21/10/2012 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Isabel Fraser with the latest political news, interviews and debate including Home Secretary Theresa May on the plans for new Police and Crime Commissioners.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics. After another shambolic


week for the Government, it is fight back time. Their chosen turf


- crimes. Ortis surprise! The Prime Minister is about to get tough on


criminals and the elections for new police and crime commissioners are


just three wicks away. We will talk to Theresa May about all of that.


And about her decision not extradite Gary McKinnon to the


United States. And with tougher regulation of the


press, could that be good news for celebrities who abuse their fame?


In light of the Jimmy Savile affair, Rupert Murdoch argues that point.


But then he would, wouldn't he? We also talked to Neil Wallis.


And another week in the thick of it for the Government. Andrew Mitchell


and the energy policy sat -- shambles has put a smile on


And on Sunday Politics Scotland: We'll be at the SNP conference


asking the First Minister, Alex Salmond, what yes to NATO but no to


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1700 seconds


We have a first class lead at the moment and he is dealing with the


issues very well indeed. A first- class Prime Minister. Home


Secretary, thank you for being with us this morning.


Now, the Jimmy Savile revelations have reignited the debate about the


prospect of stronger price regulation. The question - will


celebrities with secrets like Jimmy Savile be able to sleep more


soundly if the press is cowled? We will debate the issue more widely


but first, this. They are actors but the words are


from working journalists. This is a new play about the press by the


National Theatre of Scotland and the London Review of Books called


Inquirer, and, yes, there is a real-life scene -- a scene about


that real life Enquirer... Levison, what do we think will


happen? Look at Hillsborough! always said from the beginning I do


not want my report to end up on a dusty shelf! Earlier this year,


Lord Justice Leveson heard from a host of witnesses who said their


lives had been blighted by the media. He it just felt like such an


intrusion... To such a sense of invasion, and my husband said, no,


we have asked all of you to stay away. The editor said, we're going


to use it anyway. Lord Justice Leveson is de polishing his script


which will be published later in the year. One theory is he will


recommend a new press regulator with the force of the law behind it.


There is also a sense that the inquiry is already having an effect


on real Life newspaper offices. think you can see examples way you


might have expected there to have been more press coverage than there


was. I take the example of Gary Speed, the Welsh soccer captain.


You can have all kinds of speculation as to why he killed


himself so that may be an example. What about speculation on the front


pages now? For some, the story on Jimmy Savile is a warning of the


Government being too tough on the price. It has been said the likes


of Jimmy Savile will be further protected if we don't fight Cameron.


So the fear is the press will be too scared to probe celebrities


suspected of wrongdoing. The press is looking for any occasion where


it can put forward reasonably tighter examples in the public


interest. The cast and crew are going on tour to Belfast, but the


big question is, where is the media heading after all of this?


And Anne Diamond and former News of the World executive editor, Neil


Wallis, joined me to go head to Before we begin, I should point out


Neil Wallis is currently on police bail as part of the phone-hacking


investigation so we cannot pose any questions related to that


investigation. You can answer this, though. Why do you say regulation


of the press would be good news for the Jimmy Saviles of this world but


you never exposed this? I find that rather a fascinating question


because what you're saying is, it will be easier if we put more


restrictions on you. There are plenty of restrictions already in


this country and frankly, libel and privacy is a huge stick with which


the press can be beaten. The truth of the matter is, you take on


somebody like Jimmy Savile and you try to expose him, that is a big,


big calculation. So there is enough regulation already to inhibit


investigative journalism? I think bringing to be -- grinning Jimmy


Savile again after the Leveson Inquiry is a red herring. I do not


see anything wrong at all with the price being asked, now that they


have proved themselves of 25, 30, even more years of the inability to


suffer Gillett, the argument now is of some sort of statutory


regulation. -- inability to self regulate. Let's give it a go.


problem with bringing statute in, it is a bit like losing your


virginity. You know... You can only lose it wants. Once you let the


politicians get their hands on the Leeds of authority whose job it is


to hold legislative into account, they will get the press that they


want rather than the press they deserve. I find it interesting use


the word authority because that is what we have not had. If you are an


owner like Rupert Murdoch it has been about money and about the


desire to sell stories that sell newspapers. It has been about


profit. If you have been in your position where you have been quite


high up editorially, it is about power. Not about authority. What we


do need now is some sort of press which actually does have integrity.


