16/06/2011 Question Time

Tonight we are in Aberdeen and With me on our panel the First

Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, from the cabinet the Liberal

Democrat Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, the last

Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsythe, the

Labour MP from Glasgow, Margaret Curran, and one of Scotland's

richest men, the businessman Tom Hunter.

APPLAUSE. Thank you very much. Our first

question tonight is from Emma Campbell, please. With the UK

retail sales falling 1.4% in May is a temporary VAT cut needed to start

the economy? That's the suggestion made by the Shadow Chancellor today,

Ed Balls, that there should be a cut in VAT to kickstart the economy.

Michael Michael Forsythe? Absolutely not. It would cost �12

billion and we are trying to pay off a deficit where the interest

costs are enormous and if the markets think for a moment that we

have lost our determination to reduce this deficit, then we will

see interest rates going up and that will be catastrophic for jobs,

for people paying mortgages, and for our economy overall. You think

he he doesn't skwrpb stand the economy or was he playing politics?

If he understood the economy we wouldn't be in this mess now.

APPLAUSE. I think he is probably trying to get a headline to take

attention away from some of the documents that were brought into

the public domain that showed he was plotting against his own Prime

Minister. I think Ed Balls has made it absolutely clear today what the

whole country knows, which is that the Labour Party has lost its

economic competence. We have to stick with this prol. -- policy.

The slightest indication of change could cause great difficulty and I

think it's important that people recognise that we are not out of

the woods yet and there are serious problems still in the banking

system, and with the euro in Greece and we really have to keep on with

this policy of reducing the deficit. By the way, when we talk about

reducing the deficit, all we're doing is talking about reducing the

rate at which we are increasing the debt. The deficit of �150 billion

is the amount that our debt is increasing. The national debt

doubled in the last parliament and we are, if we get rid of the

structural deficit, we will still have a larger debt. You are saying

it's not even tough enough at the moment? I am saying it's as tough

as we can be and... You would like it to be tougher, if it could be?

think we should recognise we are in very serious difficulties because

of the huge increase in public expenditure in place under the last

Government, which was not able to be funded because it was the

product of a boom. Alex Salmond. wonder if Michael is telling us the

whole story, because it was interesting last last week when

this argument was planning about plan B, the Chancellor gave an

interview where he wouldn't say they were going on to plan B but

said there was flexibility within plan A. Whether you call it

flexibility or you call it plan B, I am for plan B of flex flex

I think we have got to act on bank lending, small and medium

businesses are still not getting access to bank lending, and I think

in terms of consumer confidence you have got to try and address, which

is why you need flexibility in a plan B which is what's stopping

people spending. What's stopping people spending is fear of

unemployment. When people believe their jobs are at risk they save,

they don't spend. Once they believe or can see a light at the end.

Tunnel, more job security that's when people people spend and invest

so that would be my prescription and frankly, I don't care if you

call it plan B or flexibility around plan A, the Chancellor

should get on with it. APPLAUSE.

So, Margaret Curran, two against Ed Balls. Are you fully in favour of

what he said? Yes, I do think what Ed Balls is saying this afternoon

is right and I do - to answer the question the lady asked about the

VAT increase, we do have to bring down VAT because it would encourage

spending. How much would it cost to do that? Michael Forsythe said �12

billion, far be it from me to agree with Michael's figures but if we go

with that figure it's an interesting figure because the

Government have to h to increase welfare spending by �12 billion

according to their own independent forecasts by �12 billion because of

so many people out of work. I think it's crazy that we have a situation

where you are actually increasing welfare spending because you are

not tackling the job situation. What we need to do - let me agree

with Alex Salmond on this point, we need to get people back to work,

having more people on the dole is just a stupid strategy and takes

you down a false road. We have just had some fantastic jobs figures.

Well, let's not get too complacent about those jobs figures. I am not

complacent. Let me tell you about those figures, any fall in

unemployment is to be welcomed but there was also an increase in the

claimant of people seeking jobseeker's allowance. Let me tell

you about parts of Glasgow, there are approximately 25 people chasing

every vacancy. That's a desperate situation and what we should do is

have a Government that actually wants to do something about that

and get people back to work. That's the way to start getting back on

the road to recovery. APPLAUSE.

Alex Salmond said he didn't think two half% off VAT was the right

answer? There are other things need to be done, it's part of the answer

because the institute of fiscal studies said the last time when the

Labour Government took that down that it was an important stimulus,

it did bring borrowing down, it did help to reduce the deficit last

time. You have a short short memory, you are forgetting how seriously

the economy was in a very bad place only a year ago. We have come out

of the deepest recession over the last few years. There were a number

of factors, but the fact is that your Government left us with a huge

gap between the amount we raised in tax every year and the amount we

spend. We could not continue on that basis for any longer. That's

why the Chancellor set out a very bold plan to reduce the deficit, to

ensure that we create the conditions where jobs can be

created. Let's agree on that. The importance for the economy for the

country as a whole is to make sure we create more jobs. What's wrong

with the idea of a stimulus? We had stimulus for a long time - wait a

minute. You changed your tune when you went to the Tories.

