years and right the way through to university, you must

spend more at early years stage. I want to move on now. In working

life, I want to tackle head on a pertinent issue. Everyone is

competing with their visions of making Scotland a more rounded

society. I wonder if that is what people want. Some of the polling

evidence shows that we want to be better off. That seems to be

correct. From a health point of view, I think there is no doubt that

three things go together and that his health and well-being, equity

and sustainability. Any country that wants to have a healthy population

that is genuinely flourishing, an equal ovulation, socially and

economically. They must buy into the whole culture. -- and equal

population. The population must be able to have confidence in its

future. These are bigger issues which we are not discussing yet. We

have been disappointed that both sides of the date are only concerned

with persuading Scottish people that there are a side would put more

pounds into the economy. That is a very low level debate. This could be

a grand debate about the type of Scotland that we would all like to

live in. What would you say to someone who would say in reply to

that, is that I do not want able to become disadvantaged but I would

like us all to be better off. But if that means some people get even more

rich than they are ready, who would care about that? What I would say is

that all the evidence shows that once a country is wealthy, and

Scotland is now well be, becoming more prosperous and wealthier

without more equality and a change in culture, does not improve our

health and well-being. If we want to flourish, it simply having that

narrow vision of more money in your pocket will not cut the mustard. It

is that straightforward. Is there any economic evidence for that? The

evidence is once you get over a certain income per head, you do not

need any more. But we must grow and we must use and create more taxes.

As health and well-being a function of equality? I bow to my

colleague's that knowledge than me. I am merely a simple economist!

People want to be incentivised to work and do things. We all do. We

compete for everything. We compete for medical research funding, new

jobs, new business. That mechanism, unfortunately, brings with it the

idea that if you compete and win, you own more. That is the reality of

the world we live in. The paradox is if you do that and individuals, by

their nature, are inclined to do that, but we are also corporate.

Countries that have greater social inequalities have outcomes which are

generally pro-. -- group generally worse. This has to do with the

culture which encourages distribution and we must concentrate

on that. There is an appetite for fairness in Scotland. I remember

Alistair Darling talking about being asked at a conference what are women

going to vote for? What is in it for them? Is there gender equality? And

he said women will vote for it in the same way as men do stop a care

about economic prosperity, about the money in their pockets. Myself and

the other women in the audience went that is not what we mean at all. We

mean a fairer society for us and our families and communities. What is

the distinction you are making? It is about better access. It is about

access to opportunities, debtor education that is not the bicep.

Education policy, we do not need independence for a different

education policy. -- better education that is not divisive. You

can have a fairer society, but it does not necessarily have been more

equal? But there has to be a smaller gap. It is divisive when people see

that there are other people with lots more than them. Scotland would

probably have a vision for itself. When I have spoken to policymakers,

in terms of the more a Gallic Terry and fairer society, more women

involved in politics, for example, if Eric distributional of

resources, that would not necessarily mean equal. Can I be

boring for a moment? There is bruised more rhetoric about equality

unit a good thing. If we lead the spare room subsidy to one side, do

you find any policy is being proposed by anyone in this

referendum debate, even relevant to the issue of whether Scotland would

become a more equal society? I do, to the extent that what we see from

the Scottish Government is a recognition that the workplace

matters and the quality of work matters. To be fair, it has probably

not emanated from any government in the UK for about 30 years.

Translating that desire, if you like, to improve the quality of work

and workplace equality, we are involving unions and other workers

in ups killing and development of industry and that is an important

goal. -- ups killing. -- improving skills. I think it is absolutely

fair to recognise that there is a desire through workplace equality to

affect inequality in a way that we have not seen so far. But not actual

policies? Not actual policies. The other side is looking at the pro-UK

parties, do you see anything there? It has been encouraging to see, for

example, the Labour Party talking about action on living wages. I

think from a number of parties at a UK level, there has been reasonable

action on improving skills for workers. But they have not done as

much as I would like them to do. I believe it to you, David Watt, to

point out that rather like with childcare, we like talking about how

great it would be to have more equality but we do not want to talk

about how we would pay for it. The thing I despair about on both sides

of this debate is that there is no emphasis on wealth creation. People

don't care about how politicians spend their money, within reason.