You have had huge power, as Anne Diamond says, but you have been


interested in titillating gossip about celebrities rather than


uncovering real role going like Jimmy Savile. Sometimes. Lots of


times. No. Lots of times we have exposed a whole variety of very


unsavoury activities amongst politicians. Now, do you believe we


should about those sorts of politicians to decide the sort of


press we have? Just this week we have the Telegraph story about how


MPs of renting out their own flats to each other, then hiring flats at


the tax payer's expense. And who revealed that? The press revealed


that. Yes, and if you believe we have too much regulation, those


other kind of stories they will put in. They will put rules in place to


stop that coming out. I have worked in journalism and media all my


life... It hasn't stopped. It does a lot of investigative work.


didn't do the expenses scandal. They have done plenty of other very


good journalism. Yes, they have. The fundamental weakness of your


argument is you keep saying any sort of regulation that is not self


regulation, which, by the way, has not worked, is a form of gagging


the press. It doesn't have to mean that. If but the broadcasters did


hacking. The breasted hacking as well. But the point is, and you


know this well -- the press did hacking. It is still within the


bounds of statutory regulation. Has it worked? No, it has not. You were


angry at Sun when you published a photograph of Anne Diamond's son's


funeral for which you did not have permission. And then you argued it


was part of a cot death campaign. I think most people would argue it is


good you should not do that. This is an unfortunate example because


her memory of this and my memory, and I was involved in this heavily,


are simply different. It might be because of time but how she has


recalled what happened is very different from how I recalled it


but I do remember that the campaign we did together that she did with


Sun and talked about just a year ago as one of the highlights of her


career was that it was enormously effective. It was an example of


where the press can do real good but regulation would not have


stopped that either. I think we need tighter regulation. I think 20


years ago I would not have argued for statutory regulation but having


given experience that I and others have had, I think maybe now has


come the time. Let's try it and see. Do you think this is what Lord


Leveson will come out with? I have sat with him twice and it is plain


to me he had no sympathy whatsoever with the tabloid press. You have to


remember you regulate the tabloid, you regulate the entire print media.


We have done the argument. Do you think it will happen? Yes, I do.


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up on the


programme: The SNP goes for pragmatism on a


key conference vote. What is the wider fall-out from their no-to-


nuclear-yes-to-NATO decision? can now be certain the independence


referendum will take place in two years' time and the party is


desperate to win it. How did they get on at Conference? Join me later


to find out. We'll be speaking to the First


Minister live in Perth. And the Lib Dems come up with a new


Home Rule prospectus two days after the Edinburgh Agreement is signed.


And we'll be hearing from the DUP and Plaid Cymru on the potential


benefits or disadvantages for Stormont and Cardiff from our


devolution debate. The Scottish National Party leader,


Alex Salmond, has warned a No vote in the independence referendum will


secure nothing for Scotland. The First Minister was addressing his


Party Conference in Perth just days after signing a deal with the UK


Government to guarantee an independence referendum takes place


in the Autumn of 2014. Here's our political correspondent, Raymond


Buchanan. Time is ticking. There are 24


months ago. Scotland's constitutional destiny now has a


date. Autumn 2014 will see the independence question asked and


answered. And how this party uses that tie will be absolutely crucial.


Opinion polls suggest Scotland will go for a name to vote for


independence. This Conference has been all about seduction. Winning


over more voters. Forwards, perhaps, but first some reassurance and


persuasion. It Alex Salmond spent much of his speech appealing to


voters to back more powers of Holyrood if not full independence.


We know there are many of our fellow-citizens who remain to be


convinced about the merits of independence. But we also know


there is a majority for change in this country. The choice before us


is now clear. Scotland can vote no and secure nothing. Or we can vote


yes to get the platform we need. So we speak today to those millions of


our fellow citizens who say yes to Scotland before and will say yes to


Scotland, yes to progress once again. To help persuade them, he


contrasted his government's performance with that of the


coalition. Why on earth do we allow this bunch of incompetent and Lords


Moody's to be in positions of a authority over our country? -- Lord


snootys? And that has been one of the central picture. If you can


trust the Scottish Government to run health and education, why do


not tax and politics as well? contribute 9.6% of taxation but get


back 9.3%. More than �1,000 for every household in the country is


contributed. With access to our own resources, we can invest more,


borrow less to save for the future, protect services or a combination


of the three. We know he wants to borrow to spend on capital


expenditure product -- projects while protecting public services


and businesses. One thing they will not be investing in his atomic


weapons. The party restated its belief for a nuclear-3 Scotland.


