23/01/2014 Question Time

Tonight, we're in Dundee, and welcome to Question Time.

Good evening to you at home, welcome to our audience here,

who are going to be asking the questions and arguing with our panel,

who don't know what those questions will be.

They are the Finance Secretary in the Scottish Government -

John Swinney,

Scottish Labour Shadow Education Secretary - Kezia Dugdale,

the leader of the Scottish Conservatives - Ruth Davidson,

and the former Deputy Leader of the SNP,

who supports independence but is a critic of the way the campaign

is being fought - Jim Sillars.

And, as you'll have noticed, our panel is four tonight,

not our usual five, for a very straightforward reason -

we wanted to get a panel that was equally balanced

on the issue of independence.

Of course, five would not allow us to do that.

But independence is not the only thing, by any means, that we're

going to talk about tonight.

Anyway, let's take our first question.

Daniel Herron has it. Daniel Herron, please.

Would Scotland be better or worse off in an independent Scotland?

Would Scotland be better or worse off as an independent Scotland?

Ruth Davidson.

Well, I think we've had certainly an answer from people

across Scotland this week with the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey.

Now, John Swinney's government has been in power for seven years

here in Holyrood, and for seven years they've been telling us

everything will be better in an independent Scotland,

the country will be richer, everybody in it will be richer.

They've said that you can't flourish as part of the United Kingdom,

and we've seen with the statistics this week from people's attitudes

that only 9% of people in Scotland - fewer than one in ten -

think they'd be better off in an independent Scotland.

And also, we've seen this week...

-Are they right, is the question, surely?

-I think...

You're asked your opinion, not what the public opinion polls show.

Sure. Well, I think if you look at the growth rates in Scotland,

if you look at the positive indicators that we've had

just this week in terms of unemployment -

that's dropped to 6.4%, which is great news -

if you look at the manufacturing output in Scotland, you're seeing

that we're coming out of a tough recession.

And one of the things that has been very good for us,

I feel, particularly when we were in the difficulties with

the Scottish banks, is that we had a strong economy behind us.

When you look at the fact that we export twice as much

to the rest of the UK as we do to the rest of the world...

So, you add all your Americas, your European Unions, your Indias,

your Chinas all together,

we sell more to England, Wales and Northern Ireland

than we do to all of those put together.

You know, we see, every day,

the benefits from being in the United Kingdom.

John Swinney.

I think Scotland will be better off as an independent country.

The reason why I think that is twofold.

Firstly, I think the decisions that affect the people of Scotland

are best taken here in Scotland

by people who care most about the future

of our country, and that's the people who choose to live

and to work here and to build the future, their future,

and our country's future together here.

The second reason is because, if we look at the economic progress

that we've made in Scotland since we got the Scottish Parliament,

and got some limited control over these issues here in Scotland,

the Scottish economy has got stronger.

We're in a position, as Ruth quite rightly says,

where we've got progress on employment,

we've got lower unemployment than the rest of the UK,

higher employment than the rest of the UK...

That's because we've been able to exercise different choices

on a limited basis within the economy

to boost the performance of the Scottish economy.

So, I deduce from that,

if we can use the powers of devolution to make Scotland

a stronger economy, then the powers of independence will give us

a much greater opportunity to do that even further.

OK.

Ruth mentioned this opinion survey,

social attitudes survey this week, which suggested there's only £500 in

the issue for the people, the voters of Scotland.

If they're £500 better off independent,

they'll vote independent.

If they're £500 worse off, they won't.

-Do you agree with that?

-I don't agree with that, no.

As an assessment? As a judgment of public opinion, I mean?

Well, obviously, if the survey says that's what people said,

that's what people said to the survey.

But I think the judgment is actually a deeper judgment.

I think people will tend to form their opinion based on what

they think the economic prospects will be for Scotland

as an independent country,

but that will be balanced against what they think the economic

prospects of Scotland will be by remaining in the United Kingdom.

And the economic prospects of remaining part of the United Kingdom,

for me, are very, very poor for people in Scotland,

and that's why I think they'll vote yes in September.

Kirsty, I'll come to you...

APPLAUSE

I'd just like to go to the questioner, if I can.

Daniel, what do you think?

Well, it was only because of that £500 if they voted yes...

And the no campaign saying, "You'll be £500 worse off."

Do you think... Is that the way you'd make your mind up?

Well, where do you get this £500 from?

Where do you get the £500 from?

Yeah, do you just pluck that figure out the air?

I think the questioners - the people who wrote the survey -

did just pluck it out the air, because that hasn't been a figure

that either John or myself or anyone has particularly banded about...

Is slightly like somebody standing

at the end of the pier and saying, "Here's £500, vote...",

you know, "..I'll take it away if you don't."

Yeah, but there could be two sides of that.

There could be someone SNP saying, "We'll give you £500 to vote," and

there could be the other one standing at the other side saying,

"We'll give you..."

But I think the argument, Daniel, is about the extent to which

people see where their economic future lies,

-and I think if people look...

-It has nothing to do with £500, then.

-I don't think it hinges on £500.

-But if it's not £500...

It's whether people think

-their long-term economic future is more secure.

-But if it's not £500,

would it be £1,000? £2,000 would switch it? Or is money irrelevant?

-What figure do you put on it, then?

-Sorry? Say that again.

What figure do you put on it?

There is no figure. You have to make your own mind up.

OK. You, sir. Yes, with the moustache.

The negativity we're getting from the Better Together campaign against

the "streets are paved with gold" from the Scottish National Party

I think is a disgrace for the Scottish people,

that we can't see a proper debate

as to what would actually be better for Scotland.

Can we not do away with the rhetoric

and start talking about what is going to be better for Scotland?

And what do you mean by that?

APPLAUSE

What are you getting at, what kind of things do you want talked about?

We really want to hear from both sides of the argument

what the pros and cons are.

At the minute, the Better Together campaign is giving us

a lot of scaremongering, which is bad,

it's just not good for the debate, and the SNP, frankly, are saying,

"Well, you'll be better off here or better off there."

We need an honest debate, and time is running out.

OK. Kezia.