But they would actually quite like Scotland to be a very prosperous

society, more prosperous than it is, and to some degree, that wealth will

be part of the decision on how we vote and how we live afterwards. But

how will we change the economy? One of the principles is to make it more

equal and that has not come out yet. There is no fundamental flash of

light on either side that will make any difference. Wealth creation, and

how we spend well, might be politically divisive, but we would

like to see more in issue to and innovative thinking from both sides.

-- we would like to see more initiative. We want to see wealth

earners using their wealth. We spoke earlier about the integration of

public spending and public services and the economy. We need a broader

vision over the next 20 years about how different economies operate in

Scotland. We need to know how the public sector and private sector can

integrate to a greater extent. If we want rater equality, it is striking

that one of the arguments for independence is that Scotland would

have complete control over the tax system. -- if we want greater

equality. I do not know any proposal from any party that does anything at

all to promote equality I changing the basic rate of tax. -- to promote

equality by changing. They seem to want to say they want all these

powders but will do nothing with them. We need to have a reality

check about all of this. I am as keen as the next person about how to

debate what is going on. But we are part of a global world and the

global economic system. We might dislike some of the character is

sticks but it is they are nonetheless. We also need to have a

broader discussion about the global influences that affect what is going

on in Scotland. I will illustrate this. One thing that annoys me most

is the wages that go on in sport, especially football. I do not know

how you break that cycle because it is a global market. We must get real

here. The leaders of domestic policy are ever more limited in what they

can actually do. Growing concern over many years that I have had is

how in Scotland, we have put Bart too much emphasis in terms of what

can be achieved by particular powers. -- we have put far too much

emphasis. I just think that we have over eight the pudding.

Pauline Banks, I am going to ask you about inequality and that involves

older people because again, I'm not aware of this having been debated in

the referendum campaign. All this talk about generational conflict.

Now, one argument is that actually what we are seeing is not

generational conflict, but the next generation, inequality being

increased because what matters amongst elderly people is asset

wealth and the divisions for young people is what you inherit will be

more important as generations go on, particularly given the way that

house prices are? That's true, but there is a lot of older people who

pass money down to their children and help them. There is a lot of

unemployment amongst the younger people. There is a lot of movement

of money between the generations. Older people helping younger people

get through their education and helping them buy flats and get

started in the housing market. If you are fortunate to come from a

family that has any money in the first place. That's the point. A

certain class of younger people will benefit and another class of younger

people won't and that promotes increased inequality? That's

possible. Then you have got to look at whether people, it depends on

your luck with your health when you are older whether you have to go

into care, you might have to sell your house to pay for it. There are

all sorts of complexities that can come into it. Would you just like to

see your members getting more money and it doesn't really matter or...

We would like to see our... I'm assuming you would. I mean if you

look over a period of time at pay demands put in by unions, you will

always find they have a bottom level and at least at the bottom. The work

that we do around promoting minimum wages and living wages has an

implicit knock on effect in terms of the middle to higher earners, the

company deals with the minimum wage increase by trimming wages somewhere

up the ladder. It is part and parcel of what we do is an attempt to

equalise pay or make it more equal. We talked about the social impact of

that. The economic importance of ensuring that more, if you like,

baseline jobs are better skilled and better paid and frankly, better

recognised within the workplace is absolutely fundamental and equality

matters. David, what I want you do to confront directly, what Phil

Hanlon said at the beginning of the conversation, would you challenge

this idea and argue that wealth creation and making everyone in

society is better off is a greater good if it produces more wealth than

perhaps limiting the amount of wealth you can produce making people

more equal? I don't think that, I must admit we have some severe

inequalities in certain probably FTSE companies. If you scratch the

surface in Scotland. The number of high earners is extremely small.

