14/10/2012 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Isabel Fraser with the latest political news, including an interview with the Conservative Party Chairman Grant Schapps and a debate on the future of Scotland.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the programme. The battle lines have been drunk,


the question has been sorted. There will be one question, not to. If


you are 16 or 17, and you might get the chance to vote. What am I


talking about? The referendum on Scottish independence. David


Cameron and Alex Salmond will be announcing the deal tomorrow. We


will ask both sides that they are happy with the rules of engagement.


This man has a tall order on his hands, he is in charge of leading


the Conservative Party to victory at the next election. We will ask


Grant Shapps how he intends to do The Police Federation thinks that


Andrew Mitchell should be Thyer, but David Cameron does not. We will


be talking about this and more. And on Sunday Politics got on, if


we will take a close look at the road to the referendum. Where will


be partisan campaigns go next? Expect a bumpy ride. -- where will


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1928 seconds


Before we sort of take that to a ridiculous extreme and say, and


therefore this party cannot support people who want to work hard in


this country, get on and doing the right thing, if people get out --


get up every day at work long hours. I want to stick to the question.


How many MPs have come up to you and said that Mr Mitchell should


go? I cannot recall a single MP. Not one? There are reports that


several Cabinet Ministers and many MPs have said so. Review in the


hall when his picture went up and your own activists booed and jeered


him? What does that tell you? not there. About that whole affair,


clearly he should not have spoken to the police like that. He has


apologised. The individual policemen concerned has accepted


the apology, and actually, others are now pinning in and saying that


this is not good enough. I think that if the guy who was involved


has accepted the apology then it is time to draw the line and move on.


Let's look at your own position. How to create your own money-making


meant, Howe and Michael Green is doing it right now. This is your


bit, you are Michael Green. Most people like to pick up their


business records, look at Mitt Romney in the United States, what


was so embarrassing about years that you had to operate under a


false name? I am not embarrassed at all. Why did you use a false name


then? This is something I set up 22 years ago as it is this company. As


a hobby. My wife and I started a publishing business online which


turned out to be relatively successful, and it was publishing


some very boring things, like how to write a newsletter. Why did you


use Michael Green? Simply for the fact that I wanted to keep my


interest in politics, which I was that in at the time, separate.


Either way, I wrote on my in my biography, this is not ideal name,


I am writing under attending, the raising it -- the reason is that I


am going into public service. gave interviews as Michael Green


online. Your book, you said, which show people how to make $20,000 in


20 days. How do you do that? There is a serious business, in the


context of online marketing, is about creating a product online,


putting it up on minor marketing it. There was a 45,000 word manual.


$20,000 and 20 days, have you done that? It is certainly possible to


do this online. If you can do that, surely you should be Chancellor of


the Exchequer rather than chairman of the party? This is largely


marketing to the US market. they are more bill will? Let me


answer the question. -- they are more gullible. This is another


embarrassment to your party. For too posh and a privilege, we can


now it at Grant Shapps sharp business practices. I am very proud


of having been in this business. It was all about helping other people


get on and create their own businesses. Helping to produce


online games and sell them, the Internet is a huge market place


especially in the United States. It was a very brash, exciting time. I


was very open about it at the time. It is only curious to people now


because they did not spot at the time that I was writing about it.


Thank you for joining us. It is coming up to mistake, you are


Welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up: after 10 long months,


the Prime Minister and First Minister will finally put pen to


paper tomorrow and will sign the deal.


Another significant moment on the road to the referendum. Today we


will be looking ahead to where we go next.


We will be hearing from the two negotiators who brokered the deal,


Michael Moore and Nicola Sturgeon. Yes Scotland and Better Together


campaigns go head-to-head. What now for the embattled Crown


supporters? What site will be take? -- for the middle ground supporters.


Will the waters still be muddied? What will the impact be on Wales,


Northern Ireland and England? Tomorrow the Prime Minister of the


United Kingdom will sign an agreement which could pave the way


for Scottish independence. David Cameron will meet Alex Salmond in


St Andrews House in Edinburgh and ratify the deal on the referendum


which could end the 300 the old union. The arguments over


independents are likely to get louder now, but there is still


plenty of debate about the process, as we will now explain. A QPR on


the verge of the official agreement, making the headline -- here we are


on the verge of the official agreement, making the headlines


today. For some it seems like a rash. What


happened to the SNP's much- trumpeted consultation the I am


quite surprised about this. As we have gone through this process, a


lot of the prevarication seems to have been about the consultation,


waiting for the consultation. I never quite understood why if the


SNP First Minister wanted a second question. He has encouraged it


somewhat. Now it seems we are about to get the agreement signed without


knowing the results of that consultation. I am not sure what


that was about. I am sure we will find out.


Perhaps there is still a lot to discover from both sides. What does


independence really mean? What will the UK look like in the event of no


vote? In some ways, both campaigns have got to build momentum behind


the proposition. Key Unionists have got to say, what are the real


advantages for Scotland for staying within the Union? What kind of


union will it be? The nationalists must explain, which they have not


done yet, they must explain to the voters what are the real advantages


for Scotland wing independent? That argument is not yet understood, I


do not believe. -- for Scotland going independent.


As the debates continue, attention turns to be available support for


each side. Can the SNP repeat their performance of its white -- of the


20 other than Holyrood election? One nationalist claims they can. --


called the 2011 Holyrood election. He will find that one in three


Labour voters are in the position where they would support


independence. I do not say that this means that Labour is an


independent supporting party, what I do say is that the idea of


political parties have a monopoly and support -- monopoly and control


over their party members' views is plainly nonsense.


Both sides are already busy, trying to convince people ahead of the


crucial vote. Here is how they have played it so far.


The Prime Minister was first out of the traps when he hinted at setting


out legal powers for the referendum. I think we all the Scottish people


something that is fair, legal and decisive.


The Secretary of State for Scotland says that Holyrood does not have


the powers to hold a referendum, but the UK Government is prepared


to pass them on as they negotiate. Alex Salmond would then announce


the date as autumn 2014. The UK Government announced the start of


the consultation on the referendum. One Bernstein that Edinburgh Castle,


the Scottish betterment launched their own consultation, asking for


the back for their preferred question. Do you agree that


Scotland should be an independent country? And so let that great


debates now begin. The Prime Minister and First


Minister met in Edinburgh to begin negotiations. Those campaigning for


more powers for the parliament but not independence moved into what


they saw as a gap. Support for a second question on more powers grew


in some quarters. The UK Government consultation on what is now on the


cards. Later in May, the lot of the Yes


campaign hope to bring people over to independence. The razzmatazz at


the launch was much criticised in the press.