APPLAUSE

You know, that guy's point is absolutely right,

and I hear people around the country saying what they want is facts,

they want to understand what the issues are

and come to their own conclusions,

in many ways without party politics driving it.

So don't listen to the SNP position or the Labour position,

look at what the IFS are saying, who are saying that

the gap between what we spend and what we raise in tax

would be twice what it would be in the United Kingdom

if we were independent. I think that's some pretty strong evidence.

In real terms, what does that mean? It's £1,000.

To the guy over there who was talking about 500 quid,

we would have to increase tax by £1,000 per person,

or reduce public spending to that same effect.

Now, you might choose that. You might believe to your core,

like John and Jim do, that nationalism is worth whatever price,

but you might also look to your own pocket,

think about your kids' future

-and decide that we're stronger as part of the United Kingdom.

-OK.

APPLAUSE

Yes, the lady with the blonde hair.

In the White Paper, it states that

English students would continue to pay tuition fees

if Scotland went independent.

However, recently we found out this is actually against EU law.

I was wondering how they think they can go about this.

That's not quite the question, not quite a central issue, is it?

-For...

-I mean, it is AN issue whether English students...

English students, Northern Ireland students...

It comes back to what this gentleman was saying,

about having facts rather than having assertions.

You know, sometimes, I absolutely take the gentleman's point

that sometimes it does seem as if

people on the Better Together side of the argument are saying,

"Hold on, hang on a minute, try and explain yourself here."

But when you have people entering the debate saying, "We have legal advice

"and we'd waltz into the EU and there would be no question about it,"

and you challenge them on it and they say,

"Actually, after spending £20,000 of taxpayers' money to fight a case,

"we just have to admit we never had the legal advice in the first place."

When they say, of course students would be able to have

the organisation we have now, when all the European law says no,

then you have to challenge those assertions, because you're right,

people deserve to not just have "this is the vision and the dream".

They need to show that there's evidence behind that too.

I think both of these points are true.

APPLAUSE

Jim, I said at the beginning you were a former member of the SNP

and I described you as being in favour of a yes vote

but critical of the way the campaign is being put forward by the SNP.

Is that right? Is that a fair description?

Yeah, well, I am in the SNP in a sense,

not OF it at the present time.

This has nothing to do with £500 either way.

This is a ridiculous argument.

This is about the question of whether Scotland remains part

of a state which is in its final stages of imperial decline.

And all my life...

APPLAUSE

Portugal had an empire in decline, Spain had an empire in decline,

Rome, Persia, it always happens.

We are now at the final end of

the decline of the English-stroke-British Empire.

And the home unit, which is basically England

because it is the major part of the United Kingdom,

has been in serious economic trouble,

not for the last four or five years, but for decades.

I can remember as a boy

everybody tuning in to Sir Stafford Cripps' emergency budget,

and it's been like that ever since.

-That's taking us back a long way.

-Yes, of course.

-That's the point.

-Can you really remember Stafford Cripps?

-That's the point.

As a matter of fact, when I was a boy,

there were two things that mattered.

One was the emergency budget and the other was the harvest.

Because when I was a boy, we knew where food came from.

It came from farms,

not like supermarkets, as some folk think now.

So we've had this decline. What's the future?

At the moment, we are heading, if we stay in the United Kingdom,

for a national debt of £1.5 trillion.

George... This is not scaremongering. That's a fact.

..Osborne says that come 2015, 2016,

after the next election, there are £25 billion worth of cuts coming.

And there'll be more after that as well.

So the question is, do we want to stay in an austerity-bound country,

the United Kingdom, or do we want to do something different,

with an entirely different economic model in the years ahead,

where, independently, we can go in an entirely different direction?

That's the choice.

APPLAUSE

So you'd be free of debt, John Swinney, as Finance Secretary

of an independent Scotland.

You won't have anything to pay back to anybody. Is that right?

We'd certainly be saddled with a tremendous amount of debt

that's been run up by the successive leaders of the United Kingdom

in the fashion Jim has just outlined.

But what we've got the opportunity to do,

which is where I entirely agree with Jim,

is that we have the opportunity

to chart a fundamentally different course

from the austerity agenda of the UK,

to concentrate on expanding employment, growing the economy,

creating the opportunities, getting people to stay in this country,

not to leave to get their economic opportunities elsewhere,

-and to build a stronger and more vibrant economy.

-John...

That's the opportunity we've got

-and we should take it in September.

-But John...

APPLAUSE

That is what you say in public.

But what you say in private is a completely different story.

I don't know if you've picked this up, but a leaked paper

from John Swinney's department showed you would have to question

the affordability of pensions,

-and you would have to make cuts.

-But you see...

No, she's attacking you. Let her attack you.

-Then you can answer.

-I will do.

But do you disagree that you say one thing in public

and then you are briefing your own cabinet behind the scenes

that the future of Scotland as an independent country is quite stark

and you will face really serious cuts, that are just as serious,

-if not more serious, than the UK would as a whole?

-Well...

APPLAUSE

The paper I discussed with my cabinet colleagues was about

how we can marshal the arguments to put forward the strong proposition

of how, with the powers in Scotland,

we can create a stronger economy that generates the wealth

that enables us to deliver prosperity for people in Scotland.

As for the affordability of pensions,

any responsible finance minister that does their job properly

makes sure we can pay pensions to our pensioners,

-which is the solemn promise we've made to people in Scotland.

-No.

That is what writing these papers is about, to get the facts in place,

to get the arguments in place

so we can deliver the prosperity for the people of Scotland.

All right. You, sir.

APPLAUSE

I absolutely believe that giving young people the vote at 16

was the right thing to do. However,

I believe the scaremongering currently going on between parties,

for example from the Liberal Democrats today stating there

would have to be border controls between Scotland and England,

is scaremongering young people

and I believe that education should be put forward for young people

on an independent side of that argument.

-Are you saying...

-RUTH DAVIDSON: Can I jump in on that?

Are you saying all parties are scaremongering to get your vote?

-Currently, I think both parties...

-Yes and no.

Both the yes and no parties are currently scaremongering,

and especially young people, who will be voting for the first time,

I think they should be given a fair chance at voting.

