15/01/2012 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Isabel Fraser with the latest political news and debate including a live interview with Education Secretary, Michael Gove MP.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/01/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



And on Sunday politics in Scotland, what is the first ministers


negotiating position as the talks begin on the referendum questions


and conditions? And what has the Scottish Secretary got to say about


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1578 seconds


Subtitles will resume shortly. We have no control over the fiscal


levers. This exists for most countries, but a complete control


of all of the levers. The Bank of England will have a big say on how


much you borrow. They will want to control the borrowing. Each country


borrows its own money. There is a sovereign problem. I would not


imagine any government of persuasion would want to over-


borrowed to the extent of this. have our business partner as London.


If we became a separate nation it would be our biggest competitor.


What we are saying is that we are letting a our biggest competitor


set the interest rates and limits. How is that economically credible


for a separate nation. Final word. We will have control over the


fiscal levers, that is a far better position than what we have now. We


sell there and buy from England as we compete from and buy from


countries around the world. We don't deal with England just as


part of United Kingdom or whether It is coming up to 12:30pm. You are


watching the Sunday politics. afternoon, welcome to the new look


Sunday politics in Scotland. The First Minister on his approach to


the referendum negotiations between Holyrood and Westminster. He says


he would rather talk to David and Nick, the Scottish Secretary is


here to talk to us about his lines in the sand. And the road to


devolution, what role will civic society play in this independence


debate. So, one week down and only 139 weeks to go in the independence


referendum debate. Nina Buchanan has been looking at how and when


Politically the stakes don't get any higher than this. The main


prize is the constitutional future. After years of wrangling, all of


the main players agree, they should be a referendum vote. David Cameron


was the first to show some of his hand. There can only be a


referendum if Westminster this be the glue authority for it to take


place. He says that could happen but only with conditions. We should


not just let this go on year after year. It is damaging for everybody.


Let us clear up the situation. My view is sooner rather than later


would be better. The Lib Dem Scottish secretary then said what


they would expect from a referendum. They would expect electoral


commission to be involved, No 16 year olds get into votes, and one


simple yes or no question. But Alex Salmond, flush with his boats from


the last election, said he did not need to play by Westminster rules


and seemed to suggest his view was there should be no deal. This is a


huge decision for Scotland. Potentially the biggest decision we


have made for a nation for 300 years. We will not be cocooned by a


Tory prime minister in London. Friday he seemed to re-enter the


game saying he would meet up with the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime


Minister to discuss a potential referendum deal. What is there to


discuss? The insistence on giving 16 year olds the vote, and the


policy of an independent commission to run the election. The climax is


a potential second question, asking for more powers for the Scottish


parliament. Something the main Unionist parties don't want to get


into. These are risky times for the Labour Party, in Scotland and


London. They suggest they would prefer greater powers for the


Scottish parliament, but have no firm policy on that. I simply say


no they risk applying themselves closely with the Conservatives.


it is not fair on scholar now, or Scotland of the future for the


timing of this referendum to be the there in the hands of one


politician. This referendum belongs not to politicians but to the


people of Scotland. Therefore, it is the challenge of leadership to


build a consensus on how the referendum is run. How will this


all played out in the long run, foreign first ministry could accept


the Westminster deal and get his yes or no referendum. The opinion


polls suggest that the moment he would lose it. Or he could go it


alone, but that risks a legal challenge. He will then have to win


the referendum, supposing the courts allow him to. Then for the


coalition there are risks. If the deal is done we could lose Scotland


and the Union. If this goes to the courts it could be seen as an


obstacle to the will of the Scottish people. For the Labour


Party, it could be seen as co- operating with the Conservatives in


Scotland, which is electronic toxic. At the moment they have yet to come


up with a coherent policy which would see new powers for Edinburgh.


Currently, they are simply saying The first minister is currently on


a trip to United Arab Emirates, but before he went, he met us. He said


he is very happy to have talks but is unsure whether he will get the


top-level discussions he wants any time soon. I have been trying to


meet the Prime Minister about six times since we last met in July.


