18/10/2012 Question Time

Good evening. Tonight's Question Time comes from Easterhouse in

And a big welcome to our audience and our panel, the Deputy First

Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon. Labour's shadow Scottish

Secretary down at Westminster, Margaret Curran. The leader of the

Scottish Conservative Party, Ruth Davidson. The Scottish editor of

the Daily Telegraph, Alan Cochrane. And the trade union leader, Mark

Serwotka. APPLAUSE

Right, our first question tonight from Stephen Barri. Why isn't the

Government doing more about rising gas and electricity prices.

Mark Serwotka. Well, that's a very good question and the fact they are

not doing more I think tells us clearly how they are out-of-touch

with the every day pressures that working men and women and people up

and down the country and particularly here in Scotland are

actually facing. And because some advisor has whispered this to David

Cameron he appears off the hoof to announce that he wants to legislate

that everybody has to get the lowest tariff and it is clear the

Government are in disarray and the reality there is no good

legislating for the lowest tariffs if the tariffs aren't low. I looked

at the statistics here and saw that the profits made by Scottish Power

and by British Gas are absolutely Astra nomical and when the prices

of goes goes up, we're asked to pay more. When the wholesale price of

gas goes down, we still pay more. This tells us the companies are

making making billions of pounds worth of profits and they are going

into their profits and to the shareholders and the poor consumer

who has very little choice, who has to have gas and electricity are the

one who is get above inflation rises. The current rises are four

times the level of what the average pay rise is. And therefore, the

Government, I think, need to accept that profits should not be made at

times like this. I think there is a massive case to be made for

nationalising the utilities and ensuring that the public owns the

gas and electricity supply and so then we can feel the benefits

rather than us constantly fork out while the rich get richer and we

suffer more. APPLAUSE

Ruth Davidson, perhaps you could clarify what you think the Prime

Minister was saying on behalf of the Conservative Party and as

indeed as Prime Minister, we will be legislating so energy companies

have to give the lowest tariff to their customers and he repeated it

tonight and Mark says it is hog wash. Do you think it is hog wash,

or does he mean it? As he said again today, yes, there is going to

be legislation brought forward in order to do what this gentleman has

asked us to do. To make sure we get a better deal for people who are

seeing their power and their gas go up. The Prime Minister has acted on

this already. He held an energy summit with the big six this year.

He introduced a situation where people had to be told of better

tariffs if they didn't exist. Now he said that's not enough, we need

to go further. And why do you think he he hadn't

told his Energy Minister or anybody else, today, they were over the

shop on it? I think what you have seen is the normal function of

Government which is we have seen a problem, we have identified a

problem. We are looking to legislate in order to rectify that

problem and we will bring forward details as we go forward. We are on

the side of hard-working householders who condition afford

their gas and electricity bill. There will be an Energy Bill and

the details will be explained in the House of Commons and this will

help people who are really struggling and this is because the

Government is on the side of people who are who are struggling with gas

and electricity bills. Margaret Curran, it sounds good.

It is the normal shambles. We have the West Coast Main Line and the

Budget and now the energy shambles. I was in the House of Commons when

the Prime Minister made his announcement of enforcing companies

to give people the lowest tariff. The next day, within 24 hours, it

had unravelled. His Energy Minister didn't know what he was talking

about when he was required to go to the House of Commons today, he

wouldn't confirm what the Prime Minister said. Today, we are

getting an announcement after announcement. We really have to

understand what families are going through here. We have got falling

wages and it has become one of the biggest pressures on your household

income. He said in the House of Commons that you had 13 years to do

this and didn't do it under Labour and he clicks his fingers and has

done it? Nothing has happened since his energy summit last year. What

we announced at our conference is what you need to do, is change the

energy market. We would want to abolish Ofgem. You need to have

more control of the energy companies. You particularly have to

stop the six big companies operating in the way they do. You

need to open the books and get more transparency and Labour is sure if

they won't bring down the prices, we will force them to bring down

their prices when they are making excessive profits.

Labour said they would do what this Government is going to do for every

household for the over 75s. To say it can't be done is not true. This

Government is going to bring forward legislation, not just for

over 75 households, but for all households because they recognise a

problem. The woman in the striped T-shirt.

It is ironic to see Ruth and Margaret arguing over this.

Successive Tory and Labour governments allowed it to get to a

stage where people are in fuel poverty, who are choosing whether

or not they heat their house or they have food on their table. Now,

this is is been allowed to go for successive periods since

privatisation with no regulation. The Labour Party had 13 years like

you said and they did nothing during that time. It is rich now

you have no opportunity to lead the Government that you are criticising

the Tories who haven't gone far enough and are being reactionary,

but both I think you have to hang your heads in shame that it has

come to this position. APPLAUSE

Alan Cochrane. I think that there is no doubt that this has shot to

the top of the Government's list of priorities and there is a panic at

Westminster I suspect at Number Ten. What there is also is chaos and

disorder about how they are going to do this. It is remarkable that

Ed Davey didn't know a single thing about this announcement by the

Prime Minister. He said it twice. But what Cameron, I think we should

give him credit, I know the previous speaker wouldn't give him

credit. Give him credit. He understands the problem that only

10% of people switch from one energy company to another to get

lower tariffs. So he is trying to get the companies, force the

companies, Mark is right, they have been behaving badly. There is six

of them. They follow follow each other in sequence, putting their

prices up. What he is trying to do is get them on the lower tariff and

Labour's suggestion that the companies will then increase their

tariffs, I dare them to do that. They wouldn't get away with it.

