:00:00. > :00:21.Welcome to you, whether you're watching or listening,
:00:22. > :00:29.Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland,
:00:30. > :00:32.and the party's only MP north of the border, David Mundell.
:00:33. > :00:37.The Scottish Government's Minister for Europe, Humza Yousaf of the SNP.
:00:38. > :00:41.Labour's leader in Scotland, Kezia Dugdale.
:00:42. > :00:45.The former Deputy Leader of the SNP, now campaigning to leave
:00:46. > :01:05.And the editor of MoneyWeek magazine, Merryn Somerset-Webb.
:01:06. > :01:09.Before we take our first question, don't forget Facebook, Twitter,
:01:10. > :01:23.or text 83981 to comment on what's said here.
:01:24. > :01:31.Our first question from Lewis Keller, please? Does the recent
:01:32. > :01:35.election result show that Scotland isn't as left-wing as we thought?
:01:36. > :01:40.The recent election result last week in Scotland where the SNP came first
:01:41. > :01:45.but the Conservatives moved into second place and Labour was
:01:46. > :01:50.trounced. Hamza Yousaf? No, I don't think that's why the Conservatives
:01:51. > :01:56.had the election that they did. First of all, it's worth mentioning
:01:57. > :02:04.that the SNP very much as the left of centre party won the election not
:02:05. > :02:07.marginally. Why do you call yourself left of centre party? That is
:02:08. > :02:14.because we are. You are going to put taxes up? No. What is there left to
:02:15. > :02:19.be done? Abolition of university fees, for example. Scrapping
:02:20. > :02:23.prescription charges sothat people don't have to pay prescriptions, so
:02:24. > :02:29.there is not a tax on the ill. For example, we didn't give a tax cut to
:02:30. > :02:33.the highest earners. The question I want to address is, and I imagine
:02:34. > :02:39.where you question comes from, why did the Conservative Party do bad.
:02:40. > :02:44.The fact the Labour Party did so poorly wasn't because they weren't
:02:45. > :02:48.left-wing enough, it was because people still felt betrayed
:02:49. > :02:53.post-referendum. The Labour Party in their blind hatred of the SNP and of
:02:54. > :02:57.independence joined shoulder-to-shoulder with a
:02:58. > :03:00.Conservative Party that brought forward the most broughtal,
:03:01. > :03:05.horrendous cuts to the disabled, most vulnerable in our society. For
:03:06. > :03:10.that, they are absolutely punished last Thursday and will continue to
:03:11. > :03:15.be. So the Conservative vote went up? Yes. So the Conservative vote
:03:16. > :03:22.went up. Why are the Tories getting votes if what you say is true, they
:03:23. > :03:30.didn't Tom to you, but they went to the Tories? Ruth Davidson ran an
:03:31. > :03:36.effective campaign. -- didn't come to you. It's abundantly true that
:03:37. > :03:39.it's more tocks tick become a Labour supporter in Scotland than it is to
:03:40. > :03:43.become a Tory and I never thought I would see the day. David Mundell,
:03:44. > :03:46.why do you think what happened happened? It's very clear that
:03:47. > :03:52.people in Scotland wanted an effective on ziingts in the Scottish
:03:53. > :03:56.Parliament. Labour had had nine years to demonstrate how they would
:03:57. > :04:05.carry out the role of opposition and frankly they never laid a glove on
:04:06. > :04:09.the SNP during that period. So it wasn't because they were
:04:10. > :04:17.Conservative? They wanted to say no to having a second referendum.
:04:18. > :04:21.APPLAUSE. And people who voted Conservative
:04:22. > :04:27.here in the north-east, across Scotland, that's what they achieved.
:04:28. > :04:32.Voting Conservative denied the SNP a majority, their number of MSPs is
:04:33. > :04:36.down, the vote was down. 400,000 it was down from the general election
:04:37. > :04:41.to the Scottish Parliament election. People voting Conservative got a
:04:42. > :04:45.strong opposition, made sure the SNP didn't have a majority and hopefully
:04:46. > :04:51.we have stopped that second referendum. OK. Lewis Keller, do you
:04:52. > :04:54.think this is a see change in politics when you ask the question
:04:55. > :04:59.about Scotland not being as left-wing? I wouldn't call it a see
:05:00. > :05:01.change although there is a misconception about Scotland being a
:05:02. > :05:05.lot more left-wing than the rest of the UK. That's what a lot of the
:05:06. > :05:09.argument is about for Scottish independence. When you look at the
:05:10. > :05:14.argument for the election campaign right there, it's about tax, the two
:05:15. > :05:18.parties said they wouldn't increase tax, the Tories and SNP did the
:05:19. > :05:24.best, and the SNP have been calling to get the tax powers for so long
:05:25. > :05:29.and now they've got them they refuse to put taxes up and we have seen
:05:30. > :05:33.cuts. On balance, it doesn't really look like we have a left from centre
:05:34. > :05:36.consensus in Scotland, looks like we have a centre right opposition to a
:05:37. > :05:44.centre right Government. APPLAUSE.
:05:45. > :05:48.And are you a Labour man yourself? I didn't vote Labour this time. You
:05:49. > :05:59.didn't vote Labour? No. Dare I ask how you did vote? I voted Green on
:06:00. > :06:06.the regional list. Can I start by saying I take exception to Humza
:06:07. > :06:11.saying my party is fuelled by hey tremendous. I disagreed with that
:06:12. > :06:17.when you refused to ask the richest to pay for tax so we can protect
:06:18. > :06:21.Public Services. What happened last week is that my
:06:22. > :06:25.party were sorely defeated and the people of Scotland spoke and send us
:06:26. > :06:29.a strong message that they wanted to make sure that they opposed a second
:06:30. > :06:32.referendum and those arguments around the constitution came to the
:06:33. > :06:36.foreagain. I thought that campaign on trying toving Mo on from the
:06:37. > :06:39.referendum arguments of the past, I believed that Scotland wanted to
:06:40. > :06:52.move forward, whether we are yes or no, we wanted to talk about our
:06:53. > :06:58.future -- trying to move on. It wasn't your tax promises to raise
:06:59. > :07:02.income tax that did this? I don't think so. I studied the polls, it
:07:03. > :07:06.showed the Tory party was in trouble on the front-page. When you looked
:07:07. > :07:10.at the second page, it was overwhelming support for Labour's
:07:11. > :07:14.policies on tax. The idea of asking the richest 1% to pay more tax, we
:07:15. > :07:19.could protect our public service. The message didn't really win people
:07:20. > :07:24.over? I agree, that is to my great regret, but there were 500,000
:07:25. > :07:29.people who voted Labour, proud to campaign to stop the cuts to invest
:07:30. > :07:36.in Scotland's future and it's new duty to speak up for them. I'm
:07:37. > :07:39.interested by the tax thing. Does it make you wonder whether Labour in
:07:40. > :07:44.the UK as a whole at the next general election ought to be
:07:45. > :07:47.promising to raise tax, or from your rather harsh lesson here, that they
:07:48. > :07:51.shouldn't? I don't accept our manifesto was rejected. I think the
:07:52. > :07:56.arguments around tax have been well received around the country. I'll be
:07:57. > :08:02.the first leader who doesn't rip up the manifesto immediately after an
:08:03. > :08:08.election manifesto defeat. So you have a manifesto rejected. I do.
