15/03/2012 Question Time

Hope we are in St Andrews tonight. Welcome to Question Time. On our

panel tonight, the new leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth

Davidson. The Labour MP Frank Field, asked in Tony Blair's days to think

the unthinkable on welfare. Also from the Scottish parliament, a

rising star of the SNP, Humza Yousaf. The leader of the Scottish

Liberal Democrats, Willie Rennie, standing in at short notice for

Charles Kennedy, who missed his flight this evening. And the

journalist and broadcaster Janet Our first question is from Stephen,

please. What should good Osborne announce in the Budget that was

significantly decreased long-term unemployment? -- George Osborne.

Ruth, what do you think? A will not speculate on what will be in the

Budget. Come on! But I think we can recognise the amount of work the

coalition is doing to get the economy back on track and create

jobs. We have seen the youth contracts to try and incentivise

business is taking on new people. I would like to see that accelerated.

We have seen people who are already in employment, particularly low-

paid employment, work to increase their income. For example, lifting

100,000 Scots out of the tax bracket, raising the tax bracket to

�10,000. Will that be done next week? I would like to see it

accelerated ahead of the timetable for the whole of Parliament. But I

am not about to tell any secrets. Do you know any secrets? I have

regular conversations with Number 10. Do you know what is in the

Budget, but you are not prepared to tell us? I am not saying that. But

I have put my tuppence worth in for Scotland. Humza Yousaf, what would

you like? We have asked for three things. The Gentleman is right to

highlight unemployment as the biggest crisis so the Government is

facing. Capital expenditure is one way to grow employment and get out

of the rut we are in. For every �100 million of capital expenditure,

we are supporting 1400 jobs. The Scottish government has 36 projects

ready for construction. Depending on Westminster? Absolutely, so we

want to see the finance coming through so that we can support

those jobs. On top of that, if you run a small or medium-sized

business, you are not getting the lending from these publicly-owned

banks. That is a disgrace. We have taxpayer owned banks who are not

lending to help businesses grow jobs. George Osborne needs to get a

grip. Don't the banks have to make up their own minds about who they

lend to, or should the Government insist that they lend willy-nilly?

It is just wrong that we have banks that are owned by taxpayers and the

public that are busy building up their balance used instead of

helping small and medium-sized businesses increase and take on

people and get us out of the unemployment rut. George Osborne

should absolutely not abolish the 50 pence tax. That is that wrong

priority for the situation we are in. A frank Field, do go along with

the Scottish National Party assessment? Not totally. There are

two things which George Osborne should do in the Budget. The most

important move he could make to increase employment would be to

give a National Insurance holiday for employers taking on new people.

While of course, some would fiddle at the margin and so on, I can't

think of any other simple move that would most increase employment

prospects for people in our countries that face a grim future.

So it if you take on a new worker, you don't pay national insurance

for a year? Not the way she wants? We are already doing that for the

first 10 employees of new businesses for the first two years.

National Insurance is being looked at. But most jobs will not come

from new businesses. The second thing he should do - we have a real

problem, particularly in areas like mine, where people have done 13

years in school and find it difficult to present themselves

properly for a job. Labour's job programme was, I think it took us a

long time to get there, but it was the best thing we did. We gave

people who would not otherwise be looked at by employers the chance -

we said simple things, like just turning up on time, being clean and

tidy. Has that been scrapped by the coalition government, is that what

you are saying? That Direct scheme has been scrapped to pay for the

Great Work programme. But if we focus on the question rather than

parading our prejudices, we go for the national insurance cut and

boost business confidence. And we make sure those who find it hardest

to fit into jobs when they are there, that we boost their

confidence. Janet Street-Porter, what would you do if you were

Chancellor? I would look at youth unemployment and the fact that

there are over 1 million young people unemployed. I would also

consider the fact that across Europe, youth unemployment is

equally high. Because we are in the EU, young people from other EU

countries are coming here, and have every right to take jobs, whether

we like it or not. I agree with Frank. We have to ensure that when

our young people leave secondary education, they are better prepared

to work and more employable and literate. That means absolutely

pouring a huge amount of resources into further education. We need

more teachers and better targeted classes. We need to ease people

into employment. If we don't target these million kids who are

unemployed, we will have civil unrest. How do they get jobs if

there is no work? They are not getting jobs because better

qualified young people are coming in. But Humza Yousaf says they are

not getting jobs because banks are not lending money. Frank Field it

says it because nationally showers is too expensive. We are talking

about minimum-wage jobs, cleaning jobs, service industry jobs, jobs

where this country has a lot of work available. You want young

people to take those? I want their minds are to be changed so that

they are going into it. At the moment, they are mostly

unemployable. I agree with Janet that we should be getting people

into these jobs. But the problem is that young people today think they

deserve more and expect more, and they are unwilling to get into the

jobs that are out there. That needs to be addressed. When you talk to

young people who come into this country looking for work from

Estonia or Mafia or Spain, they are willing to do anything -- when they

come from that via or Spain. That is because the unemployment is so

phenomenal back home. Willie Rennie, what do you think should be

announced in the Budget that would help solve the long-term

unemployment? It is clear that there are no simple answers to this.