The man in the blue shirt up there in the third row.

It seems to me this is another example where profit is brought in

to a deregular rated -- deregulated environment. What shocks me is when

people are surprised when companies bringing profit will be looking to

make money out of it and making the most money that they can.

Do you think what the Prime Minister announced is an

improvement on a smoke screen? is likely to have little effect in

reality. I think it will be another fob.

Nicola Sturgeon. The drebg answer to Stephen's --

direct answer to Stephen's question, the Government should be doing more

to tackle rising energy prices. This is a really serious issue for

every 5% increase in energy prices another 46,000 people in Scotland

are pushed into fuel poverty. In energy rich Scotland, that's a

scandal and it is time that something was done about it.

Frankly the way that David Cameron has behaved in the past 24 hours

does nothing and is an appalling way to treat families and

individuals who are struggling to pay their gas and electricity bills.

I think people are just fed up with tough talk on this. What they want

is some meaningful action. Why do you not think this is meaningful

action if he does achieve it? has no idea how to achieve it. Ed

Miliband in 2008 when he was Energy Minister said it was time to get

tough with the energy companies. He failed to do anything about it.

Ofgem, almost a year ago, published proposals that haven't been

implemented. The Energy Bill that David Cameron talks about today,

was published in May it didn't contain a thing about consumer

protection. People are sick of hearing people talk tough. It is

time for action. That's what people want and I think David Cameron

should just get on with it and do something that can be delivered.

APPLAUSE That's what he is doing.

He said something yesterday that fell apart before the words were

out of his mouth. He says tonne, "I'm sticking to my guns, but I

can't tell you any of the detail of how it will be done. That will have

to wait." People can be forgiven for thinking that he is making it

up as he goes along. It is not good enough when people are struggling

to pay their bills. The woman in pink.

What I think is shocking is that the London School of Economics has

estimated that 27,000 people in this country die through excess,

winter deaths every year. If a wee dog froze to death there would be a

public outcry. I agree with Mark, I think that the fuel companies

should be in public ownership. What I think is really sad, in 1982, I

became involved in the community campaign at Easterhouse to find a

long-term solution to dampness, fuel poverty and the associated

health problems. And in 1992, the people in this community zem

community demonstrated. They reduced the heating bills to �5 a

week. How much has it changed in

Easterhouse? The capacity of people to heat their houses. Is it getting

worse? It is worse. It is worse.

It is worse because now, it used to be people regarded as fuel poverty

when they paid 10 percent of their income. Now the working poor, the

the unemployed are having to pay 35% of their income on fuel.

Margaret Curran, do you agree with the point? Yes, and that's

significant work that Kathy and many people have done in housous

and it is -- Easterhouse and it is to be respected. There is

significant improvements in Easterhouse particularly around the

insulation, you can reduce people's housing bills through good

insulation and through good housing investment. Some of that has been

done and the budget is getting cut back. Nonetheless, there is a real

issue about energy prices and I'm not denying that and the Government

will not come forward with anything that seems to be effective. What we

need to do, has a tougher regulation in the energy market and

we need to understand the pace of increased prices has been enormous

and they have to take effective action and really make the six

companies behave and bring wholesale prices when they go up

and they don't pass on when they come down and they need to be made

to do that. I will take a brief point from you.

I want to say the problem goes beyond the prices though. You talk

about the rate of increase of salaries compared to the increase

of the price of fuel. I haven't seen a salary increase in over four

years now and I work in social care. Our salaries have been frozen for

this hole period of time and -- whole period of time and the last

time there was any talk, there was talk of it being frozen for the

next five years. How are we meant to compete with rising prices when

our salaries aren't improving either?

APPLAUSE We have got more questions to go

through. You can join in Tonight's You can follow the Question Time

account and our Twitter panellist is on our Twitter website.

If you prefer to text us, push the Red Button to see what other

texters are saying. If you want to text your comments:

A question from Michelle. Do you believe Scotland would be

better off as an independent nation? Would Scotland be better

off as an independent nation? A referendum in two years time on

this issue. There is two years to talk about it and we have ten

minutes to talk about it tonight! I will be voting no in the

referendum... APPLAUSE

It's an historic moment. I think the partnership that we have across

the nations of the United Kingdom works well and works effectively. I

think it can grow and develop. We live in a changing world with

climate change, with global economic circumstances changing,

with terrorism. I think the time is not to build walls around us, but

it's actually to work together, to pull together, not break apart. I

would challenge the SNP on what vision of independence they have.