The more low-key Better Together made its launch on to the political


horizon. The truth is that this coming together of family friends,


ideas, institutions and identities is a strange, not a weakness.


After some political manoeuvring, Pennant packet, the Greens voted to


rejoin the Yes Scotland campaign. Fun and games at the Conservative


conference this week as the Scott on Office minister let the cat out


of the back about the agreement which was then confirmed by the


Prime Minister in his conference speech. -- of the Scottish Office


minister. The PM was in a combative mood, but


it was Mr Salmond to make the most out of the deal. In a negotiation,


as you normally try to overtake the pudding and say I want this, I want


that, and then you see what you get rid of as a negotiation goes on.


What is interesting here and almost scary for the Scottish National


Party and for Alex Salmond is that they got so much out of a


negotiation that they, I think if I were Alex Salmond, find it


difficult to control my enthusiasm and my pleasure with what I have


actually got. We are waiting for confirmation on


one critical point, campaign financing. One pundit police that


the SNP could use this issue to their advantage if there is an old


Ford, claiming they cannot compete with the Unionist war-chest. He


also thinks it does not make a difference. For what is interesting


about campaign spending, if you look is -- if you look at other


countries where they have had referendums, is that campaign


spending does not make much of a difference. People are not really


been bought. It is difficult to change people's minds with money.


Another important issue is the agreement on a single question, as


we have seen there is backing for Devo Max. Where all those


supporters go now? You could see the Unionist parties having shot


themselves in the foot by having a simple yes no question. Because


voters are quite supporter of a middle option, at as they will not


be asked the middle option you start to worry about where those


voters will go. Were those switchers will go. Will they go to


yes or no? This will be asked the electorate.


Voters will continue to examine the key issues, they have two years to


make up their minds. We are now well on the road to the referendum


with that historic agreement in Edinburgh tomorrow.


Let's talk to the key negotiators, the Scottish Secretary Michael


Moore is in her studio. Tacky for talking to us.


Then the Sunday Times, Michael Forsyth the Scottish -- the former


Scottish secretary, said that Salmon has been able to get what he


wants. If that is a negotiation that is stretching the language,


that sounds like a walkover. regret the fact that Lord Forsyth


has chosen to use that language, I hope that when everyone sees detail


that will be unveiled tomorrow they can see that what we have achieved


here is something that brings together the objectives of both the


United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government, that he will


have a referendum on independence that is legal, that is fair and is


decisive. An important, it is made in Scotland, it will have the rules


and regulations around debt which are familiar and recognised for


people of a length and breadth of Scotland and the UK. I think there


is a good agreement and I think it will now allow us to pick up alight


to the big issues about the big debate that the First Minister call


it. I believe that will be looked at the economy and their defence


and a place in the world, on all these big issues, people across


Scotland will continue to support Scotland being in the United


Kingdom. But it was a high risk strategy for


due to rule out the second question, because at the moment the polls


suggest that this would win out over independence.


The critical issue here for all of us, and why we have been engaged on


this issue with the Scottish Government has been to make sure we


have a decisive referendum. That we do not have a model when you mix of


two very different ideas. Independence is about Scotland


leaving the United Kingdom, if becoming a separate state, taking


on all the burdens and risks that go with that and losing all the


benefits an opportunity that we have as part of the United Kingdom.


Devolution is about staying part of the United Kingdom and as a Liberal


Democrat I am very happy about being engaged in the next stage of


this debate. I have just helped deliver the new set of powers to


the Scottish Parliament that will be handed over the next few years.


We are still actively engaged in devolution. The proposition to us,


as a result of the Scottish National Party's victory in last


year's elections, is that we determine our future within the


United Kingdom. If we look at the register for 16


and 17-year-old, but you just had that over to the Scottish


Government to sort out? You will see all of the detail tomorrow. The


important point here is that any detail about to his voting into is


not must be in the referendum Bill that the Scottish Government will


put to the parliament in due course. Again as a Liberal Democrat I do


not have a tough problem with 16 or 17 also been involved in the


election, or referenda, but I except that at Westminster level


there is no consensus between the parties and you need that to be


able to move on. The arguments, if that is the argument team-mate,


will have to come from the Scottish Government as it presents this bill.


We will see the detailed in due course. That is interesting,


because if it ends up in a mess and if there is not a watertight


franchise, that some 16 and 17- year-olds say that this was not


fair to us, that is another potential challenge, isn't it?


is an important point that must be dealt with by the Scottish


Government and by the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament. I am sure


that this will happen over the course of the next few months.


Right now what we are able to agree on is the fact that we will have an


independence referendum, that we will resolve it by the end of 2014


and we will ensure that we are doing get on the basis of the fair


rules recognised by people for length and breadth of the country.


Frankly, finally, we will get on to that big debate. What I would say


is the most important bit of this. That Scotland is so much better off


as part of the United Kingdom, its opportunities are so much greater.


More secure, and it would have more cloud in the world. We will debate


this and I look forward to it. Or on the programme earlier,


Alistair Darling said that he had concerns about the role of the


electoral commission, that it should have been much more firm.


think the important point and I appreciate that people have not yet


seen the detail, is that to have the little commission as a


recognised body right at the heart of this process of the referendum,


on determine the question of campaign finance and so on. I think


that it is very important and it is to the strength of the agreement


that the Scottish Government recognise this, and they do. There


will be a proper place for this and so all sides of the debate will be


able to see our first set of rules that allow them to make their case


and confidence. But the electoral commission, as


things stand, cannot determine the question or veto a question. They


have never been able to do that in the United Kingdom context. And


they only ever do, and quite rightly, make that judgement and I


apologise for the technical term, but the intelligibility of the


question. Essentially about its neutrality. That process is one


that the Scottish Government is committing itself to, and I think


it is important that they play the same role in the Scottish context


as they do in any other part of the date Kingdom and when we have UK-


wide referendum. Sometimes, Westminster is very reluctant to


ignore and Livestock Commission ruling, that might not be the case


The Electoral Commission has a strong reputation amongst political


parties, the media and other people involved in any electoral contest.


It is good that they're going to be central to this and I look forward


to them taking on the normal engagement in this whole referendum


process. What should happen about funding?