A lot of it is treading the fine line between spending enough to

stimulate the economy, but not spending too much to unsettle the

market. When you unsettle the markets, the cost of borrowing goes

up. So we end up having to spend less. By one of the things we are

doing it is implementing the UK youth contract from April, which is

worth �1 billion. That will bring more apprenticeships and

incentivise businesses to employ more people. It will also bring

wage subsidies. Those are the things we should be doing. But it

is not enough, because it is tough. Do you think George Osborne is

doing the right things, or do you agree with Vince Cable that the

Government has not set out a proper strategy? There are always vigorous

debates within government. But who is right? For they have come to an

agreement between the two of them. But Vince Cable says one thing and

George Osborne says another. They share a view that the Government is

on the right track. If I could come back in, the original question was

about long-term unemployment. We have to recognise where we have

come from. Under the last Labour government, 5 million people across

the UK never had a job for those 13 years. These are people who are

long way from the labour market. Frank talk about the work programme.

That is designed to help those furthest from the jobs market back

in. It gives specific support to the agencies helping them, and it

makes sure it is not putting people into a six-week posting a minimum

wage job. The payments to the agencies that are helping those

long-term unemployed, people who may have drug addiction problems or

have come out of prison, are staggered payments. You get part of

the payment when somebody access as a job. You get further when they

are there for six months and then more when they are there for two

years. The man up there? Is it a case of managing young people's

expectations? 30 or 40 years ago, you started at the bottom and work

your way up to the top. But now, there is an image of going straight

to the top. Is that not unrealistic? Is there any evidence

that people are refusing to take jobs for that reason? Two people

have just said so. I count myself as a young person. Well, you have a

nice job. No disrespect to the gentleman, but every person says,

back in my day, we did this and that. From the young people I talk

to, I have gone into a lot of high schools, like a number of the

members here, and they have a drive that I have not seen before and a

willingness to get their sleeves rolled up. But in terms of David

Cameron and George Osborne and the Budget next week, we have seen that

Obama and David Cameron have been the best of pals, with their arms

around each other, by nature a hot dogs. Get to the point. The point

is that it would be good for David Cameron to take a leaf out of

Obama's book that the way to start the economy is through a stimulus

package, not too deep, swingeing, fast cuts that hit the most

disadvantaged. Frank? Clearly, lots of people don't have a job because

they can't find one. But there are others which Janet spoke of about

their attitude. On Friday, I read a report from Janet's paper about

three young people who had never had jobs. I was talking about

getting them a job. One of them said, we are not prepared to get

out of bed unless we get �300 a week. I said, but you can't read or

write. Who will give you a job for that kind of money? And they said,

get serious. We will not entertain a job unless it pays �300 a week.

So I said, you should take a job. To which I heard the worst thing I

have ever heard in my political life. This young guy leaned across

the table, screwed up his face and said, so you would make us take

immigrant jobs, would you? And I said, you bet I would. This whole

attitude, that somehow we have this extraordinary number of young

people coming into the country and wanting to work, and we have still

to learn the lesson from that. Janet spoke about the obvious fact

that while many people are desperately searching for work, at

the same time there are others who consider that some jobs are beneath

them. I will go on to another question from Jon Stewart. Would

Scotland be financially better off as an independent nation? This is

not a question about the Scottish economy, but it is a reference to

what seems to be a key issue, judging by the polls, which is that

if you tell people in Scotland that they will be �500 better off, 65%

of them will say they will vote for independence. If you say they will

be �500 worse off, 65% of them vote against. It seems to be a matter of

whether independence makes you richer or poorer. And nothing else.

Independence is a lot more about the economy. In the economic

climate we are in, it is incredibly important. The question was about

whether Scotland would be better off as an independent country. I

firmly believe it would be. The Government's own expenditure

Revenue statistics showed that we give the Treasury 9.6%, while we

are 8.4% of the population. But do you agree it is the crunch point of

the Ottoman full independence, that whenever we get at the referendum

on Scottish independence will be arguing about how much more will be

in the pocket? It is undoubtedly an important part of why I believe in

independence. If it is not to do with flag-waving, haggis eating,

Braveheart nationalism. These are things that I quite like doing!

