04/06/2014 Scotland 2014

What's the price of a referendum vote?

Will a pay rise of ?1.34 an hour be enough to change some voters' minds?

Tonight we ask who are the key voters and what do they want?

Good evening and welcome to Scotland 2014.

Forget Tony Blair's Mondeo Man and Bill Clinton's Soccer Moms,

the referendum has created a new target for the politicians to chase.

We're dipping into the world of Easterhouse man, and woman.

The question is will a hike in the minimum wage

and the prospect of higher benefits change the way they'll vote?

Labour's Anas Sarwar and Patrick Harvie from the Greens.

We've been on journey round Scotland to see how the disabled vote might

And what was in the Queen's Speech for her Scottish subjects?

Where are the voters who hold the key to September's referendum?

That's the question we'll be asking tonight.

From the so-called working poor to the disabled vote,

how are the campaigns trying to slice and dice the electorate?

Today, welfare experts have recommended the minimum wage should

go up by more than ?1 an hour, as well as suggesting there should

be substantial benefit increases in an independent Scotland.

So are these the kind of giveaways that could tempt voters

Julie Peacock has been trying to find out.

Barry J yes or no Mac? It is not just ballot paper is painted in

boxes, we are as well. There is a type of thought are the politicians

are desperate to attract. Once it was Thatcher's Essex man and then

came Mondeo Man. Now there is a new target. Who is it? For the sake of

ardent, we will call him Easterhouse man or woman. People from

working-class area is or lower incomes who lean to the left. The

evidence suggests many are for independence. We found a direct link

in all the polls we did between where you live and how likely you

will vote yes or no. Those from the most deprived neighbourhoods are

likely to vote yes and those in affluent areas, Nowak. SNP

government has given its backing to a report which recommends an

overhaul of the benefit system. It is eating considering raising the

minimum wage. The message that says we can do things differently and

better with independence has some appeal. It is about taking

responsibility and saying we are the 14th richest country in the world

but we have one of the biggest gaps between the richest and poorest in

society. Where do we find our Easterhouse voter on a wet Wednesday

afternoon? Despite the labels, not everyone here is convinced by the

SNP's plans. It's all right to increase the minimum wage but when

you can't get a job and what did is that? I want everything to stay the

same way. I don't want to use your rules. They all say the same thing

and then when they get end they all do the same. But others believe

independence would be good for areas like Easterhouse and voters here

could tip the balance. If you are among the working class, the yes

vote. I just feel that. I have quite a number of friends who I have who

are all working class, they are keener on a yes vote. Many minds

have not been made up. You have to look at the pros and cons. It might

be good to be ourselves but will things go downhill and prices go up

and have more poverty? I don't know. They would need to talk me around.

About how quickly deficit needed to be reduced. Those would be different

positions the different political parties would put forward. We

wouldn't be locked into the austerity model the UK Government is

imposing on us. We would be able to make the decision towards moving

towards an equal society. A fairer distribution of the wealth of this

society, closing the gap between the richest and the rest. Which we saw

grow wider over years of growth and recession in the UK. It must be

difficult for you to listen to these promises being made on welfare and

try and find a way to counter them when, inside the UK, the Labour

Party have been completely unable to stop any of the benefit changes the

coalition have brought in? No, far from. It you heard from Patrick's

answer, they don't know the answer to the fact that the IFS report,

this isn't a political organisation, this is neutral, nick experts saying

to standstill after independents we would need to find ?6 billion of tax

rises or spending cuts. ?1.2 billion more on top of that if you take the

manifesto commitments from the SNP in the white paper. What I find

uncomfortable from this, Patrick finds it uncomfortable about the

case being made for independence, we are not being promised these massive

tax rises for the wealthiest, we have been promised tax cuts for the

wealthiest. Cut to corporation tax being a perfect example. The more

appropriate approach is to pull our resources across the UK. Tax the

bankers through the bankers bonus tax across the UK and use that to

pay for our job guarantee scheme for young workers in Scotland and across

the UK. That sounds like a fairer form of welfare to me than those

proposed by the nationalist. Can you both increase spending and cut taxes

in an independent Scotland and make the sums up? That is not the case I

(inaudible) cutting corporation tax is a policy that was seen from UK

Government after UK Government after UK Government. Whether it was

Labour, Tory or now the Coalition. The SNP promising to cut further no

matter how low it goes in the UK? I look forwarding to challenging that

policy in an independent Scotland. I look forward to being on the same

side of that argument as Anas Sarwar if Labour have ditched the idea of

low corporation tax. The argument on welfare is really important here. I

don't agree with every dot and comma in the Government's report on

welfare in an independent Scotland. I do think it engauges postively

with the purpose of welfare. The benefit system in the UK has a

bandon the -- abandoned the purpose of human welfare. It is to bully

people into low paid work and to subsidise low pay so that big

employers can pay poverty wages that don't allow people to live with

dignity. We need to rewin the argument for a welfare state where

we look after all people where all people's dignity is important we

don't use rhetoric that sets hard-working families against

skivers in our country. Why would the Labour Party not say you would

devolve welfare spending to the Holyrood parliament? I share his

commitment and use the same language Patrick used in terms of how others

tried to frame the debate around welfare. The challenge is not the UK

attacking welfare, it's the Tories attacking welfare. Let us not

pretend, those living in England, those living in Wales and Northern

Ireland somehow are attacking our welfare state, they are not. It was

the Labour Party who voted for the benefit cap alongside the Coalition?

