12/08/2014 Scotland 2014

Tonight we are asking could the Scottish referendum open

If Scotland gets more powers, the Westminster parliament could

That is according to a Tory MP who thinks that if we vote

to stay in the union, it will be English MPs saying no thanks.

Who will bring more work to Scotland?

Sparks are flying tonight over whether we will have more jobs

in an independent Scotland or if we stay within the UK.

We will look at the financial cost of our record-breaking success

Scotland has been promised more devolution if we vote no

And the Scottish Tories have produced one of the most ambitious

plans for enhancing the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

But tonight the Conservative MP for Wokingham, John Redwood, says that

English MPs will not accept this lopsided constitutional arrangement.

He thinks the Westminster parliament will need to redress the

So does he have an answer to the hoary old West Lothian question?

Our correspondent Jamie McIvor has been trying to find out.

It is a question about devolution and that always seems to come back

around. Why should a Scottish MP at a say on education in England when

an English MP has no say on these issues in Scotland? It is named

after the distinguished parliamentarian who first raised the

problem in the 70s. Tam Dalziel, for many years an MP in West Lothian. We

will go down a motorway to a separate state, a journey on which

many of us do not want to embark. The issue has been raised again. I

think it is time England had more voices. This time by a conservative

who expects Scotland to stay in the UK. Tonight John Redwood gave a new

lease of life to a possible solution proposed in his party's last

manifesto. The answer is English votes for English issues in the

Westminster Parliament. That is an answer the Scottish Nationalists

accept. It is an answer the SNP on principle has said we should not

vote on issues on England in the House of Commons, because it is not

to do with us. I am saying that should apply more generally. The

fault line was established as soon as devolution happens. But sometimes

legislation which does not affect Scotland directly can still have a

knock-on effect. John Redwood believes deciding what Scottish MPs

could and could not vote on could be done fairly. They have not been

problems in the past with Scotland claiming jurisdiction we do not

think they own. Where Scotland says, this is our business, we in England

will decide on England as a group of English MPs. This is a piecemeal or

asymmetric structure of the British political system. There is one set

of devolved powers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For

supporters of independence the best answer to the dilemma is obvious.

But should there be a no vote, either other solutions? Whether

somebody south of the border sees this West Lothian question as a

problem or not, it is clear there is not a very strong appetite, not yet

anyway. It may come for Jamie Whyte, regional self-government in

other parts of England. I would see that as a positive whether Scotland

is part of the UK or not. If it does not, perhaps it suggests most people

are not too bothered about this minor anomaly. If Scotland stays in

the UK, Holyrood will get more powers. All three main parties are

committed to extending devolution and the more devolution is

extended, the more the West Lothian question could keep on coming round

unless somebody find a solution to a question that has remained

unanswered for 40 years. With me now

in the studio is the Labour MP for Glasgow South West, Ian Davidson,

and in our Edinburgh studio is the former Secretary of State for

Scotland, Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP. The Scottish Conservative Party is

offering substantial, extra devolved powers, yet we have got Boris

Johnson saying there is no reason to give the Scottish Parliament more

powers and John Redwood saying English people will not accept it.

It seems the Tory party in Westminster have not read the

script. Boris Johnson does not even have a seat in the House of Commons

so you do not need to pay much attention to what he says on this

matter. As far as the West Lothian question is concerned, there is an

issue. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own

parliaments. They decide police Scottish, Welsh and Irish matters

locally. England cannot influence that. In Westminster you have 100

members of Parliament who can influence the outcome. I do not

agree with John Redwood's proposed solution. I do not think the answer

is to stop having Scots and Welsh and Irish not voting on certain

issues. You cannot have two classes of Parliament. You can have on

English issues a requirement for a double majority. For a proposal to

go forward it should require not just a majority of the House of

Commons, but a majority of those representing English

constituencies. That would be a fair way without any extra expense and

bureaucracy of resolving this very real anomaly. If there are more

devolved powers delivered to Scotland if there is a no vote,

something will need to be done, the current anomalies will no longer

exist? Something needs to be done, the question is what? John Redwood

is guilty of the deadly sin of envy, quite understandably. He looks

at Scotland and sees as with a devolved parliament, making our own

laws, however UK strength is round about us. He says something must be

done. Where he is missing the point is I get the impression from large

numbers of people in England that they also are unhappy with rule from

London, from Whitehall, from Westminster. What they want is more

powers locally. The way to do with that is not by tinkering with

Westminster, but to give genuine powers to the regions of England,

the North East, the West, the Midlands, all desperately want to

have more say over their own affairs. Ed Miliband has talked

about this, devolving more powers to cities. You would still have

legislation which covered the whole of England, big which was not

relevant in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. English MPs would