OK. Hold on a second, Ruth.

Let's hear from the man up there in the second row from the back.

I think Mr Swinney is being disingenuous.

He's always banging on about the economic levers of power

that he requires to make Scotland progress,

but he already has tax-raising powers.

He can increase or decrease them by 3%, and by 2016

he will have full tax-raising powers through the Scotland Act.

On top of that, he is forfeiting the right of managing interest rates

by handing that over to the Bank of England.

So what does he want? He has a great deal of autonomy

and a great deal of power in his hands already,

and he's denying that he does have it.

So you're saying he's got what he needs

and doesn't need any more powers?

I feel he has a great deal of autonomy,

and he would be forfeiting quite a lot of power

by developing this sterling zone which he refers to.

With the Bank of England. And the woman over there, at the back. Yes.

Jim noted that if we were to leave the UK,

the main reason would be to avoid the vast amount of debt,

then why are the main policies that we are focusing on

is massive services for everyone, freeze on council tax,

freeze in childcare, possibly a reduction in corporation tax?

Money doesn't grow on trees.

You either have to increase tax

or you will get yourself into a lot of debt.

APPLAUSE

There's a few points I want to pick up on.

I can start with the gentleman here

when he spoke about giving votes to 16-year-olds.

I was actually against giving votes to 16-year-olds

because I don't believe you change the franchise for just one vote.

If you want a wider discussion about who gets to vote or who doesn't...

but you don't just pauchle who does the voting in one poll.

But what I found really interesting, actually, over the last year

is how engaged young people have been.

It's been a revelation. It's been, I think, really good for Scotland.

When he talks about people, young people understanding the issues,

I think they ask some of the most sensible questions in this debate.

We've had one of the biggest polls across Scotland in the last year

was done in Aberdeenshire,

and every single secondary school in the whole of Aberdeenshire

had a project where they looked at both sides of the argument,

they had Yes Scotland material, they had Better Together material,

they did a project on it

and then they all went to the polling station on the same day

and cast their ballots,

and they had the returning officer from the council doing it.

It was 75% no, 25% yes.

Over 10,000 people were polled there.

For me, this is what I pick up in all the school events I do

and the university events I do,

people don't understand in this day and age

why you are part of a wider union, you want to remove yourself from it.

Why would you want to break up being part of something bigger?

As a young person, you are so used to being part of a global society.

You listen to rock music from America and films from everywhere.

You've made the point. I'll come to you in a second, Jim.

APPLAUSE

While we are on all this,

I should say you can join in from home on this

either by text or Twitter, whether in Scotland, England,

Wales, Northern Ireland.

The details are on the screen now.

Twitter seems to be the most popular way of getting in touch

at the moment. Get Twittering.

I'd like to hear from some people who...

We've had a lot of complaints about the way that Scotland might go

if it votes yes. Have we got people here in favour of a yes vote?

Are you in favour of a yes vote? OK, give us your view.

Yes, I would just like to say that

there's been a lot of focus on the economics,

and obviously that's important,

but you have to think about, OK, if we have to make cuts either way,

let's say that's true, but let's think, do we want to be part

of a country that decides to make cuts for the most vulnerable,

the most sick, they want to...

Basically, it sounds to me like the Coalition Government's policies

will push a lot of women back into the home,

or do we want to make cuts in different places

that could maybe see women and other ethnic minorities

and the whole of Scotland flourish a lot more?

That's not just about economics, as well. That's also about culture.

Are we currently having enough space for Scottish culture?

Are we having enough space for Scotland to make the most of itself?

And I think that independence is the way to go

to make sure that happens.

APPLAUSE

John Swinney, just a slight switch of emphasis here.

You've had quite a lot of time campaigning.

Why do you think that public opinion appears to be

two-to-one against voting yes for independence?

Why do you think that is?

And I'll ask you this, too, Jim, in a moment.

I think the answer, David,

lies in the fact that the debate is

only now just beginning to be engaged by people in Scotland.

If you look, the two-to-one figure

has broadly been the figure for many, many years.

We are now actively engaged in a debate where people have got

to make a choice.

It's not a question that's some years in the future.

In a few months' time, members of the public

in Scotland will have to make that choice.

They're beginning to engage in the debate.

What we're finding is that when we go into that active discussion,

when we engage people in these questions, people become more

supportive of independence as we explain the arguments and rationale.

That's why it's so important that we get out and about

around the country, we persuade people of these arguments.

-It's why we...

-I heard this argument six months ago

when we debated independence on Question Time in Scotland.

It's been a constant refrain.

"When people hear the arguments, they'll come to our side."

They don't show any signs of doing it?

What we've done in the last few weeks,

and long after the social attitudes survey

was put together, we've published the White Paper

setting out the Government's arguments as to what the

prospectus is for Scottish independence.

We'll sustain that argument with people over the course of the

next eight months and get that to

as wide an audience as we possibly can.

Jim Sillars, why do you think it's been,

at best, very, very slow,

to grow the yes vote

or people saying they'll vote yes? What is it?

I'll come to that in a minute, David.

But the lady up there said money doesn't grow on trees.

-The lady up there? Yes.

-The lady up there.

Actually, it does.

-It does?

-Oh, yes.

-What's the tree?

-Can I have one?

Not everybody's heard... Oh, yes, yes.

That's just something you obviously don't know about.

Have you all heard of quantitative easing?

-AUDIENCE:

-Yes.

That's printing money,

same as it growing on trees.

We're now in the ridiculous position where a third of the national debt

is held by a Government institution, the Bank of England.

It holds the debt of another Government institution, the Treasury.

The Treasury pays interest to the Bank of England,

another Government institution,

and then takes the money back as interest -

£35 billion last time.

This is very funny money, if you think about it.

I don't want to stop you on that, but I am going to.

Because John Swinney said there will be debt in an independent Scotland.

-But I want you to address this question.

-I will do.

Please. We haven't got all day.

-There's no problem in addressing it very quickly.

-OK.

If you think of it, almost a third of the debt

is in the Bank of England.

Is that real debt? Could that be written off debt?

Probably could be.