APPLAUSE. The truth is having Maxed out on

the nation's credit card as you did for a long time, we are the ones

who are having to pick up the pieces and make sure we get the

economy back in the right place. So, help businesses by reducing the

taxes they're paying, making sure interest rates are as low as

possible. If you doubt us, look at across Europe, see what interest

rates we are paying that are comparable to Germany as opposed to

Greece, which is paying something like 18%, that's not sustainable.

Thank you. The woman there. Salmond believes that we are all

saving instead of spending. Wake up, many people would love to have the

luxury to be able to save at the moment.

APPLAUSE. Tom Hunter, you are from the

business world, what do you think of this idea of a cut in VAT?

retailer I will take whatever help I can get, because consumer

confidence is at its lowest point that I have ever seen it. Will VAT

help? It may help, but as Alex Salmond said, consumer confidence

is made up of many things and the consumer is being hit with Scottish

power 19% on fuel, prices unbelievable, the fear of

unemployment, are they going to have a job at the end of the week?

People are frightened to spend and they do rein in spending so I am

for less tax, not more tax, and I think where the current Government

has got it wrong, quite frankly, is we all understand we all need to

draw in our belts, everybody understands that, but where is the

growth? More importantly, to get us out of the situation we are in,

will be the tax take on the increase in the economy, not just

keep cutting, cutting. Soon there'll be nothing left to cut.

How do you get growth? How you get growth is to stimulate it. I would

love to see in Scotland that we controlled our own corporation tax.

I would love to attract the businesses here so that we can

attract businesses, create jobs, as Margaret Curran said, paying people

to sit idle is lunancy. The woman here. You look at the unemployment

figures. I am a qualified nurse who is unemployed. I looked today on

the Scottish website for jobs, there are seven jobs for the whole

of Scotland. How does Mr Salmond - you were saying you want to look at

building hospitals etc, how are you going to staff those when you are

not not prepared to employ any nurses? Michael Forsythe. I think

it's crazy - sorry, Alex, we are going to disagree, it's crazy for

me to be giving free prescriptions in Scotland when that money could

be spent on employing more nurses and doctors in the health service.

APPLAUSE. The man up there.

We have youth unemployment rate in this country and everyone knows

that it spells bad for the next five to ten years. What we need to

do is start getting the youth employed so we have people working

in five to ten years time. We have gone away from the VAT point.

answer Michael directly, the reason we don't pay prescriptions in

Scotland is because there was 6 hundred,000 people earning less

than �16,000 having to pay prescriptions over �7. When we are

talking about pressure on family budgets it's bad enough every price

on every good in shop is going up, gas bills going up, but when you

have evidence of people having to choose which prescription they need

for their family it's proper to act on that. We have a target of

reducing senior management in the health service by 25% and if we can

use that, then that's a good value for money in having prescriptions

free in Scotland. Can I turn to the point Margaret made. In 2008, the

Labour Government analysed the relative merits in creating jobs of

cutting VAT on the one hand, and on the other hand, increasing capital

investment, building in the economy and found for the same price with

the same costs you generated twice as many jobs through capital

investment as you did for cutting VAT. Now that was the Labour

Government's own figures in 2008. You might say they've got other

figures wrong in 2008 but nonetheless, that analysis holds. I

have never seen a recovery in any economy, anywhere, which wasn't

accompanied by a recovery in construction. You must get the

construction sector moving, you must build things, you must get the

economy moving. The man there. I don't mean to be

the one that reminds the Government that they've just - where this

programme is coming from, but it's put a significant tax on the energy

sector and it does put a severe pressure on potential projects that

are going on in the future. As a graduate engineer a job that was

potentially very secure for a long time might become unsecure in the

way to come. You are cutting taxes for businesses, it's not for all

businesses, it's not across the board. We may have have time to get

to that point later on. The woman there. Given the VAT is a temporary

measure to cut it back, do you think it's a short-term fix rather

thapbg a long -- rather than a long-term solution to the problems?

I don't know if I was being honest, hopefully it's a short-term fix and

it may not be needed long-term. But what we need to have is a long

kwrepl solution to the problems of our economy. If I could return to

the point I was trying to - rudely interskwrebgt and -- interskwrebgt

about the point where we are and why we are here, this is

undoubtedly and international crisis and we have to appreciate

that, we have to understand the scale of the challenge that is in

front of us. This wasn't made in Downing Street. This was made in

Wall Street. Other countries are facing exactly what we are facing.

