25/09/2014 Question Time

We're in Kelso, in the Borders, with an audience from

both the English and Scottish sides of that border,

and welcome to Question Time.

And welcome back to you at home and to our audience here,

and of course, to our panel tonight.

The Conservative chairman of the Defence Select Committee,

the MP for Penrith and the border, Rory Stewart.

Labour's Shadow Attorney General, Emily Thornberry.

The Finance Secretary in the Scottish Government,

John Swinney of the SNP.

Columnist for the Scotsman, Lesley Riddoch.

And the broadcaster and Daily Mail and Independent columnist,

Janet Street-Porter.

APPLAUSE

And just before we go to the first question, you can, as ever,

join in this debate by text or Twitter. Our hashtag, #bbcqt.

You can follow us - @BBCQuestionTime.

You can text us, 83981.

Use the Red Button to see what other people are saying.

Right, let's have our first question of the season,

which is from Jeanette Aitchison, please.

Does the panel believe the war against IS

will be won by airstrikes alone?

Will it be won by airstrikes alone?

The vote, of course, being in the House of Commons tomorrow.

-Emily Thornberry?

-No, it won't be won by airstrikes alone.

I have to say, I think there are probably a large number of the public

who will be thinking to themselves, "Why are we going back into the

"Middle East and why, particularly, are we going back into Iraq?"

And, as one of the two million people

who demonstrated against the war on Iraq,

I have some sympathy in that.

But I think it is a very different situation

that we're talking about now.

ISIS is a horrible, murderous organisation.

It is growing in the centre of Iraq

and Iraq is now a newly democratic country.

It is a weak democratic country and it can basically do without

this terrible caliphate that is trying to establish itself, that is

kidnapping young girls, that is beheading British hostages.

I mean, we simply cannot allow it to continue.

And so, we need to do it, I think, in a multilateral way.

We have to have the support of the region.

We have to have an idea of what we're doing and why we're doing it.

Airstrikes by themselves will not be sufficient.

I think the reason that Ed Miliband, leader of my party,

has decided that it's appropriate at this stage

for us to have a limited involvement in this is that we will be doing it

as part of an international team.

We have been asked by Iraq for help, so it's a clear legal basis,

and there will be ground troops, but they won't be ours.

So, it'll be the Iraqis and the Kurds

who will be doing the work on the ground

and we will give limited help by way of airstrikes.

But we have to beat them.

Rory Stewart?

As you say, airstrikes are not going to be able to do it on their own.

What you can do with airstrikes is you can contain the threat.

When I was in Iraq about three weeks ago, I was on the Kurdish front-line

and I could see directly what the airstrikes had done.

Essentially, the Islamic State had advanced.

They'd been hit from the air and they'd retreated

and that meant nearly 350,000 refugees that you could see then

living in half completed buildings, living under bridges,

trying to set up tents on areas of waste ground, protected.

In other words, you can prevent

or you can massively reduce the likelihood

of the Islamic State advancing with airstrikes.

But in order to deal with them properly,

you need a much, much more ambitious political solution,

which has got to bring in Turkey, it's got to bring in Iran,

it's got to bring in the Gulf, and that's what we don't yet have.

That's where Britain could show the sort of leadership,

that's where the ingenuity is required.

So, do you think we should be sending a few aeroplanes when

there are many other countries that have aeroplanes

and can do the airstrikes?

I think we should, because I think it will do some good

in terms of protecting the areas that haven't yet been attacked.

But as you say, it's going to be a small contribution.

The Belgians are there, the Dutch are there, the Danes are there,

the Americans are there. The big question, the big picture,

is where Britain really can get involved,

is in the diplomatic, political piece.

We haven't seen movement on that yet.

And one other thing, if IS moves in,

or they're under attack and move into Syria,

does that give us the right to bomb in Syria?

-Not at the moment.

-The Americans are doing it.

Absolutely. The parliamentary vote is absolutely limited to Iraq.

Because the Baghdad government has asked us in,

as Emily as a lawyer will comment on this as well.

Essentially, the resolution is to support attacks in Iraq.

If they move into Syria, that isn't what Parliament,

that's not what we will be voting on.

John Swinney, what's your view?

I think, in answer to the question that Jeanette asked

at the beginning, I don't think air strikes alone will solve this issue.

I think there is a very deep problem, an unbearable problem,

that ISIS has created and the behaviour of ISIS has created,

and we've seen the terrible atrocities

that have affected individual hostages.

One of the hostages that sadly lost his life, David Haines,

was brought up in the city that I represent, the city of Perth.

So this is a despicable set of actions.

So, their behaviour merits intervention and the fact that

the Iraqi government has requested that intervention,

I think makes this a very different situation to the situation that -

I shared entirely Emily's perspective on the 2003 invasion -

but I think what is of equal importance

is that there has to be a focus

on the political resolution of these issues,

which is a much wider range of interventions

or approaches in the Middle East to try to create a greater degree

of stability than a set of airstrikes which might,

as Rory suggests, contain a particular problem in one locality,

but there is a much more deeply set problem which has to be addressed

and which more than ten years of intervention in the Middle East

has so far failed to make any discernible progress

to try to create a more peaceful part of the world than it was

before we started all of this external intervention

all those years ago.

The person over there, on the right.

Isn't it really better, as Rory says,

we go down the diplomatic route and rather than using violence -

I'm back on violence again -

with war, and that type of thing,

we're not going to achieve anything other than a limited solution

where they're going to go in, get a little bit of a battering,

then they're going to go and hide again,

then they're going to come out and start again.

Whereas if we go in and use the regional powers -

Iran, use Saudi Arabia, use Turkey, use Egypt, and even Israel,

and get them there and basically twist their arms,

get the US to start twisting Israel's arm,

get Russia to start twisting Iran's arm...

