:00:00. > :00:00.That's what the parties are saying in this Holyrood election.
:00:07. > :00:30.Voters are working out how to game-play
:00:31. > :00:39.We'll power through the energy issues facing our future law-makers
:00:40. > :00:48.has been speaking about her stalking nightmare.
:00:49. > :00:56.as she campaigns for more awareness of this frightening crime.
:00:57. > :01:03.My stalker would phone me in the middle of the night, silent phone
:01:04. > :01:06.calls 56 times. And some of the best psychological thrillers start off
:01:07. > :01:10.with a phone call. That it was not knowing what this person was going
:01:11. > :01:15.to do next, or would he carry out his threats?
:01:16. > :01:18.It's a bit more confusing than a Westminster election.
:01:19. > :01:20.Even now, people are filling in their postal votes
:01:21. > :01:21.and remembering that, of course,
:01:22. > :01:27.you get two ballot papers in this election.
:01:28. > :01:30.The main parties are keen that you back them in the constituency
:01:31. > :01:33.But how might that work out in the ballot box?
:01:34. > :01:42.here's Suzanne Allan with our Holyrood voter's manual.
:01:43. > :01:48.When you go into the polling booths, you will have two votes. One for a
:01:49. > :01:53.constituency seat and the other for what is known as the list, or
:01:54. > :01:56.regional board. Our electoral system, a form of proportional
:01:57. > :02:02.representation, was designed to make sure nobody could ever dominate the
:02:03. > :02:06.parliament. So how does it work. There are 129 MSPs. 73 of those are
:02:07. > :02:12.constituency seats. This is your first vote. The candidate with the
:02:13. > :02:17.most wins. The second is for the regional list, of which there are 56
:02:18. > :02:20.seats. It is a way of making sure the number of seats is proportionate
:02:21. > :02:27.to the number of votes cast. What you are voting for is a party, not a
:02:28. > :02:29.person. So is it wise to vote for the same party on board the
:02:30. > :02:33.constituency and the list? Or to tactically vote differently with
:02:34. > :02:38.your second vote? The system was designed to lead to a coalition
:02:39. > :02:41.government but we want bold, in 2011, the SNP won an outright
:02:42. > :02:44.majority. Since the independence referendum, the party has gained
:02:45. > :02:49.even more ground. You just need to look at their landslide victory in
:02:50. > :02:52.last's general election. In general, the better a party govern the
:02:53. > :02:56.constituency vote, the less likely it is to pick up a regional vote. A
:02:57. > :03:03.party needs just 6% of the board to get a seat on the list. Is the
:03:04. > :03:06.message coming from the SMB and most of the other parties asking you to
:03:07. > :03:08.back them twice a good idea or a wasted vote?
:03:09. > :03:10.Joining me tonight for analysis are two political scientists -
:03:11. > :03:12.Professor John Curtice from Strathclyde University
:03:13. > :03:17.and Dr Craig McAngus from Aberdeen University.
:03:18. > :03:26.Good evening to both of you. That is joining me. That was our borders'
:03:27. > :03:33.manual, there. -- falters manual. I will we are people of the voting
:03:34. > :03:36.system for Holyrood? Very few people understand what is the system for
:03:37. > :03:40.allocating regional list of feeds off the back of the last boat and
:03:41. > :03:43.indeed it is often misnamed the second vote. That is exactly the
:03:44. > :03:47.words that you used at the top of this programme. It is not a second
:03:48. > :03:51.thought. It is the last board, which of the two is most likely to be the
:03:52. > :03:53.more important. So far as determining the overall distribution
:03:54. > :04:02.of thoughts and seats in the Holyrood Parliament. -- limit.
:04:03. > :04:06.It is the second vote you cast but it is not the second preference.