Sometimes the core argument I think you will hear Nicola Sturgeon say

later is that we need Scotland to be independent so that we can have

full control of economic levers. It's a funny vision of independence

that we are getting because exactly what will that control be? It looks

like our interest rates, you know, that our mortgages will be set by

the Bank of England which will be effectively a foreign power, you

know. Even our chief economic adviser is beginning to say they

are making this up as they go along, John Kaye and Alex Salmond used to

quote a great deal. They are using a model, a fiscal model which is

the core of the problems in the eurozone. Why would we want to

borrow that now? I don't know. It doesn't stack up. It doesn't make

seasons. Why would we make our biggest competitor? I think the

partnership is the union works well. We can make Scotland a strong

country. Devolution has worked. But one thing that be kill devolution

is if we vote for independence. I want devolution to continue. It's

even independence or it's devolution and I think that's going

to be the best deal for Scotland. APPLAUSE

Nicola Sturgeon? Well, yes I believe Scotland would be better

off as an independent country. Just to balance that up, I'll be voting

yes in the referendum. APPLAUSE

BOOS The rest of the UK will always be strong. I'm the granddaughter of

an Englishwoman and I don't think it does anybody any faves to sew

the seeds of division that people like Margaret Curran create. What?!

Three reasons. Three big reasons why we'd be better off independent.

Firstly, it's better and makes more sense that the big decisions about

the future of our country are taken by the people who live here. If you

asked anybody in another country do you thinker you are better off

independent, they would look at you as if they were daft because they

take their independence for granted. Secondly, we'd be better off

financially. If you look at the last independent figures that are

available where �1.7 billion is the figure we have for being better off

in the UK, �500 for every person in Scotland. Thirdly and lastly, I

think it would p right for us to be able to decide for ourselves how to

invest Scotland's resources to protect the kinds of things that

Margaret's party now want to get rid of. Rubbish. Rubbish. Free

education, free welfare instead of spending money on Trident weapons

of mass destruction. That's why I think Scotland would be better off

as a proud independent country. it wouldn't be independent. How can

you have control of your economic levers if interest rates are set.

We have fiscal control in order to grow our economy to make sure that

instead of watching the Tories dismantle our welfare state, we can

invest in the things that matter to us. That's the value of

independence. The mab man in the checked shirt -? Let's get to the

nub of the matter, what model of an independent Scotland is it going to

be based on? Austerity? The Keltic Tigheer in Ireland which destroyed

the Irish economy which the SNP not so long ago were backing. Alex

Salmond was very much a pro-Celtic Tiger. Will it be a race to the

bottom. Based on lowering wages? Based on slice up the Health

Service? Based on keeping the energy companies and railway

companies in the hands of big business? Or will it be based on a

socialist model based on the ordinary needs of people wanting,

based on the leaves. What is your view? Socialist model. It's got to

be based on bringing levers of the economy up. To answer Michelle's

question. Scotland could be an independent country but not

necessarily better as an independent country in my view.

There's no doubt that Scotland - there is nothing wrong with the

idea of an independent Scotland. It could be independent, no doubt

about that. Economically, Scotland could survive. Perhaps almost

certainly not as well as it survived now, but I do think in

answer to the guy in the checked shirt, that's your name now, the

model is, keep the Queen, stay in the Commonwealth, keep the pound,

let the City of London decide your economic policy. That is not the

idea of independence that Nicola's activists will be demanding

tomorrow and Saturday at the conference in Perth. The man with

spectacles, another checked shirt? It would be to Nicola in that if

you take other independent countries, like say Ireland and

Iceland, Alex Salmond was saying how wonderfully they were doing

then. If we look now, both of them have gone bust and need massive

bail outs. If that's the future for Scotland which unfortunately I

think it will be, that will not be a reason to vote yes in a

referendum but sorry I can't think of any other reason why I would.

APPLAUSE The woman in the front?

referendum is two years away. In the peen time, Alex Salmond's got

legal advice which has been paid for by the Scottish Government

which is paid by me as a taxpayer. Why is he refusing to divulge what

legal advice that is. Which legal advice - joining the Europe -

European Union? Yes, what's he got to hide? Just for viewers outside

Scotland, it's said that the SNP took advice on whether they would

be automobile to join the EU. What was that advice?

ministerial code that binds all ministers, not just in Scotland but

across the UK and this is a point thatlen agrees with, says that

ministers are not allowed to disclose A whether they've got

legal advice and the content of it. If Alex Salmond was to answer that

question, Margaret's colleagues in the Scottish Parliament would be

making complaints about it for breaching the ministerial code.

That's what it was about. Does anybody seriously think that oil

rich Scotland, fishing rich Scotland, renewable energy rich

Scotland would not be welcomeded by the European Union with open arms?