So the debt issue is much more complex than people realise.

And don't forget, quantitative easing is a form of money grown on...

So why are those arguments not winning the day?

I'll tell you why.

In my opinion, there are two reasons,

particularly in respect of the Labour voter.

We are finding that people think

that if you vote yes you endorse

Alex Salmond and the SNP,

and they don't want to do that.

That's been picked up, that's been talked about,

sotto voce, everybody know that's the case.

That's one reason.

The other reason is that the White Paper was far too large -

670 pages - and was also launched at the wrong time.

You don't launch just about three weeks before Christmas.

Cos, come 12th December, everybody switches off.

What's the objection to Alex Salmond?

They voted him in as First Minister of Scotland under devolution.

Why would people say,

"Oh, it means we've got to have Salmond"?

I think there are two types of people.

One, I think, is using this as an excuse -

that we don't like Alex Salmond and the SNP.

That gets them off the hook of engaging in the dialogue.

The other one is, they've been in Government for some considerable

period of time, therefore people have taken against them, to some extent.

-We're tribal in Scotland.

-OK.

Labour voters don't like the SNP.

But Jim...

But plenty of Labour voters voted for the SNP in the 2011 election,

because they thought we were a competent Government

that did a good job for Scotland.

Nowhere near the same amount

are saying they'll vote for yes at the moment.

Let's wait and see what Labour voters are saying,

cos I think Jim's right.

There's an engagement from Labour voters.

Look at the folk who've come out. Sir Charles Gray, one of the most

distinguished Scottish Labour politicians,

who's been former leader of Strathclyde Regional Council.

Alex Mosson, former Labour Lord Provost of Glasgow.

-All right.

-These are fine Labour individuals

who've come out to back independence...

Let's hear from our fine Labour member of the panel.

What do you say to all this talk about what Labour is

doing or not doing?

I'm listening to Jim, and the problem with

Jim's argument is, unfortunately,

for the Labour Party in Scotland

at the moment, the public like the SNP Government.

It's a popular Government.

What they don't like is independence.

That's why I think it will be rejected come September in the vote.

APPLAUSE

There is a wider point to that.

I was interested in your comments about the White Paper.

It's not really a White Paper, it's an SNP manifesto.

It's a wish list...

APPLAUSE

I have nothing but respect for Jim,

because he has spent an absolute lifetime

advocating a cause and he's done it with a level

of transparency that we're actually not seeing from the SNP Government.

Now, I disagree with the cause you're espousing.

Frankly, I disagree with your analysis that Britain is over.

I actually think the best days are ahead of us

and the successes of the UK are our successes too

and, as Scots, we should own them.

But what I think is decent and honest about you, Jim, is you

do say things like, "This idea of a currency union is nonsense."

And I think you've said it's dreamt up on the back of a fag packet.

This idea of dipping in and out of NATO.

This idea of making a mess about the EU.

People can smell when folk aren't necessarily telling the whole truth,

and I think what's great about you is that

at least you're unvarnished about what

you've wanted for an entire lifetime.

People look at Alex Salmond

and they know he's trying to play the numbers and he'll say

or do anything to try and shift the polls

and get a few hundred votes here or there.

APPLAUSE

I'd like to hear a bit more from the audience.

I said we weren't going to stick

with independence as an issue right the way through and we won't.

The woman there with spectacles, on the right. You, madam. Yes.

I just wanted to say, I think it's fairly apparent

why people aren't moving in droves

to change their vote to yes,

because, let's be honest, the default right now is no.

We're currently in the UK.

We have to make a decision to move away from the UK.

If you asked me tomorrow, I'd probably vote yes.

But, I tell you what, I wouldn't be that happy about it.

I'd vote yes cos I want to jettison Westminster.

I'd vote yes cos I like Scotland's electoral system better.

I'd vote yes cos I don't think they represent me in London.

They've got too much power.

I wouldn't be voting yes because I necessarily think

the ideas behind an independent Scotland are that great.

I think that's not coming across.

In some respects, that's possibly good for you.

I actually think probably far more people tomorrow

would vote yes than you think.

-But they wouldn't enjoy it.

-OK.

APPLAUSE

And the woman there. Yes.

When Ruth talks about people not telling the truth,

Scotland's resources have been eroded for a long time.

The Scottish waters past Dundee now come under England.

The House of Lords voted a couple of weeks ago.

They've taken away the Scottish rights for our renewable energy.

Where's the truth on that? Not many people know about it.

That's not in the media.

All right. And that man.

I think media control's got a lot to do with things.

In the week that's seen a university study revealing a bias

in the media against Scottish independence,

I think that bears a big part on what people believe

-and what they read.

-The media? OK.

But also, we're referring to opinion polls a lot

and look at the opinion polls before the last Scottish elections.

None were predicting a landslide for the SNP and that's what happened.

APPLAUSE

September 18th.

Let's go on to another question, from Eileen Murray, please.

Eileen Murray.

Can Nick Clegg force Lib Dem's peer Lord Rennard

to apologise for harassment claims

when he believes he is innocent?

The Liberal Democrats obviously in some confusion over this.

But can Nick Clegg force Lord Rennard,

the man who strategised their election campaigns,

to apologise for harassment claims when he, Lord Rennard,

believes he's innocent? John Swinney?

I don't know if Nick Clegg can force him to do that, but I think...

I think she means should he, as well as can he.

I think the issue that I would...

The lesson I would take from what the Liberal Democrats have

done about Lord Rennard this week is that when you have

an issue like this, you have to deal

with it promptly and effectively

and to address the issues that people have reasonably and properly set out.

And if there is information that

leads to a conclusion that action needs to be taken,

then action needs to be taken.

I think the terrible mistake the Liberals have made is to let

this drag on and to become ever more complicated

and not to address fundamentally the issues that are at stake.

And what is the fundamental issue?

Because you put a QC in charge,

and he says the women's claims are credible,

and Lord Rennard says it's not true?

That essentially...

When you join a political party, you sign up to a set of rules.

Part of the rules will be that processes will be applied

in certain circumstances.