:04:07. > :04:09.Steve Mac that is correct. And certainly there is some evidence
:04:10. > :04:12.from looking at the polling data from the opinion polls that when
:04:13. > :04:16.they get called up by telephone or asked to fill in an Internet pal and
:04:17. > :04:20.-- poll and they asked who they will vote for, and then they tell them
:04:21. > :04:24.you have another ballot paper, even perhaps if they are told by the
:04:25. > :04:28.pollster you can vote the same way if you want to do, some people it
:04:29. > :04:31.looks as though get a second preference. And certainly, if you
:04:32. > :04:34.look at the success or otherwise of the opinion polls on the 2011
:04:35. > :04:38.election, the principal reason why we did not anticipate that the SNP
:04:39. > :04:43.would get an overall majority given the polls was that the polls
:04:44. > :04:46.underestimated SMB support on the last foot. They pretty much got the
:04:47. > :04:51.constituency vote right but underestimated on the list. Almost
:04:52. > :04:54.undoubtedly because of the work of any second preference. One of the
:04:55. > :04:58.things I see is at the moment in the opinion polls is quite a lot of them
:04:59. > :05:01.have quite a big difference between the SNP constituency vote and last
:05:02. > :05:06.fought, even though in practice five years ago there was only one point
:05:07. > :05:09.difference between them. -- last fought. So certainly there is reason
:05:10. > :05:16.to be a little but more sceptical than ever about the list vote.
:05:17. > :05:20.Are the parties playing the second thought, the list vote in this
:05:21. > :05:24.election? What is the strategy was to both boats is a phrase that is
:05:25. > :05:32.coming up quite a lot. The SNP are trying to lock out s. That worked
:05:33. > :05:35.very well for them in 2011. -- both vote boot. The list and a wispy
:05:36. > :05:41.effort of a safety net for a party that does not do as well and some
:05:42. > :05:45.constituencies as hoped, the last can top up some seats. Labour are
:05:46. > :05:52.going to rely on the regional list vote to win representation. It is
:05:53. > :05:59.the Greens are almost entirely standing on the list. Patrick Harvie
:06:00. > :06:01.is one notable exception. So this election, because the SNP are doing
:06:02. > :06:06.so well on the constituency polling, as we can see, and they will
:06:07. > :06:09.probably win as it looks just now, most of the constituencies in
:06:10. > :06:14.Scotland then the list is going to be very important for the other
:06:15. > :06:19.parties in gaining representation. But why do you think when the SNP,
:06:20. > :06:23.the suggestion is that they will do so well, why do you think that has
:06:24. > :06:30.been such a focus for them go to the # of votes SMB? That might SNP. It
:06:31. > :06:39.was the theme of the conference in Glasgow. Again, I think it is SNP
:06:40. > :06:44.have been on a journey since 1999 in terms of using illegal system that
:06:45. > :06:47.benefits them. If you look back at 1999, you see the won a handful of
:06:48. > :06:52.constituency seats and then quite a lot of regional list seats and that
:06:53. > :06:58.balances shifted. I think it is just a party that is on top that wants to
:06:59. > :07:02.remain on top. And using a very simple, clear message to supporters
:07:03. > :07:07.to make sure that you get as in government again and get a majority
:07:08. > :07:10.government again. It is a very basic strategy but it is clearly seems to
:07:11. > :07:16.be working. John, we will get onto the issue of a wasted vote in a
:07:17. > :07:20.second but before that, do you think with the system was envisaged that
:07:21. > :07:25.the people who designed it would ever envisage it being played out
:07:26. > :07:29.this way? To suggest that the system was designed as opposed to
:07:30. > :07:32.negotiated as a copyright between Labour and the Lib Dems would be a
:07:33. > :07:37.mistake. This is a negotiated system. -- negotiated between Labour
:07:38. > :07:40.and the Lib Dems. It was a compromise between the Labour Party
:07:41. > :07:43.that wanted to minimise the degree of proportionality and the Lib Dems,
:07:44. > :07:49.who wanted to maximise it. As a result, we ended up with a system
:07:50. > :07:51.where everybody does do very well in the constituencies in a region, one
:07:52. > :07:56.of the aid regions into which Scotland is divided, it is possible
:07:57. > :08:00.that even if it gets a lot of last boat but it will not get any list
:08:01. > :08:03.seats. This in a sense of the tactical dilemma that the system
:08:04. > :08:09.potentially creates. The truth is that one crucial reason why the SNP
:08:10. > :08:14.have gone for that # is that they are aware of the discussion in
:08:15. > :08:19.Nationalist circles that is the SNP gets sexy men