Bear with me. You can't just blame the last Labour Government, that's

far too easy. The challenge to our economy, getting young people back

to work as the gentlemen said, making sure we have nurses, getting

schools built and I will lobby Alex so get more schools in my

constituency because the SNP haven't built any in the time

they've been in power in my constituency. It's a mixture of

things, but my core point would be you have to use the skills of the

people you have got. Throwing people on the dole, as we know too

sadly in Scotland, is a false economy. Get people back to work,

that's what we need to do. You are right. Nobody wants to see anybody

on the dole at all. But we have actually got to make sure the

economy is working so that we can create jobs, real jobs, not false

jobs with false promises as Labour were doing with the Future Jobs

Fund under the previous regime. Come on... The Tories think nurses

Margaret Curran, one of the rules of the programme is to allow the

others to speak! Bearing in mind the economic crisis, that was a

factor. It was exacerbated by the last Government, the way in which

it spent money as if it were going out of fashion. We are now picking

up the pieces. If we don't do it correctly, we will be in a mess for

a very long time to come. If the SNP are confident, that the

people of Scotland want independence, why not set a date

for the vote? APPLAUSE. It seems to be a one for you, Alex

Salmond if you are so confident that the people of Scotland want

independence, why not set a date? During the election campaign a few

weeks ago, when asked when the referendum should be, I said well

into the second half of the term. Given that occasionally,

politicians are criticised for not doing as they said in an election

campaign, I thought I would provide a refreshing change and stake to

what -- stick to what I offered the people during the campaign. That

seemed to attract support. The other reason that this is important.

It touches on what we have been speaking about. That is that I seem

the immediate priority as to getting the economic powers into

the Scotland Bill. To get economic teeth, like the point that Sir Tom

Hunter made about Corporation Tax control. Levers to enhance growth

in the economy, to respond to the economic crisis, to get the

Scottish economy moving. That is the immediate priority. Then we

have the question of independence. Is it not better to do that as an

independent nation? I think it would be.

Why not have it? Or don't you think that they will win? We are laying

out the immediate priority. I know you are saying that. People

have watched your victory and been gobsmacked by it. You know. They

are gobsmacked. The system was set up to stop what

happened, you got the majority. The whole construction as the Labour

Party said when they invented the system, it would not happen. You

swept the board and now people think, in the rest of the UK as

well, that the SNP are riding high, why not go the whole hog and have

their independence referendum? Because one of the reasons we swept

the board perhaps, David, apart from appearing in Question Time

rand the election campaign, but one of the reasons we swept the board

is that people believed we would do what we said to do in the campaign.

If I came after winning a victory that was not expected by

commentators and perhaps even slightly exceeding the SNP's

expectations, if I said we have a majority, we can do what we like,

to reverse the timetable I set out in the election campaign, the

questions would be why didn't you do what you said in the election

campaign? I think given the experience of the Liberal Democrats,

that would have been an unwise policy, so let's concentrate on

getting the economic powers and then let the Scottish people

express their opinion on a Scottish future.

George Foreman, does that -- Michael Forsythe, what do you

think? I think it is balderdash. The reason he does not want to set

a date, he knows if he had a referendum now, he would lose it.

APPLAUSE. So he want wants to spend five

years creating grievances and aggros, in the hope that it ruments

in Scotland breaking up the union. I don't believe that Scotland will

vote to break up the union. The reason that people voted for Alex,

he has run a competent administration in the Scottish

Parliament. It was the choice of having an SNP administration and

the Labour administration, people looked at the record and they voted

SNP. They expect him to implement the manifesto promise iss. Now,

there is �5 billion of promise iss there, where he is getting the

money from, I don't know. If he is able to deliver all of the things

he promised and to do all of the things that he said, I may be

tempted to vote for him myself! He has found a way of turning led that

gold. He is a latter day alchemist. The truth is that he knows he would

lose it. There is a serious point, it is damaging to Scotland's

interest to have this uncertainty hanging over our heads as to

whether we are to remain a part of the United Kingdom, what is the

position on tax, finances, what is the position on defence, the rest,

so the sooner that we end the uncertainty and get on with the

business of creating jobs and prosperity, the better. So Alex,

give the people the say. You spent the last Parliament from being

prevented for creating a referendum. Could you instigate a referendum?

Alex does not have the power in the Scottish Parliament to create a

binding referendum. So, why are you blaming him?