:08:09. > :08:15.Look, it was a terrible election for my party. 100 years. 1910 or
:08:16. > :08:21.something when Labour did as badly? I lost a third of my colleagues. It
:08:22. > :08:24.wasn't a bad night for my party. The people of Scotland also sent Nicola
:08:25. > :08:28.Sturgeon a message saying they wanted her to be First Minister, to
:08:29. > :08:33.carry on, but she wasn't to have it her own way and Hamza, a little bit
:08:34. > :08:36.of humility on your part would go a long way in that regard.
:08:37. > :08:44.APPLAUSE. You, Sir, at the front, there? Why,
:08:45. > :08:47.after the referendum, do the SNP threaten another referendum? Your
:08:48. > :08:52.record in Government isn't particularly good. Why don't you
:08:53. > :08:58.concentrate in proving the economic condition in Scotland? Especially in
:08:59. > :09:02.Aberdeen with the oil and gas industry in 2 crisis it's in? There
:09:03. > :09:09.are more jobs to be lost in this city and it's a very valuable
:09:10. > :09:14.business to the Scottish Government. You think they aren't focussing on
:09:15. > :09:17.the right things you mean, the SNP Frankly, it's a diversion from their
:09:18. > :09:21.incompetence to govern, they want another reference Dutch. They
:09:22. > :09:29.usually say it's not our fault, it's Westminster, don't blame me.
:09:30. > :09:34.Just wait for the microphone, please? So We are waiting for the UK
:09:35. > :09:41.Government to clear their energy bill. Yes. So we've got oil and gas
:09:42. > :09:44.authority floating around there that we don't have any kind of clear
:09:45. > :09:49.response from the UK Government on the crisis in the North Sea and also
:09:50. > :09:56.the cancelling of the obligation to renewables. OK. So there isn't a
:09:57. > :10:00.dove tailed UK policy on this. This gentleman here's blaming the SNP,
:10:01. > :10:06.it's the UK Government. APPLAUSE.
:10:07. > :10:11.Hold on a second, David. The woman at the back, second row from the
:10:12. > :10:16.back, yes? Just talking about how left-wing Scotland is, I think it's
:10:17. > :10:19.important not to forget that the Green Party increased their vote and
:10:20. > :10:23.the number of seats they had in Scotland so the left-wing vote did
:10:24. > :10:34.increase in that area. OK. APPLAUSE.
:10:35. > :10:39.We do have social attitude studies going back for years which show us
:10:40. > :10:45.that Scotland is Conservative with a small C as the rest of the country
:10:46. > :10:50.when it comes to welfare, taxation et cetera, they respond in the same
:10:51. > :10:53.way as the UK. To suggest that Scotland is more to the left than
:10:54. > :10:59.the UK is generally wrong and if you look back, you know when the Tories
:11:00. > :11:03.weren't so toxic in Scotland as there's the now not again. Even in
:11:04. > :11:08.Thatcher's day when everyone pretends they could haven't hated
:11:09. > :11:12.any more more but she was pulling 31, 28, 24%, numbers that weren't
:11:13. > :11:16.that awsmt that is a big part of it, that Scotland is not as left-wing as
:11:17. > :11:20.it likes to think it is which is a very strange dynamic for a political
:11:21. > :11:23.environment. But the other reason I think that the Tories did so well in
:11:24. > :11:27.this election is because Scotland really, really does need a strong
:11:28. > :11:34.opposition. It needs one very, very badly.
:11:35. > :11:38.APPLAUSE. Out occurred to me that if I were
:11:39. > :11:42.Nicola Sturgeon, I would cast my second vote for the Tories because a
:11:43. > :11:45.good Government has got to have a strong opposition and what we've
:11:46. > :11:48.begun to see in Scotland over the last few years is bills going
:11:49. > :11:51.through, laws coming through that are, whether you agree with their
:11:52. > :11:57.premise or not, they're bad laws because they are not being watched
:11:58. > :12:04.properly. Why do you think Kezia couldn't have done that job? I don't
:12:05. > :12:08.know, but the fact is she didn't. It's the named person thing which
:12:09. > :12:13.English viewers may not know much about. The opposition could have
:12:14. > :12:17.been stopped in their tracks and said, this is rubbish, it won't
:12:18. > :12:21.work. It would be hard to implement. As we don't have a revising chamber,
:12:22. > :12:27.it needs a strong opposition. Scotland is more Conservative than
:12:28. > :12:32.it thinks and Scotland understands how important it is in a democracy.
:12:33. > :12:35.It wasn't Labour's message that was the problem, it was the fact we
:12:36. > :12:40.didn't trust Labour politicians any more, we didn't feel they were being
:12:41. > :12:45.honest. It was as if they just changed policy completely. What are
:12:46. > :12:49.you thinking of? It's just they didn't seem to be as anti-austerity
:12:50. > :12:54.as they were, because it was a popular view that they took on that
:12:55. > :12:59.stance. I see. The man in the blue shirt? I think there's been a lot of
:13:00. > :13:03.talk within the mainstream media about how much the Conservatives
:13:04. > :13:10.have done so well. In reality, they've only got 22% of the vote.
:13:11. > :13:13.Also, 11% of the electorate. There needs to be a lot more
:13:14. > :13:20.congratulations for what the SNP have done in getting the three terms
:13:21. > :13:24.again. So much massive bias from the BBC and I don't want to make too
:13:25. > :13:28.much of an issue about that there, but there's not been spoken much
:13:29. > :13:33.about how much the SNP have done. Obsessing about Labour and Tory do
:13:34. > :13:37.you think? People have been obsessing about that and not
:13:38. > :13:41.bothering about the SNP Maybe, yes, but there should be more
:13:42. > :13:49.congratulations I think. Jim Sillars will give some applause then? The
:13:50. > :13:54.election result was nearly 47% for the SNP and 22% for thetories. I
:13:55. > :14:01.certainly say Ruth Davidson fought a very good election. She had the
:14:02. > :14:08.no-vote bringing her to only 22%. If you analysed in the central belt the
:14:09. > :14:12.SNP went up on their vote under the majorities time after time after
:14:13. > :14:18.time. In fact, in Glasgow, the only seat that did not happen was because
:14:19. > :14:23.Patrick Harvie who is left-wing for the Greens came second. What's
:14:24. > :14:27.happened in Scotland this time is what the electoral system was
:14:28. > :14:33.designed to make sure happen, that is a party doesn't get an overall
:14:34. > :14:38.majority. Last time when we got an overall majority in the SNP, it was
:14:39. > :14:42.a very unusual circumstance. We had the total collapse of the Liberals
:14:43. > :14:47.and the slide beginning in the Labour Party. That has not happened
:14:48. > :14:55.this time and in fact Scotland's gone back to the Scotland I knew
:14:56. > :14:59.before devolution which is the borders were non-Labour, non-SNP,
:15:00. > :15:03.the north-east tended to be Tory, the Highlands was a mixture and the
:15:04. > :15:09.central belt from Dundee right across to north air Ayrshire was on
:15:10. > :15:14.the left of Scottish politics. Now it's perfectly possible to be
:15:15. > :15:17.someone like me to be socially Conservative but ideologically on
:15:18. > :15:23.the left. I think that's the case with a great many people in
:15:24. > :15:27.Scotland. Anybody who thinks that somehow or other we have had a great
:15:28. > :15:28.Tory victory, go and look at the results.