But they backed membership of the NATO nuclear alliance. -- for a


nuclear-free Scotland. It is not enough to say you believe in


independence and then say you want to belong to NATO. As far as I am


concerned, it is hypocritical to say we should not have these


weapons but want to belong to NATO. How dare we say that! We are in


Scotland, we will be an independent country, we don't want Trident or


nuclear weapons, but as I've said before, if you want to go along to


we club that supports nuclear weapons. -- we want to go along.


The leadership's new NATO policy looked in trouble. The


reinforcements were sent in in the shape of Kenny MacAskill, the


Justice Secretary who freed the Lockerbie bomber. I am no US poster


And I am certainly no US lap dog. There's probably a few senators


still hunting me. But we have moved on from being a party of protest to


a party of power. I have marched for CND, I have protested against


Trident, I have demonstrated against the Iraq war. I am tired


margin. I want a seat for our government in the situations of


power. They are not there yet, though, but be in no doubt - the


hard sell has begun. Will Mr Salmond prove a suitably success


will salesman for the Yes campaign? We can cross live now to Perth,


where the First Minister joins us from Conference. Thank you for


talking to us this morning. Good morning, Isabel. I am speaking from


the National Geographic Society in Scotland. It is a fantastic place.


I did not know it was here. If you get a chance to visit, do come


along! Thank you for that. You know this morning a sizable number of


your supporters and ministers think you are a hypocrite and the SNP


leadership are hypocrites who sold out a dearly held principle to


chase boat. That must be a very uncomfortable place to be? -- to


chase votes. Not in the slightest. It was refreshing to see these


debates at Conference. The arguments were put and genuinely


held and there was a democratic discussion with a democratic result.


The result is in and I think the party is very comfortable with that,


as witness to the reception given to my speech yesterday when I said


exactly then what I have said to you now. But just to clarify the


position, you were saying there would be, in an independent


Scotland, and explicit ban on nuclear weapons being based on


Scottish territory. What does that mean for NATO's subs been allowed


access to Scottish territorial waters? Isabel, 25 out of the 28


member countries of NATO are non- nuclear members of the North


Atlantic treaty Organisation. There is nothing exceptional about the


status we want to aspire to for Scotland. We are going to remove


the Trident nuclear weapons from Scotland. The issue about the


waters, no country ever confirms the existence of nuclear weapons of


its warships. That is well known. It is an issue which all non-


nuclear countries have to face up to and they do the exactly the same


thing. So you will have no policy on nuclear weapons in Scottish


waters? No. We bomb-maker to constitutional provision double


rent Scotland having possession. -- we will make it a constitutional


provision. We will save about �250 million a vital Scottish


expenditure. It will be for the rest of the UK to decide whether it


wants to station these weapons elsewhere or make a much more


sensible decision, which would be to decommission them. And this is


the biggest, single biggest, step towards nuclear disarmament.


Certainly the people of Scotland can have and a bronze. I cannot


wish away US nuclear weapons but I can legislate a way Trident nuclear


weapons from Scotland. I am trying to establish how far you would be


compromised in this non-nuclear stance. Will you do nothing to


satisfy yourself as to whether NATO's sobs coming into Scottish


territorial waters have nuclear arms, or are you saying you will


allow other countries for reasons of safe haven or exercises or


manoeuvres, you will allow them? am saying we will begin the same


position as the other non-nuclear members of NATO. We will have the


same policy as the other countries because announcement of position is


just not done. So you will allow them in on exercises? I was just


explain the policy to you, that no country ever confirms or denies the


existence of nuclear warships. We will have the same position as


other countries in NATO. If this argument has unusual or strange


policy, however at -- Hull is it an unusual or strange policy for these


other countries? -- how is it? An agreement is that this is a


perfectly sensible policy which is practised by other countries. Other


countries, incidentally, which will do us Scotland will do have


according to the terms of the motion, which is that we have to


advocate all countries respect the agreements they have signed and a


nuclear Non-Proliferation. That will be Scott and campaigning


against nuclear weapons and removing weapons of mass to squat -


- must destruction. -- Scotland campaigning. You are unable to say


whether Scotland will do this or not and you say they will go along


with what other NATO countries have? Yes, in the same way as


Canada and Norway, and as you probably know, both these countries


have communicated very recently their strong opposition to nuclear


weapons in a very principled way, and that will be the exactly the


same position Scott and aspires to. We will get rid of Trident, weapons


of mass destruction, and we will do it for the economic and social


benefit for the Scottish people. That seems to be a very wise policy.