The campaign finance, the rules and regulations of the process, the


detail on that will be spelt out tomorrow. In the same way that the


Electoral Commission has a role in the question setting, they also


have a very important role in determining what campaign finance


should be about. When people see the detail tomorrow, they will be


able to see what both governments envisage is them playing exactly


the same role as far as the campaign finances concerns as they


would in any other point What does a no vote mean for the Westminster


Government? We want to see Scotland continue as


part of the United Kingdom. We have more there economic security and we


are almost secured. Yes, but what has a no vote


actually mean in terms of what else will come to Scotland.


Between Scotland will stay within the United Kingdom. Separates to


the debate on independence, I, as a Liberal Democrat, will be continued


into debate how we deliver further powers to the Scottish Parliament


answer the ones that we are in the process of transferring as a result


of the new Scotland Act. But what does it mean to the


Westminster coalition wants the leverage of a yes vote has gone,


what is this kind for in Westminster?


The important point is that both coalition parties and the


opposition are keen to ensure that we have a proper referendum and we


get a decisive outcome. We are determined to do all that. As to


the propositions that individual parts of the coalition and the


Labour Party will put forward to the Scottish electorate at the next


election, that is still being worked through. We are setting out


our stall on that of the next couple of weeks. We want to see a


debate flourish. There I am confident that just as it did in


the 70s, 80s and 90s and in the last decade to create a new cars


that we're transferring, so again we will debate the future of the


devolution, come up with her there are some get that endorsed by the


electorate. And we will know all that between


2014? We're already put in her day --


ideas out there and we're report others doing that, too.


Listening to that with me is the Deputy First Minister, Nicola


Sturgeon. You referendum consultation with


the public, 26,000 responses, what does it say?


I have not yet seen the final analysis. It has taken some time to


independently verified and analyse that consultation. We are committed


to publishing that the end of this month. The agreement that that will


be signed if they prove that by the First Minister and Prime Minister


tomorrow is for a Section 30 order that will transfer power to the


Scottish Parliament. It will then be for the Scottish Parliament to


decide the date, the question, the franchise for the referendum and


the consultation will be very influential in the Scottish


Parliament reaching that decisions. But the key issue is, there's not


going to be a second question. If the majority of people and has


consultation said that if they wanted the middle ground for the


second question, you have either ignored or dismissed it.


In any negotiation, they require us to be compromised. There has been


compromised in this negotiation on both sides, but the outcome we have


reached is one where the guarantees in my view that this is a


referendum that will be made in Scotland. That has a good out, and


one that allows us to get on with discussing the substance of why


Scotland should be an independent country.


To be clear, did you want one question or two?


The SNP have never argued for a second question. We did say that we


thought that should not be prematurely ruled out and because


that is was best for that decision to be taken by a Scottish


Parliament. But any negotiation will involve compromises and this


was the difference. Our preferred option is independence on the


ballot paper. Do you accept that some somewhat


disingenuous, given the amount of time the First Minister spent


saying that it was any proper that there would be a second question?


That is not what he said. He said that giving many people in Scotland


favour more powers short of independence, then Westminster


should not be allowed to rule that out. We argued that that was a


decision best taken and the Scottish Parliament. We have


compromised, as of the Westminster Government, but I'm very satisfied


that the outcome of these negotiations is the guarantee of


the referendum made in Scotland. If you cast your mind back to the


start of this year, David Cameron Watt have to dictate the timing,


the wording of the question and the franchise. As a result of our


negotiations, the agreement that will be signed tomorrow will be


firmly made in Scotland. He if there is a no vote, what is


the SNP do? By we are confident that we will secure a Yes vote.


As we go through the months and years ahead, as the arguments are


set out, as people realise that the only way to secure a change is to


get yes vote... And if there is a no vote?


I am going to concentrate on winning support and persuading


people to vote Yes in the referendum. That is the only way we


can get control of Scotland's review Morse's -- resources and


build a fair society. The day after the referendum vote,


you be the Government of Scotland. People are entitled to know what


you do. To the SNP leadership say, OK, there is a no vote, but we are


going to head up the campaign for extra powers, that is what I'm


trying to establish. We will continue to be the


Government of Scotland, but we are two years out from the Independent


referendum. I will spend my energies campaigning for a yes vote


and I am confident that that will be achieved.


You're the Government of Scotland. This is not a party issue. People


have a right so know what will happen if it goes against you.


I will continue to argue the case for independence and for more


powers. But the nine men, I will be campaigning fully for a Yes vote in


that independence referendum and the onus is on the other parties,


those containing for a no vote, to say what a no vote means. What they


have said, and no vote means no change in rolling back the process


from devolution. Westminster will be very happy to


pass these par so that you, because it is potentially messy. It could


be difficult to get this legislation water tight and there


could be challenged on the road if you do not do that.


I do not accept that that is beyond our capability. The important thing


now is that it will be for the Scottish Parliament to determine


the franchise. This is not some copulation about who stands to


benefit from 16 year olds and 17- year-old voting. It is right that


people begin join the army, have children, pay taxes, should also


have a say in the future of their country. Where we have had the


power to do so, the Scottish Government has already extended the


franchise to 16.17 euros Old. I have piloted health boards should


Scottish Parliament and 16-year-old and 17-year-old Scot the right to


vote there. It is for the Scottish Parliament to determine whether it


agrees that that and wants to do that and the basis on was that


franchises extended. She did be extended to other


elections? Yes.


You now have two years to the boat, but your actual prospectus does not


come out until autumn next year. If we are to have an informed debate,


we should have it out sooner. We have said the white paper will


be published in the autumn of next year. But this is a live debate.


After we get the process issues out of the bay, we will get on fully to


the substance. I am looking forward to that. In the last couple of


weeks, what we have seen with the pronouncements of Ruth Davidson and


Johann Lamont, from a Labour and Tory prospective, what they have a


prospective around his will win back some of the processes of


devolution. Both of them think pensioners should lose their bus


passes and that the prescriptions and free personal care should go. I


once got wants to have control of its own resources so we can choose


to invest in these things rather than nuclear weapons. I am


thoroughly looking forward to the debate.


You are in campaign mode. You're not in Government. You will not


take any difficult decisions, even if they're in Scotland's best


interests. That is nonsense. The SNP has


governed for five years. Recovered for four years and then won a


majority. People know that we are a good Government and a Government


that always governs and Scotland's interest. We will continue to do


that. But there's relationship between our ability to govern the


way we want to govern and state decisions that run the best


interests of the Scottish people and having the parts that will


enable us to do that. Coming up soon...