:15:29. > :15:34.APPLAUSE. .
:15:35. > :15:41.I have looked at the results and half a million people voted
:15:42. > :15:44.Conservative. More people voted Conservative in the Scottish
:15:45. > :15:49.parliament elections than in the UK general election last year. In terms
:15:50. > :15:53.of the SNP, the vote was down 400,000 votes. The SNP could not
:15:54. > :15:57.turn out supporters to back Nicola Sturgeon and return a majority
:15:58. > :16:02.government in the Scottish Parliament. And I think that was
:16:03. > :16:08.partly due to the lack of excitement created in the campaign, but it was
:16:09. > :16:12.also due to the fact that SNP government has not delivered on
:16:13. > :16:17.domestic issues, and people do understand that. We have had caught
:16:18. > :16:23.of an hour on this and we only have four of those in the programme. --
:16:24. > :16:32.quarter of an hour. What do you mean by socially Conservative? People
:16:33. > :16:36.don't like a lot of change. We tend to believe that family life is a
:16:37. > :16:42.very, very good thing. A number of people were very unhappy, I wasn't,
:16:43. > :16:47.about same-sex marriage and things like that. So you will find, I am
:16:48. > :16:53.talking about the central belt, which I know best, that people are,
:16:54. > :16:57.in a sense, that way socially Conservative, don't like much
:16:58. > :17:01.change, really don't like some of the liberalisation that is taking
:17:02. > :17:08.place. But ideological E, and that is the key issue, they are on the
:17:09. > :17:14.left wing. I am going to move on even though there are hands up.
:17:15. > :17:16.We're in Walsall next week and Ipswich the following week.
:17:17. > :17:19.If you want to join our audience, apply through our website,
:17:20. > :17:40.A question from Christopher Cromer. Was Iain Duncan Smith right when he
:17:41. > :17:46.stated that the European Union favours the haves over the have
:17:47. > :17:50.nots? Iain Duncan Smith said that the EU favours the haves over the
:17:51. > :17:59.have-nots. Jim Sillars. You were speaking, but why don't you start on
:18:00. > :18:04.this one? I actually don't agree with that at all. I am for Brexit,
:18:05. > :18:08.but I will not accuse the EU of being in favour of the haves in
:18:09. > :18:13.stead of the have-nots. I think, in their pursuit of the project of the
:18:14. > :18:21.United States of Europe, and using the eurozone as a major step towards
:18:22. > :18:26.that, they have been very, very unfair to lots of people in Greece,
:18:27. > :18:32.Portugal, Spain and Italy. APPLAUSE
:18:33. > :18:38.And in that sense he may be right. But I don't think that was a
:18:39. > :18:45.deliberate policy. I do not think they said, we will screw the Greek
:18:46. > :18:50.folk. That is a consequence of them pursuing a particular project. Well,
:18:51. > :18:57.that is Iain Duncan Smith taken care of! Merryn, do you think he was
:18:58. > :19:00.right to make this point? Yes, I think there are lots of ways in
:19:01. > :19:05.which the EU favours the haves over the have-nots. I hope it is not a
:19:06. > :19:08.deliberate policy but it certainly favours large companies over very
:19:09. > :19:12.small companies and this matters enormously when it comes to growth
:19:13. > :19:15.and competition. It favours people who can manage vast amounts of
:19:16. > :19:20.regulation, people who can spend a lot of money on lobbying. It favours
:19:21. > :19:24.people who can make large systems work for them, and that tends to be
:19:25. > :19:28.big companies, not small companies. Over the last couple of decades we
:19:29. > :19:33.have seen the rise of the giant company and the huge amount of
:19:34. > :19:38.company that the giant company has, and supranational organisations like
:19:39. > :19:42.the EU are supportive of that. So in that sense, it is true. I would also
:19:43. > :19:49.say that the euro has been a terrible thing for the have-nots.
:19:50. > :19:54.The eurozone has destroyed economies of peripheral nations, and what is
:19:55. > :19:56.now happening is something economists call internal
:19:57. > :20:01.devaluation, which is that countries around the edges have to push down
:20:02. > :20:03.wages and pushed down living standards until they become
:20:04. > :20:08.competitive with richer countries. This is terrible. This is an
:20:09. > :20:14.appalling way to treat countries in a currency union. Do you believe the
:20:15. > :20:20.number of immigrants that come in under EU regulations has pushed down
:20:21. > :20:25.wages for people already living in Britain? In the UK? Yes, if that
:20:26. > :20:32.were Iain Duncan Smith was driving at? There is not enough evidence to
:20:33. > :20:35.say absolutely but I think it probably is true to a degree. If you
:20:36. > :20:39.have a large number of people coming into Labour market looking for work,
:20:40. > :20:44.it is obvious on a basic supply and demand argument, that the price of
:20:45. > :20:47.the things should come down. So it makes sense to think that has been
:20:48. > :20:52.one of the things pushing down wages in the UK. One more thing on that is
:20:53. > :20:57.that it is not just that. One thing that keeps wages low is our welfare
:20:58. > :21:02.system, our tax credit system, so you can't blame migration completely
:21:03. > :21:06.when we have a welfare setup that appears to be designed to keep wages
:21:07. > :21:13.low at the same time. That was a competent in answer to a simple
:21:14. > :21:16.question, sorry. I would have some concerns over Iain Duncan Smith
:21:17. > :21:17.using social justice in general as an argument.