If we look at the relative fiscal balance between Scotland and the


rest of the UK, you said every Scot would be �500 better off after


independence. The fact of the matter is, we have this massive


fiscal deficit and we upped our eyes in debt. This is and �500 cash


I have set with the fiscally it stronger position you could invest


more, Baroness and say for the future and protect vital services.


It is a fact that Scotland's fiscal position in the last estimation in


2010 was 2.7 billion stronger than that of the UK. As First Minister


now I could do with �2.7 billion by the to borrow less or invest more


in the Scottish economy. You do not think this money has to go into


paying down the deficit? Well, I have explained we have to 0.7


billion with a range of choices, you could invest more, borrowed


less and save or you could protect vital Scottish public services or a


combination. What about the deficit? That would be in the


borrowing less aspects of that. We pay for the deficit in the fiscal


calculation. That is within the figures. This is statement of fact.


On the last estimation a Scotland was in a relatively stronger


position to the rest of the UK to the tune of 2.7 billion because we


paid 9.6% of the UK revenue and only receive 9.3% expenditure. That


is the equivalent of �500 for every man, woman and child in Scotland or


a �1,000 for every family. That would be deployed by investing more,


protecting public services or a combination of all of them. That


would give a Scottish government more fiscal flexibility than the UK


government says it possesses a prison moment. In terms of getting


the borrowing rates, getting the fiscal deficit down and securing a


good borrowing rate, if you're not paint and a deficit quickly the


argument is the market's thump you and you get a bad credit rating. In


Scotland on Sunday the Treasury's senior civil servant says an


independent Scotland would pay high interest rates than the UK as it


seeks to convince the world's investors it is a safe bet. Unless


you pay down the deficit quickly, you feed into this idea that you're


not a safe bet. No, I prefer the world where senior civil servants


did not act is mouthpieces for ministers. Scotland is in a


stronger fiscal position and the rest of the UK. People look at a


fiscal position and a look at the prospects for the future. A major


thing Scotland has relative to its size is a huge collateral of almost


$2 billion of the future estimations of the wealth of North


Sea oil and gas. Two trillion dollars, that's two trillion


dollars. It's a huge amount of collateral so the current stronger


fiscal balance and the collateral for the future we have secured


Scotland and effective credit rating. One of the agencies made a


point earlier that because the price of gas and oil is high, there


are uncertainties about fixing what would be a borrowing rate. Well,


the point is that the estimation, $100 real oil prices, lower than at


the prison moment going forward, two trillion dollars is a


reasonable estimate but if people look at collateral for the future,


why is that more important? Two trillion Clare Short for Scotland


is roughly 10 times the collateral the UK has a prison moment. If you


are talking about a stronger fiscal position and the collateral for the


future you're talking about an effective and promising position


for Scotland. Where Scotland ends up depends on the wisdom of the


policies were pursue and our case is the austerity policies of the UK


Government are not working, we eat capital investments in the economy


to push growth forward, economic growth will reinforce the fiscal


balance and reinforce the strength of the Scottish economy as well as


benefiting every family in Scotland. But another point is if you have a


currency union you cannot have too much divergence because the markets


will punish up. Well, we refer to the same point, I am yet to hear a


refutation of it, if you borrow the same, and reality 0.7 billion


better balance, you have flexibility of �2.7 billion. It


will be interesting to see what 2011 and 12 will be. It might be


greater. Let's see when the figures come out. Scotland will have a


range of flexibility that the UK Chancellor says he doesn't have


although my argument would be he should emphasise a per capita


investment into the economy to generate growth and future growth.


