16/02/2016 Scotland 2016

Tonight, the Prime Minister's trying to drum up support for his plan

Has he done enough to stop the UK voting to leave Europe?

We'll have the latest from Brussels - on David Cameron's charm offensive

and as an EU referendum looms - we'll hear from one of Scotland's

leading economists on the arguments for and against leaving.

The world is awash with cheap oil, but for how much longer?

As the Saudis and Russia agree to freeze oil output -

we'll ask what it means for the north-east of Scotland.

And raising a child costs parents dear.

In fact, it's more expensive than buying a house.

So what can be done to cheer up Mum and Dad?

David Cameron's gearing up for yet another referendum.

If he can strike a deal on EU reform, he could be firing

the starting gun on Friday - for a UK wide vote, to be

But first he has to win over 27 other European governments -

who may not see why the UK should be allowed to rewrite the rules

And to underline the scale of the challenge -

members of the European Parliament warn they won't rubber stamp

In 2013, David Cameron went to Bloomberg headquarters in London and

began laying out his European demands. Migration did not even get

a mention. Today, three years later, as the PM arrived at the European

Parliament, it's about the only thing getting a mention in the UK.

Poll after poll showed the number one concern is immigration and also,

Ukip were remarkably successful in linking the issues of immigration

and EU membership in the minds of the public. A recent poll suggests

the number in favour of leaving the EU is growing and Brussels seems to

have woken up to the real prospect the UK could vote to leave. That

stage of United Kingdom as a member of the EU, a question which only the

British people will the side but the answer will affect us all. Of

particular concern in negotiations is the question of future financial

regulation with the French in particular worried the UK is seeking

special treatment for the City of London. Meetings yesterday seemed to

alleviate those concerns. So a deal now looks possible with many

suggesting as soon as the early hours of Friday morning. It is not

just the EU leaders to that have to give it the nod. No government can

go to a Parliament and say, this is our proposal, can you give a

guarantee about the result? This is not possible in democracy and

therefore I say, European Parliament will do the utmost to support

compromise and a fair deal that I cannot preamble the result in the

European Parliament. So if there is a deal and the European Parliament

accepted, the UK will find itself in the midst of a referendum campaign

which will last for months. By Friday, cab administers could be

speaking on different sides of the debate. -- cabinet ministers.

Joining me now from our studio in Brussels is Politico

Wing as up-to-date, where do the negotiations stand tonight? David

Cameron is close to landing a deal. He does have some details to pin

down, for example some of the central and eastern European

countries, they are afraid their citizens who are already in the UK,

might be retroactively penalised somehow. I think they are

comfortable with the idea of restrictions on people turning up as

of the deal but they don't want it to affect people already there. This

French brouhaha, I think it has been exaggerated. The French do have some

concern but it is in everyone's interest to look like it is a fight

down to the wire. I think everything will be all right on the night. You

see a deal in prospect, is this because European Union countries are

aware of the risk of the UK voting to leave Europe? It is partly that

but also, what they don't want to do is set a precedent of the UK Euro

sceptics succeeding in leaving. It would be a damaging blow to have

such a big country leave and most people like the idea of the UK as

this country with great links to the US, being in the union. But they

don't want to make it for anyone else to follow the UK off the cliff

if British voters did decide to leave. They are making sure the UK

can be accommodated and also that it will be tough on the UK if British

voters do decide to leave. They will not make it an easy divorce. We'll

David Cameron, even if he can agree with the government be able to claim

a deal has been done by Friday, after all, the European Parliament

has a role, so do the courts, it is all quite complex? Yes. I think

David Cameron would be justified in saying there is a deal if 28 leaders

agree to it. That does not mean something to change here or there

when the Parliament goes through its processes. The point of having new

Parliament President in the room and having those meetings today with the

party leaders, is to make sure they will not be any surprises after the

summit that wraps up on Friday. You could see some surprises in the

room. Spain might throw out a strange request related to Gibraltar

because the Prime Minister there is in a lot of domestic trouble and he

might want to distract attention. The French have a lot of national

pride and they want to stand up for that, the same with the Polish

people. People buy and large agree on the large majority of what David

Cameron is pushing for and they know it will be a lot easier to agree

this deal Thursday night than it will be to go through the terrible

process of negotiating for the UK to leave. How seriously should we take

these warnings from some European capitals of a trade war or tariffs

if the UK votes to leave? I don't think it would be a case of an

all-out war. I think they would simply drag out the negotiations

because what they don't want to do is encourage the Nationalists in

their own countries and they don't want to reward the UK for leaving.

It is not that they would issue it as a threat to British people but it

would come across like this, I think, to many British audiences.

They are simply saying there has to be a prize for putting the union

through turmoil. OK, it is a democracy and if you want to leave,

leave but we will not make it easy for you. We will bargain as hard as

we can and say we do have a union and a market with participating in

and there will be a price for Britain if they want to stay linked

into the systems. Many thanks for that.

If you believe the online opinion polls, this EU referendum will be

a tight race - and could result in so-called Brexit.

And key to the debate will be the impact on jobs and trade.

With me now is the economist Professor David Bell.

