16/06/2014 Scotland 2014

How do you know when to believe them?

Is it convincing when they all get together to say they really,

It looks rather like a marriage of convenience.

The three main unionist parties promised today that, together,

they would make good on their proposals for further

Or will they leave Scotland standing at the altar once

Will there be a quickie divorce before the 2015 UK election?

Also tonight, we've been to visit a country that broke away from the

UK, yet somehow uses the Bank of England as a lender of last resort.

It's even had a bailout from UK taxpayers.

And while we are talking about money,

I'll be asking how to the Scottish government plan to pay for billions

of pounds of extra borrowing in the early years of independence.

In a remarkable show of unity, the three pro-union parties today

stood together to make a joint offer to the people of Scotland.

Guaranteeing there will be more powers for the Scottish

Yes Scotland has dismissed it as desperation.

Can we trust them to deliver when they don't even agree amongst

themselves about what extra powers should be devolved?

Our political correspondent Lucy Adams reports.

It was never going to be a match made in heaven. Relations have been

rocky, and the three prounion parties have consistently vowed to

keep separate their offers on more powers for Scotland. In February,

Ruth Davidson spelt out her stance. But then Gordon Brown stepped in as

matchmaker. All three parties have now agreed to change, and all three

people will put it in their election manifesto that they will implement

these proposals for change. If we can get agreement earlier, let's do

it. Before the referendum, if it is possible, but at the same time, we

have got to recognise that every party is now committed to these

changes. Everyone enjoys a wedding, so as polling day approaches, they

have had to overlook their 70s to create what some say is a marriage

of convenience. -- overlook their differences. They had been adamant,

no joint offer, no joint deal, no marriage, yet today the three

prounion parties made public their valves to the Scottish people. The

question is, why? They talk about greater powers in relation to fiscal

responsibility and social security but offered no details. I think

people like politicians to come together where they can and build

consensus. A separate debate about what we would want to do in the

Scottish Parliament, that is the normal stuff of politics. What we

have seen with the three UK parties, even though day-to-day policies are

different, this is different. We will stand together on this issue

and that is what we are seeing today. Recent polls indicate a

narrowing of voter intentions with a poll yesterday suggesting that Yes

Scotland is just four points behind. Until now, their only common ground

was to keep Scotland in the UK. Today, they have made a joint offer

with very little detail. The question is, will this marriage of

convenience last beyond September? Experts say today's joint statement

is significant. I think the reason they have done this now is simply to

try and shore up the level of the no vote. We are getting a yes, no vote

choice in September, but the electorate is only split three

ways, one third want independence, one third want the status quo and

one third want the middle ground option. This is an attempt to break

into the middle ground and secure it for the no side. But the yes

campaign says it smacks of desperate measures. The problem I have got

with the no campaign is their lack of self-awareness. Folk looking at

the promises they are making today, and saying, why haven't done it over

the last 20 years? Why all of a sudden, when you are losing the

referendum campaign, and leave me, they are losing it day by day as yet

gained ground, where they suddenly offering something else? No one is

going to believe them. They have stood side-by-side but whether this

marriage of three mines will be convincing is still uncertain.