Each time, Downing Street has been a un keen on having we are in a


Thatcher like mode, the Prime Minister is behaving like Thatcher.


Perhaps he has flipped, as she used to save. I do hope we can get into


meaningful discussions. Just so long as what is excepted are right


for Scotland. These matters were debated extensively at the election


of Scotland, the SNP government and other people who supports cholent


have a commanding majority in the parliament. -- who support Scotland.


We are happier tittle, but it must be on the basis that these matters


are Scotland's decision. They must be a referendum constructed in


Scotland and decided by the good wisdom and judgment of BP poor.


whom do you have to top, Michael Moore, you must talk to when you


want to. Does it have to be the prime minister and deputy prime


minister? What is the meaningful interaction at this stage? Clearly


it must be with those making the decisions. The cavernous set up


what they call a quarter, a group of people who spend their time


dreaming up how they can deal with the Scottish question. That


includes the Prime Minister and Chancellor, the Liberal Party


leader and Danny Alexander. It does not involve the Scottish Secretary.


Do you have to speak to members of that group or it is it not worth


having a conversation at this stage? When the UK Cabinet took the


extraordinary actions this week it was George Osborne, the Chancellor


of the Exchequer, who presented it. You must talk to folk making the


decision. I will talk to anybody. If you are going to make progress,


you must talk to those making the decision. Are you disappointed they


haven't agreed to talk? I am disappointed but I don't think it


is sustainable. You must not say you just step back, and leave


somebody else to do the talking. The Downing Street position is


unsustainable. Willett be impossible to have a resolution in


the next eight weeks on BT's substantive issue? Unless there is


fast movement? I am always prepared to move fast but the timetable we


will set in Scotland, is a proper timetable. A week on Wednesday, we


will be introducing to the Scottish parliament the consultation


document from the government, for the Scottish Community. Not just


for politicians but for the whole Scottish community, civic Scotland,


about our proposals as a government and how we should conduct the


referendum. Then we will listen to the boys of Scotland. That is how


we must proceed. Not with some artificially constructed timetable


dreamt up in the bowels of Downing Street. If we look then, to be


essential tool, what happens with the legality of Scottish parliament


holding a referendum? When he published the legal advice?


Governments don't publish legal advice, I will not start. But there


is plenty of advice out there. With the constitutional law and


Edinburgh University. The people who wrote the textbook on it. The


government had only said what their opinion is, they have not publish


the legal advice. See if we can cut through this though, nobody in the


SNP government has an objection to section 30. A legally binding


referendum. What we object to is the strength attached to section 30.


It was offered as a great gesture, but then you say, incidentally,


when you hold this referendum this is how you well-conducted and who


will vote. Just before we leave the legal aspect, what do you do with


these legal loose ends which could unravel spectacularly? Injecting


some poison to the body politics. It could have an effect for many


years. Most of the referendums which have been conducted need to


be consulted. I am happy to have a legally binding referendum, but the


facts is, the referendum, which the coalition government conducted last


year, it was a Conservative referendum. Nothing unusual about


that, but I am happy to have a legally binding one. Not with


Westminster setting the terms and conditions though. These are days


that are over. Can I ask you about the Scottish Conservative point.


Unless it is legally binding, then, you will have access not to be full


official register, but to be publicly available register, and


that effectively disenfranchise is them. Scottish Tories have got it


wrong in every respect. The referendum, whether it is legally


binding on not, will be an act of Scottish parliament. That Act


defines the electoral register and it would be the full electoral


register. You have nothing to negotiate. He said it is our deal


or no deal, but that is not sustainable. At some point the


public think it is manipulative if the SNP choose the question, who


runs it, who votes, if they are in for Scotland's interests, they will


negotiate, so what do you negotiate. If you get the timing the ones, are


you willing to say, just one question? We should wait until the


documents are published, a week on Wednesday. Many of the anxieties of


fears that people have raised will disappear when the consultation


document is issued. The one thing we can't surrender, the one thing


we can't give up on, is that these are matters for Scotland and the


Scottish Parliament to decide. The Scottish committee to decide. We


cannot have a Scottish referendum on the future of this country, the


biggest decision for 300 years, manipulated in Downing Street.