Let me finish. The reality is, polls this week have shown, by pulling and

sharing our resource across the UK we can ensure we have the same level

of pension right across the UK. The same level of benefits across the UK

which the vast majority of people in Scotland, right across the UK, want

to see. I agree with Patrick, let us make the case for the welfare state.

Let us make the case for making sure we have the right support for people

to get back into work. When it they are back in work they get the

support they need to stay in work and be an asset to own community.

The paper you saw today wasn't because they wanted to create better

life opportunities for families across the country. Alex Salmond

wants to make history. So why not devolve these powers to the Holyrood

Government? You have been unable to alter the Coalition's policies from

London - We want to devolve significant new welfare - Not very

significant - Around housing benefit and attendance allowance. We don't

want to devolve pensions because of that pulling and sharing resources

argument. It's a strength a taxpayer in Aberdeen helps to support someone

with disabilities in Cardiff. A country on the scale and size of the

UK does have greater potential to pull and share resources. If I had

seen that happening, over the last few decades, I might even have ended

up on the other side of this independence debate. I have seen the

opposite happening. I have seen this big country, with the potential to

pull and share resources do the opposite. The gap between the

richest and the rest grow ever wider. That is what I want to

change. Scotland should take the opportunity to do it for itself. We

have to leave it there. According to the last census, there

are a million Scots with some sort of disability. That's one in five of

us. So is there such a thing as a "disability vote" and how will it

play out in September's referendum? around Scotland to find out what

disabled people think about the referendum. There are 1 million

disabled people in Scotland. It is the most accurate figure we have

available since the last census. The first stop is Edinburgh, to meet

Bill Scott from Inclusion Scotland. Do you think disabled people will

have an impact? Undoubtedly. The positions are moving closer and

closer so that 1 million people will be a huge battle ground for both

campaigns. They are not a homogenous group. Most disabled people would

not self identify as disabled. Next I travelled to Glasgow to meet Peter

Scott who is the chief executive of Enable Scotland. They're not

particularly interested in fluctuating oil revenues and EU

membership, they want to know how it will impact their daily life. Issues

around health care, social care and funding in the future and a whole

host of issues which are not unique to the disabled population but are

very important to them and they are not hearing answers yet. I travelled

to the Glasgow Disability Alliance to find out if the campaign is

engaging with disabled people. We have asked if people feel they're

getting enough information and they understand the process and a few

disabled people we spoken to have said they feel they are not

necessarily being engaged. The general feedback is they are not

necessarily getting the information they want or need, particularly in

the mainstream environment that they may be able to get it from other

disability sources or are cells but not the wider world.

The disabled Scots may not be a homogenous group. Other disabled

people I spoke to, many believe that leader campaign is doing enough to

engage with when they talk about increasing

benefits, is it a naked play? Certainly one can see how some

claims made by both sides appeared to be designed to appeal to either

the electorate where they're doing badly or doing well. The biggest

weakness for the yes side is that their support is lower in women than

men. They seem to try to counter that by making this signal policy

offer. When the White Paper was launched, the promise of more

childcare. It seemed to suggest that the yes side thought they needed to

make something which appeals to women. The other side of the coin is

it is pretty clear that people who are less well off are more likely to

vote yes probably because they think they have less to lose and they are

more optimistic about the economic consequences of independence. Maybe

the SNP will be wanting to reinforce that support and improve their

ability to ease into a demographic you would think would be more likely

to vote Labour. It is no secret that places like Easterhouse are amongst

those which the yes side have focused their canvassing activity in

the belief that the are crucial to getting a victory.