We'll be hearing from the Yes and No campaigns, looking ahead to how


they are going to play it. What about those who favoured the


middle ground, the devo supporters. Where will their votes go now?


And what will be the ripple effect of the referendum be on other parts


of the UK? Your watching Sunday Politics


Scotland and the time is 12.15. So let's cross now for the news at


noon with Tim Wilcox and Andrew Kerr.


Good afternoon. Five Royal Marines were charged


with murder. The Ministry of Defence our reporter is there.


This is the UniChem troubling case for the Ministry of Defence. It is


the first time that British service personnel on operations in


Afghanistan have been charged with murder. The alleged murder took


place in Helmand province last year at a time when the men of 3


Commando were out on patrol. There was an engagement at or fire fight


with an insurgent. It is understood the Royal Military Police have


obtained video footage from that time which shows British personnel


discussing what to do with a captured and wanted man. Night that


five marines have been charged, the Defence Secretary would only say it


all related to the question of whether the rules of war had been


properly followed. We are very determined the rules of engagement


will be followed, that any abuse will be dealt with through the


normal processes of service justice and that is what is happening.


The those rules of engagement set out the circumstances in which


British forces can open fire. Though never made public, the rules


mean that in most circumstances, British forces can only open fire


when incorrect contact with the enemy or when there is a threat of


imminent attack. This case is now with the director of services


Prosecutions, who is likely to recommend a military trial that


will take place behind closed doors. That court would have the similar


sentencing powers to any criminal court in the UK, essentially, if


they are found guilty, they could be sentenced to life.


It has emerged that BBC executives questioned to me Savell about


allegations he had abused young girls. He former head of Radio 1


said he asked the former presenter about rumours of abuse and 1970s.


Jimmy Savell was a DJ at Radio 1 from 1969 to 1989. For the first


time, we have learnt that questions were put to him by a senior


executive about rumours that he was having an appropriate relationships


with under-aged girls. Derek shimmery was the Controller of the


network at that time and says he challenged the DJ about the rumours.


I told him about the rumours. He said it was nonsense. It is easy


now to say. How could you just believe him just like that? But


there was no reason to disbelieve him. He was the sort of man that


attracted rumours, after all. However, another former Radio 1


executive has described that meeting as a formal one. The BBC


says the issues raised here will be looked into as part of its two


independent reviews. The Defence Secretary has said


allegations that former military chiefs offered to help our and


companies with defence contracts are deeply damaging. The Sunday


Times secretly filmed six former military leaders. Some left Office


and the past two years and are subject to rules banning lobbying.


That is all the news from I. There will be more news on BBC One at


6:25pm. The Scottish Government and the


Scottish Secretary have been speaking on this programme about


the independence referendum ahead of tomorrow's meeting between the


First Minister and the Prime Minister in Edinburgh. They're due


to approve a deal on the staging of the ballot.


Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she believes they've


reached a position which guarantees a referendum made in Scotland.


Scots Secretary, Michael Moore, said the agreement will be the


green light for the most important decision people in Scotland will


ever have to make. A former SNP leader has attacked


the Scottish Government's plans to legalise gay marriage. At the


party's conference in Perth later this week, Gordon Wilson, who led


the party in the 1980s, will tell a fringe meeting that MSPs risk


losing their seats if they support the move. He told BBC Scotland he


believes the plans are a step towards fascism. Those are strong


words and every fascist regime begins in a very minor way. They


take decisions which insist that the state alone has the say over


conscience and that the public have to do as they're told.


In tennis, Andy Murray is taking on Novak Djokovic in the final of the


Shanghai Masters. This is the third sucessive year Murray has made the


final of the tournament. It was one on a tie-break and it is now one


set all. And here's Judith Ralston with the


A settled couple of days coming up, but we are still seeing some


showers across more northern and eastern parts of Scotland. Some


bright as coming through and some lovely spells of sunshine across


western Scotland towards the North West Highlands. Highs this


afternoon of around 11 Celsius. Across more northern areas, a few


degrees lower. Feeling cool with a freshening north-easterly wind.


That's all for now, I'll hand you Has a single question actually


clear on muddy the waters in the referendum issue? Here is Professor


James Mitchell. The question what is pit, a simple question,


independent or not independence, leaves open the question as to what


those who want more powers should too. I have a great worry that the


results of the referendum vote will be open to dispute. It is possible


that there could be a majority for yes, which would include people who


have voted yes, not because they want independence but because they


want more powers and this has not ended -- this is not available. It


is equally likely that there will be a majority of no porters who


include those two want more powers but do not want the status quo. How


to reinterpret that? We must have a referendum that is beyond dispute.


How the integrity result, I'm afraid, that is not likely to


happen without more information. you think the Devo Max campaign


will then wither on the vine, to they have a momentum that will keep


them going? I do not think that Devo Max, the more powers position,


will lose momentum. For the moment, they will have -- it will be


marginalised to some extent. Clearly, that issue, that range of


options still exist. They will have difficulty finding space in this


referendum, because this referendum is polarised. The likelihood is


that this issue will remain alive so long as the public want that, at


a sizable public -- a sizable part of the public do want something


between the status quo and independence. Devo Max, more powers


that all the rest of it, it is all very a clear and it has to be said


that advocates of this middle position will have to clarify that.


That is for sure. There is a lot of clarification required across the


board from all sides in this debate. What else could be a factor in this


environment? Do you expect it to be fairly unpleasant and difficult in


this circumstance? I think that emotions will be running high in


the run-up to this referendum and shooting as referendum. The good


thing about the referendum, we were told, is that we can resolve that


and that people will except the wishes as expressed it in the


referendum by the people. Those emotions will continue to run high


and will perhaps run a far higher if there is dispute. Let's face it,


if there is dispute than no side will concede that they have lost,


and if that is the case then remove them to very difficult territory,


and would not see dangerous territory but difficult territory


at a time when we must move on and accept whatever the result is. We


must have a clear result and I'm afraid I cannot see that it will


necessarily happen. Looking back, whose strategy has been the most


successful? In a way, we have arrived as this referendum almost


by accident. The SNP supporter the referendum and have consistently


supported a referendum over a long number of years, but they do not


think the SNP ever expected prior to the 20 will have an election


that they would be in this position. The other parties did not want a


referendum, and the one thing that is for sure is that Scotland's


constitutional status will be at the forefront of politics for the


next few years. My suspicion is that it will not be resolved and


that referendum. In assess, in terms of the issue been on the


agenda, that works to the advantage of those who want change. However,


they should not think they have won this because there could be a long


haul before we reach a resolution and before even reach more power


has been granted to Scotland. So, they are not that many winners in


this. We now speak to the chief executive


of the EDS Scotland campaign and amassed savoir who is the chief


executive of Scottish Labour. Given what we understand of this


deal, when you look at the Better Together interests, argue agreeing


that this is a good deal at fair contest? I welcome that progress


has been made, all of us what to get past the process arguments and


on to the substance of the debate. Some detail must be laid out about


campaign finance but it is right that we do have agreement between


both governments, it gives us a legally-binding referendum. Let's


let the little commission work out the details of this. We cannot have


one party or individual be both the referee and one of the players.