:08:20. > :08:26.-- if the SNP gets a lot of constituency seats, it might not be
:08:27. > :08:30.entitled to any more or less to see the wider we not consider him for
:08:31. > :08:34.another party that supports independence question mark at the
:08:35. > :08:36.end of the day, they may not do as well as the poll suggesting
:08:37. > :08:41.constituencies and maybe reliant on the majority list seats and
:08:42. > :08:45.secondly, it is at risk of being a self of selling property. If people
:08:46. > :08:48.do not vote for the last on the SNP that indeed they will not get any
:08:49. > :08:53.more additional seats. -- self-fulfilling prophecy. But if
:08:54. > :08:55.they bought on the list in as strong numbers they do in the
:08:56. > :08:59.constituencies then they might get one or two MSPs in the region. That
:09:00. > :09:03.is why the SNP do not want to do it but you can certainly the world has
:09:04. > :09:11.been speculation about Hamon, maybe we want to consider doing something
:09:12. > :09:13.else. -- speculation about Hamon. I'm willing and an Internet as an
:09:14. > :09:17.proportionality and substance of the be thanking their lucky stars that
:09:18. > :09:21.there is a proportionality in the system at the moment. If you look at
:09:22. > :09:25.the proposals for the Scottish assembly back in the 1970s, the
:09:26. > :09:31.referendum in 1979, that was a purely tourist pass the post system
:09:32. > :09:34.-- first past the post. There was a copyright between Labour and the Lib
:09:35. > :09:39.Dems for the creation of the Scottish Parliament. So yes, I would
:09:40. > :09:45.imagine that Labour are, you know, venting their lucky stars, if you
:09:46. > :09:50.like, that the list if they are because they are really doing very,
:09:51. > :09:56.very badly in the constituency vote. And it is ironic in a way that
:09:57. > :09:59.Labour are perhaps the party that has not adapted to the electoral
:10:00. > :10:06.system most effectively, given that in 2011 many of their constituency
:10:07. > :10:13.MPs were not backed up on the list, if you like, whereas the SNP of
:10:14. > :10:16.consistency, -- have consistently done that, known as dual candle in
:10:17. > :10:19.there. So those who were defeated in 2011 were not able to return on the
:10:20. > :10:20.list. Labour have learned their lessons from that. -- dual
:10:21. > :10:22.candidacy. Energy policy has long been
:10:23. > :10:25.at the heart of political More recently, renewable sources
:10:26. > :10:29.of power have been generating discussion at Holyrood -
:10:30. > :10:31.hydro, wind, solar, wave and tidal. So what are the challenges
:10:32. > :10:34.and opportunities facing us Our environment correspondent,
:10:35. > :10:59.David Miller, reports. East Lothian, September 20 15. And
:11:00. > :11:05.another coal-fired power station bites the dust. We are witnessing a
:11:06. > :11:10.revolution. I see that the reaction is positive, no objections. The
:11:11. > :11:15.Paris agreement is adopted. A revolution driven by the need to
:11:16. > :11:21.cut greenhouse gas emissions. This woman is a global leader in the
:11:22. > :11:27.fight against global warming. Thank you. And despite the Scottish
:11:28. > :11:32.Government's repeated failure to hit it on climate change targets, she
:11:33. > :11:39.argues Scotland is a leader as well. Because of the switch to low carbon,
:11:40. > :11:46.renewable sources of energy. Once we have a target, and we focus and we
:11:47. > :11:50.bring together private sector ingenuity, financing and policy, we
:11:51. > :11:56.can actually meet and exceed targets... Although, forgive me, the
:11:57. > :12:01.interim targets are being missed. How much of a concern is that? What
:12:02. > :12:05.you have to look at here is what is in the direction of travel. And the
:12:06. > :12:09.direction of travel is fundamentally very sound. And there is a huge
:12:10. > :12:14.political commitment to continue this. So I am not so concerned
:12:15. > :12:17.about, you know, the little ebbs and flows. What I look at is underneath,
:12:18. > :12:26.what is the direction? Industry analysts agree real
:12:27. > :12:32.progress has been made. Liberal figures released in March
:12:33. > :12:38.that we are now considerably above the 50% target which the government
:12:39. > :12:41.had set itself of electricity demands being made from renewable
:12:42. > :12:45.sources. But he warned cuts in subsidies and
:12:46. > :12:52.lamented by Westminster have cast a shadow on the sector has been quite
:12:53. > :12:55.a chilling effect. A number of projects we were working on normal
:12:56. > :12:59.to be instructed not been cancelled or will not go ahead in the current
:13:00. > :13:05.form. Uncertainty for renewables, yes. But
:13:06. > :13:09.the days when all was King are definitely over. Even the mighty
:13:10. > :13:19.coal-fired power station in Fife is no more.