you look at what may be acceptable to you now, what the existing


electoral commission be acceptable to you to run the referendum, if it


were to report to the Scottish parliament. As is your rights, you


are trying to get me to describe the entire context of a


consultation document. But Parliament would look askance if I


did. The consultation document will take things forward, what it will


never ever give up on is that these are matters for Scotland to decide.


Can I ask you who were defined the devo-max question? That is the


elephant in the room. That is a point I have may not just this week


but in the months passed. The SNP must define independence. That is


our job, we are the party for independence and I have called


successfully and successively for the devo-max position to be defined.


The documents have defined what the position could be, but I do accept


it is for others to come forward. It has some very important


champions in Scottish society, Scotland's biggest job at the


moment, with Jim a call, he was an ardent supporter of the vote next.


Many of the Civic positions are very keen on the Defoe Max


proposition. I think they should have three time and space to define


the option. -- devo-max. Do you retain the position, as highlighted,


that if devo-max is a referendum question, a 51 per cent vote for


independence would secured independence even if there is a 78


per cent, 82 per cent vote, for devo-max. That is not a sustainable


proposition, is it? Thinking back to 1997 when we had a two question


referendum, in 1997, the percentage vote for the parliament without


taxation powers was higher than the vote for a parliament with taxation


powers. The first vote was higher than the second vote. The


formulation of the questions is part of the discussion.


Incidentally, despite the fact the Prime Minister has been adamant in


saying only one question, if you look at the consultation document


released it asks for consultation on questions, after ruling out


another question, they are willing to consult on it. A number of


contradictions coming from London over the last few days. Are you


saying that he would consider possibly having a street --


straight devo-max question? We will consult the proposals, the


proposals which the government think are sensible. Hours, perhaps


like -- unlike the ones elsewhere, will be for the community of


Scotland and in consultation with the Committee of Scotland. Another


option, if the community of Scotland wishes. Let me ask you


about the deepening crisis in the euro-zone. Is it your position now


that whatever happens in the euro- zone, Scotland will at some point,


it is your intention, to ask: to join the euro? What are we now


moving towards territory where you will have to review that? We will


have to see what comes up. For a monetary union to come together its


does not need fiscal union. It's set in its fiscal discipline, but


that is not something which frightens us. Fiscal integration


would be something different. We are not at that stage. Many


questions within the euro, very successfully in the euro, not the


ones under great pressure right now which has struggled, but our


position is staying with sterling until we can take a position on the


euro. It is a strong situation, I was amazed to hear, not said, but


reported in the press, that we would not be allowed to use


sterling. The UK government cannot stop and independence: from using


sterling. 1, sterling is not owned by George Osborne, he has been


chancellor for 18 months. Sterling has been around a long time. The


Bank of England was founded by a Scot before the act of Unionism.