In terms of the fiscal pact, we see it as a one-way street but it would


be in Scotland's interests to have limits on borrowing and liability


in case a defaults in London. If a London bank fails we want


reassurances. We propose that having the sterling zone is


convenient and the right policy for Scotland and the productivity rates


and the things that matter about a currency zone, the productivity


position between the two countries, they are roughly aligned between


Scotland and England. They are basically the same. There is no


doubt there are advantages for both sides. The advantage for Scotland


is continuity and independence, the advantage for the rest of the UK is


while the revenues from Scottish oil and gas accrue to the Scottish


Exchequer, if Scotland is in a currency union the protection or


oil offers to the balance of payments, �30 billion, or would


accrue to the whole sterling area. Any event and government will bite


our hands off to have a sterling zone given that protection. It is


vital for the rest of the UK as well as being a matter of


convenience. It is the case that the levels are similar but what's


interesting is that not what's been punished in Europe. In Europe,


Major in discipline in spending patterns. But a fair point. The


underlying tension in the euro is the differences in divergence, 40%


between the heart of Germany and Greece. But what makes the euro


Up what's important is the Fiscal Commission the SNP have


commissioned which puts us to noble Moritz. Will operate in the best


interests of Scotland. It is going on for the referendum as the Yes


side is closing the gap. Alex Salmond, thank you for joining us


this morning. Now, over to London David Cameron it is to set out a


new approach to law and order promising the government will be


tough but intelligent the stock in a speech tomorrow he will reveal


plans to increase the use of payment by results for groups


hoping to rehabilitate offenders. Earlier, the Home Secretary said


another airier would-be gun crime. If you look at organised crime


gangs, one of the issues is there are middlemen who take firearms and


rent them out to criminals who use them. There isn't an offence for


somebody to possess a firearm with intent to supply it someone else.


It is right we introduced the offence because does supply and the


firearms are as guilty as the ones using it. Funerals are taking place


of those killed in Friday's car bombing in Lebanon. The attacking a


route is being blamed on Syria and there are calls for mass protests


today. Live to our correspondent in Beirut.


There are thousands of protesters and mourners in the heart of a


routes Square. Not just to mark the passing of the country's


intelligence chief who was killed in a car bomb but to protest


against the excesses of what they see as the Syrian regime in


Lebanese politics. Such a car bomb had not been seen here for four


years and many fear what is happening in Syria is being


replicated in Lebanon. There have been clashes on the streets between


pro and anti- Syrian factions and fear for many is the clashes will


return and Lebanon will get drawn into the politics of neigh being --


neighbouring Syria. A call for serious to get out of Lebanese


politics and to mourn the passing of a man he was anti- Syrian.


At least 10 people are reported to have been killed when a car bomb


exploded in at the Syrian capital Damascus. Syrian state media said


it happened outside a police station. It came as the President


was meeting the UN and Arab League envoy who has attempted to


negotiate a ceasefire. The former BBC director-general Greg Dyke has


criticised the corporation's handling of the allegations that


Sir Jimmy Savile abused children. He said the BBC was slow to realise


the seriousness of the standard. The BBC made too early mistakes,


the first statements about this were not strong enough and were not


saying this is a serious issue and needs to be examined. That was a


mistake. The second one was when they started saying the Newsnight


programme was not shown for editorial reasons, you needed to


explain what they were. Why to the editor of Newsnight decided this


was not a strong enough programme to be broadcast? I suspect he did


not think the evidence was strong enough but someone needs to say


that. Nobody did. That's all the news for now. More


news on BBC One at 6pm. Good afternoon. The deputy First


Minister Nicola Sturgeon will challenge the Chancellor this


afternoon to change tack on economic policy in an effort to


stimulate growth. Ms Sturgeon will make the call on the final day of


the SNP conference in Perth. Here's Laura Maxwell.


The Commonwealth Games village under construction in Glasgow.


Nicola Sturgeon will tell conference only more big projects


at this can put a halt to Scotland's rising unemployment


figures. She was a George Osborne must use his Autumn Statement to


pump money into capital projects like roads, and hospitals up to


offer the unemployed lights at the end of the tunnel. Critics claim


the government must claimed responsibility for the latest


jobless figures. Nicola Sturgeon will tell delegates ministers here


are doing everything possible within the constraints of


devolution. Scottish businesses are less likely to enter insolvency


than those in the rest of Britain - - according to new research. Data


released by Creditsafe said firms in Scotland have a 7 per cent


higher average credit rating than those in England and Wales.


The centenary of the death of a Greenock-born Antarctic explorer is


being remembered in Inverkip. Henry 'Birdie' Bowers died with Captain


Scott on their return from the South Pole in 1912. Sir Ranulph


Fiennes and Scott's grandson, Falcon, will meet at Kip Marina


this afternoon. Now let's take a look at the


weather forecast, here's Judith. weather forecast, here's Judith.


Good afternoon. A fine afternoon coming up for most of us, certainly


it is dry with lovely spells of sunshine across the country. We


still have patches of mist and fog in low-lying areas which may be


stubborn to clear. That the cloud across student with up rates of


rain later. -- outbreaks of clout across Shetland. Light wind with a


fresh southerly feel. That's the forecast. That's it for the moment.