:13:20. > :13:25.Speaker made things move on. We will have to move on. That is it. No
:13:26. > :13:32.more, as they say. Somebody wrote a song about that.
:13:33. > :13:36.Its closure means we are now more reliant on our wind farms than ever
:13:37. > :13:40.before. And for some, that is a serious cause for concern.
:13:41. > :13:46.Renewables cannot be taken as our base load. For example, in February,
:13:47. > :13:51.and March, there were days when there was no renewable input of any
:13:52. > :13:57.size to our electricity generation. So you're really relying on
:13:58. > :14:00.importing electricity, probably nuclear, from France. It is
:14:01. > :14:03.important that we both that myth. The cross-party committee on the
:14:04. > :14:07.Scottish ballad, the energy committee, did that conclusively
:14:08. > :14:11.last summer. The two dividends from whole range of stake holders,
:14:12. > :14:14.industry and academia, that shall do is not a security of supply risk in
:14:15. > :14:18.Scotland as a consequence of renewables but renewables have
:14:19. > :14:22.played a hugely renewable, important role in keeping our lights on as
:14:23. > :15:09.part of the GP grid. The controversial power
:15:10. > :15:13.That is going to be a big challenge. -- eating houses.
:15:14. > :16:39.The power of Scotland, it matters to all of us.
:16:40. > :16:41.The power of Scotland, it matters to point out to the police. Through
:16:42. > :16:49.time, living with that uncertainty, the not knowing what was going to
:16:50. > :16:53.happen, when, impacted on my mental health. Anxiety, hypervigilance,
:16:54. > :16:58.stressed, and then ultimately that started to impact on my physical
:16:59. > :17:03.health. My hair started to fall out, sleepless nights, but then my
:17:04. > :17:08.stalker would follow me in the middle of the night, silent phone
:17:09. > :17:12.calls five, six times. Some of the best psychological thrillers start
:17:13. > :17:17.off with a phone call. It was not knowing what this person was going
:17:18. > :17:22.to do next, or, would he carry out his threats? That's not snowing,
:17:23. > :17:25.uncertainty. And so, in the end, I was suffering from nervous
:17:26. > :17:30.exhaustion, as well. Mental and physical health are interlinked, you
:17:31. > :17:36.can't give presidents of one of the other. Such a difficult time. You
:17:37. > :17:40.had a difficult time with the justice system. There was no such a
:17:41. > :17:45.crime of stalking at that time. They didn't recognise those nonmaterial
:17:46. > :17:51.behaviours as part of a criminal offence. The system at that time
:17:52. > :17:57.mandated a physical attack before anything could be done. It is
:17:58. > :18:02.recognising that is what is objective, observable, and what is
:18:03. > :18:09.tangible. How would you define stalking? When does some type of
:18:10. > :18:11.behaviour start to become unacceptable and become frightening?