still not one Scottish MPs making the decisions. Do you agree with

Malcolm Rifkind? I am glad to hear that my leader and me agree on this

important issue, but I do not agree with Malcolm. That is a variation of

John Redwood's proposal. The idea would essentially means Scottish,

Irish, Welsh and Northern Ireland votes did not count if there was not

a majority amongst English MPs. You may as well just be banished. You

cannot have a parliament which has potentially five different classes

of MPs. Scots allowed in thing -- in for some things, Wales and Northern

Ireland the same. Some London MPs should be ordered out in

circumstances where there are non-London issues being dealt with.

It would be a mess. It could end up with a very difficult situation

where the UK wide Government had a majority across the UK, but not when

it came to English MPs. It would be a messy muddle. What you are saying

is correct in one sense. There would be certain issues that a United

Kingdom Government without a majority in England would not get

its way. That is what happens when you have a minority Government. We

had Government under Jim Callaghan and Harold Wilson that did not have

an overall majority and as a consequence legislation did not go

through. We are used to dealing with that. The House of Lords rejected a

bill and it does not become a law until they change their mind. We

cannot have uniformity. We have a Scottish Parliament with full,

legislative powers. We have a Welsh assembly. We have a Northern Ireland

parliament with compulsory power-sharing. There is not

uniformity at the moment. Instead of having new governments, and it is

not going to happen, you have got to deal with the issue of fairness. It

is not fair when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide their

own issues by themselves, it is not fair on English education and health

and matters of that kind the wishes of the majority in England can be

thwarted by votes from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. The

Scottish public would be quite happy with a change to deal with that

anomaly. As a resident of East Lothian that is the answer to the

West Lothian question! Lothian that is the answer to the

There is another answer, an independent Scotland means you would

not have any of these constitutional anomalies. It would be clean. The

difficulty about Malcolm's proposal is you potentially have two

Government in one Parliament. An English Government dealing with a

whole raft of affairs and a UK Government dealing with the money

side of things. You cannot have two Masters in one house. If the English

want a separate parliament, they have to have it somewhere else. Let

them have it in Manchester. That would be a positive step. I think

building on the concept of city states is far more sensible. Thank

you very much for talking to us. Today both sides of the referendum

campaign have been focusing on jobs. The Scottish Government has been

setting out a ten-point plan it says will boost

employment under independence. Meanwhile, the UK Government says

the union is safeguarding hundreds of shipbuilding posts on the Clyde

by confirming orders Our political editor Brian Taylor

reports. What is driving this campaign? What

illuminate the debate? Scotland's pewter, the economy, jobs? Nothing

says industry and jobs more than a shipyard. This is BAE Systems at

Govan in Glasgow and behind me there is the second aircraft carrier for

the Royal Navy. That is a section of the carrier over there. At the core

of this referendum are many issues, but right at the centre is a debate

about the economy, employment and the future of Scotland. Good use for

these workers. Confirmation from the UK Government of a contract to build

three new offshore patrol vessels. That keeps the Clyde Busey, bridging

the gap between the carrier provision and the British warships.