No sooner had the Edinburgh Agreement been signed, sealed and


delivered, than the Liberal Democrats came out with their


blueprint for Scottish Home Rule, or in other words, more powers if


you vote No. But wasn't that what the pro-Unionist parties had just


agreed not to include in the referendum? Tim Reid reports from


Westminster. For the autumn colours have arrived


at Westminster and with the changing season, the very real


possibility of more constitutional upheaval. If the leaves change


colour here in two years' time, the political landscape may look very


different. With the referendum signed, we could be looking at the


beginning of the end of the United Kingdom. Going there well around


the bend... The former Olympic sprinter it so Ming Campbell has


raced ahead delivering an updated The federal UK Parliament would


retain control of the defence, foreign affairs and pensions. And


they say the West Lothian question is only answered by giving England


similar powers over their own affairs. They are proposing a


fairly modest and rather fiscally unstable package of tax devolution


and they are proposing to join up the dogs by a reinvigorated


emphasis on inter-governmental relations and co-ordination. This


would help but does not deal with the fact that you have not decided


to reopen the question of the division of powers, which is


clearly what the people of Scotland want. And how will voters react


given Lib Dem leadership argued against a second devo max question


on the ballot paper? Opponents say the argument is flawed. Westminster


would continue to pay the social security bills, which are twice the


revenues. Scotland and the Scottish Parliament would decide inheritance


tax, it at -- capital gains tax and that would leave Scotland has the


highest taxed part of the United Kingdom. When you look at all of


the powers, devo max, whatever, and realise that is contained within


independence but the things they want moved from Westminster to


Holyrood are not contained I think the 30% to have yet to make their


Welfare and defence would remain at Westminster and a written UK. --


constitution has been proposed. But since William Gladstone came up


with home rule there is still little backing for a federal system.


It makes me feel trying to impose regional assemblies on England is


not going to work. While Scottish Tories are not considering further


powers yet, Labour is aware of Scotland's apparent desire for


further devolution but it also opposed another devo max question


on the paper. They needed clear answer. That principle decides


everything else. Otherwise it will be confusing. Sir Ming Campbell's


proposals would alter her radically the proposal for the United Kingdom.


Of course, there are only worth the paper they're written on. With


Scotland votes no to independence, they will be the central plank of


the Lib Dem manifesto. Well, in our Edinburgh studio is


Sir Ming Campbell, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats and


member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Thank you for


talking to us today. How do you respond to the comments that what


your commission is proposing is roaring back on where the Lib Dems


have got to with the steel Commission, particularly in terms


of devolving and oil and gas revenues to Scotland? We made it


clear we wanted to put flesh on the bones of the traditional liberal


and Lib Dem policies of home rule all round. That is what we have


done. We have taken account of the changing circumstances since the


still Commission reported and we have produced what he described as


a blueprint. It is a rude towards federalism for the whole of the


United Kingdom recognising -- it is a route, recognising this is


sustainable and for Northern Ireland of Wales there is a similar


desire for the kind of control federalism would give over their


domestic arrangements. But England seems particularly resistant to any


sort of federal witch? You say that but you don't have to go very far


to meet Conservative backbenchers to say that if Scotland, Wales and


Northern Ireland are having much more domestic responsibility, then


why should people from these parts of the United Kingdom have the


right to vote on English education? It is not just the West Lothian


question, it is the West Belfast question and the West Wales


question. I have no doubt whatsoever there is a continuing


and increasing view in England but when it comes to domestic English


matters, these ought to be dealt with in a way which does not


involve those of us who represent constituencies outside of England


from determining policy. If we look at the sort of powers which could


have come to Scotland and that could come to Scotland and the role


and positioning of the Lib Dems in that, the Lib Dems could have given


a party political mandate to the second question. They could have


defined a proposition between something that attracts a great


deal of support. Not at all. The big issue is, are we going to be


independent? Are we going to, and I know the nationalists don't like


the word, are we going to separate ourselves from the rest of the


United Kingdom? That is an issue which lies right at the heart of


this debate and an issue which has to be resolved. Resolved it and in


a way that I will argue we should remain part of the United Kingdom,


and then you can have the kind of discussion which will question


implies. Is it devo max? Is it devotes like? Is it federalism?