But it is a convertible currency. You could not stop people. I don't


know what George Osborne has his But if the euro does not develop in


ways you like, we might stay with Sterling forever? Our purpose is to


further the Scottish interest, anything we do will always be in


the Scottish interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does


not own Sterling and he cannot prevent people in Scotland from


using it. But you think in your mind it may not be beneficial to


Scotland to enter the euro? great advantage of independence is


that it allowed you to choose what is in the best interests of


Scotland, even under devolution deer are many subjects, defence,


social security, where we cannot choose what is in the best


interests of our country. The First Minister seems to be suggesting


there is not a lot of point in talking to you, do you still want


to meet within this week? I think it is important that we should go


on and discuss what we will do to make sure that in Scotland we


create a referendum on the biggest decision we will ever take in our


lives here in this country. We must make sure it is legal and that at


the end of the process we will know exactly remit will leave us here in


Scotland. Either as part of one of the most six six full -- successful


nations in history or on our own. I drafted the consultation document


which I prayer presented -- represented to the Commons on


Tuesday. We have worked together as a Government and as a cabinet


agreed that. It does not just involve us as politicians, it is


about people across Scotland being able to be part of the


consideration of how we make this most important choice. The


fundamental starting point is that it should be legal. Alex Salmond is


making a distinction between legally binding or consultative. At


the moment we could not have any kind of a referendum because it is


not a power of the Scottish Parliament. It needs to be. We have


to give the Scottish Parliament the power. We must make the referendum


here in Scotland and have a fair one. On May 7th on this show when I


asked if you accept that the Scottish Parliament has the right


and the legal power to build a referendum on independence you said


we could I suppose make a constitutional issue but I do not


think that is a sensible use of anyone's time. You said it is much


more important we have their debate than have a debate about whether we


can have an debate. What has changed? As we looked carefully at


the situation it is very evident to me and to most people that I talk


to than the legal power is not there so what I have said about


let's not have a debate about the debate, I think temper rally we


will have to have that. We must ensure the politicians clear the


rules of the game. Politicians across Scotland can give us their


views and I started a process on Tuesday so we can have a referendum


here at home in Scotland which is fair and clear cut. What we do not


want at the end of this process is to have a referendum where someone


might challenge the result. This is huge, it is really important about


our future so let's get on with it. We will look at your consultation


paper in more detail in a moment but can you give us your opinion on


the Sterling issue? This is absolutely central to the debate,


whether or not Scotland continued with Sterling is a matter that


would have to be discussed and debated. What we have been seeing


is that -- saying is that you have to be clear whether or not you are


going to accept that your interest rates will be set in London.


have heard a lot of debate about the mechanics but in principle do


you accept that Scotland has the legal right to continue using


Sterling post-independence? If that is part of the deal that the


independence section of the debate wanted that would be part of it. We


could have it but I think you would have to think of the consequences


about who would set interest rates and what it would mean for you


spending and borrowing plans. I have seen senior SNP members asked


about that and the do not get onto it. Just to move along, there is a


lot of ground I want to cover, briefly, it is it the case you have


now actually conceded Debate? -- the date. What we said is we want


to get on with it and have it sooner rather than later. But if it


is autumn 2014, can you live with that? The First Minister has put


that forward as his preference. We are engaging voices across Scotland.


We will see where the debate glance but I'm very firmly believe we


should have it at -- as soon as we can. So that is not a line in the


sand for you. Can we also get clarity on the idea that you could


legislate to allow the electoral commission to report to the


Scottish Government in the case of this referendum. Is it the case


that you think that is something you might concede and it might be


constructive? That was in the consultation document. We envisaged


that we couldn't of a body like the electoral commission which is


neutral and has a great deal of experience of running these types


of events so, yes. Just to clarify, to specifically report to the


Scottish Parliament, that is the whole point? You would change the


law to allow that to happen? that was in the document I launched


on Tuesday for those who wish to look at it. Page 15 down the bottom.


It is very clearly the year. -- very clearly the it. Yes, that is


there and that is how we envisage it. -- clearly there. Under the


heading a decisive referendum, what are your views on the question or


questions to be asked in the referendum? Will you negotiate?