You're talking about a ground war against IS?

No, I'm talking about any form of war against IS.

I'm talking about put the pressure on them

through the diplomatic reasons.

I mean, really staying away from the physical, hot war.

And you, sir, up there?

My point is that you're talking about all the atrocities

that happened in the Middle East, but where was any of this

when Israel rolled into Palestine?

There was no, "We should bomb Israel."

They were doing just as bad things as IS are doing now.

There was no, like, nothing said, and it seems now that

it's just because we have vested interests in Iraq

that we're talking about bombing, airstrikes.

All right, Janet Street-Porter?

APPLAUSE

Well, I couldn't agree more, because I can't see how what is

essentially a religious war would be solved by an airstrike.

It's just the wrong way of combating it and what I'm worried about,

two things. First of all, about mission creep,

which we have seen over and over again,

and secondly, I'm worried about the fact that

you're dealing with religious fanatics

and we're giving them airtime by talking continuously

about all the atrocities they are committing.

By even talking about them and publishing them on the media,

we're giving them the oxygen.

And also, if we go ahead with these airstrikes,

you can't tell me that innocent civilians will not be hit.

And the first time that an innocent civilian is hit,

then that's a convert to their side.

They will move into civilian areas.

It will be impossible to target these strikes so that

they only hit the people that you want to hit.

There's no track record of that achieving it.

And as you say, look at the war between Israel and Hamas.

The bombing starts, it stops, it starts,

it stops and the two sides are entrenched in a religious war.

And if we look back to the IRA campaigns, let's cast our mind back.

I worked on Fleet Street during the '70s,

during the letter bomb campaigns,

and I was there when they bombed the Old Bailey.

In the end, that religious war, and it was a religious war,

only ended through people deciding to talk,

and I'm absolutely, profoundly against airstrikes.

APPLAUSE

Just picking one point up from the many you made, are you saying

that the beheading of Mr Haines, for instance,

should not have been reported because it gave publicity?

It should be reported but I think we have to control

and exercise restraint in how we talk about it and how we report it.

Of course, my condolences go out to his family and it's a shocking event.

But other things have happened like this in the past.

They happened in northern Nigeria, when all those girls were abducted.

The world is in the grip of religious wars on many fronts.

We'll come back on this. I will come to you, Lesley.

Just very quickly,

I think it is a deeply dangerous and horrifying situation

and I think what worries me a little bit,

and I have sympathy with what you're saying about airstrikes,

but what would be very worrying is if

we started to say this is none of our business.

If this just became an excuse for doing nothing.

Rory, I am not saying it's none of my business.

I am saying it IS my business.

I care, but I don't think that you meet force with force.

In which case, the challenge is to really put the weight behind

that political and diplomatic stuff. We're hearing a lot about it.

Nobody's doing anything. We need diplomats on the ground,

we need to really focus on working out

how you get Iran and Saudi Arabia talking to each other,

which seems almost impossible at the moment.

So, let's be energetic, let's be committed,

not let's use this as an excuse for inaction.

And can you talk to IS?

Very, very difficult.

-I mean, that's what...

-I don't think...

..circumventing, no, surrounding them with states,

all talking about diplomacy, isn't going to do anything.

I don't think that's the answer.

The answer is to talk to the Sunni people on the ground in IS territory

and make sure you talk to the neighbours. The oxygen is the neighbours.

They're going back and forth across borders and getting money from the neighbours.

-Lesley Riddoch?

-Yes, that's a very good point.

You know, we were hearing earlier tonight

that Saudi Arabia apparently has 700 jets.

You know, how many are being mobilised in this yet?

I don't think any. There's question marks, actually,

about some of that coalition of the willing, if you like,

and their support, in fact, for some of the insurgents

that we're currently having to face.

I know there's an argument that, you know, your enemy's friend and so on,

but I think we've got to a stage here where this doesn't feel stable

and we were hearing about intervention to create stability.

I'm not sure that many of the interventions we've made recently

have created stability at all.

If we were asking some tough questions here,

will intervention, will airstrikes help the hostages?

Will they help British citizens be more safe in the world?

Will they help the people who are currently being oppressed?

And have we got an exit strategy?

And currently, I'm not hearing answers to any of that

and I'm puzzled, as a sort of bystander,

about where the speed and the need

for this quick resolution in Westminster tomorrow has come from.

Because I don't think the wider public here are ready for

the notion that we are on the eve of a third Iraq war.

Are we?

APPLAUSE

The man, there. You, sir.

Does anybody in the panel think we left Iraq too early when we did?

Because I was there in 2003 and I was serving in the REME and

we seen and felt the power vacuum when we took Saddam out.

We left there way too early.

Unlike Afghanistan - we left there when we established the army who,

in comparison to the Iraqi army, were demoralised after two Gulf Wars.

Do you not think we left it a bit too early before leaving?

-Is that your view?

-Yeah.

-Yes. And you, sir, up there?

Yes, person up there on the right?

I don't think we should ever have been there in the first place

and we've created this situation by an illegal war.

It's been proven there were no weapons of mass destruction,

we should never have been there,

and how does more intervention and more intervention...

and where do you draw the line?

And why countries that have no oil,

who have terrible humanitarian situations,

there's no need for airstrikes?

Why is it always the country with oil

that these airstrikes and intervention has to happen?

APPLAUSE

I hear what everybody's been saying and whilst I'm not for violence,

in order to make IS come to the table,

you have to meet them with force.

They will not talk until they're made to talk

and one way of doing it is by hitting them where it hurts.

Emily, you want to come back in.

I think I want to answer the lady in purple at the top there,

because I think the point you make is very powerful.

But I think there is an answer to it.