Let's have the electoral commission look after the process and get on


to the substance of the debate. We're in a stronger position than


the Yes Scotland campaign. Let's be clear about the ruling, what you


think it should be at what you think it might be? I have my few


into what the result should be and Blair will have his opinion on what


he was the result to be, but now we must decide who sets the rules of


the referendum. It is look right nasty little commission it looks at


the rules, it is right that the electoral commission decides what


the limits should be and the finance. Let the politicians of


both campaigns focus on three arguments. Do you have concerns


about this? The Alex Salmond has his way he would want to pick the


franchise, packed a question, but the date, pack the spending limits.


He wants to be a referee, set the rules and be one of the players. I


do not think that is fair. Blair? Of the point of view of the Yes


Scotland campaign, it is fantastic to be at this stage. We can now set


out a compelling case for Scottish independence. We relish the fact


that we have this historic opportunity to have the -- to be


the first generation of Scottish people who have the self


determination to vote on the future of Scotland. We are ready to a vote


on this campaign. The people of Scotland are ready to share the


issues properly. I am looking forward to the next two years.


about funding? Campaign funding and general financing for this. The


actual time scale on when the rules should kick in on spending. Where


have you got to? From our point of the UBR in an unregulated period.


As a campaign they are tried to bring in money to run a campaign of


this scale and quality that this issue demands. Our focus is to make


sure we have the funding to do justice to this cause. She did the


cat? Not at this stage, but during the controlled 16 week period there


should be caps, and now there should be a discussion as to what


level of spending as appropriate. The key thing that I think everyone


would want to see is that there is a fair process and outcome so that


both sides during the formal period, at 16 week period prior to the vote,


are working on a level playing field and spending equivalent sums


of money. So the three big parties of Better Together should not be


allocated larger funding on basis of their vote? That to be fair?


That is for the electoral commission to decide. Let the


electoral commission decide. There will be heated debate over the next


few years as to whether we are better off as part of the United


Kingdom or not. West evader politics on it, fair enough, but do


not divide her country. We must make sure that the country comes


behind affair and legal referendum that no one can dispute. I hope


that this decision is to stay part of the UK, and they hope that all


sides had been come together to make sure that we have a fairer and


more prosperous Scotland. As James Mitchell says, is the danger not


that there will be no very large one way or the other boat and we


could be in an extremely divisive time? Either side will be able to


interpret this whatever way they want. I am for a majority in favour


of independence and 2014. What if there is not? In the last few


months, some people have tuned out a little bit. They want the


politicians to sort out the mechanics, then we will engage with


the debate. Now we have the mechanics partly determined, the


compelling case for independence over the next few tears will give


us a majority in 2014. Have the SNP lost momentum because of the amount


of time it has taken? They had tremendous momentum after the


Holyrood results, but the latest Paul is against them. I do not


speak for the SNP, but from the Yes Scott a prospective... The SNP a


major part of this campaign, they have lost momentum. You fundamental


key players have lost political momentum. That momentum has


dissipated. The Yes Scotland campaign has gained a great deal of


momentum lately. We have laid the groundwork for the biggest campaign


that Scotland will have ever seen. We have put together a fantastic


campaign team. We have been lame this ground work, we have recently


had the Scottish Green Party committee to this campaign. We have


a significant individuals committing to the campaign like


Scotland's most successful businessman. The momentum is with


us. The polls are showing that this is not the case. The reason that


momentum has fallen for the pro- independence camp is not because of


the process accounts, it is because of the dishonesty in terms of the


arguments for independence. One of the first press releases that


letter in as chairman of the Yes campaign was to promise honesty and


transparency. We have not have that. Will we see the publishing about


the legal advice as to whether Scotland will be a member of the


you? Know we have not. We have seen the Yes campaign stop that


information being shared. Blair said he is but a spokesman for the


SNP, but this as an SNP campaign in everything but name. We must make


sure that we expose the real arguments that the SNP are saying,


decide what independence will look like and what we cannot have is a


kind of heady Ferry attitude from the SNP. That all of the things


that you like will stay the same manner of things you do not will


lot. Will be no prior to the referendum exactly what role will


mean a further referenda? Absolutely. Better Together have


adopted do to explain why you will be better off as part of it Kingdom.


It is the job of the political party to set out have visit of


Scotland for the future. My vision of Scotland is different from


Blair's will thus be available to Scotland before 2014? We will start


talking about the real challenges facing Scotland, which Johann


Lamont has already done in the past week to ten days, but we'll talk


about these challenges in the run- up to 2014. The no campaign had


demonstrated no vision or ambition for Scott a battle, what we know is


that the only thing that is holding it together is the desire to hold


Scotland back. We have set out and will continue to set out a very


positive vision of what Scotland can do and what copper can be.


There are important economic arguments in favour of independence.


The compelling Archant is the Scottish desire for a fairer and


more equal society. -- a compelling argument. Benighted kingdom has


become a more unfair and unequal society.


Blair Jenkins, what you will set out is a negotiating position that


you may are may not be able to deliver. I am not sure what you


mean. In terms of the proposition, he say that if you vote yes, then X


Y and Z will happen. He cannot actually say that X Y and Z will


happen because you do not know what party will be in power, if he did


not know the outcome of the negotiations. That is called


democracy. Whichever party wins the referendum, the first General


Election of Scotland will be up to the people of Scotland. There are


no insurmountable obstacles. Other than the people Scotland wishing to


be independent. This is the point, this is a real chance for Labour,


if you are proactive and have a real positive vision, you could do


very well and 2016. The referendum is not end game for the Labour


Party. The endgame for the Labour Party is to create a more fair and


equal society. Independence is the endgame for the SNP. There are


talks about transparency, Blair is try to tell us whether or not he


believes we should have the policy of the legal advice on the EU,


perhaps he should tell us about the advice from the Treasury about


whether the Bank of England would be a pack of last resort, whether


we would still have the financial services authority regulation from


across the native kingdom? These questions still me to be answered.