Incidentally, sometimes at the same time. But the independence that we

crave is to have those economic powers. The independence that we

crave is to create jobs and wealth. That at its most simple and most

basic, the reason I believe in independence is because the

decisions made about Scotland and in Scotland should be made by those

that care most about the interests of Scotland. That is the people of

Scotland. Economics is important but it is about so much more than

that. The I think if independence is just based on a bank balance,

that is the wrong reason for independence. I thought you wanted

independence because your life would come to a natural end unless

you had it. Everybody's life comes to a natural end. I thought it was

because you were culturally so strong, so proud that you had to be

independent, otherwise life was not worth living. I think you will have

independence but it will cost a lot of money. Will you have a border,

your own money, your own stamps? How are we going to split the

defence budget? I was reading Stephanie Flanders' on the BBC, and

I did not think that you did. The way I read it was that Scotland

actually costs England money. You have quoted your own figures.

UK Government's figures, actually. I have just read Stephanie Flanders,

who begs to differ. But I think, should Government be based on

money? If you are independent, is did going to cost a fortune?

can't answer that, it is a rhetorical question. Of the problem

with Humza Yousaf is that he does not know whether we will be better

off. That is an assertion that Scotland would be better off but we

do not have the evidence to prove it. The problem is that we would

have much more risk. The rough and this move would be difficult.

do you make of this Social attitudes survey that says it is

the clinching point? Purely money. Much of it is money. We can hear

from the audience whether they think money is at the heart of it.

There are 40% who would stay in the Union no matter what and about 35%

who would go Independent no matter what but there is a bulk of people

in the middle who would be swayed by whether Scotland will be better

off. It is not just about themselves but about the nation as

well. Is the issue is around money, surely now is not the time to have

this debate, in a recession? Precisely the best time is now to

have this debate. If anything, the economic leaders would be better to

have now, so regardless of what you wanted to do with them, it would be

to our advantage to have them so we could take ourselves out of the

mess that we are in. With the suggestion that Britain might lose

its Triple A credit rating, how would an independent Scotland have

a good credit rating, with the history of RBS being its biggest

bank? Briefly, if you would. There are two companies that have come

out and expressed doubt in the UK's credit rating, but it is worth

knowing that two-thirds of the countries with a Triple A credit

rating, two-thirds of them have a population of under 10 million. Not

only that, but with a one trillion pound oil asset base, we would be

able to preserve that AAA status. You are concerned about the effect

on England. I certainly am, but I am incredibly depressed by the

question and the support that it is getting. I thought this was a great

debate about the nature and destiny of nations and of mankind. The idea

that it is all going to be determined on whether you have a

few quid better off in your pocket or not, is deeply depressing. There

are clearly lessons that England needs to learn from this whole

experiment that you have had and made a success of, devolution. But

your devolution success has had a consequence on us in England, in

that it has affected our bearing and our status, and how we think we

should actually conduct ourselves in the world. I was very much

hoping that the debate that you will have at some stage on whether

you wish to go independent or not, would be a debate which looked at

your experiences from devolution, looked at how it had affected up to

that point and maybe beyond, where your hope for the friendly

neighbours. What were the consequences on them? And whether

in fact both countries will be stronger by dividing, or weaker.

What do you think? I think we would be weaker. I fear the debate may go

in such a way that the reaction in England is such that we would

welcome that the measure of devolution which you have had.

Certainly, I raised this question in the House. It is a legitimate

issue to raise the Scottish question, but it is not yet so much

a legitimate question to raise the English question. The English

question being, if Scotland is self-governing, his England self-

governing if Scottish MPs vote in Westminster? It is the rate --

naive to think that the first tranche of devolution was the end

of the journey, both for you, necessarily, and certainly a

journey which we could not begin in England. I would welcome a debate

which was not just about the money, but that somehow drew upon our own

cultures and histories and tried to think about our place in the world,

and made a decision on that. The reason why the debate has been

shifted on to the economics on whether it would be better if you

had �500 is because the scaremongering Unionist parties and

the media are shifting onto that terrain. The reason why Scotland's

young people support independence is because we could be a

progressive beacon in Europe and the world with a fully funded

health service, fully funded education and the progressive

foreign policy which does not indulge in imperialist war and

illegal wars abroad. Is there evidence that an overwhelming

majority of people under 21 in Scotland support this? Young people

in Scotland are more prone to support independence. Which is why

you want to give the vote to 16 year-olds. Absolutely. I think

young people under the age of 18 have the right to vote.