I think the first thing is,

it's not a question of being able to negotiate with ISIS

and being able to come to some sort of accommodation with them.

I think they're a despicable regime that is a...

That is... That brings the idea of Islam into ill repute.

It's just... It's an appalling definition of Islam

and it is an insult.

I think they have found root in Iraq

because, I think you're right, I think that as a result of the war,

the country was destabilised.

I think there was an attempt made to set up a democracy

but the democracy was not properly inclusive.

The Sunnis certainly felt they weren't included in that democracy.

It then left a vacuum that ISIS has been able to walk into.

The answer has to be, at the end of the day, politics,

and you have to have a country that will reflect all the different people

and therefore, you know, Rory's right, that we need to make sure

the power brokers in the area are involved in this.

But you know, they are involved in Syria

and they have been involved in the airstrikes in Syria,

because they know as well as we all know

that actually, ISIS destabilises the whole region

and is a threat to world order. I cannot overstate this.

Just very quickly on this gentleman, here.

Airstrikes are necessary.

They're not the answer to everything,

they're not going to defeat it, but they are necessary.

If you stand there on that front line

between the Islamic State and the Kurds,

if you see 400,000 refugees exposed,

if you see people flooding out of Erbil, if you see the tanks,

or, as was happening, Humvees advancing along those roads,

it would be very irresponsible not to provide the protection to

the civilian population, which we can through air strikes.

But I think the point that was being made there...

The point that was being made there was, what do we see?

We could be seeing so many tragedies around the world.

We could have been seeing

the Syrian children who were gassed by their own leader.

We didn't act at that point. There was a Commons vote.

EMILY THORNBERRY: But there was a clear reason for that!

LESLEY RIDDOCH: We're continually looking at atrocities across the world

and we're being very selective, I agree with the lady over there.

EMILY THORNBERRY: But the important thing is to only take action

where you can make a difference by doing it.

I agree with you that you don't say, "We must do something just in order

"to be seen to be doing something," which my view was.

That's what Cameron attempted to do with Syria last year.

LESLEY RIDDOCH: Would it make British citizens more safe to intervene now?

EMILY THORNBERRY: I think it does, in the end,

and I think it makes the world a safer place.

I think that the best way to get rid of the chemical weapons in Syria,

what happened, was by negotiation.

And if there is any way of negotiating,

-that of course has to be our first plan.

-John Swinney?

I think the point the lady makes at the back

is one of the most critical points that has to be wrestled with

in the House of Commons debate tomorrow.

Because it cannot just be about airstrikes.

It has to be about, how do we,

by working with a whole variety of different states in that area,

create something resembling stability?

Which we weren't able to create by the military intervention in 2003.

And the gentleman over here made a point,

about the conduct of the military operations

and the exit from the military operation.

And we left behind us, in Iraq,

and I was against us going to Iraq in the first place in 2003,

we left behind us a very unstable situation

and whatever action is taken

as a consequence of the House of Commons vote tomorrow,

there must be as much attention placed on resolving

and creating stability in that area

as taking a decision to embark on airstrikes,

if that is the decision that's taken tomorrow.

We'll move on to another question.

Natasha Robertson, please. Natasha Robertson.

Last week, Alex Salmond said,

"The campaign continues and the dream shall never die."

When will the SNP accept the "no" result as final and permanent?

Scotland...

APPLAUSE

Lesley Riddoch?

Well, far be it from me to sort of quibble with the question,

in a way, but it wasn't just the SNP who voted for independence.

I know that there's been a huge rush, apparently 65,000 members now,

joining the SNP, but there were 1.6 million people

who voted for independence, like myself.

I'm not a member of that party.

Now, I do hear what you're saying. "Yes" lost. We quite get that.

45% did not win that referendum.

And yet, the people who were hugely involved over a period of years,

everyone, I think, has agreed, the level of activism there was,

the commitment, the imagination, the friendship, the camaraderie,

to me it was actually, and I know this is possibly a bit strange,

it was the best year of my life from the point of view of the humanity,

the optimism that was generated.

Anyone who was a part of that, and I quite appreciate not everybody was,

but if you were a part of that, it's so precious, it's so unusual

that you really feel you do not want to see that go,

particularly younger people, folk in estates,

people who are not usually involved.

APPLAUSE

Lesley, when you say you don't want to see it go,

do you mean the camaraderie or do you mean the issue?

I mean the entirety of that. Just come to the issue, yes.

I mean clearly, the vote for independence was lost,

but now we have this series of promises from the Three Tenors,

as they were charitably called, who have yet to deliver,

and perhaps we'll go on to that.

But it looks like it can be very, very difficult

for that delivery to come.

We were given a blank cheque in Scotland.

There was no details, no costs,

no detail at all to what devo max might be,

so actually, a lot of us who were involved in "yes"

would like to go in and write on that blank cheque.

We want maximum powers, we want full fiscal responsibility in Scotland

to become the responsible country

that much of the rest of England wants us to be,

raising and spending taxes, the lot of it.

APPLAUSE

When will the issue of independence, in your opinion, come up again

as a referendum issue in Scotland?

Well, I think Nicola Sturgeon was quite right.

It's not sitting there to be brought up now

unless the promises that were made fall so far short of aspirations

that the people - and let's just remember that

the people are the agents in this, no matter what parties say -

it's up to the people to decide when they find the situation to be

completely unsatisfactory, and who knows when that'll happen?

Janet Street-Porter?

Well, I can't answer for how people in Scotland feel,

but I think the good thing about the result is

that it gave politics in the rest of the United Kingdom

a big kick up the backside and it was really...

APPLAUSE

..invigorating.

I made a film about independence

which was only shown in Scotland by the BBC, bizarrely enough, because

they didn't actually think that the people in the rest of the UK

would be interested.