The great thing about having two years is that a lot of the


distortion and the misinformation that has pitted by the no campaign


can be overcome. There is no question that Scotland will


continue to be part of the European Union. There is no issue about that


whatsoever. What was the advice? The great task of the next two


years is to overcome a lot of the distortion and misinformation. The


goal which today shows that the majority news in favour of


independence if they believe that Scotland will be financially better


off, this Dimitri to open people are to the second. We genuinely are


at a time. He will come back to $:/STARTFEED


Westminster will take the first critical step of laying down a


section 30 order, which gives Holyrood a part to hold a


referendum by the end of 2014. Later this month, the results of


the Scottish Government's independence consultation, which


received 26,000 responses. Electoral Commission will test the


fairness and clarity of the question. Early next year, having


been through the Commons and the house of Lords, the section 30


order must be agreed by the Privy Council, which bats the process


into Holyrood's Court, paving the way for a referendum Bill which


will set out the rules for the ballot. It then makes its way


through Holyrood. If voted through their MSPs of stage three, at it


receives Royal Assent. The Scottish Government publish a white paper,


what they call a prospectus for independence, expects other parties


to follow suit with their future visions of Scotland. The campaign


intensified in the summer of 2014 as the official 16 the electoral


period gets under way. Leading up to that all-important ballot,


expected in October 2014. The result is anyone's guess, but of


Scotland votes yes, the Scottish Government will have a mandate to


begin negotiations for Westminster. The referendum results aside, there


will be a UK general election in 20th May 15. A Holyrood election


the following year. But for what? Asked first Government for the


Independent Scott and up or continue to be governed by the UK.


But here to give us some more detail the psephologist John


Curtice. Now John, we asked you to do some


sums for us, to find out how many more people could vote if 16 and 17


year olds become eligible. According to the latest register,


there are nearly 4 million people aged 18 and over eligible to vote.


There are also just over 44,000 17- year-olds. If we assume the same


number of 16-year-olds manage to make it on to the register, that


would mean a total electorate of just over 4 million, of which


88,682 would be 16 and 17-year-olds, an increase of 2.2% of the


electorate. Range could go from 2.2% to 2.7% but either way, that's


not a significant number. Even if we assume that those voters


are more in favour of yes vote, there is no firm evidence for that.


Even if you seen their tent 0.4 times likely to vote for


independence than anybody else, maybe too 0.5% of the votes will be


cast by 16 rolls and 17 year-olds, even if you make that assumption,


you have to get 49.75 % of people over 18 to vote Yes before it will


make a difference. The probability that this could is actually going


to make a difference to the outcome was very unlikely. Frankly, this is


a relatively academic question. What about the poor to have been


interpreting recently, what are they indicating?


If you take all of the opinion polls that have been conducted


since May of this year, which in some way or another have asked


people how they would vote in the referendum and take out the don't


knows and the moment says and look at what these polls are pointing to


in terms of the referendum result. In the terms of the most recent


polls, there are 37% yes and 62% know. As you can see from the


graphic, since last year, there has actually been something of a


slippage in the support for yes. The polls conducted between May and


December last year, we had 41% in favour of yes. But slipped to 40 in


the first four months of this year and now it is down to 37%. It is a


3-2 split at the moment, were the Yes side is moving its -- are


losing ground. Do what about funding issues?


In his consultation paper published back in January, the Scottish


Government was proposing very tight funding limits. For example, the


amount of money the official campaigns can spend will be less


than half the amount of money the parties can spend on appalling


campaign. They were also suggesting that any party that was inside the


Scottish Parliament, irrespective of its size, should be treated


equally, which means the Greens should spend as much as the SNP. It


looks as if what we're hearing this morning, that line may not be held


and that the agreement will say something like, the Electoral


Commission will give advice as to what should happen. What we know


from the Electoral Commission's response to the Scots Government's


consultation in January, they think their limit should be much higher.


�1.5 million or official organisations. The SNP is concerns


that the higher the spending level, the more a foundation set will be


to the union side. What about public funding?


Nobody has mentioned this yet. Usually end referendum campaigns in


the UK, the official yes and no side of the referendum is given a


Mounties of public funding to put forward their arguments. The SNP


said they should not happen. The UK Government for silent on the issue.


The Electoral Commission says it will happen. We need to make sure


that the problem that arose in Wales, that nobody applied to be


the official no campaigns are no public funding could happening,


that needs to be resolved. Well taxpayers' money be spent on


promoting independence are proposing independence, will be


wait to see. Tabloid newspaper headlines will be written anyway!


Who will foot the bill? We will discover tomorrow that the


funding for this referendum, the cost of running it, the cost of


trying to enfranchise 16.17 euros rules and any public funding is


going to fall within the Scottish block.


The role of the Electoral Commission in the question. Do if


we could afford to the standard procedure in UK elections, then


Electoral Commission will test the question that the SNP have already


put forward and they will come back with advice to what the question


should be. The Scottish Parliament will not be


required to follow that advice, but usually, they should do, but there


is one case the UK Government refuse to accept the commission's


device. Be set a dangerous precedent, but hopefully they will


follow what usually happens, which has told the Electoral Commission's


advice. Thank you.


So you've heard from the politicians, the campaign groups,


the academics and some political commentators. But what about the


most powerful group - you, the electorate? We've been to the north,


south, east and west of Scotland to gather some opinions. It's an


unscientific sample of course, but good fuel for debate. I don't think


it's been very well discussed among the politicians and amongst the


normal everyday man in the street. This has been going on from time


immemorial. It is a good thing for people to


have the opportunity to decide, but there should be an option for devo


max as well. We should stay as we are. I will not be voting for it.


want independence, politically, but I do not want a border between me


in England. It should just be yes or no. Scotland should get more


powers. I would be quite happy with BS. I believe they should get more


or clout in what they decide, but as far as being independent from


the rest of the United Kingdom, and I don't think it is a feasible


thing. It needs to be done on a gradual basis. If you get more


powers in the election, you will end up being independent.