Have you asked them? The former Director General of the

commission... Have you asked Barroso what he thinks? Scotland

would inherit the treaty rights and obligations. ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

Ruth Davidson? We know the SNP haven't asked the European Union

because we have written to the European Commission and they said

you have never asked them in 13 years for them to tell us what it

is. The point this lady raises is about information that you have

sought and received, about whether Scotland would be an accession

state - this is important for everyone - it meens we'd have to be

part of the Schengen agreement and use the euro. We'd have border

controls. It affects what our tax would be if we were in competition

with people in England. The chairman offal European Commission,

Jose Manuel Barroso, has said it's likely we'd have to be and you are

spending thousands keeping that information from the Scottish

people despite the fact that the independent Freedom of Information

commissioner has said that you should divulge it. The ministerial

code says that you shouldn't divulge information that's given by

legal representatives unless there is an exceptional case. Now, the

Freedom of Information commissioner, I'm telling you that it's in

Scotland's national interests for you to tell people is an

exceptional case and the reason you ought to tell people is because you

don't want the answer to come out. -- the reason you don't want to

tell people is you don't want the answer to come out. Can you answer

the question, do you think Scotland would be better off? We have the

safety and security of being part of a G7 nation, of being part of

NATO, the best military alliance in the world. We also have autonomy in

decision-making on education, health and justice. For those

reasons, I think we in Scotland have the best of both worlds. I

think if we look at some of the figures that Nicola's been banding

around in the last few days, she's been talking up a lot about

Scotland contributing 9.6% in taxes but receiving 9.3% in spending and

suggesting that creates a 2.7% overfill. It doesn't. 9.6% in taxes

is 53.1 billion, 9.3% in spending is 63.8 billion. Scotland's less in

debt than the rest of the UK. Scotland receives �10 billion a

year more than it's contributing. Not many people in Scotland can

trust Ruth Davidson's figures. A couple of weeks ago, she said only

10% in Scotland contributed anything. Even Mitt Romney only

managed to write off... ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

You spent time trying to knock the figure down...

Can I plead with you, panellists, please. Please, please, don't have

arguments that are arcane to most of the United Kingdom, they will be

understood in Glasgow. Try and stick... As someone who failed O-

level maths, I don't understand the figures but I'm an emotional Brit

and the emotion in this argument is going to be as important as any of

the figures these two are throwing at each other. I've got four kids.

Two live in England, two live in Scotland. I do not want them to be

foreigners to each other. Now, no matter what Nicola...

APPLAUSE No matter what Nicola says, that

will be the outcome of an independence. Mark? Skew I'm Welsh,

I live in London and my father was a Polish immigrant, so in that

sense I'm looking in and I start from taking the view this is a

matter for the Scottish people, it's a good thing that there's a

referendum. It's ground-breaking and we should applaud the fact that

16-year-olds will get a vote and I hope the rest of the UK do it. In

that sense, I ask myself this question - my union has 30,000

members in Scotland. Wa we are dog is, we are having a debate, a

really thorough debate about what we think the effects will be on

jobs, the economy, the type of society the people live in, and we

will come to a considered view. Now, my opinion is that it's two years

to referendum. What this debate deserves is something much, much

more fundamental than just is it the Union Jack or the Scottish flag,

are we foreigners or not, it's about this question - whether you

are independent or in the UK, if you have a party in power that

supports privatisation, is neoliberal, who is in Hock to the

bankers, rather than caring about the people, then frankly, both

options are dreadful. APPLAUSE If this debate was about

an equal society, a redistribution of wealth, nationalising our

resources, keeping free prescriptions and no tuition fees,

those are the issues that working people must demand are on the

agenda. In that sense, I just want to say this - I think it's shameful

that Labour have abandoned politics and told people that the question

of the union transcends everything else. When Alistair Darling does

that on national TV, if you take him at his word, he's actually

saying, better to be in the union run by the most right-wing

Government this country's had for decades and suffer. Margaret

Curran? Do you want to answer that? Mark's wrong, that's not what

Alistair Darling is saying at all. Believe me, you won't get a more

fervent dedicated campaigner than the thoir Government. I feel very

strongly and passionately about that, but I won't buy an argument

that says somehow the best way to get out of the Tories is somehow to

pull out of Britain because that's not the answer. This is a lifetime

decision and we might well live to regret it. Nicola Sturgeon agreed

with Mark Serwotka, "Hear, hear" she said when nationalising

resources. Everything's free for Scotland. This SNP hypocrisy has to

come to an end. They are hiding behind the political choices they

are making, there are very serious consequences about what they are

saying to Scotland and doing to Scotland at the moment. There is a

fantastic college around the corner, there's a waiting list for that,

10,000 kids. Huge unemployment, higher in Scotland than the rest of

the UK. So let's not let the SNP fool you. Leave aside what they are

doing in office. On the principle of independence. There is no

guarantee that the SNP would remain in Government. The way you talk,

you were suggesting you would give up on Labour overtaking in power in

an independent Scotland. Well then, let's leave the SNP's policies as

they are at the moment. We are talking about independence and

there'll be another election after that. It's about their vision of

independence and they're conning people. You have made the point.