said on Tuesday and all colleagues have been saying the same thing


that our preference is for a single question. We think we need to


resolve this fundamentally important matter. Are we in


Scotland going to continue as part of the UK or are we going to go our


separate way? That is the question that needs to be asked. The reason


I think we need a single question is that clearly the SNP got a


majority in May last year which committed them to a referendum on


independence. We need to allow them to have that and that is what the


debate is around. Once we have resolved that matter I think it is


entirely right that we should consider within the UK what our


powers are. How would like to give the Scottish Parliament many more


powers along with other parties in Scotland but we want to resolve the


simple question, do we want to be independent or not? For a lot of


Botha's this will be confusing because one option is pretty much


federalism. It is presented as a safety measure for the First


Minister but it could be a safety measure for the union. I think it


is important we resolve the question of whether we stay as part


of the UK or not. After that I think there is an entirely


legitimate debate about how much further we want to enhance the


Scottish Parliament's powers. Willie Rennie has already set up a


commission chaired by men Campbell which looks at these powers. --


Ming. The issue for now is, are we continuing with in the UK? Thank


you for talking to us. So, who will champion the massive expanse of


political territory between the Scotland Bill recommendations and


full-blown independence. What does that mean? It is allies down for


musical bingo in Edinburgh. People are known to come out in force on


polling day but eight Scotland fear the use of organisations like


theirs will be drowned out by party politics. What we have seen in the


first week is that the debate has all been about process and name-


calling between Westminster and Holyrood. So that the people of


Scotland are given an informed choice it is important that civic


society takes a hold of this whole debate. Lycee know and we are the


State, will we say yes and we are dead people. -- we say. -- the


people. The STUC want to set up a referendum commission. Decisions


taken by the political parties on things like proportional


representation is fundamental to getting the broad consensus which


led to quite a united campaign for the issues on the referendum.


you see met for the first time in 1989 here at the General Assembly


Halls on the mind where they discussed the formation of the


Scottish Parliament. It is hoped that now the views of civic society


will be heard again. In bigger nations like England Germany or


France it is different. This organisation will play a


determining role in the referendum. We will listen to civic Scotland


and their point of view. But is listening putting a second question


on the ballot paper? If it is a simple choice of independence or


the status quo, independence might win. Something in between the two


extremes might be the option that would win. The challenge for those


representing civics society is how it they can work together on the


next 2.5 years to get the questions they want on the ballot paper. With


me in the studio now is the chairman of the think tank Reform


Scotland and someone who chaired the Scottish Civic Forum. Are the


politicians letting us down this week? His party politics taking too


much of it all and we should be looking at the wider interests of


Scotland? I think no one who really cares about the future of Scotland


could want to keep the third option of the ballot paper. It is quite


clear that that is the kind of option that the largest majority of


Scottish voters would feel most comfortable with at the moment. It


should be a question which allows people who want to opt for


independence to do so and for those who have not done so to say that


short of independence would you like to open negotiations for more


powers? There has been a huge amount of breath wasted this week


over legality. I think anything which does not allow more enhanced


evolution options is not good. I do not think they should have a


definite No or yes to independence because if it is a narrow know it


where does that leave us? It does not end the question of


independence. In whose interests is that? It is just party politicians


trying to do each other down. anything clear to you about where


this is going? The process is not particularly clear. I think that


what we have seen in the last week has been a lot of party political


posturing. The point is we are not looking at the different options


and the details of those options, whether that is a form of


independence or what is actually what the status quo can offer us or


from our point of view what the alternative is in the middle.


middle ground is massive. Who should formulate the devolution


plus question? What we have done at the Reform Scotland is over the


course of the past few years is worked out a very specific proposal.


It may not be the best one but it has at least been well thought out


It is much easier to have a debate when something detailed is put on


the table. We can say which bits we like and what we don't. If they put


something forward for discussion, it adds something. The difference


from the 1990s is the difference of the Unionist parties in Scotland


which has left this debate being dominated by voices from


Westminster who are behind the game and I'd using the wrong language.