So I went right through Scotland

and I talked to lots of people about how they felt

and that was back in March and April,

and it was obvious to me how passionate -

they were talking about politics

in a way that I just don't encounter in England.

So, what I hope happens

is that the people in England are invigorated by this

and start questioning our three-party system

and start questioning things about the way that we run Westminster.

I, personally, would like to see, first of all,

young people get the vote and

I hope that's one of the things - the rapid, easy to fix things -

that happen as a result of this referendum.

Because 100,000 young people, 16 and 17-year-olds, voted in Scotland

and, guess what, none of them made the headlines

for being drunk and disorderly, it all went perfectly well,

and they discussed it in school and at home,

and it was absolutely amazing and it was inspiring.

So, I hope that happens in England.

I would not, personally, like to go through that referendum vote

all over again for the next five years

because I think it's slightly destabilising.

You want to get on and plan your future,

you've been promised lots of things.

As Lesley said, let's see how much of it is delivered.

But what is going to happen, there is bound to be a backlash in England

because they've noticed that, per capita,

you spend far more money on national health, on sport, and on culture,

way more than your counterparts in England get.

So, the people in England who are moaning, quite rightly,

about the time they have to wait for operations,

the lack of staff in A&E,

they look to what's happened in Scotland

and they're going to demand greater control

-over how our money is allocated.

-All right, OK.

Let's go back to the Scottish issue.

The person up there, whose hand's up in the air. Yes, you.

I would just like to say that

there's been a huge grassroots movement

that started during the referendum campaign

and it's grown and it's got momentum

that isn't by any means dragging into a halt.

I, for one, am 54 years old. I've never belonged to a political party.

I joined the SNP the day after the referendum,

along with tens of thousands of others,

and there's political awareness with people much younger than myself

who are having conversations on social media

that you wouldn't expect from 25-year-olds, or even 35-year-olds.

And it's very exciting, as was mentioned before,

and it's hard to believe that there will not at some time...

I mean, politics, a week can be a long time in politics.

It may be many years, but it's hard to believe

that there will not be another referendum campaign.

-Regardless of how much devolution is offered?

-Regardless.

I don't think devolution will stop that.

OK, and the woman here, yes?

I would just go back to the point that Lesley made,

talking about the promises that were made and the blank cheque that

you're now waiting to be written.

I voted "no" by post some weeks before

any of those promises were made and I would have voted "no"

regardless of those promises, which I thought were unnecessary.

And it annoys me intently that

Alex Salmond purports to speak for all the "no" voters

who are now supposedly up in arms about promises that were made

if you vote "no."

So I think that there are a lot of people there who actually,

no meant no, whatever was promised.

APPLAUSE

John Swinney, you end up with one new member up there

and you've interpreted the result wrong for the "no" camp.

This lady up here is one of 40,000 additional people who have

joined the SNP since last Thursday, which is

quite a remarkable membership success,

when we didn't even try, so that's one lesson of politics.

Can I go back to the question that Natasha raised, first of all?

You know, I accept the result of the referendum.

It's a deep personal disappointment to me.

I've spent 35 years of my life

trying to work for Scottish independence

and I've believed that Scotland would be

better as an independent country all of my adult life.

I can't stop believing that today.

Nothing that happened in the referendum makes me

feel any differently about that, but I do accept unreservedly

the fact that we didn't win the referendum. I think Lesley's right.

The focus now goes on to, well, what was promised.

Because the point that the lady makes here is an important one.

In the referendum campaign,

I spoke to people who were planning to vote yes, who told me,

"I'm not voting yes anymore, Mr Swinney, because I've been offered

"these extra powers, I can get them, and I can get them by voting no."

The Prime Minister said,

"A vote for no means not a vote for no change,"

that change was coming. So all of these promises were made.

The crucial thing,

and this is where I think the next period of Scottish

politics will be dominated by this point, is are these promises going

to be fulfilled that were offered by the United Kingdom parties?

And they were a variety of promises.

They were devo max, Gordon Brown told us we were getting federalism,

-we were told that we would be getting...

-Home rule.

Well, he gave us both, actually.

It was home rule and federalism and, crucially,

extensive additional powers for the Scottish Parliament.

And people voted in the referendum on that basis.

So these promises have to be fulfilled and we, as a government,

the Scottish National Party,

we will participate fully in the process of discussion about how

those powers are brought to Scotland, because that is incumbent on us,

given the fact that we've accepted

we didn't win the referendum last Thursday.

But none of that, none of that experience will ever stop me

believing that Scotland will be more successful as an independent country.

APPLAUSE

You, yes.

I'd just like to make the point that, yes, it was a "no" vote

and, yes, Alex Salmond said, "The dream will never die."

The fact is, 45% of us still voted yes and we have yet to see

those new powers that Westminster promised us with a "no" vote.

The circumstances can still change and I...

I certainly don't believe that Westminster are going to

give us an easy time about this.

You know, they've said things before in the past that

weren't true and I have no doubt they're going to do it again.

The fact is, I believe that Scotland should be an independent country.

I believe it was a big mistake to vote no,

but, at the end of the day, the dream will never die

because we need representation in Westminster, in the UK,

that we don't get just now and I don't think we ever will get that.

APPLAUSE

Emily Thornberry.

Well, as you can hear from my accent, I'm British.

The devolution promises that were made...

I don't think you can tell a British accent, can you,

-in Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland?

-The point I'm making...

Is that you have an English accent.

The point I'm making is that I'm British, I'm English, I'm

a Londoner, I'm British, but I have a place here and this is my country

and I'm so pleased that Scotland voted no.

I'm so relieved, I'm so pleased you haven't gone.