Westminster could do it? APPLAUSE. Because he is busy telling us,

through the back door, that if we had a referendum, if we legislated

in the Scotland Bill, which I will vote for, happily table an

amendment in the Lord's, to create the opportunity for Scotland to

have a say, he would boycott it and use his powers to make it not

happen. If Alex wants to suss did - - ask us to do it, of course we

will do it, but he won't as he is afraid.

I agree with what Lord Forsythe is saying regarding the SNP but the

more you go on about it, if you don't get the chance, people are

going to take you for a weak leader. You are not leading Scotland.

So, if he doesn't do it by the end of Parliament? Yes. You are banging

on it about, Scotland want it, or they say that they do, but without

the vote you will never know. I think that Michael Forsythe is

right. You are ducking the issue as you know you will lose it. The

reason is because you have not confronted the Scottish people with

all of the arguments. We would have to set up our own ambassadors and

embassies throughout the world to represent us. We would need a

Defence Force, our own Immigration Service, our own customs service,

would we be members of the European Union or not? What about the

currency? Would you like a vote this week? I would like the

procedure for the vote to begin as soon as possible because I want all

of these issues to come out. APPLAUSE.

The Secretary of State for Scotland said the other day that there would

need to be two referendums in his opinion. One, Alex Salmond's

referendum from Holyrood and one from Westminster actually to make

it a law. Is that your view? think that I demonstrated the

danger to be drawing into considering hypotheticals.

The uncertainties that everybody has picked on in the room, the key

things that none of us can know, what territory we are going into

when Alex will not set out the proposition. Is it a fully

independent country? Independence light where we share defence bases

but have an independent foreign policy? Are we talking about a

confederation or whatever it will look like? Will there be one, two,

three questions on the ballot paper? Michael is right, the

uncertainty of this is damaging and it is distraction from getting on

with the real job, that is fixing the Scottish economy. Besides that,

it is leading to great economic uncertainty as the businesses begin

to decide where to place investment, to put more in Scotland, elsewhere,

this is a big question. Why not, as the coalition

government, you know you have a government in Scotland to have a

referendum it is a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom, why

don't you say you will call a referendum, that these are the

terms on which you think Scotland could have independence and let's

have a vote and forget Alex Salmond and do it for the people of

Scotland. You could do it legally? It would be discourteous to Alex.

I'm not meaning out of sight, out of mind... But we want Scotland to

remain a part of the United Kingdom. Then why not have a referendum to

test that? Alex can bring that forward. He should bring it forward.

Why don't you do it? You said it was your view that the United

Kingdom should stick together, the SNPs say no, why not you instigate

a referendum and find out what the answer is? I want to get on with my

job, on delivering through the Scotland Bill. Serious powers to

help Alex's colleagues to ensure the accountability of the

Parliament, to the Scottish people is in the hands and that they get

real powers. That is what we are getting on with, the real job of

getting the powers. We know ethere will be a referendum

in five years, so why not use the Scotland Bill or your powers to set

up an independent commission to address the points that were made

by the gentleman in the front there, what the kenss of independence

would be for the whole of the United Kingdom. -- what the

consequences of independence would be for the whole of the United

Kingdom? There is a question there. I think that we do not need

commissions to elus this, but we have to examine the costs. Alex

says he wants the referendum. If he is confident, let him get on with

Sir Tom Hunter? What is your view of this? As a Scot who spends a lot

of time in London I'm fed up with people down there saying how can

you guys, no tuition fees for universities? Free prescriptions,

free care for the elderly, we are subsidising you, that grates with

Why? Are you saying it is not true or is it true or is it false?

don't think it is true. Why not? I will come to that in a

minute. I have a sneaking suspicion that Alex and his team have some

Machiavellian plot that says they will make the rest of the UK so fed

up with us, they are going to put uts out. I saw an opinion poll --

to put us out. I saw an opinion poll that said that more people in

England want independence for Scotland than the Scots themselves!

We need if we have have the power to spend. I agree with no tuition

fees, I think it is a right for your ability to learn, rather than

your ability to pay. If we make that decision... APPLAUSE.

If we make that decision, that's great, but we also need the power

to raise the money because at the present time we can spend it, but

we are not accountable for raising it. That's why we are seen as

somebody with their hand out for the Barnetkm formula and the block

grant and that is not good enough. Why do you say, as a matter of

interest, for a factual point, in England getting �8,531 a head, and

Scotland getting �9,940 a head, that it is not true that England is

subsidising Scotland? It depends on if you believe that the North Sea

oil is Scotland or the UK's or where it lies? Or if you believe

the Treasury? I don't know if anybody believes the Treasury, to

be honest. If Scotland did actually vote for

independence, would the Conservative and the Liberal

Democrats block it? Would they ignore the people of Scotland

again? No. I believe in any referendum. We would look for a

decisive outcome. I believe this that it would be that Scotland

decides to remain a part of the United Kingdom. What would that be?