:21:18. > :21:26.APPLAUSE It would imply there is something
:21:27. > :21:30.going on in the background, given that in the last couple of weeks it
:21:31. > :21:33.has been reported that he and Chris Grayling have been reported to
:21:34. > :21:38.Police Scotland by the black Triangle campaign for covering up a
:21:39. > :21:43.report into the coroner 's report into the prevention of future deaths
:21:44. > :21:45.Jude to the work capability assessment, done three years before
:21:46. > :21:51.the one that made headlines last year. So the idea that Iain Duncan
:21:52. > :21:59.Smith can be making an argument based on social justice, when he has
:22:00. > :22:03.managed to spin the disability benefit cuts as beneficial somehow
:22:04. > :22:06.to disabled people so well, it concerns me that there is something
:22:07. > :22:10.else going on there. APPLAUSE
:22:11. > :22:17.The lady in the front row is right, Iain Duncan Smith has a cheek to be
:22:18. > :22:22.trying to pretend to stand up for the have-nots. It takes the biscuit,
:22:23. > :22:26.in that sense. I think there is a particularly socialist case for why
:22:27. > :22:29.we should stay in the European Union. It has brought a lot of
:22:30. > :22:34.workers rights, protections and freedoms. We do not compete with
:22:35. > :22:38.other European nations on equality and the terms and conditions of
:22:39. > :22:43.jobs. It is a good way to grow the economy. But much of this debate so
:22:44. > :22:47.far has been very rational, focused on economic arguments, which are
:22:48. > :22:50.given is I am proud to make. But I think we should revisit the idea of
:22:51. > :22:56.Europe and be more emotional about why being part of the European Union
:22:57. > :23:00.is a good thing. We share this union with 27 nations around the idea of
:23:01. > :23:04.cooperating, we share the freedom and prosperity that comes from that
:23:05. > :23:06.union. We should protect it and I intend to campaign with every sinew
:23:07. > :23:09.to do that. APPLAUSE
:23:10. > :23:18.Iain Duncan Smith says that EU migration causes downward pressure
:23:19. > :23:23.on wages. Do you believe that? I don't accept that. I think it fuels
:23:24. > :23:27.the negative sentiment that has dominated this referendum campaign
:23:28. > :23:32.too much, like the dog whistles on immigration we keep hearing. Do you
:23:33. > :23:37.think he is right? I don't agree with him on this. He is passionately
:23:38. > :23:41.in favour of leaving the EU and will play a significant part in the
:23:42. > :23:51.campaign. But what the EU delivers for Scotland and Britain is jobs. It
:23:52. > :23:54.delivers work. 330,000 people here in Scotland have jobs partially
:23:55. > :23:57.dependent on membership of the EU. And it is those people that we need
:23:58. > :24:06.to speak up for during this campaign. The EU is a positive for
:24:07. > :24:10.Scotland. Iain Duncan Smith, like so many of the people that are in the
:24:11. > :24:18.vote to leave campaign has not set out for us exactly what it would
:24:19. > :24:22.mean to be out with the EU. In fact, different people in the campaign set
:24:23. > :24:26.out very different visions. We cannot take that leap in the dark
:24:27. > :24:35.unless we know what it is that is being proposed. I will go to the
:24:36. > :24:42.audience. Where shall we go? The man over there on the left. You were
:24:43. > :24:49.talking about how the EU is more beneficial for big companies over
:24:50. > :24:54.small companies. My argument against that is that if we were outside the
:24:55. > :24:57.EU, like Norway, we would still have to conform to the regulations and
:24:58. > :25:03.guidelines that go with making goods, for example. The Norwegian
:25:04. > :25:08.fish market still have to conform to EU guidelines. That will damage
:25:09. > :25:12.small British companies over bigger companies because of the costs of
:25:13. > :25:20.conforming to those guidelines. Wouldn't fishermen do better
:25:21. > :25:25.outside? The fishing quotas is just a travesty. I think they are
:25:26. > :25:30.necessary, but that is neither here nor there. The man in the checked
:25:31. > :25:33.shirt. What is going to happen is exactly what Merryn was saying.
:25:34. > :25:38.Barack Obama came over a few weeks ago and said what is going to happen
:25:39. > :25:44.to Europe. That is that there is going to be this trade organisation
:25:45. > :25:52.treaty which will come in, and that is exactly what it does. It is going
:25:53. > :25:57.to allow corporate, basically management of Europe, and you will
:25:58. > :26:01.get the same system. It is an American introduced system whereby
:26:02. > :26:04.they basically run the show. What is your plan, to leave or stay? Leaves,
:26:05. > :26:10.absolutely. APPLAUSE
:26:11. > :26:21.How would you deal with the United States? Blow them up, or something.
:26:22. > :26:28.Not entirely constructive! The woman in pink at the back. The issue with
:26:29. > :26:31.this campaign is that you get one argument and there is a way is a
:26:32. > :26:35.counterargument. That is what makes it so difficult to make these
:26:36. > :26:41.decisions. For example, we were talking about wages going down. That
:26:42. > :26:45.is true but the counterargument is that it becomes more competitive,
:26:46. > :26:48.there are more people who are providing services. And for the
:26:49. > :26:53.consumer it becomes more competitive. My personal view, it is
:26:54. > :26:58.a storm in a teacup. It does not make much difference whether we stay
:26:59. > :27:01.in all we leave. There is an art and four and against. You make a
:27:02. > :27:09.decision, we go for it, and it will be fine either way. So will you toss
:27:10. > :27:15.a coin to decide? Why not? What are you going to do? In general, I think
:27:16. > :27:23.it is better to be in something than out, so I would vote to stay in.
:27:24. > :27:26.You, sir. I have been a fisherman for 30 years and I hardly think
:27:27. > :27:31.anyone on the panel has enough time in the day make to me change my mind
:27:32. > :27:33.to vote to stay in the union when we have been discriminated for the last
:27:34. > :27:39.40 years. APPLAUSE
:27:40. > :27:47.And if the UK voted out, what with the consequence be? We would be in
:27:48. > :27:53.power of our own destiny, making choices to benefit Scotland or the
:27:54. > :27:59.United Kingdom. In 2002, there were 525 white fish boats in Scotland.
:28:00. > :28:04.Today, there are 125, and yet the European Union give grants to Spain
:28:05. > :28:09.to build a fleet that in 2022 will be able to fish within 50 yards of
:28:10. > :28:18.the beach outside that front door. You want to stay in, despite that? I
:28:19. > :28:20.will address that. I have plenty of problems and issues with the Common
:28:21. > :28:25.Fisheries Policy, just as much as you. But let me say this. The
:28:26. > :28:30.problem with the UK Government negotiating on our behalf, if they
:28:31. > :28:33.are not negotiating well, my suggestion would be to get someone
:28:34. > :28:38.else to do it and change the Prime Minister and the government as
:28:39. > :28:41.opposed to coming out of Europe. But the SNP want to stay in Europe.
:28:42. > :28:51.Successive UK governments have done this. I will quote the exact words.
:28:52. > :28:55.Scottish fishing, by the UK Government, was seen as expendable.