Well, where now for the supporters of a second question? Joining me in


the studio are Ben Thomson, Chairman of the think-tank Reform


Scotland and founding member of Devo Plus, and Martin Sime, the


Chief Executive of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations,


who has been advocating the need for a second question. Do you feel


you have been led up the garden path?


We're disappointed. The biggest problem the second question had is


that it would win hands down and would isolate the fundamentalist


camps of the essence no and it actually strikes a chord with


people and Scotland that they want to see more powers shorter the


depends. All four polling evidence suggested that this is the case.


Why have the politicians on this? It is back to being a purely


political referendum. We have a political fix that suits everyone.


Everybody else and you show this morning is very happy with the deal


was has been struck. But a significant portion of the


population will be disenfranchised. What to make about the SNP


consultation on independence, but it is not out yet. What you think


it will show? I think it also very wide range of


views. People have lots of different visions for the future of


Scotland. Everybody will welcome an opportunity to have that debate.


But the idea that there can only be one of two answers -- one of two


answers, everything having to be seen as a yes or no, strikes me as


being simplistic. A those who want more powers, will


they vote yes or no? I think the one good silver lining


and this is that we have stopped talking about process so much and


actually stopped -- started deliver the substance on both sides. Both


discovers Government have to set out what yes vote really means. We


talked about monetary union, Union of regulators, Union of the head of


state, all of these things will have to be worked out. They will be


unions in an independent state. The other three parties will have to


talk about moving beyond where a bed lackeys. The will of the people


may be mad. In those discussions, we are heading from both them some


to the centre, which is where we have always been.


Do you think it will be more attractive to people?


30% of people are fully supportive of independence, 30% just what the


status quo, the 40% and the Middle what more powers but do not want


full independence. The real question is, can each side provide


something in the middle that is acceptable and both sides are


trying to win that middle ground. That actually plays into the devo


max side, which is how do we get that into a middle ground.


Even if it does play into the devo max side, there's no word for it to


go, so Audi challenge this? That is the point. Each party will


have its own position going into the 2015 election, general election


on the future of devolution. But the time we get to the referendum,


we're going to have lots of different positioning from


different political parties. There is no script for taking devolution


for words in the kind of way which we have been talking of the last


nine months. The word you expect the boat to go?


I think it is an open question. Unfortunately, it has become a


binary question. Everything is to play for for the politicians. But


the idea of getting a substantial parts that the majority of people


and Scotstoun seem to want has receded.


I disagree with that. I think you can get there. I did the three


Unionist parties are already doing commissions. The report was


highlighted in the Sunday Times today. Labour have set up their own


devolution commission. That is also look at greater powers. And the


Prime Minister has talked about moving greater powers. So in terms


of getting to devo max, we can see the potential for all three


Unionist parties actually setting up something that is pretty close.


If any group is to have a mandate in this, how important is it that


it is absolutely explicit what they will argue for before the


referendum? We are setting out at paper this


week about how you reach that process. That will set out how it's


going to work. The three parties must come together and set out a


proposal that they can all signed up to. Calman has not been


delivered. --, has been delivered. There is a mechanism if parties


choose to do so. Carmen was quite a marginal advance


in devolution. What the three parties have uncommon in terms of


the common understanding in terms of where we might go from here is


actually very small indeed. Any consensus opposition from the


Better Together camp will be another marginal improvement. It


will not address real issues of tax, the economy and welfare, which


affect most of his people. If Ed Miliband stays ahead in the


polls for Westminster, what effect you think that could have?


I think it puts the onus on Labour to lead the Better Together


campaign. If there's the prospect of a Labour


Government in Westminster, does that change the dynamic in terms of


our people will vote? Potentially. This is not just about


fiscal powers. This is also about what is there and better under


welfare powers. And that ground is probably better portrayed by the


potential of the Labour Government in the UK. But there will not be a


Labour Government when this is actually determined, because in two


years time, a referendum will be under process.


Welfare is the pivotal issue here. Although the referendum will be


played out in the backdrop of the Ryder Cup, the Commonwealth Games,


food distribution is the fastest- growing bit of the voluntary sector


actually feeding people who cannot afford to pay their supermarket


bills. That is going to be a critical factor in the run-up to


the referendum itself. Thank you.


When the Scottish Government launched their referendum


consultation in January, the eyes of the world were on Edinburgh. And


no one is watching more closely now than the people of Catalonia. Our


political correspondent Niall O'Gallacher has been to Barcelona


This building has become an icon, a symbol known across the world as a


modern democracy. It is apres-ski outside the


Scottish Parliament building in Holyrood, you could almost be here


in Barcelona, but the people of Catalonia's are also deciding


whether independence is the best option for the future.


As they make that decision, all eyes are on Scotland. One


Barcelona-based newspaper has followed every step of the Scottish


debate and will watch tomorrow's meeting between David Cameron and


Alex Salmond with particular interest.


We think that the Scotland example, the agreement to the referendum,


for London and Edinburgh, that helps us. It is possible. We think,


at this point, that this is difficult.


That is because the post-Franco constitution calls upon the Armed


Forces to defend the unity of Spain. Despite that, a visitor to


Barcelona from another region with strong nationalist ambitions said


this was a question for Catalans alone. The main work is ours to do.


The future is ours to decide. That is that.


The Catalan Government agrees. They have said they will all the


referendum after elections in November, but one Scottish observer


said this could fall on deaf ears. The Spanish Government has a point


of principle has made clear that it will not entertain discussion on a


referendum. It considers a referendum to be unconstitutional


and it does not propose to permit one to happen. This is very


different from the United Kingdom case with the principle of the


Scottish Parliament legislated to have a referendum has the next --


has been accepted by the UK Government. Transpac referendums in


individual parts of Spain are not permitted.


You cannot, as convergence in union urging, and yell at the people


telling them they can hold a referendum because it is making


them a break the law. He must comply with the Basic Law, the


Supreme law of all Catalans and Spaniards, which is the Spanish


constitution. In the case of Scotland and England, it is


different from that Spain and that the Lord has not committed.


The Catalan President wants to negotiate, after it is six -- --


after, as expected, he went there majority in November. Catalonia's


look on at David Cameron's willingness to except a referendum.


Scotland has not so different to Catalonia in terms of the economy


and population. The editing and is very different from Spain. -- the


United Kingdom is very different from Spain. What David Cameron says


in Westminster, what the British Government is prepared to do, is


radically different from what is said in Madrid and what the Spanish


Government is prepared to do in Madrid.