:18:12. > :18:16.Stalking is a wide range of behaviours. A lot of stalking
:18:17. > :18:21.behaviours are some of the normal social activities that we engage in
:18:22. > :18:27.everyday. Texting, phoning, letters. Noncriminal behaviour is out with in
:18:28. > :18:32.a normal context, but placed within a stalking context, they started to
:18:33. > :18:36.take on a different meaning. Stalking is two or more behaviours
:18:37. > :18:43.to form what is known as a course of conduct. If these behaviours give
:18:44. > :18:48.rise to fear or alarm in the victim, then that defines a crime. Stalking
:18:49. > :18:52.is a victim defined crime. We have had legislation in Scotland against
:18:53. > :18:58.stalking. How does that compare to legislation they have in England? It
:18:59. > :19:01.is practically the same. In Scotland, we made a specific
:19:02. > :19:05.stand-alone offence. We wanted to take it out of harassment because
:19:06. > :19:09.stalking is not harassment. It shares many of the same behaviours,
:19:10. > :19:16.but it has a different mode, motive, perspective. We has to clear up some
:19:17. > :19:21.of the conceptual confusion that surrounds these two concepts.
:19:22. > :19:30.England and Wales, on the other hand, they introduced an amendment
:19:31. > :19:35.of stalking into the existing 1997 harassment act. In Scotland, we have
:19:36. > :19:43.harassment as a subspecies of stalking. As a lower test case. In
:19:44. > :19:47.England and Wales, they have stalking as a subspecies of
:19:48. > :19:55.harassment. You had to go through some special measures of justice and
:19:56. > :20:00.that has informed that legislation. It was my experience that did inform
:20:01. > :20:02.the legislation. I walked the path, experienced the system. I
:20:03. > :20:07.experienced the response by the police, I could understand the
:20:08. > :20:15.impact, I could understand the subtle nuances of stalking. What was
:20:16. > :20:19.very different did leg difficult for me at the time was in was no one I
:20:20. > :20:23.could appeal to for help. -- what was difficult for me. It was not
:20:24. > :20:31.recognised as a criminal offence. The police at that time did not seem
:20:32. > :20:35.to recognise the victim impact. The fear that I was experiencing, my
:20:36. > :20:41.reaction to these behaviours, didn't raise concern either because, from
:20:42. > :20:46.the outside eye, they could not see there was a big problem. How do you
:20:47. > :20:51.think future legislation might help victims of stalking, and how do you
:20:52. > :20:57.think the police can be educated to help victims of stalking? When the
:20:58. > :21:01.Scottish offence of stalking went through the Scottish parliament,
:21:02. > :21:06.that was a day of celebration, and that was my ultimate goal, to have
:21:07. > :21:11.stalking defined as a specific criminal offence within Scottish law
:21:12. > :21:17.and to have victims recognised within the criminal justice process.
:21:18. > :21:23.These were the two objectives, and that piece of legislation achieved
:21:24. > :21:26.those two objectives, but then there was the realisation that a piece of
:21:27. > :21:31.legislation alone doesn't mean anything. It's a piece of paper
:21:32. > :21:35.ball. What was needed -- it's a piece of paper. What was needed for
:21:36. > :21:43.that legislation required a lot of training. Not just for the forces,
:21:44. > :21:46.but also public education. Because a lot of people don't understand
:21:47. > :21:51.stalking. The general public don't understand it. The police didn't
:21:52. > :21:56.understand it. We had to a line that with education, awareness, to allow
:21:57. > :22:01.them to implement the law. In fairness to the police, they do a
:22:02. > :22:08.very good job and they really do need training on this. It is unfair
:22:09. > :22:13.asking any officer to attend any call-out of a stalking case if they
:22:14. > :22:19.don't have that understanding and knowledge. It's understandable why
:22:20. > :22:22.the they are maybe not recognising it as this course of conduct. Thank
:22:23. > :22:23.you very much for joining us. Now with me this evening to discuss
:22:24. > :22:27.some of the other big stories around today is the Scotland on Sunday's
:22:28. > :22:29.columnist Dani Garavelli and the Political Editor
:22:30. > :22:37.of the Daily Record, Good evening to you both. Thank you
:22:38. > :22:38.for joining me. Let's get to our first story.