That is a union dividend and would not be available and independents

say some. Scotland has a positive future for shipbuilding for the UK

Armed Forces provided its stairs -- stays together. We think we are

better together. If Scotland goes independent? The prospects for

shipbuilding on the Clyde are bleak. SNP ministers say the Clyde would

compete successfully for other orders. The Scottish Government is

committed to building military vessels at the Clyde yard and we are

looking to work collaboratively with the rest of the UK. That is where

the quality and the investment has been made and the staff have the

capability and the skills to deploy those contracts. With jobs and

industry by Tilly important, what about the wider future for

Scotland's economy? John Swinney today set out a ten point economic

plan, the focus on manufacturing and capital investment, plus a cut in

corporation tax to attract business to Scotland. We have to use the

responsibilities we already have in Scotland, but acquiring new powers

to independents to create employment whether it is through innovation and

investment in new industry, whether it is about encouraging and

motivating greater private sector investment in research and

development. We could strengthen the foundations of the Scottish

economy, but we need new powers to do that. I have never heard such a

steaming pile of nonsense in all this campaign. The idea when you

listen to the businesses of Scotland's speaking about the impact

of independence that there would be a jobs bonanza after voting yes is

complete nonsense. A choice in Govan. Across Scotland that choice

is largely driven by the economy, by jobs. I joined by our political

correspondent, Tim Reid. Why are they focusing so much on jobs? There

is total deadlock on the currency question. It is jobs, the economy

and wages on which most people will make up their minds on September the

18th. No surprise the yes campaign has been promising jobs today moving

on to traditional Labour territory, job creation, apprenticeships and

more manufacturing and shipbuilding jobs as well because it is the

people working in traditional, Labour areas, traditional, Labour,

working-class areas that may swing this vote at the end of the day. And

both sides of the campaign are desperately trying to persuade them

to vote for them. The no campaign today chose to go on an issue we

know about, defence jobs, hinting very strongly that those jobs may be

lost if there is a yes vote to independents. The question is

whether promising jobs or hinting at jobs might go is going to persuade

people how to vote. We are expecting new figures from the Treasury soon.

Also focusing on jobs. You might remember figures recently were

issued from Strathclyde University who did a study trying to ascertain

how many Scottish jobs might be affected by cross-border trade. A

figure of around 247,000 jobs, the Treasury has used 2013 figures and

they have a figure of around 170,000 jobs. There is a warning about

independence affecting jobs, something the Yes campaign was not

agree with. The Treasury has also looked at men and women and they say

around 100,000 women are affected in those jobs and that ties in with a

report last night in that attitude, that most women had not made up

their minds, and that is what the No campaign is looking at.

Thank you very much. Later this week, the athletes from

Team Scotland will parade through the streets of Glasgow as a grand

finale to their Games? success. Scottish competitors racked up

a record number of medals at the And how does

their performance impact For Scotland, it was an incredible

Commonwealth Games, a total of 53 medals, smashing the previous test

of 33. -- best. What did Scotland have to put in financially to

achieve this success? Sisters Kimberly and the wheeze got Team

Scotland off to a flying start, winning Gold medals in judo --

Louise. This success has changed our lives, sometimes for the better and

sometimes not so much. Getting your face, -- getting your face

everywhere, that a shock, seeing your face and your friends going,

you are in the radio and on the TV, in the paper. I was like, that is

not me. Some people have taken the medal from my neck, we are easy

going and simple people so when people ask for a photo or an

autograph, you would get it unless we are doing something. The price of

fame, but what does the future hold? Government money goes to sport

Scotland who decide how much each sport gets. We have had a lot of

support from the Scottish Government in recent years and we have lottery

funding. Putting that together gives is around ?70 million each year to

build that system. It is not just about the athletes, it is also about

schools, we have invested ?50 million in a schools programme and

?10 million in the next four years for clubs. So we feel we have got

real ambition to build something sustainable. So which sports did

best? In relation to the money it got from sport Scotland. We take the

money each sport get and we divide it by medal points. A Gold medal

equates to three medal points, silver two and a bronze medal one

point. In one bowls, we got... That equates to 11 points. In terms of

funding, that gets over ?1.4 million which works out at... Doing it this

way, badminton is worst and the best value for money came from judo at

just 95,000 pounds. -- ?5,000. Those of the sports we won medals in. Over

12 mean pounds -- ?12 million went to sport which did not produce

Commonwealth medals. Funding is common -- funding is complex and not

just about medals and the sisters are concerned funding for judo could

be cut. That is a worry but we hope pink -- hoping the Institute will

look at it. We have four or five people in the top ten of the world

and another four or five within the 20 and 30 mark. South African

countries are competing for the sport so you look at cycles ahead

and we will look ahead and if one of those nations has judo, we will have

to be smart and make sure we have an eight-year plan.

Funding for sport is never going to be an exact science, it does not

guarantee you an outcome. But after Glasgow 2014, sport Scotland have

plenty of evidence the tricky financial equations are adding up.