The woman in yellow? For those on the panel who don't support full

independence, would you keep the devolution system as it is now or

would you support devo max? What is your view about that? I would

support devo max. Increase in powers. Alan, would you support

that? No, Dee vo minus would be my option.

I think that we have a Parliament with a huge panoply of powers and

an incredible array of powers. Some work, a lot of them don't. We are

about to get another load of pow, through the Scotland Act passed

this year coming into force in 2015 or 2016. The idea that we need to

add to those before we've even worked out how the next lot are

going to work is nuts. Let's have a serious, considered debate about

what we need to do, but for goodness' sake, let's not dash into

handing over a load of powers now. The woman at the back on the left?

If Scotland became independent, would there not be a better chance

Ngog on a nation on our own than what we have been putting up with

for the last 1900 centuries. Who is against it? We have had two or

three speakers for independence. Who is against the idea of

independence? You, Sir, with the spectacles on Who will pay off

Scotland's part of the national debt? Where would you get the money

from? You would have to add taxes. It's a figment of people's

imagination that independence is great. Oil is reputed to have run

out by about 2020, where are you going to get the money from? If you

are willing to pay �7.45 I think it is, the same as Norway, to buy a

pint of beer, then vote for And the man up there in the right

in the second row, you sir. I would like to ask Nicola Sturgeon

why the SNP have taken 70 years to tell us how they are going to make

independence work. They still haven't told us actually, but I

would like to ask the unionist contingent, have they considered

when independence comes, they are going to have a plan too and what

are those plans? Can I pile in? As I am not in the unionist contingent.

I think that what the questions have brought out and what you have

got to demand of these politicians here in Scotland is that the debate

becomes about what type of Scotland will it be? Will it be a strong

welfare State? Will it be more equality? Will it be one that

challenges the markets and not let markets dictate everything to us?

If I lived in Scotland and that debate showed me that independence

with a Government that was actually about equality and fairness, I

would vote for it. I don't understand your point. You are

saying a country can become independent only if it goes on

getting the kind of Government that you want. It It doesn't sound

democratic. It sounds very undemocratic? What I am saying

David, if I lived in Scotland, I would demand this debate became

about the issues that matter to people and the problem is with

Labour, I can't think of a worse time historically for the Scottish

Labour Party to march right wards, talk about giving up universal

benefits, talk about cuts when you should be speaking for hundreds of

thousands of people... We are. We are. No, we are. That's what we are

doing. I mean... Mark said the same about

Tony Blair's Government. There is no more important argument

than who we are. That's the decision we are going to make, who

we are, are we Brits, are we Scots and Brits? It is who we are. There

is no more important important argument than that.

What type of society? It is who we are? You are only getting half the

story from your London house. All you hear about is free

prescriptions in Scotland, you don't hear about the 2,500 fewer

nurse and midwives, you don't hear about the fact that people on

�150,000 are getting free drugs. This is the way the Government is

run in Scotland. Are you saying that that ins... I don't think

Nicola likes to take responsibility. When you keep going on about what

is going on now? What I am saying look at the areas where we can have

a debate. There is a debate that isn't to do with the constitution.

Yes, it is important. Yes, it is a fight that's going to go on for two

years. No, I don't take votes for granted in Scotland and I will go

door to door to promote the United Kingdom. There are other things

that people care about and things like the Health Service are

important now David and they are things we have to discuss now and

make choices. We are talking about the referendum

and whether Scotland would be better off. We have two years to

debate this and tonight we will move on to another question! We

have one from Joanna Tracey. Joanna Tracey. The UK Drug Policy

Commission wants to relax penalties for drug possession. How would this

affect society and drug use? This was the proposal this week for

relaxing penalties for easing up on the use of the law against the use

of drugs. How would it effect society and drug use? Nicola

Sturgeon are you in favour of what was announced by the Drug Policy

Commission? I am not in favour of relaxing penalties. I am in favour

in doing everything we can through education, through treatment, to

tackle drug use and get fewer people using drugs and those who

are, make sure they get treatment they need. Drug misuse is a problem

in Scotland as it is in every part of the UK. We do see drug use

figures amongst the general adult population coming down amongst

young people, it is at record low levels in Scotland. We see waiting

times for access to treatment shorter than they have been before

so we are making progress and what we need to do is continue with

those efforts rather than relax the law. That's my view and what I

think this Government and other governments in the UK should

continue to do. The UK Drug Policy Commission which

is a charity, a Government organisation, says that just say no

campaigns had little or no impact. Longer jail terms on suppliers have

no impact. Current prohibition is simplistic and all the rest of it?

I don't agree that saying you don't think the law should be relaxed

equates to advocating a just say no policy. I am not advocating that. I

think we should do as much as we can to educate young people about

the zaingers of drugs -- dangers of drugs when people develop drug

problems we have a responsibility to make sure they get the treatment

and rehabilitation they need. These are the things we need to focus on.