If you set up an inquiry which says...

by a QC, to take an independent look and it comes up with

a conclusion of that type,

then, if you respect your political party,

you should follow it and implement the conclusions of that review.

Which means that Lord Rennard should apologise.

Ruth Davidson.

APPLAUSE

I think what was quite clear here is

there was a member of a political party, Lord Rennard,

who made other members of that party feel grossly uncomfortable.

They felt as if, in some ways,

their personal space had been invaded.

They felt in some ways threatened and violated by his actions.

Now, I think, as somebody...

as an organisation, a political party has a duty of care

and pastoral care for its members.

If a number of members are coming to you...

And this happened years ago, this isn't just a new thing.

There were complaints made about this gentleman a long time ago.

You have to be firm and say to that person,

"Address your behaviour, because

"this is affecting other people in the team."

Even if he denies that he's guilty of any improper behaviour?

He says that he doesn't think he acted badly.

But there are members of that party and organisation who felt threatened

and violated by his actions.

-And that would be enough?

-And who are credible.

I think you have a duty of care for people and you have to explain to

someone, "Your actions are affecting other people in the team."

-OK.

-You either send them...

-They either address that or they're out.

-All right.

That's how you deal with it.

You don't have to have someone in a political party.

It's like a publican doesn't have to serve a customer.

You can say, "Change this or you're gone."

-You've every right to do so.

-Jim Sillars.

APPLAUSE

I don't think, in the scale of

the problems facing humanity,

that this is the biggest one.

APPLAUSE

I don't know what the allegations were.

They've never been made public,

so I don't know how any one of us can draw any conclusions whatsoever.

And as they say in some of the panel games,

as far as I'm concerned, pass,

because I don't know enough about it to comment sensibly.

OK. Kezia.

I think part of the problem is too many people turned away from it and

said, "I don't want to be involved in that,

"I don't want to front that, I don't want to address it."

And the people I really feel for are the women who have had to

put themselves on the front of our newspapers to be

heard about something as simple as everyday sexism.

Women right across the country every single day

face this type of experience at work,

and the world has to change.

What is the allegation? I've never heard it.

I've heard inappropriate behaviour,

but what did he actually do?

If we knew that, then you could make some judgment.

The allegations are that he groped a woman.

Ah, well, that's the first time I've heard that.

And if you read the Channel 4 blog, I think it's

Cathy Newman that doggedly pursued this, Channel 4 journalist.

She's the only reason that this is still with us as an issue.

I just think it talks a lot about the nature of our society and

our culture just now, that we do not live in an equal world.

Women are still oppressed by men.

This is the experience of women at work every single day,

and let's talk about it as a country.

If we don't start talking about it, we can't change it.

Actually, this... This is not...

APPLAUSE

Briefly. Briefly..

In a weird way, although I agree pretty much, actually, with almost

everything Kezia's said, I don't think the story is a sex story.

I think it's a power story,

and it's about a man who was in a great deal of power

in his organisation, who'd helped fund it, who was picking who

was going to be, "I'll make you an MP, darling, I'll make you an MP,"

and he was exercising that power in a way that was inappropriate.

And I fully accept you don't want to tread on areas where you haven't

heard the allegations, Jim, but other people have,

because there have been victims of Lord Rennard who have

gone on television and have given up their anonymity,

even though they found it embarrassing and uncomfortable,

to say, "This has to stop, because it didn't just happen to me -

"it happened to others and it shouldn't ever happen again."

OK. Hold on.

We're going to move on because, as you say,

this is not the greatest issue we have to face this evening.

But I just should comment that Lord Rennard, of course,

says that he regrets if he caused any hurt or embarrassment

but will not offer an apology, doesn't believe people should be

forced to say what they know they should not say or do not mean.

"I've never hurt or embarrassed or upset anyone,

"and if I had, I would regret it."

So he does deny the allegations we've been talking about.

I'm going to move on because we've got a lot to get through.

We spent a good half of the programme on Scottish independence.

I want a question from Patrick Sweeney. No relation, I take it.

Are the UK Government's changes to the welfare benefit system

setting the poor free from dependence or punishing them?

Are the changes that are being made - Iain Duncan Smith's changes

and the cutbacks on welfare, housing benefit for the young

and the attempt to produce a single benefit and all that -

setting people free from dependence?

Which is what Iain Duncan Smith, in a speech today, said.

He said he had a historic mission, the Conservatives.

"Just look at Wilberforce and Shaftesbury,

"the ending of slavery and of child labour.

"And it's like that - to put back hope where it's gone."

Kezia, is that how you see it? Is it freeing people from dependence?

I think that's probably the intention but it's not working.

It's not working and Labour, this week, have come out with

what I think is a good idea - the idea of a compulsory jobs guarantee.

What we'll do is get people into work, we'll give them

six months of paid employment, paid at the national minimum wage.

Because it's all very well for Iain Duncan Smith to tell people

to go out and get work but there aren't jobs.

We need to create jobs. Specifically,

if you're young and don't have work experience,

you're competing with 20, 30 people for each job that's going.

And that experience of being dejected time and time again is scarring

and young people need a chance, a bit of hope, a bit of opportunity.

And, hopefully, that's what they'll get when Labour is back in power.

But how is your claim about how you will deal with people

trying to get jobs any less oppressive

to people who haven't got work than Duncan Smith's?

You say, "If they don't have the skills for a job,

"you lose your jobseeker's allowance, have to take up training,

-"or you lose your benefits."

-What we're saying is, if you don't have

the skills, we're going to offer you the chance to get them.

If you don't take the chance, you lose your benefits.

-That's a sanction.

-You're in Iain Duncan Smith's camp.

I think the Tories support sanctions, the SNP support sanctions,

the Labour Party support sanctions.

But what we're trying to do is to give young people a chance.

We're going to give them a job - that's what they need.

I spoke on youth unemployment for two years in the Scottish Labour Party.

I met hundreds of young unemployed people across Scotland

and all they want is a chance -

they just want a job, they just want a start in life -

-and this is our answer, and I think it's a good one.

-OK.

The man up there at the back on the right. You, sir.

I'm totally opposed to the benefit culture but I'm not talking about

the working poor or the unemployed or the sick or the elderly.