Do you think that 16 year-olds and 17 year olds are responsible enough

to vote in a referendum? I think what is interesting is that what is

being proposed is not that all 16 and 17 year olds should vote in the

referendum, it is that some 16 and three quarter year-olds and some 17

year-olds whose parents have registered them on the electoral

roll have a vote in the referendum. I think there is a debate about

where we put the voting age in this country, but you do not shift the

goalposts for one referendum. Certainly not if you are saying the

mandate you have for holding the referendum is from the

parliamentary result in May last year. I would suggest the mandate

comes from the franchise from that election, which was people who live

in Scotland, including you citizens, over the age of 18. This is a great

question which is going to affect Scotland, England and Wales. To

think we have jumped from whether people will be better off to seeing

whether we should fix the voting age to get a result, the whole

thing, I am just shocked by you as an audience, those of you who have

been speaking up like this. I thought I would be on the defensive

as an English person and that you would actually try to charge -- to

charm me about the values of independence. You are just

scrabbling around on the floor. Does anybody want to charm Frank

Field with the idea of independence? He keeps harping on

about England, England, England. Surely it is Scotsman separating

from the United Kingdom, not from England. -- Scotland.

If you allow 17 year olds to join the armed forces they should have

the right to vote for the country they are going to be fighting for.

I would agree with that. If you are old enough to pay tax and be

married, you are old enough to vote. What about the point that Frank

Field is making, that he expected to be charmed? For me, it is about

hundreds of years of history. I think the point was made at the

back that it is not about Scotland separating from England but

Scotland separating from the United Kingdom.

Sorry to disappoint Frank, but some people have strong opinions for and

against independence. For a lot of people, it is culturally

comfortable in the UK and I think for them the main thing is family,

friends and their career and lifestyles. I think the extra �500

does not surprise me in any way that it would be a deciding issue.

Ruth, you did not speak at great length about this. But I can.

sure you could speak for the rest of the programme! But on this issue

of whether England will need some sort of response, or ought to have

a response to Scottish devolution in terms of its own destiny, what

do you say about that, or do you not care because it is an English

issue? I have to say, I care more about the constitutional debate

that is happening in Scotland. I think there is a lot more we want

to talk about in Scotland about the substance of that debate. At the

moment, debate has been restricted to the referendum, the question of

the franchise and who should oversee it. We need to talk about

what the guts of a separate state would be like, as opposed to where

we are in the United Kingdom. wait for the SNP to put up ideas

and knock them down? -- will you wait? Hopefully the two governments

can work together towards a fair and legal referendum. And then we

can move on to the substantive issues. But to bring up what Frank

has been talking about, there is a grandly titled Commission for the

consequences of devolution which has been set up by the UK

Government, which is more colloquially known as the West

Lothian question Commission, to look at that point about where

England has English only legislation, because it is

legislation that is devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern

Ireland, but people from Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland can

vote on it in the House of Commons. The West Lothian question is not a

new anomaly. It has been around for a very long time and it is being

looked at, to find out if there is a way to solve it. I wanted to come

back on the voting age. I agree with the gentleman at the back is

said that 16 and 17 year-olds not only joined the Army, can consent

to marriage and having children, but somebody said are they

responsible enough to vote? I knock on a lot of doors. I will show you

some 30 year olds and 14-year-olds who are not responsible and should

not be voting. -- 40. What gets to me the most about this issue, we

have had this principle for 15 years, plus, and I have not seen

any evidence to show that 16 and 17 year-olds are more likely to vote

for independence. I think they will ask questions about it, too.

you sure? Are you sure you are not going for it because you think...

What I do not like to see is that parties that voted for it in the AV

referendum who now dodge and dive and duck. And now they do not want

votes for 16 and 17 year olds. That is hypocrisy, the Groucho Marx

school of politics - these are my principles, and if you don't like

them, I have others. Presumably you would go for votes for 16 year-olds.

Can I address Frank's point? I think it is important to raise the

level of this debate. To me, Britain is one of the most

centralised states in the world and we need to decentralise it. That is

why we favour home rule. Not independence, but home rule, where

Scotland would be able to raise, through its Parliament, the money

that it spends, so you could make decisions in Scotland but still

remain a partner within the UK. The characteristics of Scots is about

outward-looking, neighbourliness, community. Those are the

characteristics of Scots. Separation is not that. My new

partnership and to stay in the UK. England will not suddenly disappear

if we go independent, it will still be there. But what Frank has said

is that you're going to have a referendum in Scotland that will

have a profound effect in England. It is almost as if we need to have

a referendum in England about what the English think about this at the

same time, because actually it is uncharted territory. The English

could say, we will not let Scotland go? Frank has raised the important

point that you cannot just separate two countries. We go on to another

question from Phil Wishart. Up in a recent poll, nearly three-quarters

of people said that the conflict in Afghanistan is unwinnable. Is the

accelerated exit policy an admission of defeat? We have a lot

of questions about Afghanistan. Is the exit strategy in effect an

admission of defeat, given that three quarters of people say that

the conflict is unwinnable? Janet. The exit strategy, I would say, is

an admission of defeat in a war that is unwinnable, a war that we

should not really have gone into. It is a war in a country which has

tribalism and strong religious beliefs. And I cannot see how

anything we would have done would have changed the two opposing sides.