Would you set the bar so high where you would say that 75 or 80% had to

vote? We have said it is for Alex to bring forward the referendum.

It is for citizens of Scotland to ask what the questions should be,

when they will be, and when they will come. If the people of

Scotland decide, they may decide not to, or decide to go for it, if

they decide to vote for it, will you stop it? I don't think it would

be right for the coalition government to bring forward

policies for the referendum of Scotland. I have to acknowledge

that. The SNP won the last election, conclusively. That tells us

something about what Scottish people. I think that Scottish

people want to have a conversation about their future. Now the SNP

have said for some time that they believe in a referendum. That has

been their policy. It was at the last election and the one before

that. So they have a view about what the

referendum should be about. Presumably they have thought

through some of the issues that gentleman put so well.

Bare with me, I have been so patient trying not to interup the

other people. It equally does not mean you can go

on! He is picking on me! So, I think that the issues that you put

forward are significant. This is important for the future of

Scotland. This goes to the heart about how we see ourselves, what

our future is about. I would rather have said that the family of the

nations is the United Kingdom. For that to develop and to have an

assertive Scotland, but we have to know the details. We have to get

into the details. A question from Colin Currie.

Yes and I know a lot of people say - talking about independence a lot

of people say the country couldn't stand on its own two feet, it

couldn't manage economically but I have incredible confidence that

England would manage just fine. English self-Government, because

they're a great nation for great history and I would think would do

just fine. A number of points. I am going to answer you, David, that's

unconventional but I am going to do it. You were talking about Treasury

figures, it's true that Treasury figures show that Scotland, - CSO

analysis shows Scotland gets 9% of expenditure of 8.7% of the

population, the same figures show Scotland generally gets 10% of the

revenue of the United Kingdom, we general rate more revenue. Despite

your faith in the London Treasury, I think one of the great lies in

life along with the cheque's in the post and darling I will respect you

in the morning is I am from the London Treasury and I really want

to help Scotland. If London Treasury didn't think Scotland was

a great deal they wouldn't be so anxious to hang on to us and hang

on to all that revenue. So, let's take the gentleman's question which

I thought was a very good one, I think that the right process to go

through is to follow what we said we would do in the election, which

received a strong powerful mandate. I am not convinced by people in the

Conservative and Liberal parties who are fanatically against having

a referendum and - let's stick to what we said in the election

campaign. Publish a White Paper which will set out the prospectus

facing the people, our belief of what independence means in the

modern world, asking all the questions you asked, answering all

the questions you asked and more and then ask the people to vote yes

or no to that proposition. Is that an unusual thing to do in the world,

40 countries have managed it in the last century, 20 in the last 40

years or so. It happens once every two years around the world. You

know what, not one of these cases they had to ask two referendums,

one was never for every other country and I believe one will be

enough are to Scotland -- for Scotland. Thank you very much. We

must go on, time is not on our side. If you are following us on Twitter

A question now please from Audrey Anderson.

Should assisted dying be legalised in Britain?

A question no doubt inspired by the film that the BBC showed of Terry

Pratchett watching somebody in a film called Choosing To Die,

watching somebody kill himself in Switzerland. Margaret Curran?

never saw the film and I feel I should see it and will probably

make myself see it, I feel perhaps I have to. I didn't agree with

Margaret McDonald's legislation in front of the Scottish parliament

because it's such a difficult issue... You had a proposal here?

Yes, and there was a members bill and we all had a view on that, an

opportunity to express a view because you have be so careful with

all the safeguards around this. If I was very honest with you, I would

say I can see arguments strongly on both sides. When you hear the

testimony of people who are going through extraordinary illnesses and

hear their words and not wanting their relatives to be persecuted,

then you can understand why they feel that. On the other hand, I

worry greatly about the need for safeguards and about some people

under pressure and I also heard people say they feel as if somehow

elderly people who are perhaps very old, they're under pressure perhaps.

Are you for or against? I am not against, but I wouldn't want to

dismiss and feel an obligation to hear the testimony of people and

continue to listen... You are not against, there you are for? Sorry.

I am not trying to play a game here. Nor am I. I want to know what you

think. On the basis I don't think the safeguards are strong enough to

prevent abuse and give people proper reassurances... Is now is

not the time? I would not dismiss the arguments. Tom Hunter.

answer to your question, in my opinion, is yes. A recent poll

actually, 86% of those polled were in favour of it. I think it takes

me back to the Daniel James example, a young rugby player who became

paralysed from the chest down, and he wanted to end his life. His

parents didn't want him to end his life. He finally convinced them and

they went to Switzerland and Keir Starmer did not prosecute on that

occasion. All that any of us want is a dignified exit and we need

safeguards, of course we do, but if this young man has decided that he

wants to exit the world, what right has anybody else to tell him no,

you are wrong? APPLAUSE.