Who are 2014's important voters? You could be asking me who are the

voters most likely to be undecided. Women, people with a dual sense of

identity, and people whose most preferred outcome would be a

stronger Scottish Parliament within the framework of the union. Those

trips are most likely to be unsure. But if you want to identify which

groups are more likely to be yes or no Mac, it is gender, class. And

age. Voters over 60 are less likely to favour independence. The argument

seems to be not so much to do with economics but the underlying issue

of identity. Although the yes side are reluctant to admit it, identity

as part of this. Some of the older people who can remember the British

Empire are likely to not vote yes. Her Majesty got into a brand new

gilded carriage today and headed off to Westminster to deliver the last

Queen's speech of this parliament. She told us her Government intend to

press ahead with major pensions reform, they will make fracking

easier and find a way to recall badly behaved MPs. But what did the

Queen have to say to her subjects north of the border? Our Westminster

correspondent, Tim Reid, watched the speech and I asked him what was in

it for Scotland. Make the case for Scotland to remain

apart of the United Kingdom. Our Westminster correspondent Tim Reid

watched the speech. I asked him what was in it for Scotland? Ministers

would argue that the vast majority of the measures in the Queen's

Speech do apply in some way, shape or form to Scotland. In fact, they

say on this occasion nine out of the 11 new bills. As you mentioned the

pensions reform is their flagship policy. People do away with

annuities for people in their retirement, much more secure pension

pots, say ministers. Also the marriage couple tax allowance and

help for parents with childcare through the tax system as well. The

help for businesses, smaller businesses in particular, but also

those businesses which are flouting minimum wage rules. That will be

tackled in the next year of the parliament. In terms of Scotland

particularly, the North Sea gets (inaudible) because the Government

wants to introduce the entire full recommendations of the Wood Report

into the North Sea and trying to get the most out of the North Sea over

the next 20 years. That will be introduced, making the industry pay

for the regulatory body. That we are told by the Scottish Secretary will

be introduced before the summer recess and before the referendum.

The Queen said her Government would be working to make sure Scotland

stays part of the United Kingdom. She doesn't write the speech, it

sounds quite political? The important thing is, it is written by

ministers. She simply reads it out. The UK Government has made it clear

it wants Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom. It something of

course the Scottish nationalists is stating a fact and the figurehead,

Head of State in an independent Scotland. They of course say the

Queen's Speech here has done nothing for the people of Scotland, only

Scotland, with its own powers, will be able to deal with its own

resources and sort out its own economy. That is all referendum

issues. Now the other stories making headlines around the world tonight.

One baby has died 14 are ill with blood poisoning after being given

what appears to be a contaminated batch of liquid food. The US

President accuses Russia of dark tactics and bullying in Ukraine. The

Washington Post report an investigation into a former home in

Ireland, where hundreds of dead children were found in a septic

tank. Here to discuss the biggest online

news stories are Noorah Al-Gailani, curator of Islamic Civilisations at

Glasgow Museums and Alastair McIntosh, author and independent

academic. Let us pick up on the Queen's

Speech. Watching all the pomp and ceremony, people around the world

find it bizarre. From outside the UK it probably looks quite strange. Is

it time to update it? It does take Britain back to it is days, guilt

carriages, all of that. It's an anti-quitted ceremony, does it

reflect the kind of people who we are today? Now, for some people it

very much does. I have to say that, you know, when you see the Queen, at

her age, undergoing all of that, you have to think - what a power gun of

public service she is. When you deacon instruct the principles of

power expressed in that, is that really how we understand our

democracy in modern times? Aidan John-Moffatt said the Queen's Speech

is live on the BBC, "look at it, it insists in the 21th century" he

think it is's time to update it. When you watch our pomp and

circumstance at its best, how does it make you feel? Is Well, it is

very interesting to watch, but I must say, now I've been here for a

good 21 years, I find it does - it is a symbol of stability, given that

I come from such an unstable part of the world. Iraq? Yes, Iraq. Only

yesterday, a local Iraqi newspaper was covering the subject of the

Iraqi monarchy, which was toppled over in 1958, and harking back to

those stable and positive days in comparison to what's happening to

the people today, or what they are doing to themselves as they fight

over this new democratic experience in Iraq. They want to set up a

museum to learn about the monarchy period in Iraq. The SNP of course

say that the Queen will remain as the Head of State in an independent

Scotland, if we have one. Is that important for stability or are they

staying that in order not to lose any royalist votes? They are saying

we want to be like any other Commonwealth country. You have to

remember that the current structure was structured when James VI went

down to London to become James I to ensure the Protestant succession.

Longer term, is it what we still want? I have to say, you know, I'm a

Green-type myself. I would say, if we are going to get rid of it, let

Charlie have his innings first and see what happens then. There is

quite a row brewing tonight over an interview Alastair Darling gave to

the New Statesman when he compared Alex Salmond to the Kim Jong-il. He

explained about statements Alex Salmond had made about the BBC's

coverage of the European elections. Unsurprisingly, the SNP are furious

about this. Does it lower the tone of the whole debate when people make

comparisons like this, or is it fair snuff? Oh... For me, my reaction

immediately was - people sometimes get so frustrated they do start to

use names and do comparisons and hurt each other in the process. But,

perhaps, some historical figures have become so notorious it's

impossible to use them as an example. It doesn't have its

realism, let's say. It shouldn't be taken at all seriously. Mr

Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster was tweeting, it's an

unacceptable low that Alistair Darling had talked about blood and

soil nationalism. The paper are saying they misquoted that. How do

you feel when people are using phrases like this? This is where we

need respectful dialogue. To liken the democratically leader of

Scotland to one of the most notorious dictators in the world is

not respectful. I better not say how I feel or I might not be respectful

to my old colleague Alastair Darling. Does it surprise you how

language is used in this debate? Yes, but I think when people fight

for causes, people End up, perhaps, using many tools that they may

regret later on. Thank you both very much for coming in to talk to us.

That is it for tonight. Thank you for watching. We will be back at the

same time tomorrow. Join us then. demands to know what exactly is

going on between the Education Secretary and the