:28:56. > :28:59.That is utterly atrocious. If you did not have the European Union and
:29:00. > :29:03.every country was going alone, yes, within quotas, but managing their
:29:04. > :29:07.own quotas, I am not convinced you would have a fishing industry to
:29:08. > :29:14.pass on to the next generation. Let me try to address the issue... Hang
:29:15. > :29:18.on, do you agree? No, I don't agree. Even in an independent Scotland, you
:29:19. > :29:22.would maybe have 30 representatives of Europe in a parliament of 170, so
:29:23. > :29:28.how would you get your view across? APPLAUSE
:29:29. > :29:36.We are in Aberdeen, we have a fishing port, stick with that point.
:29:37. > :29:42.One of the advantages of Brexit is that when the UK comes out,
:29:43. > :29:48.responsibility for fisheries and agriculture goes to the parliament
:29:49. > :29:53.at Holyrood. That means for the first time since we joined the EU,
:29:54. > :29:55.we would have our own fisheries policy in relation to our own
:29:56. > :30:09.resources and our own fleet. I want to come on to Christopher's
:30:10. > :30:12.original question. The lady in the front said as well, this is the man,
:30:13. > :30:16.Iain Duncan Smith, the ark ticket of the disability cuts, the man
:30:17. > :30:23.responsible for the proliferation of food banks, to think he's suddenly
:30:24. > :30:29.lecturing us on the haves and have notes is like Trump lectures us on
:30:30. > :30:34.xenophobia. Although I'm from the remain campaign and will continue to
:30:35. > :30:37.advocate for that, the campaign has been utterly depressing. The tone of
:30:38. > :30:41.the campaign has been awful. On both sides? Yes, from both sides but
:30:42. > :30:47.particularly actually from the Prime Minister and George Osborne who
:30:48. > :30:50.advocate for remain, it's been hyperboll I believe, apocalyptic
:30:51. > :30:55.nonsense, it's the resurrection of project fear. It will drive more
:30:56. > :31:01.people towards the exit door and it's an insult frankly to every
:31:02. > :31:04.voter in the country. What have you and the SNP doing, instead of run
:31:05. > :31:09.ago positive campaign you are always lecturing us about, you have started
:31:10. > :31:15.to talk about another referendum on Scottish independence in the context
:31:16. > :31:18.of the EU. This is a referendum about whether Scotland remains in
:31:19. > :31:22.the EU, it's not another referendum on whether Scotland leaves the UK,
:31:23. > :31:26.and that's all you seem to want to talk about. So if there is, if
:31:27. > :31:30.you've got a positive case and I believe there is a very strong
:31:31. > :31:35.positive case to make for Scotland staying in the EU, start talking
:31:36. > :31:41.about it and stop talking about another independence referendum.
:31:42. > :31:45.APPLAUSE. Let me come back briefly. Since
:31:46. > :31:48.David started talking on this programme, he's mentioned
:31:49. > :31:56.independence four times, I've mentioned it see row times. This is
:31:57. > :32:01.a man, for somebody who says he hates independence, he talks an
:32:02. > :32:06.awful lot about it. I've never said I hated independence. I said I don't
:32:07. > :32:15.agree... You said stop talking about it and all you've done is talk about
:32:16. > :32:18.it. There is going to be a campaign started for independence. People
:32:19. > :32:25.watching this from outside Scotland will hear that the remain campaign
:32:26. > :32:29.is bitterly divided. Sounds crazy. You are saying they are screwing it
:32:30. > :32:34.up? I want the SNP to come forward and campaign positively for Scotland
:32:35. > :32:38.to remain in the EU. They say that's what they want, I don't understand
:32:39. > :32:44.why they can't just get on and do it. Merryn? This is fascinating,
:32:45. > :32:49.takings back to the Scottish referendum and the inability of both
:32:50. > :32:54.sides to be able to work together. We saw nit the No Campaign where
:32:55. > :32:57.they weren't able to articulate a common vision for the future because
:32:58. > :33:02.they couldn't agree what it should be. We are seeing it with the
:33:03. > :33:07.European referendum with people on the remain and leave side, they
:33:08. > :33:09.can't articulate a proper vision for their futures because they don't
:33:10. > :33:14.agree on what it is that they want the EEving U to be so they are
:33:15. > :33:20.unable to come up with a vision, just a lot of apocalyptic visions
:33:21. > :33:25.which are generally nonsense. So do you agree with the woman at the back
:33:26. > :33:29.who said that in the end it's so finely balanced? I absolutely do,
:33:30. > :33:32.from an economic point of view I would say it doesn't make any
:33:33. > :33:44.difference either way, absolutely not a jot. So unemployment will
:33:45. > :33:51.rise? All the forecasts from the OECD, the Bank of England and the
:33:52. > :33:56.IMF, they go back 20 years. You will remember what economists were
:33:57. > :34:01.forecasting 20 years ago, whoops, they weren't forecasting deflation,
:34:02. > :34:06.a financial crisis or interest rates being so low for so many years. So
:34:07. > :34:13.forecasting beyond a couple of years is nonsensical. A small bit of
:34:14. > :34:17.volatility for a couple of years. Let's hear from one or two people,
:34:18. > :34:27.then you Sir in the middle? Two points. First point being, why
:34:28. > :34:32.should countries without a fishing fleet tell us thousand do our
:34:33. > :34:36.fishing? With weeks to go now, when's project fear going to kick
:34:37. > :34:43.in? Project fear which you think has not kicked in? Not yet. But you
:34:44. > :34:51.think it will come do you? Yes. OK. The woman on the gangway? Are we
:34:52. > :34:56.such a small country that we can't go and trade with other countries,
:34:57. > :35:02.that we can only trade with Europe, that we can't trade with the rest of
:35:03. > :35:05.the world? Is everybody going to up sticks and leave if we decide to
:35:06. > :35:11.leave Europe? I don't think so. APPLAUSE.
:35:12. > :35:16.You, Sir? You with the pink tie on? I have a concern that if in fact we
:35:17. > :35:22.vote to leave the European Union, Britain leaves the European Union,
:35:23. > :35:25.it could lead to the collapse of the European Union itself. A number of
:35:26. > :35:30.folk have said this would be the case. Nigel Lawson said when asked
:35:31. > :35:35.about this, that it would be no bad thing. I think that would be
:35:36. > :35:41.absolutely disastrous if that were the effect. The other thing is, if
:35:42. > :35:46.in fact that happened or we voted to leave the European Union, and then
:35:47. > :35:50.Scotland had a vote for independence again and the European Union
:35:51. > :35:54.collapsed and Scotland all on its own, where does that leave Scotland
:35:55. > :35:58.then? OK. APPLAUSE.