We are focusing on them in Scotland. There is more work still to do. It

is an area where we have had a fair degree of political consensus in

Scotland and I hope that can continue because it is too an

important issue to divide along party lines.

Do you agree the current position of prohibition of drugs is

simplistic, Alan Cochrane? probably is simplistic and I agree

with everything that that Nicola Sturgeon said and I would keep the

criminal sanctions in place. Especially in terms of alongside

the criminal sanctionsI would do and this is where Nicola is right,

there has got to be a different approach than dumping people on to

methadone. We have got to get more rehabilitation and treatment.

APPLAUSE The woman in black. Yes. Should

Scotland or the UK not consider the system that they use in Holland

which is they set-up clinics and encourage drug addicts to go there

and they are given heroine three times a day by a nurse and it is

prescribed and it removes the criminality element of it? Keep

that point for the moment. The person there.

I have got real issues with what you are saying, Alan. You would

keep the criminalisation of drugs. Who does it help to does a heroine

addict into prison? That person is taking part in criminal activity to

fund their heroine habit, they may have a family. Who does it help to

put them into prison? Why don't we have a better system for helping

cure their addiction? Russell Bran was in the houses of Parliament

ages ago talking about a system of healthcare that helped him with his

addiction. Why aren't we moving towards his care rather than

criminalisation? Ruth Davidson. First of all, I have

to say I think that particularly when it comes to dealers rather

than individual users there is a need for them to be removed from

the communities they blight in Scotland and the criminal sanctions

is the only way you can put people this prison to take them out of

those communities. I agree with Nicola and a lot of work was done

to bring forward a new national drugs policy for Scotland which the

SNP managed to implement and it centred very much on abstinence and

rehabilitation and it is about helping people who have identified

themselves as wanting to make those improvements in their life, trying

to find a way forward. Now, I am not saying that's working perfectly

on the grown, but I have to give credit where credit is due and

there has been a real will by the Scottish Government to make this

happen. We have supported them in the past and I hope Nicola Sturgeon

would acknowledge that. Do you want to see an end to the

war on cannabis as the Drug Policy Commission said? You are talking

about harder drugs, aren't you? am. Particularly in my area of

Glasgow that I represent, the harder drugs are the real real

problem drugs for us Arparticularly when we are talking about areas of

methadone and heroine. My issue is the number of people people in

Scotland who have been on methadone for decades and have never been put

on a reducing dose. Mental health adone is about weaning people off

the drug. For people to go back to have lives that aren't aotic that's

what -- chaotic, that's what we have to do and that the services

are there to support these people. The man in green.

You should get young people involved in health related

activities and I don't see how you can achieve this when you have

young people my age that want to use a football park and are having

to pay prices at �33 an hour for a game of football.

APPLAUSE You have to pay �33 an hour here in

Easterhouse? Yes. To play football? Yes, for an hour

in the park. Margaret Curran is my That's one of the points that we

have been making about, we like to think we have got everything

perfect in Scotland, but if you freeze the council tax, there is a

cost for those facilities, you can't provide those facilities.

It is a harsh reality of life. If you life in a world of finite

resources, it is about what you penalise. The principle of the

point that you are making is right. You need to have wider facilities

for young people. In this part of the world, of course, the community

is so strong and we see it significantly. Can I pick up the

point about cannabis? Ruth is about the serious drug use. We see people

making so much money out of the poverty of other people and the

health, and the exploitation of other people, it is unacceptable

and there has been a lot of action about trying to make sure that we

deal with people who are illegally dealing drugs and who make enormous

resources out of it. When I looked at that report and we have had a

debate about cannabis for some some years in Scotland and I remember

this argument coming forward in the Scottish Parliament where they were

saying we should soften the sanction ins cannabis and we

shouldn't be so hard because of the pattern around cannabis is

different to the pattern of use around heroine. We discovered that

cannabis used changed and it became a serious drug and now we know

there is a link between serious cannabis use and for example, very

significant mental health problems. We have to be careful that we don't

just say that you can wipe away problems - indeed, with alcohol as

well. You want to come back.

You are saying it is a hard fact of life that we should pay �33... You

see if that park is lying empty and people are going down to use it

then why are we not allowed access to it if no one is using that park?