There is 12,000 people in Scotland on the 45 pence tax rate. Even if

they emigrate, we are not going to make a lot of machine out of them if

they all stay. The thing I would challenge as well is why are

Government taxing people that earn the minimum wage? The Government

taxes them. I also don't think employers, I am not sure that some

understand enough, but bigger employers understand that having a

healthy and happy and content workforce is economically productive

and it makes their business a success. I don't see them as massive

differences. Let's give Phil Hanlon the last say on this. If you have

two individuals and their incomes are both rising, and they are quite

happy with that. If I'm the person who has got less of an income, it is

not clear to me why I should be any healthier because the other person

is getting richer than I am? That logic is correct. I have no argument

with that, but if you look at a societal level. In country A, there

is competition, dog eat dog, massive distribution of wealth, opportunity

and no sense of cohesion. The same amount of money. This same amount of

money, but social cohesion, sense of wanting to solve the problems and

all in it together, across generational support, that equally

wealthy country has better health and social outcomes. All the

international data suggests that to be true. Now, what you do with that

insight isn't straightforward. You get back to the individual debates

about the workplace and about each part of the workforce wanting the

best for themselves and so on. It doesn't solve the problem, about if

you -- but if you want a country that's already wealthy to do better,

you need to take the whole population along with you and in

Scotland, in particular, if we talk about inequality, I don't think it

is about the highest paid and the bankers and so on, I think it is

what we do about a fifth of the population, who haven't receipt

recovered from the industrialisation when those high skilled, good jobs,

breadwinner jobs disappeared, they will never come back and there are

individuals who found their way out that, but there are many communities

who have yet to have a route out of that reaction to

de-industrialisation. A future Scotland could confront that. The

fact we don't ha solutions at the moment, doesn't mean that we

couldn't yet have them. I want to move on. Older people and people

becoming old. Pauline Banks, your specialist subject. This is a

complex area, I want to ask you something basic. If you are an

elderly person or someone approaching retirement age and you

see the arguments about the referendum campaign, it is not a

question of what side you are on, isn't it, it is almost so

complicated you don't know how to think about this stuff? I think

people know very well how to think about it. We're talking about people

approaching retirement age. You are talking about people from their 60s

up to 100s, you are talking two or three generations there. You can't

put everybody who is older in the one category. There are significant

things people are concerned about their pensions, whether their

pensions are going to change. We have been assured that they will not

change. There are issues about the pension age rising when we have

poorer health in Scotland. The White Paper suggested that they will put

the pension age up to 66, the same as England, but they will look at it

again before they put it up to 6 or 6 -- 67 or 68 on the basis what is

appropriate for Scotland. While we have more older people in Scotland

than England, they don't live as long of the it is a hugely complex

picture to be looking at. Do you reckon it all evens out? I can't

tell you. I'm not the economist. What do you make this David Watts?

Well, I think what's very interesting from an economic, from a

business prospective, there is a real worry about the future of -

somebody not far away from going off on a pension, I would be interested

to know who is going to pay for my pension, where is the next workforce

going to come? And that's a real challenge with the demographic. I'm

curious whether, there is this issue, isn't there, about

cross-border pensions and whether there might be European rules which

would mean that say if an English company which was, if you were

ogging in Scotland -- working in Scotland, it would have to be fully

funded. Is that an issue? It is an issue. There is the personal issue

and the structural issue. The private pension industry, the EU

rules have been put in place, you have to be residing in the country

where the majority of your business is done and hence the reason

Standard Life has taken recautionary -- precautionary steps they may have

to follow. They have done a risk assessment and assessed most of

their business is south of the border and they have to set up

company structures there which they may or may not have, depending on

vote and whether the EU will move from that. There is no question

whatsoever, so pick an industry that's most concerned because of the

regulatory nature and the costs, there is no question the financial

services industry is seriously concerned about independence and it

has the right to be concerned because of the two factors. What do

you think if you are an elderly person, you should be thinking about

when you think about the referendum? I would be less concerned about

pensions and very, very much concerned about care and long-term

care and nursing care and what was going to happen to my money and my

benefits and my assets. I think what is interesting is that we have in

Scotland a very complex system of welfare with certain areas like

benefits and welfare benefits and pensions decided in Westminster and

other areas like social care decided on a very local area and not just

Scotland, but local authorities controlling that system and what we

see is a lot of waste in the system and a lot of unfairness in the

system. We have 32 different local authorities in Scotland and that

means 2 #3 32 different systems of social care and entitlements to

care. Have you not put your finger on? What you have just said, I have

not heard addressed by either side? I find it shocking as somebody, well

you will know my from my accent I am the only non-Scot. I have a stake in

this and my family have a stake in this. Neither side are grasping the

nettle. We have a crisis in the funding and delivery of long-term

care for elderly people in the whole of the developed world. We need to

really do something quite serious about this. Now, we would have, to

link it back to the referendum, we could have a very interesting debate

about the linking of welfare benefits and social care and for

example, putting packages of Attendance Allowance and personal

independence payments that would enable people to plan for their

future and plan for their care. We could look at having a system of

long-term care insurance that's devolved to Scotland, such as

Germany has, but neither side is ragz these -- raising these options.

These are schemes which individuals would pay into the scheme if you are

lucky enough to own a house, your house wouldn't be taken away?