APPLAUSE

The promises that we made during the devolution debate over those

two years and towards the end of the campaign, solemn promises,

and they will be met and, whichever party is in power in May,

you will get devolution, there will be devolution to Scotland

and of course there will need to be discussions, but any suggestion

that...that Labour or,

as far as I can see it, any of the other political parties

are going back on it is mischief making.

-So...

-And on the second?

What I would like to say as well, I mean, I came up as well

and I was struck by the power of politics

and the fact that there was such a grassroots movement

and it seemed to me that there was absolutely

what everybody was united with was the idea that we had to have

change and, for a lot of people, that change

was about, "We must be able to meet the bills at the end of the month.

"We're fed up with the fact that our wages are not

"going up as much as the bills are.

"We need to make sure that we have hope for our children.

"We must make sure that we have decent schools.

"We need to have a fairer society and economic change," and that,

I think, is as important as anything else.

For that, many people turned their back on Labour in Scotland,

-didn't they, for that very reason?

-Well, I think the challenge...

-You urged them to vote no and they voted yes.

-Well, no.

Large numbers of the Labour Party did.

There was a 10% margin in favour of...

A third... A third... A third of Labour voters? Yes?

About 40% of Labour voters were the ones who voted

yes in the referendum.

What that says clearly to me is the Labour message was

unsuccessful in reaching some of its core voters.

Now, what... The point that Emily made a moment ago was that

it was mischief to suggest that somehow these promises

were not going to be delivered.

At seven o'clock on the morning after the referendum,

the Prime Minister walked out of Downing Street...

EMILY: Well, I don't speak for him.

Hold on, let him finish the point.

You were all quite happy to speak for each other during

the referendum campaign, Emily. All of you were...

APPLAUSE

You were all... You were all... You were all...

You were all Better Together in the referendum campaign.

But at seven o'clock in the morning, after the referendum,

the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street

and he added the question of English devolution to the question

of Scottish devolution, and it all had to happen at the same time.

And he's been smacked back into place. He's not...

Emily, just let him have his say and I'll come to Rory next.

I simply offer that to illustrate that there is a desire

to try to undermine the commitments that were given

and we will hold the Westminster parties to exactly what they said

-in the referendum campaign.

-Hang on. Yes, fine.

APPLAUSE

Rory Stewart, this is a very important point because,

as John Swinney says, the words the Prime Minister used on Friday

morning were that the changes in Scotland must take place in

tandem, fair enough, and at the same pace as the settlement for Scotland.

In other words, presumably, the thing starts

and is completed at the same time.

That's what it means, "at the same pace".

-You went to the Chequers meeting with the Prime Minister.

-Sure.

How was this point resolved? Who's right?

Is Emily right that you won't renege on it, or is it John right

to say this is a very strange thing to have said on Friday morning?

The resolution is very, very clear.

No ifs, no buts,

Scotland gets devolution regardless of what else happens anywhere else.

-Absolutely. No ifs, no buts. LESLEY:

-We've got devolution.

Which powers are you going to give us? That's the question.

Welfare and taxation and, like Lesley,

this was the most precious, wonderful year of my political life

because a very simple choice was made.

The SNP are going to try and make this more complicated.

That choice was simple.

Do you want to remain part of the United Kingdom or not?

Devolution max will be delivered without any conditions.

All this stuff about what happens in England is entirely independent

and that promise will be kept.

Hang on, that's not what the Prime Minister says.

Rory Stewart may say it,

but the Prime Minister says that it must take place at the same pace

as the settlement on Scotland.

They've smacked him down. It's fine. It's fine.

-He's been put back in his box.

-Who's smacked him down?

Well, basically, these guys have smacked him down.

He went out onto the front doorstep of Number Ten

and thought, oh, he has a nice party political opportunity here

and, basically, grown-ups around and said, "Stop messing around.

"You don't know how to behave. This is not how you do things."

This is... This is...

APPLAUSE

This is... This is...

This is very important.

What you can see happening here with John

and Lesley is they're beginning the campaign for the next referendum

and they'll organise it around the idea of betrayal.

They'll set up an idea that some great promises were made

and the promises were let down.

But the choice to the Scottish people was very straightforward.

Do you want to be part of the United Kingdom or not?

And buy a ten-point margin,

Scotland decided to remain part of the United Kingdom

and any amount of trickery, any amount of introducing other things,

-doesn't get beyond that point.

-Rory, I started...

APPLAUSE

I gave my answer...

I started my answer on this question very

deliberately by saying that I accept the result, however

painful that is for me personally and, believe you me, it is painful.

But promises were made that have to be fulfilled of home rule,

quasi-federalism, of devo max, extensive powers.

Those are the tests that must be delivered and,

to be absolutely blunt about it,

the Prime Minister's first attempt on the steps of Downing Street

at seven o'clock in the morning did not instil confidence that he

was going to be as resolute on the Friday as he had

been on the previous Monday about delivering extensive

-powers to the Scottish Parliament.

-I want to go to something...

APPLAUSE

I want to go to something that Janet Street-Porter raised a moment

ago about English reaction to all this

and it is a question from Patricia Brennock, please.

Patricia Brennock.

Should Scottish MPs continue to vote on English issues in Parliament?

Should Scottish MPs vote on English issues in Parliament?

Janet, you kick off on this one.

Well, I don't see why they should, really.

I mean, I've thought about it quite a lot.

What I'd like to see happen is

I would like an English Parliament

but, at the same time, I've campaigned,

I've moaned so many times about administration, bureaucracy

and so on, but I think that, going forward,

the situation as it currently stands is illogical.

So it seems more... You know, it seems a foregone conclusion,

actually, and this is what people in England are saying -

"Yes, well, let English MPs vote on English business."

What worries me about this is, yeah, that's logical and yes, why not do it,

but what are we all going to join together on,

what's come to hold us together? Because if there's going to be more

and more things that we are devolved and we do separately...