If you look at when the British Army was in Northern Ireland, how

long did that take? 30 years. And then the people of Northern Ireland

had themselves to want peace. You cannot Tommy that the people in

So the talk about withdrawing being a success is rhetoric? It is

rhetoric, and all the soldiers that have died in Afghanistan have given

their lives for a war that is actually unwinnable and

unfathomable, in my view. If you want to comment on this at home,

Ruth Davidson, the question is, is it an admission of defeat because

we now say it is unwinnable? don't think it is. If you look at

when we talked about the draw down of British forces, which has been

talked about for some months now, we also have to look at how that is

being phased in. We are at a stage where what we want to see as the

endgame in Afghanistan is a stable state where Afghans take charge of

their own security. At the moment, British troops are in central

Helmand Province. They are training Afghan soldiers to look after that

area. The Isa fish -- ISAF troops across the country are training a

hundred and 45,000 Afghans to take control of their nation. Hamid

Karzai has said they are close to the point at which they can take

over, and it is time for the troops to go. And the Taliban have

suspended negotiations. There is a lot of talk about how to deal with

the Taliban in Afghanistan. In terms of where we have taken

ourselves in that country, we have seen great improvements. What do

you think of people saying -- three-quarters of people say the

conflict is unwinnable? He speak to any female who has had schooling

that they would never have had under the Taliban, they would be

pleased. Is that winning a war, going to school? I do not think

wars are won in opinion polls. the Taliban have already said women

have to stay at home. If we allow the two sides to reach a settlement,

the Taliban will withdraw all those rights. Let's hear from the

audience. The woman at the back? do not think any country that has

gone into Afghanistan to fight has ever won. Afghanistan always wins.

So you think NATO should not have gone in at all and tried to chase

Al-Qaeda out? Or did they stay too long? Perhaps you could do a quick

for a, but you can't do anything else.

There is rightly a lot of regret about Afghanistan, but what are we

doing to learn from our experiences and issues like Libya, to avoid

doing this again? What do you think the experience in Afghanistan is, a

victory or a failure? I do not want to talk about victory or failure

ten years after the war started. What do we do in the future to stop

this kind of thing? How do you mean, this kind of thing? Well, for

example, Libya was a completely different operation. We do not have

enough knowledge with the people in these regions. South Frank Field?

This is the only questions are far where I feel restrained in giving

an answer. I supported the then government going into Afghanistan.

Since then, so while not being central, I think we should be

mindful that there has been a loss of 400 lives of British troops and

5000 British troops have been badly mutilated. And while of course,

policy should not be decided just on them, how we now stage our exit,

we should bear them in mind. And the language that we use, we should

be mindful of them. I agree with the young gentleman at the front.

There are lessons to be learnt from this, but there are lessons that

should have been learnt from when we went into Iraq. I thought part

of our going into Afghanistan, and the lady at the back was right, no

country can claim to have beaten the inhabitants of Afghanistan. But

we would also have a military programme and a political programme.

It is Janet's point that the political programme from day one

should have been to try to split the Taliban and get some of them on

our side. If we genuinely thought this military intervention was at

against terror and breaking up the terrorism training camps, it is

clear that we picked the wrong country. It is Pakistan where most

of this takes place, not Afghanistan. Once you name a date,

however you try and dress it up, you change the politics in the

country is. You try to bring about a political settlement by force.

You are against the withdrawal in 2014? I think it is foolish to make

those sort of statements for political reasons. But once you

have made them, you change the politics. The debate then comes

back Mack becomes not whether we keep to that date or whether we

withdraw troops more quickly. woman in white? I think this issue

of learning lessons is important, especially as regards the lives

that have been lost. Surely we need to learn not to invade countries in

a fit of vengeance without any due regard for history, without regard

for what winning would even look like? And without regard for what

happens. The man over there? As a serving army officer, I believe

that whatever happens with the lessons that have to be learnt, we

should not forget the 400 and for service personnel and those who

have lost their lives and the 5000 who have been injured. Although

fighting troops are being withdrawn in 2014, we will still maintain a

presence within the Afghan National Army and the Afghan national police.

I think that will go on for many more years to come. Do you have a

view about whether the withdrawal in 2014 is an admission of defeat,

and do you agree with people who say it is an unwinnable war?