Earlier, I spoke to the Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair

Carmichael, and asked him how three parties could offer more devolution

when they cannot agree among themselves about what the powers on

offer should be. I think the important thing that people have to

remember is that on the 18th of September, they are going to be

asked a simple straightforward question about independence. I think

it is right that for those of us who want the United Kingdom to

continue, who believe that the devolution project has been an

enormous success and we want to see that continuing to grow, should be

able to give some assurance to the people of Scotland that we will

finish the job of devolution. But we cannot allow ourselves to be

distracted from the fact that the vote on the 18th of September is

about independence. The Lib Dems have been talking for a long time

about a federal Britain. But Labour and the Tories only came up with

talks about increased devolution recently. They could have done this,

they have both been in government since the Scottish Parliament was

open, they could have legislated. Can you trust the other leaders if

there is a no vote? There has never been a timetable, since we started

this devolution project, we are part of the United Kingdom who has asked

for powers. We have twice delivered powers from the Scottish Parliament,

the Labour government set it up in 1927, and we within the coalition

government added to the powers. -- set it up in 1997. The project

started under the last Labour and Anne was completed under the

coalition. So, why do you trust them to go further? I think the people of

Scotland camp have confidence, when we say as we have said today, that

more powers will come, that the devolution project will be

completed. Given that this has come so late in the day, so close to the

referendum and as the polls seem to be saying, why would anybody trust

Labour and the Tories to deliver on devolution promises they are

suddenly pulling out of the air? I have told you already, we have

already delivered twice. All three parties. The great irony of modern

British lytic is the only party that has never any ScottishPower 's to

the -- the only party that has never delivered any powers if the Scottish

National party. So should people vote Labour or Tory in the 2015

election? I believe the Liberal Democrats... They will not be able

to deliver them, so should they vote Labour or Tory? I think you will

find that since we have been incumbents are 2010, we have already

delivered substantial powers. As of next year, the Scottish parliament

will have control of stamp duty land tax and the landfill tax, they will

have borrowing powers which apparently, now we hear John Swinney

is keen to start using. And comes 2016, there will be a Scottish rate

of income tax. I think the Liberal Democrats have a good prospectus to

take to the people of Scotland come 2015 and the general election.

I am joined now by Stewart Hosie, the SNP's Treasury spokesman who is

in London. Alistair Carmichael is right, it is Labour and the Tories

and Lib Dems correlation who delivered both the Scottish

parliament and enhanced powers in the last Scotland act, the SNP have

never delivered any power to Scotland. All power sits in

Westminster so it has got to be a Westminster parliament which decides

on these powers. Let's make no mistake, the only reason we have any

power in Scotland is because the Scottish people demanded it. The

reason of this announcement has been made today is because the Scottish

people now look like they are heading towards a yes vote for

independence. This is the last desperate attempt to cobble together

some kind of position to try and stop the yes bandwagon. This slashes

with Davidson's normal powers. This destroys what Labour have been

trying to do, which is absolute nothing. In terms of the Liberals,

we have had Alistair Carmichael, they are supposed to have believed

in federalism and 1914. Why are they so afraid to put that to the people

in the form of devo max in 2014? This announcement was a shambles,

fear and panic in need no campaign, seven -- driven by the yes Scotland.

Whether it was bluff and bluster or not, all three major UK parties told

us a few months ago there was no chance that an independent Scotland

Scotland would be cut loose economically,

But our economics correspondent Colletta

Smith has been finding out that recent history shows that things

Remember this? A few months ago George Osborne came to Edinburgh to

save the yes campaign were wrong suggesting that the UK would back up

the economy of an independent Scotland. Are they really saying

that an independent Scotland could insist that taxpayers in a nation

which had just voted to leave would continue to back the currency of

this new foreign-currency? Stand behind the banks of this foreign

country as a lender of last resort? That is patently absurd. Let's delve

into the world of what the Chancellor called absurd. Imagine

there was a country that decided to leave the UK, that chose to keep

using the pound, and whose banks were bailed out by the UK. Welcome

to Dublin. Just four years ago, this is what the Chancellor had to say

about the extra ?8 billion the UK was loaning for the Irish bailout.

It is clearly in Britain might interest that we have a growing

Irish economy and a stable packing system. By considering a bilateral

loan, we are recognising deep connections between our two

countries. That is the kind of support the Chancellor is ruling out

a Scotland vote for independence. In Ireland, the Bank of England became

a willing lender of last resort. It was probably a difficult decision to

get past the UK taxpayer but very well supported here and will not be

forgotten. Here in Dublin, it is clear that kept -- close financial

relationship between the UK and Ireland is still central to both

economies. The financial centre is just a front for all the UK banks,

they will all have support offices here. It is not just the banking

sectors that link the countries. 2 million worth of euros of goods flow

across the seas each week. Including from this jellybean factory on the

outskirts of a blimp. -- Dublin. We import ingredients from the UK,

sugar, glucose, starch, all comes from the UK. All the things that

island by in from elsewhere in the world, about a third of them come

from the UK. That is worth as much as each year. That is a massive

boost to the UK economy. In fact, one in five of all experts from the

-- exports from the UK are bought in Ireland and trade flows the other

way as well. We are manufacturing 12 to 14 million jellybean is a day.

With a population of 4 million people, if our Irish market was the

only market, every man, woman and child had to -- would have to eat a

lot of jellybean! We look at the UK to be an extension of our own

market. So this suggests the UK would be a lender of last resort for

an economic -- independent Scotland. But go back further in history,

those same tyres mean the idea of independence is not that simple.

Ireland was a brand-new state, this -- carving its own identity in the

world. They decided to pack their new currency to Stirling. Meaning

one Irish punt was always worth exactly one British pound. After

fighting a bitter war for independence, why did Ireland opt

for sterling? Hanging onto the currency coat-tail of the country

they had just gained independence from. It was very pragmatic reasons.