:22:39. > :22:41.Judges at the Court of Appeal have lifted an injunction which bans
:22:42. > :22:43.media organisations from revealing the identity of a married celebrity,
:22:44. > :22:48.But they also ruled the man should not be named until he's had
:22:49. > :22:52.The case has raised questions about how privacy injunctions can be
:22:53. > :22:56.Here's the BBC's media correspondent - David Silito -
:22:57. > :23:03.reporting from outside the Court of Appeal earlier.
:23:04. > :23:10.In essence, what has changed is the information has got out in places
:23:11. > :23:14.where the injunction has no force. Scotland, America, the internets.
:23:15. > :23:18.The judges said, this means the legal landscape has changed. Many
:23:19. > :23:22.say if it is finally lifted because of this, we have a recipe that would
:23:23. > :23:29.undermine any celebrity injunction. A major shift in the law of privacy.
:23:30. > :23:36.David, Festival, a changing landscape and David picking up on
:23:37. > :23:40.the situation in Scotland. A Scottish Sunday newspaper named the
:23:41. > :23:43.celebrities involved. It did because of the legal situation here. More
:23:44. > :23:46.importantly, it is all of the Internet. We are in the ridiculous
:23:47. > :23:49.situation at the moment where everybody watching the programme
:23:50. > :23:54.knows who we are talking about, but we cannot say their names. A lawyer
:23:55. > :23:58.involved said to the courts that we were in danger of making it a law of
:23:59. > :24:01.the press. That is not the case. It is the law of the Internet, the
:24:02. > :24:05.Internet makes these injunctions unenforceable because they are
:24:06. > :24:08.everywhere. Unless you are going to try to regulate the Internet, which
:24:09. > :24:12.is something that no one has an appetite for and most people think
:24:13. > :24:16.is impossible, the idea that these injunctions can have any effect on
:24:17. > :24:21.media organisations is absurd. Danny, we have been uniform. In
:24:22. > :24:29.2011, the Ryan Giggs case. The case of Jack Straw's Sun was named in
:24:30. > :24:34.Scotland but not in England in 1999. Yes, I realise this is setting some
:24:35. > :24:37.legal precedent, but there have been many cases in which injunctions have
:24:38. > :24:40.been shown to be more or less futile either because the injunction has
:24:41. > :24:43.been overturned because they have just ended up attracting more
:24:44. > :24:48.publicity to the people involved than they had in the first place.
:24:49. > :24:53.Or, I think in one case, there was the reuse of parliamentary privilege
:24:54. > :24:56.to expose the case. I think we have known for along time that it would
:24:57. > :25:04.this direction and the internets, as David says, makes it impossible to
:25:05. > :25:07.enforce them. David, the courts must be worried. Lord Justice Jackson had
:25:08. > :25:12.said the courts should not make orders which are ineffective. It is
:25:13. > :25:15.becoming ineffective. It is if it is only going to be news outlets you
:25:16. > :25:21.are dealing with. People are publishing all the time online
:25:22. > :25:24.themselves. Takes you 30 seconds to Google who we are discussing just
:25:25. > :25:29.now. In that case, it is clearly ineffective. It is not ineffective
:25:30. > :25:34.because of anything newspapers and brokers media are doing, it is the
:25:35. > :25:39.nature of the world we live in. It's kind is -- it's kind of makes us
:25:40. > :25:42.need to re-evaluate what we want as a privacy law and how we will
:25:43. > :25:46.enforce one if we want to have one. Another big story today was the
:25:47. > :25:47.European Union will stop the Chancellor was giving some detail
:25:48. > :26:03.about how much Brexit could cost. Britain will be poor by ?4300 per
:26:04. > :26:08.household. That is ?4300 worth of every year. This company is giving,
:26:09. > :26:12.at the moment, ?20 billion every year to the EU. ?350 million per
:26:13. > :26:18.week, which we would get back and be able to spend that solid hard cash.