They are using the language of negativity, of confrontation, that


will not, for a progressive Unionist position, do. We are


lacking strong, party political voices from Scotland who are taking


a broadly Unionist position but have a progressive view about how


it should evolve. It is just not there at the moment but it is down


to civil society, which is not as strong as it was in the 1990s.


oh, do you think it is up to civil society to do this? The aim must


put pressure on the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats to adopt a


more dynamic approach to this referendum and make sure the devo-


max option is there. He what the polls are telling us is that this


is the preferred option. Two-thirds of people support something in the


middle. They recognise the process is not working for England or


Scotland. Also, as a majority in the polls, they don't want to go


for independence. The middle option as the populist support. If this


middle option wins, who has mandated it? Who are the self-


selecting groups to have come up with the idea and how do you


enforce it at Westminster in negotiations there? As a number of


people have pointed out the power is already in place. If one wanted


to, to go down the route of devolution plus or devo-max which


the SNP government is putting forward as an alternative. Whoever


comes up with the alternative must be on the front for it by saying


this is our preferred option. The Scottish government cannot say it


is their preferred option. They must say it is the best option for


Scotland and what comes out of it forms the best relationship with


the UK. It would then be for the Scottish government, after the


referendum, whoever that is, to take it forward. They are not


legally bound, but mandated, clearly mandated by the Scottish


people to negotiate some form of enhanced devolution. If the


Scottish people chose Alex Salmond as the best person, that is their


choice. But it would be the Scottish Parliament and government


coming out of the Scottish Parliament to take it forward.


are almost out of time, but do you think there will be the enthusiasm


and commitment from people out there to engage with this for those


not in political parties, people who don't have those interests, is


there going to be the momentum? think people will be depressed and


worried if they think they will have a legally binding referendum


on independence only. Make your minds up and if you don't know you


are done with. I think people will be depressed and anxious if that is


the only option. Avoiding that outcome will motivate people to


become very engaged again. Thank you very much indeed, I have a


feeling we will be doing much more of this in the months ahead. Now


for the lunchtime news. Good afternoon, Michael Moore says he is


ready to negotiate with the First Minister over the timing of the


independence referendum. He says it should be down to the Scottish


people to decide the future of the country. It is important that we


get on and decide what we do here in Scotland. Creating a referendum


on the biggest decision we will take in our lives. In this country.


We must make sure it is legal, fair and decisive. At the end of the


process we will know exactly where it leads us. As part of the most


successful partnership of an Nations in history of going our own


way. A leading Scottish Conservative fundraiser has said he


is stepping down from his post. Sir Jack Harvey has raised around �60


million, the Conservatives have paid tribute to the 65 year-old


contribution and said a new fund- raising team is being put in place.


The SNP says that his retirement is a blow for the Conservative


leadership. A flat was attended to by police last night. Officers


spend hours at the block of flats as they negotiated with a man there,


the 25 year-old is expected to appear in court tomorrow. Now let


us look at the weather prospects. us look at the weather prospects.


Good afternoon, the bloke behind me says it all. We will see some


thicker cloud towards the Outer Hebrides and extending to the


Shetlands. Some Shun signed two. Cold temperatures, no higher than


four Celsius, struggling to get to That is all for now, the next


bulletin is at 6:50pm this evening. Now, a reminder of the top news


Well, I think we can all safely say the constitutional wranglings will


say centre-stage in the weeks ahead. And, I am joined now by the


broadcaster and Scottish political editor of the Daily Telegraph, in


the Edinburgh studio. Good afternoon to you both, going for


the cream of the crop in our inaugural programme. Quite right.


Lesley, let us start with what you think of the week which has gone.


Have any politicians covered themselves in glory. Possibly not.