Exactly. Rather than it being an assess the based thing -- asset

based thing. It is a three-way relationship. Scotland could do

that. It could only do that with independence because it has got to

control the taxation system and the economic policy as well as the

social care system. It is interesting that, you know, I go

back to David's point saying the White Paper had some interesting

ideas about what it thought some of the problems were, but it didn't

really present us with any exciting or innovative or ground breaking

solutions. I wonder if we can take a step back? We are in danger of

saying some of the shortcomings shall we say of the political debate

begun and will end with the referendum debate. These are

shortcomings with our political debate and our politics in this

country. You know, we have not... Presumably across the UK? Well, yes

across the UK, but it manifests itself in a particular way in

Scotland. I am probably the ex-politician on the panel here. For

the 14 years since we had or 15 years since we had devolution, you

know, if you monitor this as some of us have been sad enough to do from a

distance and from within, if you monitor the debates that we have had

about health and education, say, forget about the constitutional

question and further powers for a minute. We have not had fundamental

searching discussions that cut across party lines about how we

create a sustainable flourishing NHS or how we tackle some of the issues

in our education system. I'm not going to fling your political past

at you too much! But Labour were as at least as

complicit as anyone else... I agree. In not having a debate about public

service reform in Scotland, even if you don't like the Blairites they

had in England? I agree with you. I have been on record for a number of

years in saying that. It is our wider political debate and the way

our parties organised and the way that they compete for votes that is

the fundamental problem. Unless and until we see some fundamental

changes in how we discuss these issues, and frankly the only way

forward I concede is having a lot more voices and I don't mean

so-called expert voices, but many more wider voices. They must be

prepared to enter into that space. I think we have a problem because we

are not as King the hard questions. -- we are not asking. The government

has engaged with the survey population in a far more

constructive way since devolution. -- has engaged with the population.

At that is not what delivers change. If I can just finished. If you gave

Scotland more powers to do that it would do it more effect of late and

much more in the interests of the country. We have broadened this out

in exactly the way that I wanted. I want to ask the question, all of

these issues that we have discussed, is the referendum debate relevant to

them and if it is relevant, does it address them? We have heard here

tonight that all sorts of issues, including public sector reform, are

not being talked about. It is not addressing them but it is relevant

to them. This debate has illustrated how we are all in this together. The

average Scottish person will have 19 years of chronic illness bit or if

he or she dies. That is something to cheer us all up. You will be fine.

But we need a public debate. We need a debate in society about how we

shorten that. Scotland performs badly against the rest of Europe in

life expectancy. Life expectancy will probably continue to rise. But

we must talk about how well we all are. That will depend on a number of

factors. The referendum debate is absolutely crucial and relevant to

all of this. But not necessarily what is being debated. Professor Jo

Armstrong, what do you make of all of this? It has started to force

people to think about ends differently. -- to think about

things differently. For me, the issue is not about policy ideas and

some of them are really good, but it is about where we are now and fire

we think we are going to get to. We cannot afford what we have at the

minute. But that must have factored into the debate. If we cannot tax

the super-rich and we do not have the capacity to grow the economy as

fast as we would like, then in order to deliver them, we must do things

differently and effectively we must cut services. The funding question

is essential. Or you could put taxes up there is no talk about that. Is

the referendum important when discussing these issues? It is under

camouflage about the other 90% of things that we must talk about to

get through to the population. The issues have not been debated

effectively so far, in my opinion. We must grab hold of the issues.

These discussions cannot end at the time the referendums have -- the

referendum happens. Irrespective of the result, people should not field

completely defeated. How would you sum this up? You're talking about an

SNP government, writing the white paper. I do not think the population

is ready for some of these debates. Talking about the care per older

people, we have to get down to the roots in society and think about

changing things. People like myself, we should be thinking about

how we are going to change things in later life. It is not up to other

people. Last word to the bosses as usual. Very briefly. The referendum

has not brought about enough debate on issues like social care and that

must change. Thank you all very much for your contributions. That is all

from me for tonight. I will be back tomorrow we think. Good evening.

With more sunshine it should be a warmer day than today. Northern

Scotland seeing more cloud so temperatures won't be as high. We

had 22 Celsius in Aviemore, across Southern Scotland with the sunnier

skies here, temperatures will be higher. Looking at around the

mid-teens across England and Wales. We could get one or two showers

across northern hills.