I agree with Mr Hunter, it's a dying shame, excuse the pun, that a

person from Britain has to travel all the way to Switzerland to have

a dignified death. I am a doctor and I see patients dying all the

time, unfortunately. I think if a person is sane and is competent and

has made a decision and that is the safeguard being discussed, then

that person should be allowed a dignified exit and not have to go

all the way to Switzerland, because not everyone can afford that, let

alone have the indignity of travelling all the way. Would you

as a matter of fact, allow assisted suicide for people who were deeply

depressed as well as people who actually had physical illnesses

which is what is allowed in Dignitas? In that particular

instance good medical practice would be that if the person had

made a decision when they were competent and we have to decide the

capacity of the patient to make such a decision. In that case

depression may be a reason why we shouldn't allow such things. I

think it is a bit insulting and patronising to say we can't have

the right save guards. Medicine is not the same as it used to be even

50 years ago, tremendous advances. People dying of cancer don't die

painfully or in distress. I think it is very bad and difficult to see

patients who want to pass away and yet they have to linger on and have

indignity towards the end. We have seen what's been happening in care

homes, for instance, and that's another thing we need to consider.

APPLAUSE. The woman in the middle there.

In terms of patients who have depression, bipolar disorder, any

mental health issue, if they never feel they are going in a -- in a

sound mind what right do you have to say no, you can't have assisted

death, because if they never feel right in their mind and yet they

still feel this constant want to end their life, there's no need for

them to have to suffer through that. If they're not of a sound mind that

should have no relevance. If they want to die, they should have that

right. Michael Moore, do you agree?

don't. The simple answer to the proposition is no, I am not in

favour of assisted dying legislation, but that's not to

ignore the very complex issues that have already been debated here on

the panel today. I hope it's not patronising or otherwise to suggest

we all need to have confidence in the save guards. I understand the

medical profession as you rightly say, has changed out of recognition

over the last ten years, never mind the last 50 and we are confronted

as a society by challenges about the longevity of people that

weren't there sometime ago and we are all having to rekpf rubbish

rubbish re-- rekpf examine -- reexamine. We have to be receptive

to thinking about this and I haven't seen the film but I will

make sure I do. You, Sir. With the cost involved in

going to Switzerland to have this assisted suicide, and not allowing

people to do it at home, are we not going to end up instead of having a

ttwo-tier health service, a two- tier death service? The woman there.

I am a nurse and I would like people to - doctors and nurses to

be consulted on this, because any doctor or nurse that I have spoken

to would not be happy to end a patient's life, that's not what we

are trained for and not what we would be happy to do and the

gentleman that said that he was a doctor who said that was what he

would be happy to do, I think is very much in the minority of the

medical nursing professions. Dignitas do have a doctor, of

course. I think there's a lot of people here who are not happy to do

that. We are trained to do no harm to patients. The woman behind you.

Everyone deserves a right to die the way they want to die if they're

in terrible pain, if they have an illness which can't be cured. I

don't think it's fair for a Government, a court of law to

decide that person can't then go forward and do the dignified thing

in their own homes surrounded by their own family and with the

doctors' knowledge, safe that they're not being bullied into

something they don't wish to do, but doing something in a dignified

way they want to do. Alex Salmond. It's an incredibly difficult issue.

I saw the programme and the reason I saw the programme is that I

wanted to see it because we debated it in the Scots parliament, as

Margaret says and it may well be debated again in the Scots

parliament. So it's very much in terms of legislation a pressing

issue. I am against it. I think anybody who wants to see good

arguments on this could consult on the internet the Scots parliament

debate, led by Margaret McDonald because the range of arguments we

heard from the audience tonight and others were deployed, and deployed

very well on both sides of the argument. Perhaps for me it

crystalises on what the nurse and the doctor had to say. The nurse

said medical profession - there's a range of views in the profession. I

do accept your point. There are a lot of systems in place that do

help people to have a dignified and good death and absolutely there are

people who don't, but that's what people strive to do and maybe the

money could go into better training to have that. Well, I was going to

accept your point about the principle of no harm. That's quite

difficult for many people to reconcile in the medical profession

with the concept of assisted dying. That was one of the strong

arguments that came through in the debate. If I could say to the

doctor who I know genuinely passionately believes in his

opinion, that this question of when people decide was another point of

great strength in the debate. You said people would have to be

rationale, but what happens if they change their mind? It would be

possible as they get near the time of death, say well, when I was

rationale perhaps I was too pessimistic about things. I don't

make the point lightly, this was a matter we looked at in great detail

and eventually the parliament by a majority decided that we couldn't

see the save guards there that would apply in every case and they

would have to apply in every case to justify legalisation. The case

in the film, the man who was killing himself, was absolutely

absolutely compus men tis. This is an issue I thought about quite hard.