Thank you for joining us. I mentioned the opinion polls but you

have been looking at what the bookies think, what can you draw

from that? I looked at what the bookies thought before the Scottish

referendum in 2014 and I am doing the same now with the Brexit poll

and at the moment, although it has narrowed of it, its deluxe like a

60% chance that we stay in full stop it has narrowed a bit but it is a

much wider margin than you might think. Given what the opinion polls

are saying. That is more emphatic than the opinion polls. The Scottish

referendum said the problems of sifting truth from fiction amid all

the claim and counterclaim is very difficult. Do we know what the

economic impact would be on the UK and on Scotland if we leave the

European Union? I think it is very difficult to predict what might

happen in the future. I think we can build up and picture what has

happened in the past compared to what might have happened had we not

joined. Most of the evidence that suggests the UK has benefited from

things like foreign direct investment. The UK is seen as a

central hub for companies from outside Europe getting access to the

European market. It is also benefiting from trade between

different countries in subtle ways. Also the financial services sector

has benefited a lot, London is now the dominant financial centre in the

world. Partly because it has taken away trade from Europe but if we

leave, do we lose all that? Do we lose the 3 million jobs that some

are claiming are directly linked to membership of the EU? It is not

obvious that we would lose all of the jobs but we might lose some of

the dynamics that we have seen in the last ten years or so where it

actually, in migration, from the rest of the EU, there are 180,000

net migrants into the UK last year for stop that has helped build up

the economy. It has effectively brought in a whole extra supply of

quite skilled labour. David Cameron's negotiation, much of it

has focused on that issue of in-work benefits for migrant workers. Is

that central to the economic... Or is it pretty preferable? I think it

is largely peripheral. Most EU migrants come into work. They may

have had an adverse effect on the wages of young people, young native

British people because a lot of them are better qualified than the native

British people and that maybe has forced wages down. But mostly, they

are working. They are not here to pick up benefits. I just wonder

though, if the very fact they are working here, might be a bit of a

problem for those who want to remain in the European Union. We know many

voters are squeamish about immigration. What are the chances of

that issue dominating this referendum? I think it good and it

might be a bit geographically specific because you see is

certainly in some parts of England, public services are being put under

a lot of pressure by migrants coming in, the need to have Polish language

or Latvian or Lithuanian or whatever. I think people are quite

aware of that and see that as a negative. That may propel certain

parts of the country towards a leave vote. In amongst all this would be

another issue, those campaigning to leave the EU say that would mean red

tape would be cut, that silly rules in Brussels about banning straight

bananas and the like, would go. Do they have a point? One person's

regulation is another one's advantage at work. For example,

paternity leave. There are two sides to every story. Yes, the EU can be a

bit cumbersome when it comes to imposing regulations but we don't

want to move into a world where there are no regulations. The UK

will impose its own. Maybe they will be better. Does that offset the

trade and other advantages that come from in part of this massive open

market? We talk about it being a big market but it is pretty stagnant,

not growing very well. What you think of the argument that we should

be looking abroad, to the growing economies and the rest of the world

for our trade and not focused so much on Europe? It is true that the

European economy is doing pretty badly but there is nothing stopping

us from orienting our trade to the rest of the world. I don't find that

a terribly strong argument. Nothing stopping us, is it in Asher? It is a

bit but the Germans seem to manage to reorientate their trade towards

other parts of the world. I think the truth is Britain is not very

good at getting into export markets. There we must leave it.

If you drive a car, then you'll be well aware that fuel prices have

But it's nothing compared to the value of oil itself.

That's plummeted, losing 70% of its value, in just 18 months.

It is due in part to the massive increase in world production.

But today, Russia and Saudi Arabia seemed to acknowledge the price

They've agreed to freeze oil output - at January's production levels.

So does this mean the price will rise once more?

And could it help Scotland's beleaguered North Sea industry?

Earlier tonight I spoke to the oil economist,

What do you make of this deal? Not much, to be honest. It might lead to

a small increase in world oil prices but from a Scottish perspective I

don't think it will make much difference. It relies not just on

the signatories to the deal keeping to their bargain but other countries

signing up to it as well and there is no sign of anyone agreeing to cut

production. Is that what Scotland is looking for? The main reason prices

have collapsed is a surplus of supply, particularly the growth of

shale in the USA. At the moment there are 2 million barrels being

produced more than are being consumed. To get prices back up, I

don't think they will ever go up to $100 in the near future. To get them

up substantially it means cuts. Another complication is following

the decision to remove sanctions against Iran, they will now produce

another a few million barrels of oil a day. Huge amounts on the market.

It means the price is sitting there. What price does it need to return to

for the North Sea oil industry to turn a profit again. We had prices

of a peak of 115 a barrel. Some of the new developments we have had,

specifically the gas which started production to the west of Shetland,

they were invested in because of the high price. These developments would

never have gone ahead at the present level. Personally, I think unless we

get a price going back up to $75 there will be very little investment

in the North Sea. What are the prospects of the price ever

returning to those levels? Very little. There is a sophisticated

futures market, predicting a rise to $60 by 2020. For Saudi Arabia and

the Russian Federation, they might be acceptable, but not in the North

Sea. I think if we have a few years of relatively low prices we will see

relatively little new investment, and a lot of the existing fuel being

decommissioned. Does it spell the end for North Sea oil? Another field

came on stream a few days ago, those fields will produce for another 20

years. We will have an industry for another 25 years but it will

inevitably be on a much smaller scale and much less profitable than

the current time. Much less tax revenues for the Scottish and UK

governments. They are we must leave it. Thank you for joining us.