APPLAUSE Yes. I just want to say that just

to show the other side. It seems to be hug the drug users ethos in here

just now. We have got people up there saying about the clinics

where you go and get get your methadone. Can anyone pop up? If

you have not used methadone before, could I go and say maybe I want

some? Who is going to pay for this? It might help in terms of Hel care

costs, -- healthcare costs, if you start pushing out it is OK, surely

you will promote more use of these drugs. In answer to the guy about

the football pitch, it is surprising there is not pieces of

land to play on and maybe it is the type of people that frequent these

areas that make them less desirable. OK. The woman in the second row

from the back. I worked in addiction for seven

years and the problem is that methadone is readily given out and

the whole programme was about, they would be put on to a methadone

programme and tested week in and week out to make sure they weren't

using illicit drugs. Because of the drugs in the social services, these

tests don't go as well as they should do and it is a case, it is

like a cattle market where they come in and go out. They give a

dirty urine, it is OK, we will put your Met drone up. -- Met methadone

up. They are not addregs the problem -- addregs the problem of

what the addiction is. Mark Serwotka? This was a serious

report and what it raised were questions we have to really soul

search over. It was making the point about alcohol deaths. Smoking

related deaths, about the focus on drugs which can mean people being

criminalised for personal possession of small amounts. I

think these are questions for people people to raise, not because

they are soft on drugs, but we have to ask ourselves how much resources

are being used? What are the effect on people. Drugs blight or

communities. Dealers should be criminalised and taken off our

streets, but if if somebody is caught with a tiny amount of

cannabis for personal use, should they be criminalised? That's a

debate we have to have. The report, to say all all drugs are the same,

when they are not, they have the same effect and we have got to be

tough on it. You end up losing the war on drugs. Scotland it more more

drug deaths than any other part of the UK. We have got to target what

we do. We have got to understand the victims who live in the

communities who are blighted by crime as addicts seek to feed their

habit, but we have got to say the dealers must be dealt with, but if

someone is addicted and in despair, putting them in jail for having

personal possession is not differentiating and we clearly

should differentiate and try and get to the heart of the problem and

Mark is right and so is Joanna, but the problem is, they go to jail and

get more drugs. That's the problem as much as anything else, there's

more drugs in jail than there is anywhere else. The woman in the

back row? I also work in social care and most of the young people I

work with use cannabis to self- medicate because they have been so

damaged, not only by their experiences, but unfortunately by

the care system itself which is in crisis. So I don't think we need a

war Onchans by, I think we need a war on cuts in social care.

APPLAUSE It leaves these young children

feeling like they have no other choice.

The man in the checked shirt on the left. So many checked shirts here.

You criminalise cannabis, but there are so many people I know already

use it and criminalising it doesn't make it work. It shows an increase

in mental illness. Most of my friends use it. That's not how it

is in my experience. So you would ease up Onchans by? Yes, because we

have bigger problems with harder drugs. I'm not a cannabis user but

I have got a lot of friends do use it recreationally. You in the front

row? Why are you laughing?! Question is, can you really trust

the Government with a drugs policy when they file their independent

advisers who have an opinion they don't agree with -- fire their

independent advisers. We have to ask why people continue to use

drugs and want to have them. Part of that is because of the economic

tragedy we have had for so long in Scotland. We need a Government now

that is going to create wealth instead of debt, teaching people

about a Financial Future that will inspire them to do more and then

you actually give them a dream and a hope that can take them away from

drugs. That is why decades of socialism has been destroyed in

Scotland. We need a Government that will help people to take charge of

their lives and make businesses work, create real employment that

is sustainable and it will bring Scotland up to be a tiger economy.

The man in the second row from the back, there? You, Sir? Is it not

the case if you did legalise drugs, it would be easier for the

Government to control it, for people to come to the clins, they

would set up, it would avoid the funding it does to crime, you could

maybe reduce prostitution because I imagine most of them are drug users,

so you could take that away, and the crime element. Surely that's

worth looking at. People are always going to take drugs, let's be real.

Time for one more question and then it's a thing that raised eyebrows

throughout the UK when it was announced because it was a

contentious point in this proposal for the referendum on independence.

Neil McUntire, please? Considering 16 and 17-year-olds are not

responsible enough to buy fireworks, why are we letting them have a vote

on independence? APPLAUSE

Is that so, that 16 and 17-year- olds can't buy fireworks? Yes, it's

18. Ruth Davidson? I don't believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should

have the vote at the upcoming referendum. The Scottish

Conservative Party already voting against it if Nicola brings it to

the Scottish Parliament. Why was it agreed by David Cameron? I think he

didn't want to set a new precedent by see saying that it could not

happen because what is the agreed precedent is that the legislature

that's setting a referendum is in control of the franchise. It's up

to Nicola and the SNP who've promised every 16 and 17-year-old

the vote to make that happen if she can. I was in a meeting with Alex

Salmond much earlier this year where he had special advisers and

civil servants saying how difficult that was going to be for many

people, so there may be thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds who've been

promised a vote and won't get it. I don't believe that is the right age

of consent. I believe the Electoral Commission's looked at this. They

looked at it in 2004, they thought the franchise was about right at 18.