Conventional wars such as World War I and World War II, you could

define the notion of defeat and victory. With an unconventional war,

whenever you are fighting insurgents, you cannot define

defeat and victory in terms of, we have won this or lost that. We will

leave and look at the statistics and look at how much freedom the

Afghan people have got, and how much development they have got, and

that is how we will measure the success or failure of the mission.

Before we leave you, have used it in Afghanistan? I have not, because

I am the joined the Army two years ago. But you would expect to?

I have colleagues who are out there at the minute. Humza Yousaf?

Gentleman speaks well. But the reason why this is an admission of

defeat is not because this is a sacrifice of our brave men and

women, it is because politicians have moved the goalposts. I was 16

when we went into Afghanistan. But I remember then that the issue was

to go and get Bin Laden, dismantle the Al-Qaeda network and the

Taliban and get out. Now we have been twice as long in Afghanistan

as we were involved in World War I. We have lost the battle of hearts

and minds with the latest atrocity, the urination on the bodies of

insurgents and the inadvertent burning of the Korans. We are

putting our servicemen and women in danger. All of us have to reflect,

as politicians on this panel and as a wider society, when did war

become the first resort as opposed to the last? Were you against the

invasion of Afghanistan? I was not against the invasion of Afghanistan,

because the mission was defined as going in, finding Bin Laden and

dismantling Al-Qaeda. It has now become an occupation. As the lady

said at the back, no country has ever occupied Afghanistan. The

British Empire, at the peak of its powers, could not occupy

Afghanistan. The Soviet army could not occupied Afghanistan. Alexander

the Great could not occupy Afghanistan. How on earth could we

think we could occupy Afghanistan? A member of my family is a serving

officer and has done five tours of duty in Afghanistan. He is fluent

in Pashtun and has met various tribal elders. Over his five tours

of duty, he said he finds that every time he goes back and speaks,

sometimes to the same elders, they have stepped back. No progress has

been made. Each time he goes back? There is a regression, rather than

a progression. Willie Rennie? need to take a deep breath. At

times, when soldiers died in conflict, we all feel for them and

their families. We need to be careful that we do not make long-

term decisions in these periods of stress. I would urge people to look

at what we went into, the conditions we were faced with, the

attack on 9/11. The response was to go into Afghanistan. Even Humza

Yousaf agrees that it was right at the time. What do you do after

that? We have caught Bin Laden, only recently. The Taliban have

been active, so it is about bringing relative stability. We are

talking about a judiciary, so that you have the rule of law. You are

talking about the police and the military. We are training the

police and military, and we are setting up the systems of law and

order. It takes a long time, and it does go to and through. Sometimes

you go back as well as forward. I have been to Afghanistan and

Pakistan. It is a tinderbox. Frankie is right. It is actually

about Pakistan as much as Afghanistan. If we were to withdraw

in a rush, we would be betraying the people who have died out there

and their families. We need to take the long view. But in the beginning,

we went to fight the war on terror. But they are not in Afghanistan now.

But what do you leave behind? not for us to rebuild countries

around the world that do not conform. There is a consensus that

we were right to go in and hunt down Al-Qaeda. When do you leave?

Do you leave it unstable, or do you have a responsibility? But you did

not have an end date. Statice why we are keeping troops over their.

Let me go back to the lady who was shaking her head when Willie was

talking. The politicians do not always listen to the men on the

ground. I do not necessarily mean the squaddies, who do a fabulous

job, but the serving officers who have served more than one toff.

They really do know. You say things go forward and back. After ten

years, we should be making progress, not regressing. We will go on to

another question now. Let me go on to one from Joseph

Lumbasi, please. Was Donald Trump justified in warning the First

Minister not to be "Mad Alex" over wind power? Barmoor Trump, the

famous multi-billionaire, who is building golf courses - Mac Donald

Trump suddenly rounded on the SNP and Alex Salmond about a proposal

to build wind turbines. Everywhere in the UK is either threatened or

welcoming wind turbines. He says he will not build his hotel until the

whole thing is called off. What do you make of this? Janet Street-

Porter, are you in favour of wind turbines? I was thrilled that

Donald Trump might stop building that hotel. Fantastic news. I hate

wind turbines. I have walked from Edinburgh to London for a series

for the BBC years ago. And I walked right across England and Wales. The

noise when you walk near a wind turbine that is in a beautiful area

of outstanding natural beauty, you can hear them miles away. The

disturbance from these things is awful. If they are offshore, if

having one offshore means that Donald Trump will not build his

golf course and resort, I would put up with one. But I have a house in

Kent, and along the coast of Kent, there is issued wind farm in the

Thames estuary. There are plans to put up more. It is not just about

having the wind farms offshore, it is when you bring the electricity

back on land. You have these huge sub-stations the size of several

football pitches. And they are building them in areas of

outstanding natural beauty. They are as big a blot on the landscape

as the wind farm. When you read of wind farms breaking in high winds,

and the government still has to pay for them, I cannot believe that

something as ugly as a wind farm is The Scottish National Party's as

100% of Scotland's electricity can be produced by them and they will

provide 60,000 jobs, according to your manifesto. 16,000 jobs. 60,000.