Some interesting data has been published today by the financial

It says the average cost of raising your child to the age

In Scotland the cost is slightly lower, but still works out at tens

of thousands more than the average cost of a house here.

Aileen Clarke has been looking at the figures,

and what burns up much of the cash will come as no surprise to most

At this play centre parents had readily paid to get out of the rain.

The cost of an afternoon's fun is just one more expense. This is the

latest estimate for what it will cost you before that child reaches

the age of 21. It is more expensive than if you were living in Wales.

The cost can be a driver in how big a family to have but it still takes

a bit of getting used to. Are you glad you stopped at two? When I see

those figures, yes. Childcare is so expensive. We had the boys in Fort

two days a week in Dundee. That was out with the help of the Council,

?600 for two days. Most parents cannot afford it. The cost is very

expensive and people are aware of that so they tend to factor it into

the number of children that they have. It depends on the support

network as well. If people have got family. It might also have an impact

on what career people choose. Is it worth your money actually working?

So it was not a surprise that the early years are expensive. The ages

of 1-5 seem to be very expensive. If we look at childcare and

baby-sitting then we look at childcare and

quite enjoy it. It gives us a chance to see our grandson. We do it

because my son can work at irregular times, my daughter-in-law is a nurse

and she works 12 hour shifts, therefore the early start and late

finish does not help getting childcare. I am here looking after

my nieces. My brother childcare. I am here looking after

and suits what they do. We've got to speak more about the kind of

provision, affordability, what people are prepared to pay for it to

get good childcare and more importantly, it is an economic issue

more so than before. It is approved out of poverty for parents, they can

get to work and provide for their families. It is a serious issue.

There has been quite a focus from the parties on early years childcare

but what that highlights is parents are paying a lot for childcare right

through a child's school years. What do you make of that? Are these the

sort of hours that schools should be operating? It is something they need

to look at, there are after-school clubs that will try to fit in with

working lives but I think the issue of childcare is very big. It will

certainly not go away. Demand is going to get even more. The

government is trying to bring 30 hours of childcare by 2020. But it

is a bit like the NHS, the demand will almost be infinite. The more

that you provide the more people will want. If you want to provide 30

hours people will want 60 hours. Only so much money is available and

people will need to make some sort of contribution. Finding the balance

is the difficult bit. Do we need to think in terms of 52 weeks a year

instead of thinking about the school terms. I wonder whether we need to

start thinking about the education system is being more supportive of

childcare across the year. That's a difficult one. It is! Yellow mac you

will know every time there is an in-service day you will think about

what you're going to do with your child. What needs to happen is more

thinking around the type of provision of childcare to fit with

working lives and education. I think that is the priority. It could mean

we are going to have a debate about what people are prepared to pay into

the system so that we can have a childcare system that is fit for the

21st century, because it is about people going to work, and being

looked after by professionals. That is one of the reason costs have gone

up, it is a profession and it was not always like that. We've got to

treat workers properly, give them the right terms and conditions.

There is a social justice issue because middle-class parents can

afford provision. It is more difficult for folk on lower wages.

There is an issue but the one thing about childcare is if you can

provide it you are enabling parents to go back to work, they will make a

contribution in terms of tax and that will help to pay for the

childcare. There is a circular pattern to the funding of it. But

people look at Scandinavia as an example. They do have fantastic

provision. But then taxation is very high in Scandinavia and that is a

political question. People need to decide what they want and if they

are prepared to pay the taxes to fund that. Let's move to Europe.

There could be a referendum at the end of this week. The debate is

widening. Emma Thompson has weighed in saying it would be mad if the UK

voted to leave the European Union. I am living in Europe, a little corner

of Europe, and I feel European even though I live in Great Britain. In

Scotland. So I will vote to stay in Europe. Some might say that is a

bizarre form of words. It might be seen as a gift to those who want to

leave. It was Emma Thompson in her acting mode. She said Britain was a

cake filled country. When celebrities come out, some people

can relate to that because they feel European, but at the end of the day,

I'm not sure how influential it is when something like that happens, as

serious as it is. I wonder what we can expect. The Scottish referendum

was pretty edgy at times. What will a European referendum be like? At

the moment from what we've seen it is going to bore us to death. I

think this intervention has a lot going for it in the sense that at

last somebody has brought some colour to it. Her quote was

captivating. She is an interesting celebrity. I suspect both sides will

be working together to get more celebrities just to brighten it up

because let us be honest. Neither of the campaigns have done that. There

we must end it. That is it for tonight. Hope you can catch is

tomorrow night. Same time. Goodbye. I've had a message from China,

from my birth mother.