That is the point at which you can have that discussion, and Lord


Tommy McAvoy is quite right that if these multiple choices have been


put in the referendum debate and in the ballot paper, which we will see


in two years' time, then they might well have obscured the central


issue, do we want to be separate or United? OK. You are also leader of


the UK delegation to NATO's parliamentary assembly. I wanted to


ask you about the SNP vote in that regard. What you think NATO's


response will be to this idea that an independent Scotland can be in


NATO but what have no nuclear weapons on Scottish soil? I have


actually brought the piece of paper with me so I could be entirely


accurate are more time going to save. Every four, five years NATO


creates what it calls a strategic concept, so it sets out its


objectives. In 2010, he NATO said it reconfirm satyr as long as there


are nuclear weapons in the world, and a -- and NATO will remain a


nuclear alliance. I understand people wholly opposed to nuclear


weapons. I respect their opinion. Like the Church of Scotland. I


respect those who say these weapons are immoral and we should have no


part of them. What I don't understand is that those who say


that is their position but then want to join an alliance which is a


nuclear alliance and will remain so as long as there are nuclear


weapons in the world according to its own objectives. What will the


NATO response be to this? They might regard this conversion with a


certain amount of reserve because I think I am correct in remembering


that when Mr Salmond was asked to comment on the steps being taken by


NATO to deal with the terrible, barbaric ethnic cleansing in Kosovo,


my recollection is that Mr Salmond described that as an act of


unparalleled for leave. -- unparalleled folly. Article 5 of


the North Atlantic treaty, which is the basis of NATO, says quite


expressly that an attack upon one is to be treated as an attack on


all members of NATO. Is the Scottish National Party willing to


accept that? They only have to accept it if it is UN-sanctioned as


well. That is what they say but what the treaty says, it doesn't


have any qualification about the UN sanctions and responsibilities or


even authority. It certainly says an attack upon one will be treated


as an attack upon all. It is something they will accept? If not,


you have to ask yourselves whether NATO would be willing to accept


their application of? As we have been hearing, there, reform is not


just a Scotland-England issue. The referendum is big news in


Scotland but it is also hitting the headlines in Wales. What does it


mean for us in Wales? Well, it is a big debate... The National


Assembly's First Minister says he would regret seeing Scotland leave


the union. He is worried Wales would be dominated by English MPs


at Westminster. Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru said they could have their


own referendum if they win the next two elections. But that might be


somewhere off. A reason poll but support for separating Wales at


just 7%. It is now up to him and this House to unite in a campaign


to maintain sustained and support the Union and keep McNeill and him


with us forever! I hope politicians of all parties will agree to share


platforms together. I have always wanted to share a platform with Ian


Paisley. Maybe I'll get my chance! Stormont appear to be staying out


of the debate at the moment. Gerry Adams once a date set on Irish


unity, saying the Scottish referendum puts a whole structure


of the UK are up for debate. We can now speak to Ian Paisley


Junior, who represents North Antrim for the Democratic Unionist Party.


And then signed as Thomas's constituency is in Mid and West


Wales. Here -- and then Simon Thomas. Does this mean the soaked -


- status quo for Wales is no longer an option? Last year, we won a


referendum hands out of other powers and we see now with the


Scottish independence referendum that the days of the current UK


government set out events in Ireland 90 years ago and that is at


an end. We have to rig a bigger the relationship between the


constituent parts of the UK. -- we Her we look forward to that debate


and we are having a debate which has taken Wales forward and take


different place but it is the same kind of debate. Let me ask you


about some of the practical repercussions for Northern Ireland.


Winner instalment we have agreement that the one corporation tax


devolved to Stormont. -- with the re-install mind. -- with a real


I take issue. The United Kingdom is only as strong as each component


part. -- I take this view. We share a land border with the -- with


another country that has the lowest tax. Those peculiarities have to be


adapted. If each is strong then we are together strong. I do not want


to be part of a wee Northern Ireland as I do not think people


want to be part of a wee Scotland or a wee Wales. We have the vision


and things have to be done differently in each area to make


the family work but a nation nonetheless of peoples that make us


strong and diverse. Do you think there is a problem in arguing your


case at the moment? No, and I will tell you why. And we get an amount


of money to out run of an island. Because of the legacy of 40 years


of terrorist violence, -- to run Northern Ireland. To do the similar


deal in Scotland would cost them multiples of billions of pounds


because their economy is so much stronger than ours, so wouldn't it


be worth their while? And Scotland would want to see corporation tax


reduced. We want to compete with a country that has the same land


border of corporation tax at 12%. The idea is to reduce the


corporation tax of hold of the United Kingdom so we can compete


across the borders with Europe and the world. Let me ask you where


Trident has got to with Wales. Some of the party members said


absolutely not. What is going on with that now? I stood with Labour


Party members outside Parliament last week to address a crowd


protesting Trident. The mood of Wales is very much against renewing


nuclear weapons. But more importantly, people are rusting why


we are spending billions on nuclear weapons at a time of austerity cuts.