From attack time perspective, the Scottish debate seems very


gentlemanly, very, derisive, British. With none of the post-


Civil War tensions. So at last we have a deal on the Scottish


referendum, we have two years to wait before we find out whether it


is seen most -- eagerness and nationalists in Barcelona that end


up paying homage to the United Kingdom.


What will be ripple effect of what is happening here be for the rest


of the UK? In power Edinburgh studio, Jim Gallagher, who was


heavily involved in the previous Scotland Bill and is now an adviser


to Labour. Thank you for coming in. If we look at the other parts of


the nick of time and, is what is happening here in Scotland driving


past -- driving call for constitutional change in other


parts of the UK? After look at Wales, the wells have been


adjusting their devolution settlement since they got it and


they have not finished yet. You will see some desire therefore


perhaps a reformulation of their fiscal system, or Tommy a knock on


the lines that Scotland once. Northern Ireland's marches to its


own tunes. In some ways, England is the most


interesting of all. Indeed, the English question is that the middle


of all this. The UK has the most lopsided at a symmetrical


territorial constitution of anywhere. We have devolution for


15% of the population, 85% of them have I unitary Government. That is


one of the constraints on designing the devolution settlement for


Scotland and Will Sach Northern Ireland, how did you fit in what


happened to England? England, although we see in polls and


surveys, there is a strong measure off discontent with Westminster,


that does not translate into regionalisation. It does not, it


does not translate into a regional political entity. There is an


argument that the present UK Government is pursuing, for


localism and decentralisation to cities and counties. What you are


not seeing is a movement for regional administration, and still


less resolve political set-up. That was killed by the vote in the


north-east. Let's look at what could be coming


out of the Mackay commission, which looks at Westminster voting and


public funding. The Mackay commission is not looking at


funding, it looks at the West Lothian question. How do you deal


with the fact that Scottish and Welsh -- Scottish and Welsh MPs can


vote on English issues when they cannot fault on the same issues for


Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland? This is likely to come up


with, as it were, a Westminster procedure will fixed for that


question, which we will see in one year or so. Nobody is looking at


money at the moment. They suppose that money must be


what is constantly the elephant in the room in terms of any of these


discussions. Off course, and the Scottish devolution issue, as you


have heard earlier on, to a principle about taxation. Taxation


raised straight into the question of, what degree of equity do you


want across the UK? Should be offered the same levels of service


game that should be all be able to enjoy the same public services for


the same tax, or to the lowest, to some degree, on the resources that


are are all on? That are within Scotland or within England almost


in one or so on? Finally, let me ask you that a paper written by the


Royal Society of Scotland, to which he contributed, just in terms of


your role they delayed a commission. This paper says that even


proponents of Devo Max acknowledge that it is a policy that will be


hard to sell to English voters, integrating its best to a growing


sense that devolution allows the Scots to have their cake and eat it.


If Labour argues for more powers, you cannot think you can square


that circle. The interesting question about how Scotland fits


into the UK, assuming that we're not talking about independence, the


question is, how many more powers Kenya have without some sort of


trade-off in your position in the United Kingdom? -- how many more


powers can you have? We have a parliament in Edinburgh and central


taxation funding most other public services, that is the central


taxation from Westminster, and we also have MPs in Westminster and we


have, and we are about to have, some tax powers of her own. How far


can you take that without making some adjustment to her


representation in Westminster, and how far do you take it without some


change to the funding system? Thank you very much.


Would you like to take a stab at what subject we will discuss in the


Our very own Mr Brian Taylor is in his emotional heartland of Dundee.


God's own City. A very closed the actual cradle of civilisation,


which is Paradise Park. Who has won these that was the


agents all have one and all must have prizes. The intriguing thing


is that there has been an agreement to settle and pursue the mandate


the Scottish Government has. Alex Salmond has the mandate to ask the


question about independence, no more, no less. David Cameron has


the legal power which is resolved to Westminster on to the devolution


Act of 1998. The Prime Minister is lending that power to Holyrood up


to end a 2014. That sits Alex Allen's timetable fine. This is


providing There is a question purely about independence and not


about Devo Max. There is a trade- off. There are two things to this


that unimportant. First of all that it makes the referendum will


legally watertight. This is significant because it means the


referendum is undoubtedly on and cannot be challenged in the court.


These two leaders are now agreeing, agreeing the rules and regulations


for this referendum. That means implicitly and almost explicitly


that they are agreeing to accept and respect the outcome. Whatever


that may be. Just casting really far ahead so we


can see the much bigger picture, if there is an yes vote, can this be


turned around S SNP lose the Holyrood election in 2016?


suppose it could, technically, all things are possible. If there is


Agius Ford, the people of Scotland are -- if the people of Scotland


demonstrate that they want to be independent, it would really take


refuge him out of Masha Nations and Machiavellian manoeuvring to


prevent that. The significance of David Cameron's endorsement of this


tomorrow and of the other members of the United Kingdom coalition of


Dawson that model is that they accept that that is the case. They


are prepared to put this to the test because they have agreed the


rules and rent -- rules and regulations for the referendum and


have agreed to go with Alex Salmond to the letter commission with the


wording of the question. Both sides are seeing Cobby have at least the


way this will happen and we will not do this by a dispute or by I


knew little declaration. We're doing this by agreement. That means


that they grief. It is important that they respect the outcome. We


had the report from Catalonia and from Spain, this assertion -- the


Spanish foreign minister is often quoted as saying that Spain and


other European countries will take no part whatsoever in the decisions


of member states leaving the UK. What we do not quote usually is the


second part, saying that it is provided that those two parties


have agreed. Tomorrow is that agreement.


What do you think is the effect of not having a second question?


difficulty with the second question is that it would be relatively


nebulous but that there is no political organisation, no party


and no Government, referendums are not just to be a plebiscite, they


are the people offering an opinion on something been proposed back


Government. No Government is backing Devo Max, not Westminster


and not the Scottish Government who favour independence. Therefore, the


problem with it would be that yes, you could cast around the opinion


of the people, but who would be mandated, mandated to act?


Referendum on independence produces a mandate for the Scottish


Government to negotiate with the UK Government to produce that


independence should there be yes vote. On the other hand, produces a


mandate to continue with the union Politics has always more wide-


ranging than the politicians would want.


Thank you. You can read more analysis from


Brian on his correspondent's page, bbc.co.uk/briantaylor.


Political magazine presented by Andrew Neil and Isabel Fraser.

Download Subtitles