The deep relationships of the two countries in terms of trade, the

deep relationships of the two countries in terms of the money

markets between Dublin and London, and the fact he still had a lot of

people in the Republic who were in receipt of transfers from relatives

and friends working in the UK or from UK government pensions. So it

was a no-brainer to test -- to stay with sterling. What there any

political backlash to the fact that the island was sticking with the UK

economically? Know, people were ultimately pragmatic, the Civil War

was about the political mastery of the country. It was an accepted fact

of life like the weather that economic and we were not

independent. When you are a small country tied to a larger country

through trade, history, blood and money, you're not independent. And

that goes to the heart of the issue. More than 90 years after political

independence, is economic independence still unachievable?

While I had the Secretary of State on the line, I asked Alistair

Carmichael why, given Ireland's experience, why he thought the UK

would not bail out an independent Scotland. We have, as part of the

United Kingdom, access to the wider and bigger market, and protection,

when things go bad with our banks, for example, or any other economic

crisis, we have the opportunity of helping each other out. I think it

would be quite remarkable if those who are looking to break these links

were to do so on the basis that we would rely on the rest of the United

Kingdom coming to our assistance if we actually ever need them. I think

that is quite a remarkable position and shows the weakness of what is on

offer compared to the security and the certainty of what we have.

Unless you think Ireland has the best of both worlds, its political

independence, but the security to know that whilst the Bank of England

as a lender of last resort, it is there if you need it? That was the

situation they find themselves in a few years ago. There was no

guarantee of that. And really if you want the best of both worlds, I

would suggest that that is what we have got. Ireland also shows is the

example that you can have thriving cross-border trade, they do not use

the same currency, they are separate economies in terms of how they are

politically run, yet they are absolutely thriving in trade, so

even if Scotland was not in a currency union, it would be able to

do the same? I am not suggesting for a second that cross-border trade

would stop. Newly it would continue. But it would not be on the same

advantageous terms we curtly have. It would not be in a single

integrated market. You would not have the same completely uniform set

of regulations first health and safety, all the things we rely on.

Stewart Hosie is still with us. Is that what you're relying on, the

idea that whilst the Bank of England might not technically be an

independent Scotland's lender of last resort, they would not have

much choice but they'll Scotland out if they needed to? We are talking

about a formal currency union. But it was interesting in the package,

support was provided from the UK to Irish banks, support provided from

the United States to UK banks, multinational bailouts of banks

incontinently Europe. This was absolutely normal -- in continental

Europe. Let me ask you about a statement John Swinney gave to the

Herald today, when he set out to borrow very heavily in an

independent Scotland. He said he wanted to get rid of George

Osborne's austerity drive, increased public spending, that would mean

that in 2018-19, they would be extra borrowing of ?2.4 billion. How can

an independent Scotland possibly for these increases in public spending?

John Swinney said he did not want to borrow heavily, he wants to invest

to see public services grow by 3%. How was he going to do that without

borrowing? He has to borrow it, but not heavily. It is pretty heavily.

It is not, it is modest. The viewers know that we have opposed austerity

measures of the UK Government, which we believe is stifled recovery and

strangled growth for summary is -- for some years. We believe it is

waste to -- it is waste to invest -- it is sensible to invest. Only if

you achieve the growth rates you predict. There is no guarantee

increasing public spending will cause the economic growth that will

shrink the deficit. The real terms cut promised by George Osborne will

strangle growth. If that investment is insignificant measure in capital

assets, then we know there is a one 21 impact. You will certainly get

GDP growth from that sensible investment. It ends dreadful

austerity which next year will see 126 alien of tax rises and public

service cuts, ?2000 per head for every person in the UK. You need to

borrow, you can forget paying anything into an oil fund for the

first few years of an independent Scotland? I have heard this argued

before that you cannot save if you have got debt. Of course one can

invest in an oil fund, that would be a very sensible thing to do. We have

already had expert evidence to say you can populate an oil fund even if

there is a deficit. And if a deficit comes down to the 2.2% forecast and

debt continues to be lower as a share of GDP than the UK, that is a

very healthy position while investing in the future and getting

more people back to work. How much borrowing will be needed to pay for

the set up costs of an independent Scotland, for the apparatus costs of

a new state? You saw the figures... We have never seen the figures from

the Scottish Government. 250 million as opposed to the ludicrous 2.7

billion scarce story from the no campaign. This was also rubbished by

the Professor. The ?250 million figure is sensible. But until we

finalise negotiations on the assets, and Scotland's series around

10 billion, but the ?250 million figure seems eminently sensible.

Thanks very much for that. Let's take a look at some of the

most read stories around the world this evening.