:35:59. > :36:04.Hands are still up, but we should move on because we've got a lot more
:36:05. > :36:09.questions. Let's just take a break and turn to a completely different
:36:10. > :36:14.point. Zoe Pearson makes it. Zoe, please? Was the BBC right to
:36:15. > :36:17.broadcast the Queen's comment about the Chinese, or is the Queen
:36:18. > :36:23.entitled to have a private conversation? The Queen overheard at
:36:24. > :36:26.the garden party saying the Chinese were very rude to the British
:36:27. > :36:35.Ambassador. Should that have been broadcast? We don't need to spend a
:36:36. > :36:39.long time on this. David Mundell. It came about because Buckingham Palace
:36:40. > :36:43.released a tape on which that material was present. So it was
:36:44. > :36:48.deliberate you mean? I very much doubt that. But I think the Queen is
:36:49. > :36:53.entitled to have a private conversation, we are all entitled to
:36:54. > :37:01.have private conversations. I don't think that it was news worthy in the
:37:02. > :37:06.way that that it got the level of attention and therefore I wouldn't
:37:07. > :37:13.have seen it as a headline news item or a lead item on BBC Online. I
:37:14. > :37:19.think the Queen is entitled to her views and opinions and they should
:37:20. > :37:23.be kept private. Jim Sillars? I think they were quite right to
:37:24. > :37:31.broadcast it. Why shouldn't we know what the Queen thinks about various
:37:32. > :37:34.subjects? Do you think she thinks for Brexit as was reported by the
:37:35. > :37:42.Sun a while back, is that why you say this? No, that's not the reason
:37:43. > :37:47.at all. Why should we say - well I'm a Republican, so just registering
:37:48. > :37:53.that with you. I don't see why we shouldn't know what the head of
:37:54. > :38:01.state says on a number of occasions. If she thought the Chinese or the
:38:02. > :38:05.organisers from China were very rude, I find it quite interesting to
:38:06. > :38:11.know that and it's also important to transmit to the Chinese as well. We
:38:12. > :38:20.are in a diplomatic circle. If you come to the United Kingdom, and if
:38:21. > :38:27.you remember the conduct of some of the Chinese heavies during the
:38:28. > :38:34.Chinese President's official visit, was actually quite outrageous from
:38:35. > :38:43.our British point of view. They stopped people from demonstrating
:38:44. > :38:46.for example. When we go to China, we don't tell you to overturn your
:38:47. > :38:50.Government, for example. Sometimes it's very good for the diplomatic
:38:51. > :38:52.tongue to actually make a mistake and let the public hear.
:38:53. > :38:56.OK. APPLAUSE.
:38:57. > :39:05.What do you think? I think it was probably broadcast basically because
:39:06. > :39:09.the Queen very rarely makes faux pas like that. I don't think however it
:39:10. > :39:14.really was headline news. Kezia Dugdale? Imagine what Prince
:39:15. > :39:21.Philip said? ! LAUGHTER.
:39:22. > :39:29.Look, the Queen is 90, she's had 60 years doing the job that she does,
:39:30. > :39:33.immaculate public service, she's entitled to say exactly what she
:39:34. > :39:39.likes. It was probably news and we were probably right to hear it and I
:39:40. > :39:47.say good on her. Hamza? You are a Republican or Monarchist? It had to
:39:48. > :39:50.be a surprise. For the purpose of independence, we said we'd keep the
:39:51. > :39:55.Queen as the head of state. What I would say about Kezia, I would
:39:56. > :39:59.agree. In some respects, we've all got the older relative that probably
:40:00. > :40:07.says things they shouldn't. I don't think the Queen should be punished
:40:08. > :40:13.or we should be too harsh on her for saying that. If you aren't willing
:40:14. > :40:17.to say something in public, then saying it in private around cameras
:40:18. > :40:21.is probably not a wise idea. People get quite annoyed if people say one
:40:22. > :40:23.thing in public and say a very, very different thing in private. Be
:40:24. > :40:27.prepared to say it in public. The Prime Minister's been caught out on
:40:28. > :40:32.that making remarks about countries that are fantastically corrupt but
:40:33. > :40:35.forgetting that sometimes their own country is fantastically corrupt.
:40:36. > :40:43.APPLAUSE. Merryn? Oh, the Queen. What do you
:40:44. > :40:48.mean "oh, the Queen". I'm not sure I wanted to know what she thought
:40:49. > :40:55.about anything. Are you a Republican? I don't mind either way.
:40:56. > :41:04.I like having a monarchy. I love that she said that. I loved hearing
:41:05. > :41:11.her talk properly and now when I see her shake hands at garden parties I
:41:12. > :41:17.know she's talking gossip. I'm desperate to lip read. I don't know
:41:18. > :41:21.whether any of you caught this but a famous man who lived a long time in
:41:22. > :41:26.Hong Kong who was on Newsnight last night, he said, what people don't
:41:27. > :41:30.understand about this is, when you speak Chinese, it's a very rude
:41:31. > :41:35.language compared with English and he gave the example that when he
:41:36. > :41:39.leaves in the hotel a message for an early morning call, instead of
:41:40. > :41:45.saying hello good morning it's your morning call, you pick up the
:41:46. > :41:52.telephone and they said "get out! ". You should try coming to Glasgow!
:41:53. > :41:59.OK. I want to take this question from Jason Bapty, please?
:42:00. > :42:01.Is the named person scheme unacceptable intrusion by the state
:42:02. > :42:04.into family life? I think this is a fascinating
:42:05. > :42:10.topic... APPLAUSE.
:42:11. > :42:17.It's a... For English and Welsh viewers, I should explain that this
:42:18. > :42:22.is an SNP scheme that by law every family will have to name somebody
:42:23. > :42:29.outside the family to look after, offer advice or support when asked,
:42:30. > :42:33.about every child. So you have a child, outside Scotland people don't
:42:34. > :42:37.know this, so you have a child and godparents and all of that, but you
:42:38. > :42:41.have to name a schoolteacher or somebody who acts as a... No, you
:42:42. > :42:47.don't name them. You don't even name them? The state gives you one.
:42:48. > :42:55.I didn't know that. Stranger and stranger.
:42:56. > :42:58.APPLAUSE. And the named person, I quote from
:42:59. > :43:03.the Scottish Government website "only offers advice or support when
:43:04. > :43:10.asked or when well-being needs are identified". What's this about?
:43:11. > :43:17.Well, I mean, you're not right actually in some of what you said.
:43:18. > :43:21.The advice is only provided when or if a child or indeed a parent needs
:43:22. > :43:30.it for the well-being of the child. This is not a state guardianship
:43:31. > :43:38.scheme. Some of the high -ly and misconceptions are not only vacuous
:43:39. > :43:42.but put children's lives in danger. I had two foster nephews until
:43:43. > :43:47.recently. The children were passed from pillar to post, to pillar to
:43:48. > :43:52.post. The named person's scheme already exists in many parts of the
:43:53. > :44:01.country and has run successfully across many parts of the country.