I don't know what I think. Rather like Margaret, I worry about the

safeguards and I don't think Margaret was thinking about

safeguards from doctors, I think she was thinking about safeguards

that might arise from families or very elderly people might - as they

often say, I am a burden to you, and it might encourage people to

encourage people to kill themselves prematurely. The reason I thought

about it quite hard is my mother died last month from a terminal

illness and - here in the northeast, and what was remarkable, because

when you are told that someone's cancer, your immediate thought is

are they going to suffer, how long is it going to be, is this going to

be terrible? The thing that really impressed me, the point made by the

lady over there, was just how fantastic the care which is

provided by the nursing and doctors profession.

And they are able to manage pain in a way that was not possible many,

many years ago. So on balance I'm not persuaded that we can have a

right to die that might not be open to abuse and might not put pressure

on families. But at the same time, if I think of

myself, if I thought I were to suffer from dementia and not know

who my family are, I'm thinking might that be an option for me. So

it is a very, very difficult issue. As Margaret said, it is trying to

balance the safeguard issues, but we should be grateful to the

developments that have gone on in the hospice movement and in our

health service in helping people to cope with these dreadful terminal

illnesses, which have been magnificent, and have made things

very much easier. Also, the organisations like the Marie Cure

Cancer Care and MacMillan. They have made the experience for

families much less horrendous than it might otherwise be.

A couple of more points. Briefly if you would. It is not

just all about terminal care. It is care for people who have had severe

strokes, things like that, they could live for a long, long time

but don't get the support that you get in terminal illnesses.

Your view on the issue of assisted killing? I personally would not

want to live for years and years with a really bad quality of life.

I would like the option of assisted suicide.

If a person chooses if they want to end their life, is it not better

for them to end in a dignified American with the help of the

professionals as opposed to an overdose or are a badly done

hanging? APPLAUSE. This question is relevant to where

we are, the oil capital of the UK, Aberdeen.

Can George Osborne propose the proposed tax on the North Sea oil

profits smart when it is estimated that it will cost this region in

excress of 15,000 jobs? This was the Chancellor of the Exchequer

speakingen ot BBC? APPLAUSE. -- speaking on the BBC? APPLAUSE.

He said that he had restkprinted thing ace round tax, he --

redistributed things around tax and cut fuel duty.

Michael Moore, you are here for the Government, was he right? This is a

hard place to make the arguments, but let me set the context. The

context of this, we were talking earlier on about the hard-pressed

way in which people are coping with inflation and everything else. The

context of this was the prospect of us putting fuel duty up further to

plug the holes in the public finances that we have been doing

for the last year. We had a serious problem that people had seen the

fuel prices in cars going up week after week after week for the past

year. We made the choice that the economy of the United Kingdom as a

whole, businesses across the UK, individual drivers across the UK,

they needed a bit of support. So we decided rather than increasing the

fuel duty as had been planned by the last Labour government, we

would reduce it. When you say "we" you don't mean we

in the sense that you were there, did he ask you, the Secretary of

State for Scotland what the impact might be? The Treasury decides the

budgets, that is right. This is the way it will always be. How many

jobs will be lost as a result, the questioner said 15,000? The point

is that across the economy as a whole we are doing what we can to

help smaus businesses and large alike and individuals going about

their daily business to cope with the extra pressures that are coming

through. We are in Aberdeen, many people

here may be working or depending on the oil industry, the question was

that 15,000 jobs were to be lost, specifically by what the Chancellor

did? I don't accept that figure. The key thing, the effect of this

increase in tax will still be that after tax pro-ities for the oil

companies will be higher than when they were planning investment four

or five years ago, that there will be substantial profits for those

oil companies and on some of the specific details we have to

continue to talk to the industry, so looking at how to encourage

investment in some of the more marginal gas fields, looking at a

long-term stable tax structure for the oil... So no job losses? If

they are making more profit, why lose the jobs? I believe that there

will be continued significant investment in the North Sea gas

sector for many years to come, so there should be.