The only major countries in the world that vote at 16 are Iran and

Brazil. For me, the franchise and the mandate that the SNP have for

this referendum is the mandate they won from the Scottish Parliamentry

elections, the people that vote in the referendum should be the people

that voted in the Scottish Parliamentry election. Do you agree

with that? I would like to know what the SNP have in particular to

offer to 16 and 17-year-olds and why they choose after the general

election to change it down. What is it 16 and 17-year-olds are going to

get. What are they going to get from you or what what are you going

to give to them? What will make a difference? I take a really simple

view of this and it's not a view based on party advantage. We have

seen polls recently. I don't agree with them, but we have seen polls

saying 16 and 17-year-olds wouldn't vote for independence and you see

polls saying the opposite. I would allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote

not just in the referendum but in every election. Why, because if you

are able to get married, if you can have children, if you can register

to join the Army, then why on earth shouldn't you get a say over who

governs your country and why shouldn't you get a say over

whether your country would be independent or not. You have to get

your parents' permission to get married. Not in Scotland. Not in

Scotland. What about alcohol and buying it at the age of 21. If you

are not old enough to buy alcohol at 20, why are you old enough to

vote and get married? There's good reasons why you don't allow people

to buy and drink alcohol at 16 because their bodies are not yet...

You wanted to raise it to 21? was a good argument. If you look at

some of the communes I represent, alcohol and the antisocial

behaviour caused by alcohol was causing misery. Margaret Curran?

I could break this discussion up, slightly, I must say that, there

are many representations about this throughout Scotland and throughout

my constituency and I've been very impressed at the arguments put

forward by that particular group of young people and I've now come to

the view, I think 16 and 17-year- olds should vote. If you can join

the Army and represent your country there, then I think it's reasonable

for you to get some say in your country's future. I do agree with

that. On the referendum? Or in Parliamentary elections? Two big

questions, it's nonsense I think to say to young people in Scotland

that somehow you can vote in the referendum but not in the European

elections or the general elections, so it should be consistent. What

Nicola has to come the terms with, the SNP have been proposing this

for four or five years, I hope we are not going to get to a situation

in the referendum where some 16 and 17-year-olds will vote and some

won't because that would be absurd. Get your act together and make sure

it's fair and consistent. The man with the tie, yes? Could the

inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds within the franchise for this

referendum lead to the politicalisation of Scottish

classrooms? Alan Cochrane? I don't think there's anything wrong with

kids in the classroom discussing politics. There's not enough

discussion of politics in our schools. There's far too many kids

don't understand and are not taught enough about the party's political

system. There are far too many kids in Scotland think Holyrood's the

only Parliament we've got, for goodness sake. (Inaudible)

Let's examine this logically. You can get married, join the Army, you

can have sex, but critically, you can pay tax. Now, I remember the

old slogan about taxation and representation and it seems to me

that if people can pay tax and do all those things, it's ludicrous to

say you cannot have any say in electing your representatives or in

the future of your country. You can pay tax at 14 or 12? You are not

going to. Of course you can, film stars, act tors. You said let's

look at it as a matter of principle. There are a lot of 16-year-olds

who're apprentices who pay tax, a lot of 16-year-olds who're

participating and paying their way, and to say to them that you can

have no say in your society, frankly I think that's not only

patronising but completely unfair. What I would say to people watching

this programme outside of Scotland is, the one thing we should say is

Scotland is leading the way on this question and we should have votes

for 16-year-olds throughout the whole of the UK in elections and in

referendums and I tell you what, if young people had a vote, maybe we

wouldn't have the Tories giving us record youth unemployment, slashing

public spending and treating young people in the most appalling way.

If they had a vote, maybe you would treat them with a bit more respect.

The man on the left? The woman on the left? We've had a few people

mention devo max and talking about the parameters of the referendum, I

do believe 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote as well,

but I also believe the referendum should appropriately reflect the

consultation that's going on. I've taken part in a number of

consultations on what should be involved in the referendum and

what's strongly coming through is that people would like to see a

third question on the ballot for Dee mow max and I think that

power's been taken away from us by Alex Salmond and David Cameron.

The woman there in yellow? I work with 16 and 17-year-olds and I want

to make the point that I think a lot of them are far more mature and

far more responsible than a lot of the adults that I know. A lot of 16

and 17-year-olds applauding. I don't know, perhaps they are all

18! The man in the white shirt? Three of your panellists have

mentioned the fact that you can register for the Army at 16, but

no-one's actually said you are not allowed to fight on frontline

service until you are 18. True, true. Who hasn't had a Hans to

speak? There are many who have. Have you spoken before, Sir?

Have a go? The idea that 16 and 17- year-olds are allowed to vote is

seen as the SNP trying to gerrymander the election in their

favour. I don't think it will matter. The Prime Minister allowed

it. There's too many anomalies with independence. The people are not

going to have it. No matter what they do, one question will kill it

stone dead if independence is defeated in two years' time, I

think Nicola knows that. You lost me on whether you are in favour of

16-year-olds having that say? don't have a particularly strong

view on that, I just wanted to say that. That was the idea. I can see

both sides. Thank you very much indeed. You bring us to the end of

our hour here. We are going to be in Slough next week. We have the

Business Secretary, Vince Cable, among others. The week after that,

just ahead of the American presidential election, we are going

to be in Central London. We have Jerry Springer, the Opera and David

Miliband, first appearance since you know what on the panel. So if

you want to come to either of those programmes, you have either got

Vince Cable or David Miliband or Jerry Springer, just apply on the

website. The address is on the screen. Or you can ring us. Thank