A very polarising week but perhaps that was inevitable. Now people are


beginning to take stock. Interesting what he heard from


Michael Moore, it sounds like the date is now not the big one, and we


are now moving on to the second question issue. Also, whether


politicians are capable of being trusted. On the other hand, is it


up to the public, do we have to do it somehow? Questions will be


raised as to who is the legitimate one, in a legitimate position to


write questions on which the Scottish must vote. It strikes me


that Labour are missing from this. This is their policy and it is time


they stood up because again in Westminster will devo-max, if voted


for, ever get a lead its love potion. Look at the request of the


Scottish government had after they were elected in May. Has it been


devolved back to Scotland, no. These were not big ones, and they


have not move. We could be in the mire for decades if we don't have a


party that is absolutely wedded to something short of independence but


more than the Scotland Bill. That must be Labour, because they are


not in coalition with the Tories. Allen, do you think this devo-max


question is going to go away or not? Is that something which can be


negotiated? If not, what does it mean in practice? I am not sure you


are right about the timing. I don't think he has conceded anything. I


don't think there is any question that the deal breaker is the number


of questions. It will be one question as far as Westminster is


concerned and as far as I think the ultimate outcome is concerned. The


SNP conference from last October, SNP conference from last October,


SNP conference from last October, there was nothing like it. Lots of


nationalists think they can win on one question. They will want to go


for one question. Let's have a debate on devo-max but let's sort


debate on devo-max but let's sort debate on devo-max but let's sort


out the big one first. If Joyce McMillan is saying we must have the


devo-max question because they will not accept a defeat on the big


question, then we are playing a different ball game. To you have


concerns when we say voices must be heard in Scotland? We have spoken


about a bigger game, this intense political question in a different


sort of way. Have you got any concern about why this column's not


choosing to engage this time around? I hear people talking about


around? I hear people talking about around? I hear people talking about


is all the time. The groundswell has started already. I don't hear


people really using phrases like devo-max. Should we raise our own


taxes in Scotland. Do we believe we are capable of running ourselves on


our own income base and well. That is what lies behind devo-max.


who defines that? I think there is an issue. We can all have stabs at


the definition. Reforms: there is a good one, but that is what


political parties are for. They should ask that question to


themselves. If they don't step up to the mark and do this work, why


do we need them? If we look at the power-play behind this, we keep


hearing George Osborne's name. Everybody saying he is the


mastermind behind it. Do you have an inside track, what is going on


here? I don't have an inside track with Conservatives. With all of the


political parties! With some more than others, but that is for you to


decide! Michael Moore drew up the consultation paper, he drew it up


and will discuss it with an exam and if he wants to talk to him.


Last week he was saying that Michael Moore had a better attitude


then a George Osbourne and David Cameron, but now he says it does


not want to talk to Michael Moore just David Cameron. But, Alex


Salmond has been shifting on his ground all week. He will not tell


you about it, he has the Scottish Parliament issue. He did not tell


the Scottish Parliament, he told Sky, and the BBC and s TV. We


should not read too much into this, he cannot tell us because it does


not know. People keep talking about clarity, but at what point do we


get clarity? When I was asking about what the politicians were


doing and whether they were doing us a disservice. We were so caught


up in the mechanics we were not discussing wider issues. At what


point do we get clarity. What should be conceded at this stage?


If we are going for 2014, and we are, we should pace ourselves.


Looking to get the consultation document on Burns Night, nicely


timed, then we will have a better idea on where we are going. There


are big consequences for the rest of Britain. They are beginning to


think about it. How does the set-up work? How would you want to rejig


the United Kingdom if you were doing it now? Would you have a


House of Lords? There are some Poles out today which say the


majority of English would be quite happy, what do you think? To me,


that looks like repressed demand for an English parliament. You can


look so many ways that what are the beginning of stirrings in people


across the United Kingdom, but I don't think they are necessarily


just saying cheerio, they are saying they would like their own


parliament. We have only got a few seconds left, Sir Jack Harvey is


backing out of Tory fund-raising, is that very significant? Totally


irrelevant. He is a good guy, but it is irrelevant to the future of


Scotland. We are out of time. Let me ask though, given the opinions


coming from the south, the impact it would have, what would be an


appropriate role for voters in England and Wales and Northern


Ireland? It is entirely a matter for the people of Scotland,


commissars of Scotland. Let us get some clarity, Alex Salmond was


talking about an advisory referendum, that would mean a


second referendum, you cannot have one on the detail am one without.


But this is rubbish, you are employed to find these difficulties,


and these for negative points, in the bigger scheme of things we have


Political magazine presented by Andrew Neil and Isabel Fraser.

Download Subtitles