That is what your manifesto said. Maybe you want to change the

manifesto. I cannot change it after we got such a strong endorsement.

Then you have to stick with the policy. Going back to that question,

I quite like wind farms. You have youth on your side! The opposition

always say that Donald Trump is the best friend of Alex Salmond. He

called him Mad Alex this week. With friends like that, you don't really

need enemies, I suppose. What have you got against Donald Trump?

not care a hoot what he thinks is best for Scotland. I would rather

do what is best for the interest of the people here. We have a

fantastic run 0 -- resource with renewable energy. 25% of Europe's

green energy in Scotland. There is a fantastic resource. We have to

invest in it. If we want a second bite of the cherry, we want to do

any renewables revolution, we have to invest heavily in that. What is

this 300 jobs there was talk about? They say it is 300 jobs and it

rolls over for every wind farm. There have been hundreds of

millions of pounds invested already in renewable technology. The First

Minister was over in Qatar, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, where he signed a deal

with Master city, one of the only foreign governments to sign such a

deal. We are investing in renewable technologies. The reason people

come to Scotland is because you have fantastic scenery and you are

going to stick... Not if you have offshore wind farms. Willie Rennie.

Both are you in favour of this? Some complain that it is not just

those that are out at sea, but those that give landlords large

rent for putting them in beautiful places. We should not forget the

challenge we have. This is all about climate change. I suppose I

disagree with Humza Yousaf in one respect, it is not just about jobs.

It is about protecting the future of the climate. You are not

disagreeing, just adding an argument to support his. We are

trying to persuade people, because a lot of people do not like wind

farms. If we sell it on the basis of jobs, rather than future

generations and energy needs, I do not think we get the message across

about how crucial it is. Do you believe 100% of electricity in

Scotland can be produced by 2020? Yes. What you say to Janet Street-

Porter's point that they are noisy and ugly and they will drive Donald

Trump a way? I am a hill runner. I run underneath wind turbines, and I

think there is nothing more beautiful of and more powerful...

Than the sight of you running under it! I don't think my wife agrees.

Personally, I find it disgraceful that you would worry about your

view of the landscape when you are looking at renewable energy to

provide for generations and generations. Right now, we are

destroying our planet all around us and I think it is disgusting that

you would worry about what something looks like. I worry about

the landscape because you can never replace it. Once you have destroyed

it and desecrated it, you cannot make it back again. I think

technology will improve and there will be a better way of creating

renewable energy than sticking up these ugly things that snap off

when the wind is too strong. think wind turbines and wind energy

should be part of a mixed energy solution. I do not believe we

should have an obsession with any single type of energy. We have a

rich array of sources in this country including oil and gas,

hydro schemes in Scotland. We used to lead the way in hydro schemes.

My problem with the preoccupation with wind farms is that it seems to

ride roughshod over local people's views and consultation seems to be

stacked against local communities. There should be genuine

consultation. I also have an issue with the planning laws in this

country, where a council can save a large scale wind developments

should not go ahead and yet have the decision called in by the

Scottish government to be overruled. So, are you with Donald Trump when

he says Alex Salmond will be known as Mad Alex, the man who destroyed

Scotland. I have never been with Donald Trump, nor will I ever be. I

do not find him an appealing character. His Alex Salmond Mad

Alex? I do not agree with him escalating the language. If we are

talking about the Scottish government's policy of exporting

energy to England and other parts of the UK, we already have a

contracted agreement for that. 9% of energy goes to England. But the

contract states that it cannot come from wind energy, it has to come

from nuclear, because there is no base load for wind energy. I am

doing a bit of a list. Well, don't. Round it off. There is a role for

wind energy in Scotland but it should not be at the exclusion of a

mixed energy policy that takes into account local people's views.

one is serious about saving the planet, we will not do it by wind

farms. The one single thing that we can do to make a difference would

be to protect our rain forests. But there are no votes in that so none

of you are much interested in it and we will continue, apart from

some valiant efforts to destroy our rain forests and our future society.