And now we've got all the Northern cities of England saying,

"Oh, why haven't we got a regional assembly and more powers?"

Even though they voted against that a few years ago,

now they want it back.

What holds the union together?

What are all the things that everybody wants to

happen in Westminster that we all vote on together?

But, yeah, there should be things

like the way the National Health Service is run,

I do think should be devolved, and education and so on.

There are key issues that should be only voted on by English MPs.

John Swinney.

I was a Westminster MP for four years and I did not vote on

English-only issues within the House of Commons.

Where I did vote on issues which were relevant to England

was where they had a financial implication for Scotland,

for which there was a direct financial relationship.

But I, essentially, absented myself from deciding on any issues

that were England-only issues.

Should that be a general rule for all MPs who come from Scotland?

I think that is a general rule that should be applied to

all MPs that come from Scotland.

I think the issues that Janet raises and, I think, that have

emerged from the debate in England are entirely understandable issues.

I think there are many implications that have been raised by devolution.

There'll be many more implications that will be raised by a devolution

of further extensive powers to the Scottish Parliament, which

obviously I'm supportive of, but I accept they will cause implications.

So I think the concerns that have been raised

by voters in England are entirely understandable, given

the significant changes that have taken place in the United Kingdom.

And obviously that process must go further as a consequence

-of the referendum in Scotland.

-OK.

The man in spectacles, do you want to come in there? Yes.

Perhaps what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Maybe there would be less suspicion and resentment on all sides

if, for example, only Scottish MPs were allowed to vote

on the new Scottish powers and on devo max.

-PANEL CHUCKLE

-Right.

Emily Thornberry. A good legal conundrum for you.

I'm not sure we could rely on all the Labour MPs from Scotland

to vote for more devolution for Scotland.

I can't imagine that would be likely.

I'm not going to rise to this.

Let me address the question as it was originally asked.

I think that it's right that the debate that happened in Scotland

is likely to engender within a lot of English people the idea that they

should have a stronger voice.

The question is how to go about doing that.

It does seem to me that, actually, you know,

England does have cities and regions that are very different

from each other and I think that most people, when they think about it,

would like to have power closer to their families and to themselves

so the decisions that are made are relevant to their circumstances.

I think that's important.

But I also think it's important that we can't just keep...

We have been making changes to the constitution.

We have an unwritten constitution, but we do have a constitution.

We have not yet had an overview as to where we have got to

and what we should do next.

So that we have, on the one hand, Northern Ireland, you know,

with their version of devolution, you have Scotland with

what will become Scotland's version of devolution, Wales with other...

London. I mean, London, you know, we have transport devolved to

London, so does that mean that I can't vote on any transport bills?

I don't think this is about just Westminster.

I don't think it's right that we should have

a Westminster fix to this.

I think that it is right that we have a constitutional convention,

we look at it carefully, we engage people up and down the country,

around the nations, the regions and the cities,

in the same way that we did in Scotland.

We had a debate for two years in Scotland

and came out with some good answers.

We need to have the same in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I, personally, think we cannot think about our constitution

and changes to our constitution without at last dealing

with the issue of the second chamber.

I think that we should have voices across, you know,

from all over, across the United Kingdom in the second chamber

and I think that we need to look at that in terms of the House of Lords.

-I think we should come back... JANET:

-We've debated this for years.

And we have to do it together.

We've had a referendum about devolving powers to cities.

We've had debates about mayors...

You've raised yourself the question, which is,

on the one hand, we want to devolve power to people

but we also need to keep united

because that's what the vote was about and that's what people want.

-They do want change.

-Yeah, but two years, a constitutional...

What you're talking about taking two years is just a delaying tactic.

-No, it's not. It's a proper look...

-It IS a delaying tactic.

..at a serious subject.

ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

We are talking about the British constitution here.

-Some people say you're talking about the Labour Party...

-Exactly.

..and whether you'll get your votes in the House of Commons.

APPLAUSE Well, actually, do you know what?

Every time Labour has won the general election, we have had

the majority in England so I think, you know, it's not quite right.

In the end, you know, it is ridiculous the idea that...that...

that David Cameron and a couple of his mates

can go off into a committee corridor in Westminster

-and fix the British constitution in a period of weeks.

-Lesley.

Let's just look at this question - what would hold Britain together

if the parts of it had very strong control over their own running?

Well, what holds every federal country together in Europe?

And what makes most of those federal countries, by the way,

AAA-credit-rated nations, which we lost last year?

It's fairness, it's respect for the fact that there's difference

and, above all, it's power. It's local power held by people.

For example, Angela Merkel, the world's most powerful women,

cannot impose a council tax freeze in Germany because those levels

of government are completely legislatively separate.

Here in Britain, we have a top-down, winner-takes-all attitude to power.

One area, one government, one party wins just by a small whisker

and all power is then concentrated in their hands.

Now, until we start to question that in the whole of Britain...

Because it is being questioned in the Celtic regions, if you

like, all of whom now employ some form of proportional representation.

Until we begin to question the way that, actually, England is

operating in a first-past-the-post mode that gives a lot of power

to a small number of people,

we will continue to have these rammies over and over again

and we will hear the call for another look

at the House of Lords, which should have been abolished ages ago.

JOHN: Absolutely.

APPLAUSE

The man in the middle there. You, sir.

Would the answer to our constitutional question not

be one set of MPs who sat in their individual regions

and went to Westminster to deal with matters

which pertained to the whole of the UK?

I feel, currently, duplication serves nobody.

OK, and the woman here on the left and then I'll come to you, Rory.

I object to Emily saying that, you know, they engaged,

the Labour Party engaged people.

The Labour Party, over the last two years,

did not engage people in Scotland.