I'm talking about the seven billion of welfare money - our taxes -

that goes straight into the pockets of employers

who are paying their workers at below the minimum wage. I'm also...

I'm also annoyed at the £23 billion of our money

that goes straight into the bank accounts of landlords

who charge exorbitant rents because there's a housing shortage.

And I'm totally opposed to the massive tax avoidance

and evasion that is taking place today on the part of the...

What do they call them? ..the rich individuals and corporate Britain.

They're paying next to zero in corporation tax

and in tax on the rich.

It's about time welfare dependency was ended and the ordinary people

of this country got their say and allowed to change what's happening.

CHEERING AND APPLAUSE

Ruth Davidson.

Some of the things that have happened in this country

-have been a disgrace.

-The things he's describing?

-No, I think it's an absolute...

-No, his points.

I'm going to come to that.

I think it's an absolute disgrace that 1.4 million people

were left unemployed for most of the last decade.

They were just left in unemployment.

And what we're trying to do now -

what the Coalition Government is trying to do -

is get a route for people back into work,

and that's why it's about making work pay.

We even saw the Bank of England, just this week,

saying the benefits changes are helping do that.

And it comes in two parts. It is about the biggest work programme,

which is taking people, treating them as individuals,

finding out what's stopping them getting into work -

is it retraining, problems with literacy? -

putting them on the skills they need.

It's also about giving people incentives, too.

That's about taking the lowest paid people out of tax altogether,

so they've got more money in their pockets.

That's about raising the minimum wage,

which we've heard George Osborne will do, so that it always pays

to be in work and not left for about a decade on benefits.

I take this gentleman's point here

about putting money into the pockets of landlords.

That's why capping of housing benefit,

so it doesn't go beyond a certain amount, is to reduce

the exorbitant rates that some private landlords are charging.

So there's lots of work that's going on to try and reform benefits

right across the country,

and the idea is to get people into work,

cos that is the best route out of poverty in this country -

getting the country working again.

-OK. Let's...

-APPLAUSE

Let's hear from one or two... What's your view of this?

This is mainly for John, really.

Or everyone, I suppose.

Basically, you're on about putting people back into work,

encouraging them to work, right?

So, why, when people - working people -

are currently struggling to pay childcare fees,

in August will you give workless people free childcare?

Where's the justice in that?

Why are the working people not getting free benefits?

Why are the jobless people getting them?

John Swinney, do you want to answer that?

Well, certainly for the cohort in August,

there will be a proportion

of unemployed parents who will get access to childcare to assist them

to get back into employment and support them back into employment.

The childcare expansion is absolutely critical

to enable people to get into the labour market,

to support them on that journey out of unemployment

and into working again, and to give the type of assistance

which we all know is one of the principal barriers...

What about working people? Do they deserve nothing?

What do I get for getting up and going to work every day? Nothing!

Let me come onto... I... Right... APPLAUSE

Let me just address the point you're making there.

I agree entirely with you.

One of the big problems with the welfare reform programme

of the UK Government is that it's an attack on the working poor.

-That's what it is.

-It's a kick in the teeth to every working man.

Say it again.

It's a kick in the teeth to every working parent that has to...

-They're crippling costs.

-Are you a working parent?

-No, my partner is.

-Your partner is?

-I've got family, obviously,

but I witness it every day.

It doesn't mean that it doesn't, you know, anger me slightly.

-More than slightly!

-Yeah!

But your objection is that if you're working,

you don't get the benefit and then...

Aye, basically, why are you giving people who aren't working,

for two-year-old children...

You're giving them child care - three hours of childcare -

when they're not working and got nothing...

They HAVE got stuff to do - I don't mean to categorise like that -

but, you know, working people are out.

They're putting back into the system.

How are you not encouraging people to get into the system?

Well, that's my point.

The attack that's been made by the welfare reform programme

is an attack on the working poor within the society

and it's a disgrace that that's the focus of the UK Government's attack.

The other folk who are getting attacked are some of

the most vulnerable individuals in our society,

who are on the receiving end of the most disturbing and distressing news

that they get as part of the whole welfare reform programme,

which causes upset and distress and difficulty for some of the most

-vulnerable in our society.

-Which is what?

I'm not trying to deny the vulnerable help.

-I'm not saying that.

-Well, the bedroom tax, for example...

I had constituents in to see me on Friday

who are on the receiving end of a visit from the state

which says that their house is too big to accommodate a couple

and a daughter who's got disabilities,

who requires an extra room to store the equipment to support her

in dealing with a disability.

Are you against all the things Iain Duncan Smith is bringing in?

Well, I'm completely against the bedroom tax.

I think it's an iniquitous attack

and an attack on some of the most vulnerable within our society today.

APPLAUSE

I'm actually appalled

at how poor people are now being used as scapegoats

in the political debate that's going on at the present time.

A lot of folk in that Birmingham street -

and we had a programme here in Kilmarnock called The Scheme...

They are, in a sense, the victims of the de-industrialisation

that took place during the 1980s.

APPLAUSE

They are not attractive people.

We really wouldn't like them as next-door neighbours.

But both the Labour Party and the Tory Party

are using them as scapegoats.

The Shadow person on the front bench in the Labour Party this week

says, "If you become unemployed, you go along to the jobcentre

"and you must sit a test to see whether you can read,

"whether you can count." Now, just think about it -

suppose you're a very highly skilled man,

an engineer in British Aerospace down in Preston,

and you're made redundant, and you go along

and somebody behind a counter says to you,

"You're going to sit a test as to whether you can count."

This man has been dealing with highly complex machinery

all his life. That's a humiliation, and I think that's appalling.

OK. Let Ruth answer that. Ruth, will you answer that point? Jim...

-That's the Labour Party.

-That's the Labour Party?

Yeah, that's Rachel Reeves.

What do you think of what Rachel Reeves is suggesting?

To be honest, I think Rachel Reeves' first big foray

into speaking about welfare showed a real lack of ideas

or understanding from the Labour Party of what's going on in Britain.

And I think if Jim wants to raise programmes like Benefits Street,

I think we have to ask ourselves, why is Benefits Street

one of these programmes that has shocked many people?