What I object to about his passion, this extraordinary zeal about wind

farms, is that nobody talks, this is a rich person's policy imposed

on poorer constituents. They pay enormously above the odds for the

green energy that so many of you - I must say it is only younger

people clapped in the audience - think that it is actually the next

thing to sliced bread. If we were serious about saving the planet we

would get serious about the rainforests. If we were serious

about producing power which did not have all of the disadvantages that

Janet spoke of and the costs to my constituents, we would be much more

seriously engaged with trying to ensure that our next round of

nuclear power stations are safer than the last. We have got five

minutes left. I want to go on to another question from David

Thompson. In light of the proposed minimum price for alcohol, why do

the majority have to suffer because of an irresponsible minority?

seems to be a contentious policy for a minimum price for alcohol,

which was started in Scotland and now seems to be picked up by the UK

Government as well. Winnie really, are you in favour of it? -- or

Willie Rennie. The UK's relationship with alcohol is

extremely unhealthy. The place -- the price has plummeted over the

last 30 years and consumption has shot up. If you speak to the

experts, they tell you... Sorry to interrupt, but according to

National Statistics, the average consumption has fallen by 20% over

the last five years. If you look over the last 30 years, it has

risen 22%. It is statistics! Over the long term, it has shot up.

There is a close correlation between consumption and harm. I

meet far too many people whose lives are blighted by alcohol. We

have got to do something. But only the cheapest alcohol. What about

those who binge on expensive alcohol. The minimum price will put

up the base price, so you will not have bargain-basement prices.

those who can afford it will drink as much as they want? The students

will not be able to afford to drink and everybody else will. You can do

nothing, or you can introduce the measures that are proven to work.

Janet Street-Porter. I agree with the minimum price for alcohol and I

would like to see it adopted in England as well. David Cameron has

said that he is in favour of it. But I fear that in England the

drinks lobby is so powerful and has such sway over the House of Commons

that it is quite a long way off. thought they had agreed to do it

from April. They have not, they are still discussing it. It has been

discussed for ages. The fact is, the minimum price, having a minimum

price per unit of alcohol, the people who are going to profit from

this are the supermarkets. That is going to definitely affect small

shops and businesses. And the new profits will go to the supermarkets.

I don't understand why the tax on alcohol was not staggered.

evidence is to the contrary. It says that what it will do is it

will stop the supermarkets using alcohol as a loss-leader to attract

people into the store. The question was about who has to pay. At the

moment, everybody is paying because of the relationship we have with

alcohol. In Scotland we pay �700 million a year on alcohol-related

conditions in the NHS. Escalate that across the UK and that is tens

of billions of pounds being spent dealing with this problem. There

are many ways in which we can read calibrate our relationship with

alcohol. Price has a part to play. We are sceptical that minimum

pricing is going to be a silver bullet, but we voted in the

Scottish Parliament to give it the best chance to succeed and to

measure the effects, to see if it works. This is almost an experiment.

We want to give it a chance to work but we want to be able to analyse

to make sure that it does. I am in favour of devising ways in which we

can claw back the extra profits that the supermarkets make on this.

I also want to underscore how important this is. It is not just

some idea thought up by politicians. Drink, on the scale and some people

consume it, destroys many young lives. There does not seem to be an

urgency in the debate. Alcohol has far overtaken drugs in my

constituency as the evil that rots from the inside and kills people

off. It is the most terrible thing to behold. And maybe we have not

got all of the right answers yet, but not to be acting, when we know

how evil drink can be on so many people, is a negligence beyond

belief. I agree. I think there is a huge problem, especially in the

youth, their relationship to alcohol. I think it is also an

educational thing. I think raising the price will go so far but I

think the issue is a lot more fundamental. You are in favour of

raising the minimum price? It could help but I don't think that is the

real issue. I think it is more of an educational issue. The lady here

is right. It is not designed to be a magic bullet but the Scottish

Parliament and Scottish politics is at its best when parties come

together and unite on an issue. 129 lives lost each year on average.

This will potentially save 50 lives. It is a matter of disgrace and

hypocrisy that we have a Labour Party member here who supports it,

but his Scottish Labour colleagues did not vote for it because it was

proposed by the SNP. It has been said that if the SNP were to invent

the light bulb, at the Scottish Labour Party would condemn it as

being an anti- candle device. thought you said we should come

together on this. I think the hypocrisy... We have not got

Scottish Labour here. We have Birkenhead Labour. They are

embarrassed. No, we have Frank On the panel in Grimsby next week,

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, after the Budget, Chuka Umunna for

Labour, and David Davies for the Conservatives. The week after that

we are in Portsmouth. If you want to come to the programme get in

Thank you to all the panellists for coming here. Thank you, Willie

Rennie, particularly, for coming up the last minute. It must have been