It was the people, it was National Collective,

it was Bella Caledonia, Wings Over Scotland who engaged the people.

The Labour Party sat on the Tories' coat-tails

and became Red Tories themselves.

-APPLAUSE

-Rory Stewart.

Come back to the question, Rory.

I'll come back to the original question.

That is the best place to start.

English votes on English laws.

We do need English votes on English laws and, actually, John Swinney has

provided a pretty straightforward explanation of how you do it.

There is a more complicated explanation.

There is a very, very interesting piece of work

called the McKay Commission, which has reported, it's taken evidence

from all round the country, and it's come up with a proposal

which, in the end, is pretty similar to what John did,

which is that MPs who are not sitting for English constituencies

don't vote on English laws.

Now, the parliament would retain...

And this is why you don't need a big constitutional change.

The parliament would retain the theoretical power to vote

on those laws but, if they did it, there would be a crisis

and they would have to explain why they were doing it.

The analogy - it's very British - is the Queen retains enormous power.

This is how we took power away from the Queen.

She can still declare war, theoretically.

As far as I know, she hasn't decided to recently.

If she did, there would be a constitutional crisis.

We would move to a world in which, effectively,

Scottish MPs would act as John did.

They wouldn't vote, they'd retain the right to vote but they wouldn't

do so and English MPs would retain control over English laws without

opening up that whole Pandora's box of proportional representation,

the House of Lords, the written constitution

and umpteen other things,

which the Labour Party is using as a delaying tactic.

So, you'd wait for the Queen to purr?

LAUGHTER

Her approval.

Right, on which note...

You think David Cameron's going to have rather an embarrassing audience

next time he goes to Buckingham Palace?

Let's take this question from Jim Hewitt.

If the leader of the Labour Party forgets

the £95 billion deficit in the major speech,

how can we trust him to lead the country?

Ed Miliband famously forgetting to mention the deficit.

You are the finance secretary up here, John Swinney,

what do you make of it?

It think it's pretty inexplicable

that Ed Miliband forgot to mention the deficit.

Of course, Ed Miliband has structured his entire economic proposition

on sticking, essentially,

to the same deficit-reducing plan and austerity implementation that is

the current direction of the Conservative and Liberal coalition.

So what people will find as the UK election takes its course is that

the Labour Party has signed up to the same straitjacket over

the public expenditure and public finances that

the Conservatives are currently implementing,

which means very significant reductions in welfare expenditure,

where Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary,

has said that the Labour Party will be tougher on welfare reform

and tougher on benefit claimants than the Conservatives,

that we will not see the stimulus,

that I think is required,

to the economy to move us faster and swifter out of recession.

I think that the reality of the economic medicine proposed by

the Labour Party will be hauntingly similar to

the economic direction of the Conservatives.

They will try to present a couple of things as slightly different.

The discussion about the mansion tax is a nice diversion from

the austerity agenda that is essentially at

the heart of the Labour Party's agenda.

Although Ed Miliband didn't mention the deficit in his speech on Tuesday,

it was central to the speech that Ed Balls made to

the Labour Party Conference on Monday,

which was all about delivering more and more austerity.

That is the agenda of the Labour Party for 2015.

So, in that sense, it didn't matter that Ed Miliband didn't mention it,

or do you think he was trying to woo the conference

by not reminding them of the austerity

that Ed Balls was proposing?

I thought it interesting that one of Ed Miliband's spin doctors said

that the deficit was at the back of Ed's mind.

It would have been nice if it had been at the front of his mind

when it was supposed to be uttered.

But the real speech that we need to look at

was the Ed Balls speech on Monday

cos that speech committed the Labour Party to prolonged austerity,

just like the Conservatives are committed to prolonged austerity in

-the United Kingdom.

-Janet Street-Porter.

Well, can we trust Ed Miliband?

Firstly, any man that gets up

and decides to make a speech without notes, I don't trust anyway.

Why not?

I think it is a very macho, threadbare gesture, actually.

If you want to be the next Prime Minister of Great Britain...

it's your last chance to connect with the people

who might vote for you before the election,

to get every single newspaper front page,

to be the lead story on all the news items.

It is sheer bloody-minded arrogance to think you can speak for

78 minutes without notes and to just do it.

I'm sorry, very few women would do that.

You would think,

"Oh, it is like housekeeping, I've got to have a list."

He forgot huge amounts.

Whether he did it deliberately or by accident, I don't know,

but what I do know is that within that speech,

the things that got picked up,

like the mansion tax and so on, I found deeply depressing.

It's almost like he was going back in time, into class war.

To create something called a mansion tax,

to target this completely unfair tax, which a lot, I think

over 100,000 people would be affected by it,

but many of them will be elderly who are living in houses.

It is geographically discriminating, and also a class thing.

But importantly, it only affects the southeast of England

and parts of London, where, through no fault of their own,

people have seen the property prices go through the roof.

I think the mansion tax is dead in the water.

But when I listen to the speech, when I take it apart,

am I listening to a man who is going to run Britain?

No, I am listening to someone who has had voice coaching.

I am listening to someone who is talking like a

Marks & Spencer advert.

APPLAUSE

The whole "together" rubbish. He said it about 50 times.

What did it sound like? The Marks & Spencer Christmas ad or John Lewis.

It's all this, "We're all in it together..."

We know we are all in it together, Ed!

If my bank balance has a deficit of £10,

I get an overdraft charge.

You have a deficit of £75 billion, and you forgot it.

Most people in this country cannot afford to forget £9.50.

I think that there are really good people in the Labour Party

who could lead the country, but I don't think that man,

walking up and down the stage without notes, is the bloke.

Emily Thornberry.

SHE SIGHS He forgot...