:44:02. > :44:05.The Labour Party supported us because of the elections... That's
:44:06. > :44:09.not true. We had position and support of other left of centre
:44:10. > :44:14.parties like the Green Party on this. It's a simple scheme. If a
:44:15. > :44:18.child feels they need to talk to somebody, if a parent feels they
:44:19. > :44:21.need to talk to somebody, instead of speaking to five or ten different
:44:22. > :44:30.agencies about the issues they are having, they have one point of
:44:31. > :44:36.contact. Hold on a second... So in effect you are saying that
:44:37. > :44:40.every child born in Scotland will have until presumably they are 18 or
:44:41. > :44:45.whatever a social worker attached to them?
:44:46. > :44:54.It could be a teacher, health adviser. A social worker? Somebody
:44:55. > :44:59.outside the family who is supposed to oversee their well-being. I think
:45:00. > :45:03.it is a state Guardian, and I think the SNP described it as a head
:45:04. > :45:07.gardener, which seemed extraordinary. We have lots of
:45:08. > :45:13.gardeners and lots of plants but we need a head gardener to oversee the
:45:14. > :45:19.well-being. This is distressing for parents, when you think, who is in
:45:20. > :45:24.charge of children in my house. It is not in charge. Anybody who is a
:45:25. > :45:28.good parent, and the vast majority are exceptional, those who come from
:45:29. > :45:34.a loving household will not... So why do I have to have a named person
:45:35. > :45:39.if I am a good parent? You might be a good parent but... I was thinking
:45:40. > :45:44.about this the other day when I was driving in Italy. I got stopped and
:45:45. > :45:47.thought I had done something wrong. It was purely random because in lots
:45:48. > :45:52.of countries it is OK to stop a person even if they have done
:45:53. > :45:55.nothing. In the UK, if you stop a car, they have to have shown some
:45:56. > :46:00.sign of doing something wrong, you need Ariz and to stop them. The
:46:01. > :46:04.named person's policy, in my view, goes on to the Italian side where
:46:05. > :46:07.there can be a random stop, an assumption that you might have done
:46:08. > :46:12.something when there is no sign that you have. There are people watching
:46:13. > :46:22.you to make sure that you are supervising your child. Nobody is
:46:23. > :46:26.watching you. Hang on. We will explore this around the panel. They
:46:27. > :46:32.are not looking at whether your child eats or drinks... Weight. The
:46:33. > :46:38.woman there. I just don't understand. When we have a shortage
:46:39. > :46:42.in teachers in this country, so many people exporting the trade they
:46:43. > :46:47.learn here to countries like Dubai and Singapore, how are you going to
:46:48. > :46:53.be able to fund this? We have not got the infrastructure sorted out,
:46:54. > :46:57.so when you start putting more power in the hands of teachers, you are
:46:58. > :47:01.actually reducing the role of social workers. I can see quite quickly
:47:02. > :47:06.that what will happen is we are going to reduce how much help we get
:47:07. > :47:11.from the welfare state in Scotland at the expense of Scottish children.
:47:12. > :47:19.That is a problem. We need to look at that before we start looking at
:47:20. > :47:23.finding Guardian ships. Are you in favour in principle of a named
:47:24. > :47:27.person to protect a child's interests? The problem with the idea
:47:28. > :47:32.is that when you start saying that every child needs looking after, you
:47:33. > :47:35.are reducing the role of the parent or the foster parent, or these other
:47:36. > :47:40.people. APPLAUSE
:47:41. > :47:48.When you reduce their role, what you are doing is making it impossible to
:47:49. > :47:52.say where the fault lies. You are creating more red tape, meaning more
:47:53. > :47:56.children will fall between the cracks, especially if you are
:47:57. > :48:00.looking at rural communities, like the Highlands. If you have to travel
:48:01. > :48:06.ages to get to school, if you are at college and your place is cut, where
:48:07. > :48:11.do you go for support? Kezia Dugdale. I was the Labour education
:48:12. > :48:17.spokesperson when this bill was passed, and I supported it. I still
:48:18. > :48:21.support the principle of the named person and my reason is because
:48:22. > :48:26.charity after charity came and explained to me that this was
:48:27. > :48:29.absolutely critical, not to protect the most vulnerable children in
:48:30. > :48:33.society but those kids who maybe every other day come to school
:48:34. > :48:37.hungry, or dirty, or having had a sleepless night. Nobody is tying
:48:38. > :48:43.that together and understanding what that child might need. My problem
:48:44. > :48:46.with the SNP position is that they have utterly failed to explain the
:48:47. > :48:50.policy to the people of Scotland, which is why I have argued that we
:48:51. > :48:53.should ask the children's commissioner who in principle
:48:54. > :48:57.support the named person, to spend time running a campaign explaining
:48:58. > :49:02.what it is about and why it would benefit thousands of children across
:49:03. > :49:06.the country. You represent that as a flip-flop. Not at all. It is about
:49:07. > :49:11.understanding what we are trying to do. People have lost faith in this
:49:12. > :49:19.policy edit has to be rebuilt. David Mundell. This policy will be the
:49:20. > :49:23.test of whether Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are listening to the people
:49:24. > :49:28.of Scotland. People want this policy withdrawn. It was bad legislation.