Sir Tom Hunter? I think it is a mistake. The North Sea oil and gas

industry contributes �13 billion to the UK Treasury, 400,000 jobs. I'm

for less tax, not more tax. Because I believe, then, that these oil

companies will create more jobs. The fact of the matter is we live

in a global world. What these investment decisions are made upon

is fiscal certainty. This was a bolt from the blue for the North

Sea industry it was a shock, not a pleasant one, either. Therefore,

when these guys sit in their offices around the globe, whether

it is Hewitton, Aberdeen, wherever it may be, they allocate capital.

They now look at the UK and the North Sea and say there is an extra

risk as there is no fiscal certainty. They might just allocate

their capital to somewhere else in the world.

Don't they have fiscal certainty with the increase in the 12%? It

has gone from 20% to 32, they know where they are? They know where

they are today, but my understanding is that the oil and

the gas UK were given public and private assurances that nothing was

to change and it did change. So it might change again? Yes. So

when allocating their capital, the jobs may go elsewhere, there the

short-term tax that the UK Treasury will receive from this doesn't make

up for the long-term jobs that could be lost here.

Following on from Tom's point, it was such a shock to the operators

in the North Sea, was that Michael's boss, Nick Clegg was in

be Dean before the budget was announced and was asked directly

about the changes and did not come forward to say anything. Either he

did not know about the budget or he did not want to discuss them in

Aberdeen, with the senior management, the operators? Michael

Moore, do you not believe that by reducing the fuel duty by a few

pence on a majority of people, you have placed a huej burden on a

minority of people in Aberdeen. Aberdeen is paying for cheaper

petrol for everybody else? It is not just Aberdeen. Centrica, for

example, they have said that they are not to take the gas from the

Morecambe Bay... Field? That will have an impact. Look, I think we

are paying far too much in tax. You have to work until this month

before you start actually working for yourself from January to June

it is going to the Government. One of the things we have to relearn in

this country if you put up tax rates you get less revenue. The tax

on the North Sea is a classic case of where the additional tax, yes,

you get it in the short-term, but it results in less revenue.

So this was a mistake by your Chancellor? Yes, it was a mistake.

APPLAUSE. And also to say that it was going

to be used, the revenues used to reduce the fuel duty, who is

providing the fuel? The oil companies. I believe that the level

of tax now is, perhaps somebody in the audience can help me, but it is

getting on for 80%. You cannot expect people to take risky, long-

term, investment decisions unless you have a stable and predictable

tax structure that is fair. We need to learn that lesson again. We have

to be more tax competitive. I understand the hall that George was

in, but if he wanted to reduce fuel duty, he should have rused --

reduced expenditure. We can see the coalition falling

apart in front of our eyes. I am not minister.

I know. But everybody agrees around this

table, apart from Michael Moore. The lady that asked was

economically smart. That was daft as it will cost 15,000 jobs and

this was economically daft if it stays as it is, it will cost the UK

Charles Clarker revenue over the next ten years, perhaps up to �10

billion. I don't mind a tax structure that says when the oil

prices are high, then those gathering in the profits should be

taxed more, but this tax attacks the marginal fields, the oilfields,

the difficult place. We have put in three proposals to the UK

government. Michael Moore was not told by George Osborne, he was not

even told by his colleague, Danny lngser, the chief Treasury

executive, to explain this notion. We have put in three proposals to

the UK Treasury to mitigate the impact of the tax. Given the damage

that this one taxation decision by the UK Government has done, maybe

oil and gas is too important an commodity for Scotland to be left

to the machinations of the Westminster government? APPLAUSE.

Margaret Curran, at the beginning of this programme, you said you

were in favour of Ed Balls' prose als to cut VAT by 2.5%, do you

think that this increase in tax was wrong? I will take great pleasure

in quoting Michael in the next Treasury questions. I will happily

quote you for once. I will certainly do that.

I'm aware of the debate. The difference of the impact it will

have on oil and gas, the real impact it will have. What concerned

me about this, it was a rushed announcement. There was no

consultation with the companies. They were caught unaware. I did not

know the point about Nick Clegg and that is the hallmark of this

government. Rushing legislation, creating mistakes, having to

backtrack. So, why has not Ed Balls called for the repeal of this?

will have a word with this. I don't know, he is focused on VAT, but I

would agree with Michael. Everything is a tax cut. It is the

only answer. You are faced with a cut... I did not say that.

To Michael Moore, I don't think that a politician should be allowed

to say that they don't accept the figures without an alternative

figure. I hear it time and time again, it is a tireless cliche.

There has been no decrease in petrol prices, where we stay the

petrol is �1.40 a litre. It is cils considering that they are having

their tax as well. Are you guilty of saying that you

don't agree with the figures, and is this a political cliche were

faced with embarrassments? I thought that you may say that.

We will hear the full explanation later. Next week we are coming from

Thank you all on the panel. Thank you, all of you for coming here to