:26:19. > :26:26.?4300 worse off per year. Does this bring back the referendum of 2014 to
:26:27. > :26:31.mind? It seems familiar. It does, and they are pursuing almost
:26:32. > :26:34.identical tactics, it seems. They seem to be focusing on the possible
:26:35. > :26:39.negative consequences instead of trying to find some kind of division
:26:40. > :26:43.-- vision of Europe that might inspire people. That is difficult to
:26:44. > :26:49.produce excitement over what is basically the status quo. It allows
:26:50. > :26:53.the other side to accuse them of scaremongering and not providing
:26:54. > :26:56.something positive. David, perhaps there isn't that positive vision.
:26:57. > :27:00.They are looking at the bare facts and figures. The UK Government may
:27:01. > :27:06.be not going for the kind of case about the European Union. The thing
:27:07. > :27:09.I found offensive is during the independence referendum, or I think
:27:10. > :27:14.there was a legitimate case about risks and the potential dangers of a
:27:15. > :27:18.vote for Scottish independence and the impact on the economy, the fact
:27:19. > :27:22.they have decided they will come up with some bizarre calculation to put
:27:23. > :27:27.a pound p figure on it every year, which is on those just by looking at
:27:28. > :27:32.it is clearly nonsense, I think it undermines the case in other ways.
:27:33. > :27:34.The other, and while this is very familiar to anyone who lived through
:27:35. > :27:38.the independence referendum here, I think one of the differences here, I
:27:39. > :27:43.remember sitting in a press conference in May 2014 when Danny
:27:44. > :27:47.Alexander, long since departed, said it was going to cost ?1400 if there
:27:48. > :27:50.was a vote for Scottish independence. The difference then
:27:51. > :27:54.was it was his opponents who are calling him a liar whenever you read
:27:55. > :27:58.the story the next day. His Tory colleagues are calling David Cameron
:27:59. > :28:01.and George Osborne Alaia tomorrow, saying they are making these norms.
:28:02. > :28:06.They have got some difficulty. The other problem they have is that all
:28:07. > :28:10.the media down south, the London papers, tomorrow, will splash on the
:28:11. > :28:14.fact that the calculation relies on 3 million net migration by 2030 and
:28:15. > :28:18.they don't want to get into it. An interesting figure. At the beginning
:28:19. > :28:23.of the programme, we spoke about the list of vote. Perhaps this theme of
:28:24. > :28:28.wasted votes. What did you make of that? I think that is, first of all,
:28:29. > :28:32.there are still many people out there who don't understand. I think
:28:33. > :28:36.the fact we are having a debate is very positive because the
:28:37. > :28:39.explanation will allow people to think about what they are doing with
:28:40. > :28:44.their vote but carefully. I think from listening to everything, it
:28:45. > :28:47.would be difficult to tactically voted with the list, but I'm not
:28:48. > :28:51.sure that is the only reason that people would split their boat. I
:28:52. > :28:56.think there really are people who care about diversity in Scottish
:28:57. > :28:59.Parliament. It might just give their list vote to a smaller party because
:29:00. > :29:04.they want them to be represented. They want other voices in Parliament
:29:05. > :29:11.and a more pluralistic vision. David, do you think people have got
:29:12. > :29:15.how to use the vote? No, unless you are a political geek. It is
:29:16. > :29:18.difficult to explain simply and the implications of it are pretty much
:29:19. > :29:24.impossible to predict without knowing how the constituency votes
:29:25. > :29:28.will go. Trying to game the system is a no-go. It is interesting that
:29:29. > :29:32.this argument has been developed over the last few days in regards to
:29:33. > :29:36.the pro-independence movements and whether they should just vote for
:29:37. > :29:40.the SNP or the other parties because I remember hearing a lot during the
:29:41. > :29:44.referendum campaign that the yes movement was wider than the SNP. The
:29:45. > :29:45.SNP don't seem to think that is the case. Thank you for joining me.
:29:46. > :29:50.Shelley's back here tomorrow with that special debate on energy.
:29:51. > :30:07.Personalise it by selecting "edit menus"
:30:08. > :30:10.and get the news that matters to you.