Because we know that so many people, under the last Labour government,

were just left out of work...

-It happened under your government, as well.

-For years, Jim. For years.

The woman there, and then I'll come to you, Kezia. Yes? You.

Leading on from the lady at the front,

it's not just people on benefits that need help.

I have friends who are working, both full time,

that are using food banks, they can't afford to get

gas and electric for their children.

It should not be happening in today's society.

-APPLAUSE

-Yeah.

You, sir, in the fourth row. Yes?

Yes, you.

Going by what Ruth said earlier on,

I don't think the problem is to do with capping the benefit.

The Government should legislate against what the landlord takes.

I think that should be more better off than capping the benefit.

The landlord should not be allowed to have rent above a certain amount.

Yes. APPLAUSE

Let's go back to Rachel Reeves.

Kezia, what do you make of the attack on her

for being callous and ruthless?

Ruth accuses the Labour Party of having a lack of understanding

and also, in the same answer, says that work should pay.

Well, I believe work should pay but it's her government that

has built a recovery on temporary contracts and zero-hour contracts.

APPLAUSE

75% of over a million jobs that have been created across the UK

are full-time jobs.

75% of over a million jobs that have been created in the UK

since the Coalition Government came to power are full-time jobs.

So don't just make assertions when you don't have the figures to back it up.

Let me tell you a story and it will be a brief one, I promise you that.

I do a lot of campaigning against debt in Scotland.

I spent a morning with a debt charity on the phones

listening to people call in.

I heard a guy talk about how he'd been on benefits for ages.

He'd got a job working for a big warehouse company,

you can imagine which one it is,

and he came off benefits onto a zero-hour contract.

Because he was under employment at that point,

he couldn't get benefits any more. He was living from one week

to the next trying to find out if he had any hours.

He was taking out a payday loan debt to try and get from one week to

the next because there was just too much month at the end of his money.

That is no existence.

That's the kind of recovery that George Osborne has been on the telly

gloating about this week.

For the vast majority of low-paid Britain just now,

people are hurting. They're putting things back on the shelf,

they can't pay the electricity bills.

-We have the cost-of-living crisis.

-You doubled those people's taxes.

-APPLAUSE

-They had a 10p tax rate.

The Labour Party doubled the lowest-paid tax rate.

They were paying 10p and you doubled it to 20p.

All those people who were on 10p are paying nothing under the Coalition.

We've taken millions of people out of taxation.

-How much are they saving?

-£700 a year, which is a huge difference

when you are living that close on low pay.

You accept this figure, £700 better off?

And also raising the minimum wage

beyond £7 will make a huge difference to people too.

-All right.

-It's about making sure

that work will always pay more than being on benefits.

-That's what these changes are about.

-But you need jobs!

There's over a million jobs been created.

Unemployment is down to 6.4% in Scotland.

I'm utterly amazed when people say, "It's down to 6%."

6% means thousands and thousands of people unemployed.

They all talk about making work pay. APPLAUSE

How do you make work pay when there are no jobs

available when you're at 6%?

APPLAUSE

In the front from you, sir, yes. The man in spectacles there.

Then I will come to you, yes.

The minimum wage would be increased, I think, very soon.

Would that put a pressure on inflation

and minimum wages already are increasing?

They are saying it's inflation adjusted

but what about the increasing house prices,

because the house prices goes at a faster rate than CPI inflation.

We've got a question on minimum wage, I'll take it now because that is the next step.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said he's planning to introduce,

subject to agreement with the commission that does it.

Colin MacNab has got the question on the minimum wage.

Let's have that, can we?

Can small and medium-sized private businesses

afford a 10% rise in the minimum wage?

Is that a thing that worries you, that they may not be able to?

Well, you talk about childcare, is that going to go up 10% overnight?

People trying to work in the global market.

Is their wage rates going to go up by 10% overnight?

The small shopkeepers struggling to make a living.

Would we not be better going for the top 10%,

working from the top down rather than from the bottom up?

OK, Ruth, can the country's economy

afford this, and the small businesses

and medium-sized private businesses afford this?

Well, actually one question kind of answers the other,

in that the minimum wage had fallen slightly behind.

I think it's right that it gets up-rated now.

I think it's right that, as the country comes out of

one of the worst recessions that we've ever had,

and we're beginning to get on the right track.

I absolutely take on board that we have a long way to go.

We have a lot of hard medicine to take, and we've a long way to go,

but we are seeing signs this week of a recovery coming into gear.

You are not answering his question,

which is, can small businesses afford it?

-I'm getting to it.

-Get to it, if you would.

I don't mean to be rude, we haven't much time.

I think the people that we have a duty to help first

are the lowest paid, to make sure that

the recovery does benefit them first.

But if you close small businesses as a result,

is it going to be any benefit to anybody?

We've helped a number of small businesses in terms of reducing

National Insurance contributions when you take on a new person.

They don't have to pay National Insurance for the first time.

That's a huge benefit to business.

There are small business bonus schemes in operation.

-So there's work going on there too.

-Is Labour in favour of this increase?

In terms of how much money people have in their pockets,

the lowest paid, we have a duty to make sure that they are one of

the first people to feel the benefits from an upturn.

Is Labour in favour of this increase in the minimum wage?

Yes, Ed Miliband is committed to increasing the national minimum wage

by above inflation rates.

What do you say to the questioner about people who won't be able

-to afford it?

-I have sympathy for that point of view, without a doubt.

What small businesses need is stability and a fighting chance,

but there's a socially just argument

for a living wage and a higher national minimum wage.

There is an economic case for a higher national minimum wage.

That's better productivity of staff, happier staff,

reduced sick leave, lower retention rates.

I think, as politicians, if we make the economic case for why

paying your staff more is a good thing

then I think there will be less resistance to it.

So it's about the arguments you make as well.

Why does it increase productivity to pay people more?

For a start, they don't have to have three jobs to make ends meet.

That's one point. People are just happier.

You can go home after a hard-working week, put food on the table

and do things with your family

and that work pays in the way that Ruth clearly doesn't understand.