LAUGHTER

I don't know where to start with you, Janet. He forgot a bit of his speech.

-A big bit!

-As we've already heard,

Ed Balls spent the day before talking about the deficit.

He forgot a bit of his speech, but compare it with George Osborne.

He missed his deficit target by £75 billion.

What's more important?

What ought to be on the front page of the Independent?

George Osborne missing the deficit target

or Ed Miliband forgetting a few paragraphs in 75-minute speech?

I agree with the notes. I have to say, I always come with notes.

I feel happier with them, but that is a different style.

What is important is who has the best economic plan.

The idea, Janet, that we are pulling back on some core vote strategy,

a class war, if you heard his speech with the passion that he did,

about how important the National Health Service is,

that does not affect a few people.

The English National Health Service affects the whole of England.

But the mansion tax accounts for 1% of the national health deficit.

There is a gaping hole in the NHS finances

that will not be resolved by what he spelled out.

How fair is it that somebody can buy a flat for at 1 Hyde Park Corner,

or whatever it's called, for £136 million

and guess how much tax they pay? £26 a week!

All of the people that live in that block are not British citizens.

Exactly. They own a large part of Britain

and they are paying £26 a week.

We know that there are some people on low incomes who have bought flats

and houses in central London, and the prices have gone up hugely.

It will be difficult for them to meet it. We understand that.

We need provision for the lower end.

But the people who don't necessarily live in Britain,

who buy themselves a flat for £140 million in central London

will not be paying £26 a week!

-But they are not plugging up the deficit.

-Rory Stewart.

I thought what was sad about the speech was,

you had the Fidel Castro length,

you had the unscripted stuff,

but none of the

Fidel Castro passion.

What's sad about all this is... I think John is right.

Where's the radical vision?

This is the great big speech before the election.

Where is his vision of localism? Of economy?

I can't see any distinctive economic analysis.

And where is his foreign policy vision?

What does he think about Britain?

What does he think about the world?

When was he last outside Britain?

Where is that big passion?

I don't care about him forgetting bits of his speech,

but I would like to know what he believes in, as a leader.

OK. You, sir.

This is exactly why I voted yes,

to get away from the Westminster nonsense.

I'm on a Facebook page,

there are 172,000 people that have liked the 45%.

That's only 10,000 less than the whole of the Labour Party,

and we're trying to get away...

This is why we voted yes. We want to go away from this nonsense.

-This wrangling.

-Sorry, which wranglings?

Between Labour and Conservative or what?

Between me and Janet?

-Or SNP and Labour?

-No.

I think the point the gentleman is making is that we've just come

through a debate in Scotland, I'm on the losing side of it,

but I think all of us can agree it was a most energised debate in which

people were motivated to talk about politics in locations

that they have never talked about politics in before.

You know, I talked about politics in a barber shop with folks.

Are you saying that Ed Miliband failed to do this in his speech?

I think that the point that the gentleman is making

is that there is a lack of engagement

because there is no real choice or diversity in the propositions

that we in Scotland had a debate about how to do things differently.

-That genie's not going to go back in a bottle.

-Lesley Riddoch.

Yes, the astonishing thing is that Ed Miliband's latest polling

is worse than David Cameron in Scotland.

Now, that is really saying something for here.

Why do you think that is?

Because of many of the things that have been said.

Putting the personality to one side,

I know that people do like concentrating on that.

It has a wee echo of a way that people were

going for Alex Salmond as a personality.

There's a bit of fitting up anybody who threatens the Establishment.

Ed Miliband threatened it a bit more, actually.

But it is the policies that people are looking at.

Ed Balls announced freezing child benefit,

scrapping the winter fuel allowance.

-For the richest.

-Scots really need that support.

There is also a look at the pension age and raising it.

It's a long discussion to have here,

but the Scots are not reaching the pension age

the same as the rest of the UK.

That feels like an insult, a couple of days after the no vote.

That was the period when we expected to be wooed,

especially by a party

which had lost Glasgow and Dundee.

And to pick up on one last thing about that deal,

we had heard earlier from Rory who was talking about

the content of what might be offered,

he talked about offering welfare and taxation.

When it comes to income tax and welfare,

neither have been promised by you, the Labour Party,

you came up with devo nano.

We have 30 seconds. Just very briefly, Emily,

because we have come to the end of the programme.

You have spoken at some length already.

Just very briefly, if you want to answer Lesley.

I think that there some very positive and important policies

that will affect the people of Glasgow.

Apprenticeships. Dealing with the cost of living.

Housing, we need more housing. We need somewhere for our kids to live.

We need to make sure we have a minimum wage.

We need green jobs.

We need to be able to look to the future.

-And in England we need to do more to make sure that we save the NHS.

-OK.

That is a discussion to go on.

We have the Tory Conference next, the UKIP Conference,

Liberal Democrats Conference, it will go on and on.

Next week we're going to be in Northampton.

We have the Conservative Party Chairman on the panel -

Grant Shapps.

The week after that we're going to be in Clacton in Essex,

where there's going to be the by-election

which UKIP are hoping to win.

If you want to come to either Question Time programme in

Northampton or Clacton on the night of the by-election,

go to our website which is...

It's all on the screen there.

Go to the website and apply there is the best thing to do.

Sorry, I'm not being cavalier about it, it's all there to see.

And I should add, welcome to all of you who've been listening to this

on 5 Live, BBC Radio 5 Live.

The programme presented by Steve Nolan and John Pienaar.

And the debate carries on 5 Live if you're in the bath

and listening to Question Time, as many people tell me they are,

which I rather regret, as I like watching them on television.

Question Time Extra Time there. Welcome to you, too.

My thanks to our panel here

and to all of you who came to Kelso to take part.

Until next Thursday, from Question Time, good night.