With me now for a look at today's top stories are April

Cumming, Vice-Chair of Scottish Fabians, and the editor of the Bella

Let's pick up on this West Lothian question, some of us feel we grew up

with it but somebody of your generation, it is that something

that keeps you awake at night? I am actually 30! I think it is wonderful

what is happening in Scotland's is a constitutional conversation

filtering down into other areas in the UK, that can only be positive.

As far as what John Redwood was suggesting in terms of English MPs

voting on specifically English issues, if we are going to vote No,

that should not mean we do not have a say in what happens in

Westminster. Because there are plenty of issues that could be

considered English issues that would have an impact in Scotland. For

example, setting corporation tax rates. I do not think it is a

positive step to take in terms of constitutional reform to have just

English votes. If Scotland was to get extra devolved power, would it

care if England set up an English only Parliament and its Scottish MPs

would -- were not included in debates? I do not see that

happening. It is a contradiction because we are told we are a happy

union and now it turns out we are to be excluded from parts of that

debate. I find this extraordinary. I do not see any momentum in England

calling for this and if there was, I would welcome it and you would

support the right of a country to self-determination and democracy,

but I think this is making up the constitution out of desperation a

couple of weeks before the referendum. Alex Salmond let slip an

interesting nugget at the Edinburgh book Festival yesterday. He said...

He said, once the votes are counted, you get a different situation. Is

this a slip to admit people do and say things they do not mean in a

campaign or is it refreshing honesty from the First Minister? I think he

was talking about the currency debate and I think he is talking

about that. But if you want to take it in a different direction, it is a

candid moment from somebody who is supposed to be sure-footed so can

you imagine a space where his equivalent in the No side said

something like that? I cannot conceive of that. I do not agree

with that. I think it is quite a cynical approach for Alex Salmond to

take. What is happening with regards to the currency is a series of

untruths, rather than stretching the truth. With regards to a future

currency union and the school policy in Scotland. I think Alex Salmond

has framed the argument in an untruthful way and is polling the

wall over the eyes of the people of Scotland. You would say that, coming

from a Better Together perspective. You end up with a position of

opposing views from the Yes campaign and Better Together, voters cannot

find the truth there is such a thing and they end up in a situation where

they think the First Minister is right and everybody is stretching

the truth a bit. I do not believe that to be the case. From my

personal perspective, Better Together's arguments have come from

academic and well-informed reports, from the opinions of independent

academics like Armstrong. Like Professor K. And well-informed

background -- and a well-informed backgrounds, and the currency issue

is underpinning what flexibility the Scottish nationalists will have with

their future the scope policy. They can belittle it but it gets to the

core of what independence is about. -- fiscal policy. Will the currency

issue decide it? No, the polls say not a what people care about this

issue -- not a lot. The concept of truth is interesting and independent

facts. What will have to happen is for people to make up their own

minds and think for themselves. If they do that, that is a death knell

for Better Together because their campaign is based on deference and

people start thinking for themselves, we will get a Yes vote.

Where do people go to get these facts? From both campaigns can you

have opposing points and what you hear often from voters as they want

hard and identifiable facts to make their own minds, but they do not

well -- but they do not know where to go. We have a mountain of facts.

What we have got is people having to engage with ideas and to think for

themselves and that is something people are not used to. The

information is there but people do not trust that information because

they feel it is from a biased perspective. I have started pasting

official reports to my Facebook page so people can see the official

transcripts coming from and doctored sources. People are generally not

aware of where to go. We have two campaigns giving their version of

the story and that does affect the trust. The media is one place they

might go but only one newspaper is supporting the Yes campaign, is that

making a difference to the campaign? Yes, what we see is the flourishing

of alternative media. That is largely because you are getting a

top-down campaign from Better Together and you have a grassroots

movement of hundreds of thousands of people on the ground. It is like if

you have a trusted friend who tells you about a restaurant. We are

having a conversation in people's doorsteps and the Better Together

campaign is giving us Kirstie Allsopp! Thank you for talking to

is. -- to us. I'll be back

at the same time tomorrow night. The images of desperate families,

thousands of them still stranded on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq are

beamed around the world. After ten days only these fortunate