OK. I'll come to you, John. The man in the blue shirt there.

Could you not reduce the base rate of tax

instead of making small businesses pay,

to increase people's money for the cost of living?

-John Swinney?

-I think the key thing is there has to be

a regular and clear increase in the minimum wage.

We've certainly committed ourselves on an ongoing basis to ensure that

the minimum wage increases with inflation, because we've got

wage rates in this country which cannot allow people to meet

the challenges of living and supporting a family.

What government's got to do is to give practical

and realistic support to small businesses to assist them.

That's why we have, for example, exempted or reduced the business

rates of over 90,000 small businesses in this country.

It's bit rich for Kezia to say she sympathises with the problem.

Kezia wanted us to increase the business rates for companies...

-That's not true.

-..within Scotland.

You opposed the financial decisions I took before Christmas...

John, I voted for your budget this week. I voted for your budget.

Well, it took a long time for to you get round to the sensible

-position of doing that!

-It's Stage one, it's Stage one!

You're complaining about her and she voted for you.

What I'm complaining about is that

-she likes to have her cake and eat it.

-Don't we all.

That's what I'm complaining about.

You, sir, do you think they're having their cake and eating it?

I based my question on a financial point and not a moral one.

We should, as Scotland, be it Scotland or the UK,

we've really got to start manufacturing things

and making things to create money.

-That's right.

-You can't bring the bottom up, you've got to try and

close the tax loopholes and get the top 5%, 10% to pay more.

To create manufacturing jobs, decent jobs.

And the steps we're taking are to reduce the business costs

to small companies to make sure

they can make that contribution to the Scottish economy.

All right. The woman there with spectacles.

Can I just say, I think it's really unfortunate that the gentleman there

is talking about it being more about finances than about morals.

I would suggest that it's extremely immoral to blame the poorest

in society for manufactured austerity, when actually what

we're looking at is the rich getting far, far richer, stockpiling money,

and being given nothing but benefits,

so rich people are paying far, far less tax,

even than under Margaret Thatcher's time.

Tax rates for the rich have gone down and down,

whereas we've got poor people being blamed

for needing an austere budget. It's nonsense.

APPLAUSE

I agree completely with what the lady's just said

and back to Jim said about the poor in this country being vilified.

It's criminal what Iain Duncan Smith has done to this country.

They're not going after... Can I just say...

People talk about the benefits and how they're vilified.

There's figures come out that the tax avoiders in this country

cost this country 54 times what's paid in benefit.

It's criminal what that party's getting away with

-and it needs to stop.

-APPLAUSE

I think that by not keeping the minimum wage

up to a reasonable level

has meant we've had to intervene and subsidise that.

That's been a huge mistake and we're really in a mess now.

It's going to be very difficult to change it.

OK. And you.

When we talk about the poor, I think we have to be conscious,

when a three-year-old boy went missing in Edinburgh, it was the

poor and people on Benefits Street out in the cold looking for the kid.

APPLAUSE

We have a couple of minutes left. Blair McKenzie.

Can we have your question?

What happens after Scotland votes no?

What happens after Scotland votes no?

Clearly, a supposition based on the figures at the moment.

Let's just take it as supposition. You have to be brief on this.

Jim Sillars, what happens if Scotland votes no?

By 2016,

those who voted no, if the nation votes no, will bitterly regret it.

OK.

APPLAUSE

Kezia, what happens?

I'm a positive person.

I think good things will happen. We'll see more devolution.

You have three political parties committed to more devolution,

the Labour Party will put forward its plans for that in March.

How much more devolution do you want to see?

Well, we have a devolution commission, I'm not on it.

A lot of that work is still going on at the moment.

We'll make sure Scotland has the levers to make the type of change

-we want to see in this country.

-But if you want more devolution,

why not have independence and be done with it?

APPLAUSE

Because... Because I believe, first and foremost,

we have the best of both worlds where we currently are.

I want a strong Scottish Parliament in a strong United Kingdom.

And I think we can have that.

OK. John Swinney, if it goes no, what happens?

You'll understand, David, that I'm not going to contemplate...

Hypothetical question.

I never deal with hypothetical questions.

You must! You must! Why not? Everybody deals with...

I'm going to devote every single moment I can to ensure that...

-No, no, that's not an answer.

-..Scotland is persuaded by the

-arguments for independence.

-That's not an answer.

Jim Sillars is absolutely right.

Scotland has everything to gain from independence

and we've got everything to gain from taking control...

-That's no answer.

-..of our own destiny and future,

and we should go for it. That's no answer!

APPLAUSE AND CHEERING

I thought you would describe black clouds glowering over Scotland

and if Scotland votes no, it'll be the end of the world!

"Not at all," you say, "We're going to win.

-Well...we will win.

-Ruth. Very briefly. Briefly if you would.

I hope we then stop talking about the constitution

and start talking about the things that matter to people

cos Scotland's been on pause.

We don't want to talk about hospitals, schools, jobs, police,

opportunities for our young people. Because we've been talking too long

about the constitutional make-up of Scotland,

and not enough about what we want for the people who are in Scotland.

OK, Blair McKenzie.

-Blair McKenzie, last word to you.

-The important question is,

if we vote no, how long does this debate go away for?

Because my fear is that it will keep cropping up.

So, can we have a guarantee that it'll be put aside for 100 years?

And... And... And then what's the process that we move forward?

Does England get a pound, like Scotland and Wales?

How do we have the debate? What's the process, the mechanisms

that we consider devolution or no devolution?

OK, well, perish the thought.

We wouldn't have anything to talk about if we had...

For 100 years!

Thank you very much for the point. Our time's up now.

We'll be in Norwich next week.

We have Ken Clarke among our panellists.

And the week after that we're going to be in Gillingham in Kent.

If you'd like to come to either programme and see what it's like

to take part in Norwich or Gillingham,

apply on our website. The address is there on the screen.

Or call 0330 123 99 88.

If you're listening on Radio 5 Live, as you know,

this debate goes on, on Question Time Extra Time.

It just leaves it to me to thank our panel

and to all of you who came to Dundee tonight for Question Time.

Until next Thursday, from all of us here, good night.