:49:29. > :49:37.APPLAUSE What is bad about it? It was put
:49:38. > :49:42.through by a majority SNP government with an ineffective Labour
:49:43. > :49:46.opposition. The bad thing is that it applies to every child. It does not
:49:47. > :49:54.focus the resources on the most vulnerable. It applies to every
:49:55. > :49:58.single child. Why did the Tories abstain? I think people watching in
:49:59. > :50:04.other parts of the UK will find it incredible that every child in
:50:05. > :50:08.Scotland is to have a named person, regardless of any assessment of
:50:09. > :50:15.their vulnerability. We have made it clear, our position, during the
:50:16. > :50:18.election. It became clear that people in Scotland do not support
:50:19. > :50:29.this approach and it is time for Nicola Sturgeon to withdraw this
:50:30. > :50:40.policy. Jim Sillars. The named person is part of a large act of 103
:50:41. > :50:43.sections, and five schedules. It illustrates where the problem lies
:50:44. > :50:50.in Holyrood. I will come to the named person in a moment. Let's
:50:51. > :50:54.stick with that for the moment. I don't believe a nine to five
:50:55. > :51:03.Holyrood parliament can properly legislate on issues like this. For
:51:04. > :51:05.example, well-being. Well-being has several meanings, depending upon
:51:06. > :51:12.family circumstances and the rest of it. It would not have passed
:51:13. > :51:18.Westminster, let me tell you, on this basis, where the line by line
:51:19. > :51:21.and clause by clause is examined. This is a well-meaning act, but if
:51:22. > :51:25.you look at the sections that actually deal with the named person,
:51:26. > :51:31.there is ambiguity all over the place. My advice to my colleagues in
:51:32. > :51:35.the SNP would be to take away this section of the act and is discussed
:51:36. > :51:40.with the other parties in Parliament. Everyone wants to look
:51:41. > :51:46.after children. Discuss how this can be amended to meet the anxieties of
:51:47. > :51:52.parents but ensure that those children who need looked after
:51:53. > :51:56.actually get looked after. OK. APPLAUSE
:51:57. > :52:03.Briefly, you don't think by its nature it is intrusive for it to
:52:04. > :52:08.apply to everybody? Yes, I think if I were a parent I would think it
:52:09. > :52:15.intrusive. Stephen Hall. We need this question, please. With job
:52:16. > :52:18.losses in the oil and gas industry being significantly greater than in
:52:19. > :52:22.the UK steel industry, why hasn't it been given the same level of media
:52:23. > :52:36.coverage and political support? APPLAUSE
:52:37. > :52:42.Employment in oil has obviously dropped, the price of oil has
:52:43. > :52:47.dropped. David Mundell, there is a lot of government action around
:52:48. > :52:51.steel, why not around oil? There is a lot of government action around
:52:52. > :52:55.oil as well. The Prime Minister was in Aberdeen earlier in the year,
:52:56. > :53:03.listening to what the oil industry had to say in relation to how the
:53:04. > :53:09.job situation could be helped. And in the Budget, we saw major tax,
:53:10. > :53:13.major tax changes. We saw looking at how we can take forward the
:53:14. > :53:17.decommissioning process, contrary to what one of the participants said
:53:18. > :53:23.earlier. We now have the legislation through which created the oil and
:53:24. > :53:26.gas authority, which will look, importantly, at how costs can be
:53:27. > :53:32.reduced within the industry, how we can get more collaboration. This
:53:33. > :53:36.matter, and because we have seen some argy-bargy on the panel, this
:53:37. > :53:41.is one area where the UK and Scottish governments have worked
:53:42. > :53:45.very closely together will stop and one of the outcomes was announcing
:53:46. > :53:51.the ?250 million Aberdeen city deal which will see money go into the
:53:52. > :53:54.harbour, which will see a technology centre in Aberdeen, four example. So
:53:55. > :54:00.we are very possessed of the urgency of this matter. Aberdeen has been a
:54:01. > :54:08.lifeblood of the UK and Scotland for far too long. For decades we have
:54:09. > :54:16.oversupplied the country with money. The thing is, Aberdeen's economy is
:54:17. > :54:19.?82 billion a year, against Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee altogether
:54:20. > :54:23.don't come near it. The taxes that come out of this part of the world,
:54:24. > :54:31.no money comes back. APPLAUSE
:54:32. > :54:40.I am sorry had to rush you. The Labour Party supported the case for
:54:41. > :54:43.tax cuts for North Sea oil and gas but you can only offer tax cuts when
:54:44. > :54:47.companies are making a profit and many companies in the North Sea are
:54:48. > :54:50.not just now, which is why the Labour Party was advocating using
:54:51. > :54:57.public money to almost nationalise key pipelines and protect them. That
:54:58. > :55:00.is the kind of thing we need to do to protect North Sea oil and gas for
:55:01. > :55:08.the short, medium and long-term, so that price rises can grow again. One
:55:09. > :55:12.thing you can't do is assume the oil price will rise again and make
:55:13. > :55:17.everything OK. The oil industry is declining, the price of oil may stay
:55:18. > :55:24.low for many decades. It might go up to $60, it might go back down to
:55:25. > :55:28.$30. You can't rely on this. What really needs to be done in Scotland
:55:29. > :55:32.is to find other ways to boost the economy. This is where the SNP has
:55:33. > :55:37.fallen down over the last eight years. The Scottish economy has
:55:38. > :55:43.barely grown since 2008 while the UK economy has grown significantly.
:55:44. > :55:47.Focusing on oil is a mistake because it is a declining industry that will
:55:48. > :55:52.end at some point. You cannot call it a mistake when it is the
:55:53. > :55:55.lifeblood of Aberdeen. You cannot fix it, you have to replace the
:55:56. > :56:00.jobs. Perhaps eventually the SNP will opt looking at the -- start
:56:01. > :56:04.looking at the scientific evidence and look at fracking again, because
:56:05. > :56:11.that is where an awful lot of jobs in the oil industry can conceivably
:56:12. > :56:18.be replaced. There are still very substantial fields in the North sea.
:56:19. > :56:26.BP boasted that one would last for the next 40 years. It might sound in
:56:27. > :56:31.modest, but I came here in 1977 and suggested that 50p of every barrel
:56:32. > :56:36.should actually go to an investment fund in the north-east of Scotland,
:56:37. > :56:39.so that... APPLAUSE
:56:40. > :56:45.So that if problems arose there was capital to be employed to make sure
:56:46. > :56:52.that that was partly overcome. I was laughed at them. I would suggest to
:56:53. > :56:58.folk in Aberdeen and Grampian, you want to start arguing that case
:56:59. > :57:02.again. Hamza Yusuf. I agree with a lot of what the panel and audience
:57:03. > :57:06.have been saying. We will step up and that is why the First Minister
:57:07. > :57:11.immediately put together an energy task force. The task force will not
:57:12. > :57:15.do anything, which is why we had to put money in and work with the UK
:57:16. > :57:19.Government and other partners. But I agree with the gentleman in the
:57:20. > :57:23.audience that Aberdeen has been used as a cash cow by successive UK
:57:24. > :57:28.governments, and it is about time the UK Government gave back to
:57:29. > :57:31.Aberdeen. And let me say to Merryn, that despite the differences and
:57:32. > :57:36.difficulties that people in Aberdeen have, and we will support and put as
:57:37. > :57:40.much finance as we can to support people, rushing to fracking is
:57:41. > :57:45.certainly not the answer. It is certainly not rushing. Apologies to
:57:46. > :57:49.those who have their hands up. We're in Wallsall next week,
:57:50. > :57:53.with Yvette Cooper for Labour, Amber Rudd for the Tories
:57:54. > :57:56.and the broadcaster We'll be in Ipswich
:57:57. > :58:00.the following week. To join the audience, Walsall
:58:01. > :58:03.or Ipswich, go to our website, I have lost the telephone number.
:58:04. > :58:32.Here we are. We're in Wallsall next week,
:58:33. > :58:34.with Yvette Cooper for Labour, Amber Rudd for the Tories
:58:35. > :58:36.and the broadcaster We'll be in Ipswich
:58:37. > :58:49.the following week. The debate continues on Radio 5 Live
:58:50. > :58:54.until the early hours of the morning so you can follow the arguments
:58:55. > :58:57.there. As far as we are concerned in Aberdeen, I hope you had a good
:58:58. > :59:00.evening. Thank you, and on till next Thursday, thank you to our panel as
:59:01. > :59:04.well, and good night.