The BBC's most read story is that racing driver Michael Schumacher has

left story -- left hospital and is no longer in a coma. He was injured

in a skiing accident last year. CNN reports the news that 13 people have

been executed after a crackdown on terrorism in China am following a

string of attacks, including one in Jenin Square. Al-Jazeera tells us

that drone strikes are being considered in Iraq. The UN said it

was pulling its staff out of Baghdad.

Joining me for a look at the biggest online stories of the day, Adam

Tomkins of Glasgow University and Robin McAlpine from the Jimmy Reid

Foundation. One of the big referendum related stories is the

Scottish Government coming up with a Draft Constitution of an independent

Scotland if there is a Yes vote in September. It is an interesting

idea, a written constitution. Megan Stamper said that she thought it

looked all right, she was not so chuffed with the monarchy but very

pleased about nuclear disarmament. That is an interesting one, Robin.

Nuclear disarmament is what you put in a policy manifesto? It is

reasonable for the SNP to see this as an interim constitution. They are

indicating the intention to get rid of nuclear weapons. I think it does

sometimes stray little bit into policy, but this is the first time

in mainland Britain but we have had a government proposing everything --

a written constitution. The first thing it says, the people are

sovereign. It sees it and guarantees it. And that the people will write

their constitution. I think this is enormously important. I am surprised

the BBC has not been leading with this in Scotland today. It sees the

people are sovereign and then that the people are keeping the Queen. If

the people are sovereign, why do you need to write it down? This is going

to be judicially enforceable full stop this is not a constitution.

This is not a constitution that should be written by the people, the

people made zero contribution. It has been written behind closed or is

and pronounced today by the Deputy First Minister -- behind closed

doors. We are going to be governed by a constitutional monarchy,

otherwise known as the sovereign. It doesn't make any sense at all. There

is not an off a lot in it. -- and offal hacks lot. There is nothing in

it that looks even remotely similar to the great words of the first

Amendment of the American Constitution. Alex Massie was

complaining today. It doesn't read like some of the more inspiring

constitutional documents around the world. We need to get through the

first elections for a Scottish parliament if there is a vote for

independence. I would be the first person to complain if these things

had been in it. You do not offer to let the people write a constitution

and then get your best poetry out and start writing it on the spot.

This is enough to get us through with a promise that people read the

Constitution, and I think that is pretty good. If you are one of the

people having your say, what do you want to see in it? I would like to

see a ban on nuclear weapons on our soil. I was never that big a fan of

constitutions. Having a good working democracy rather than that, I think

they're are good things we can do with the constitution, the chance of

having it is great, but it is not my main point. A government that act

with integrity. And the parliament, unlike the parliament we have in

Scotland at the moment, who regards its first job as holding that

government to appoint rather than blame that -- blame lease supporting

it. You don't like this one but do you like the idea of Scotland being

able to come up with a written constitution? Something that can be

inspiring? I think it is inevitable that if there is Yes in September

and Scotland becomes independent, I think it is inevitable there will be

a written constitution of some shape or form within the first parliament.

They don't believe this idea that it is all going to be organically

written from the people from the ground up. It will be written by...

It will be written by people who look a lot like me. There is a story

on the Harold's website saying that INEOS have called for a curb on

bullying union tactics. They complained that executives were

being harassed by union protesters outside their homes in this sort of

thing. Is it fear and offer them to ask for protection -- is it they are

for them? It seems to me that they believe that anyone else in society

challenging their right to run things as they want, are some sort

of Billy or problem. According to the statistics on democracy, written

is currently sitting 27th out of 28 countries for industrial democracy.

If any -- if INEOS get their way, we might fall behind. The high

commission have put out a report saying that Britain is the worst

country to be poor in in western Europe, this is a reality about

Britain we do not hear from the other campaign. We hear a lot of

stuff about how Britain could share risk, it is good to see the cystic

's -- see the statistics. I am not in favour of bullying, I am in

favour of using the law to curb it. We need to think of the interest of

the employer, the interests of the employee, but also the interests of

those who were inconvenienced by strikes. If this could be part of

the Law reform to devolve power away from trade union barons. I would be

all in favour of it. Thank you for coming into night. That's it from

us. Thank you for watching for so you can join us next time tomorrow

night. Hope to see you then, goodbye.

The Islamic fascist forces sweeping through the north of Iraq have to be

stopped, the American Secretary of State said today, since they

threaten the very existence of the country, but how? We have views from

America and Iran and our diplomatic editor is here. With images emerging

of Iraqi prisoners