-- people are asking fulls DUP they want to see -- people are asking


why. They want to see the end of nuclear weapons. This is really


about what the constituent parts of the UK should be now or in Europe,


a Western European type of defence capability and also within NATO. It


is clear the people of Wales and my constituency, an area which has


been mentioned for Dryden, are very much against. I do not the nuclear


weapons with gas and oil really mix. Will the DUP... I know you have


considered coming in for the referendum campaign for the better


to get the campaign, and where have you got on that now? I do not want


to be part of a country where one are part becomes foreigners and my


Scottish counterparts become foreign to me. My grandmother and


brother-in-law of Scottish. We have Will the DUP be coming in to


complain? What we have to do is have a debate which is framed in a


way that is respectful and, more importantly, addresses the issues


and so of being pejorative about people you do not actually like.


And I think this debate will affect my future and all our futures in


awe of the United Kingdom and we have all got the right to have a


voice. -- all of the United Kingdom. Scottish nationalists have invited


me to speak on this so why do -- so what I do not see why we would be


having a debate in this way. As the Unionist I want to maintain and


strengthen the Union. I can do it without being part of a platform


and do it as being a member of his kingdom and making that argument


but we hope we do not need to have What is in store for the next few


days as Westminster and Holyrood settled back to the grindstone


And for some analysis, I am joined this week by its Lord John McFall


and the former SNP treasurer Ian Blackford. Sorry for my


pronunciation. Thank you for coming If we look at the papers, all


looking at the SNP Conference and NATO. Where you stand on that?


think it is a very important position. We have to recognise the


obligations we will house an independent nation to work together


with our allies. A from Alex Salmond's speech, we have this idea


that this is the next stage in the home rule journey. We want people


to reflect on the kind of nation we would now like Scotland to be, so


he is trying to reach out so many people. Who has he got in mind?


think what yesterday showed is that democracy is alive and kicking and


the SNP itself and I think the iron grip Alex Salmond has has now


loosened and people saying, we do minute, what is this vision of


independence will signing up for? For example, we have others saying


one of the guarantees going into NATO would be to keep Trident, so


forget about Trident going to promote from elsewhere. I think the


SNP realises that now. They also realise in terms of their monetary


union in keeping the pound that they are not going to have the


fiscal independence they had before and their tax rates will vary. So


the reality is catching up at the SNP and Alex Salmond has opened the


door to add to be saying, we to minute, what does independence mean


We understand the practicalities of where we are, it's about how we


grow the economy in Scotland and present the aspiration we have to


present a better future and there is no question that remain the with


the pound is a decent way of doing that over the next few years. We


have to grow economically and productivity and we need to create


Scotland people want to invest in, whether domestic capital or


indigenous capital to turn the country around and get away from


austerity. To stay with the pound and the Bank of England is the


sensible thing to do at this time to stop realistically, how much


divergence can there be in fiscal policy and military policy in terms


of practical terms, how much divergence can it be? I am a member


of the economic affairs committee and we are in Scotland are looking


at the situation of the economy post referendum. We asked Alex


Salmond to meet us but he's too busy to come along on the issue.


Every time we've had a witness before us, I've asked of our fiscal


independence, how much will there be and unanimously people say if


they signed up to being a member of the Military Policy Committee, the


room for fiscal independence under an agreement is very very limited.


People are beginning to realise these issues. Alex has been good at


keeping the emotional temperature high but now we have two years to


the referendum it will have to be lowered. What kind of debate will


be heart over the next two years? The prospectus is in 2012 for the


SNP. It is starting to happen and the case was put clearly the stock


they have to be rules that have to be stuck to it in terms of what is


permissible under the arrangements will have the Bank of England but


the obligation we have is to show the people of Scotland we can


accelerate growth in Scotland to allow us to loosen the purse


strings. As a clear difference on policy and tuition fees and bus


passes and so on. How we pay for these things and how we shape the


debate is going to be an important one. I'm interested in how the


debate is shaped, the prospectus isn't out until autumn next year,


does it hang in the air or what you think filters through now? Had the


debate progress? The programme has been interesting with people from


different areas. The big issue facing us all is in a global world


of uncertainty, how do we shape the future and how do we preserve our


security individually and collectively? I can feel the debate


is now coming onto the stage and there will be wider questions asked


Andrew Neil and Isabel Fraser with the latest political news, interviews and debate including Home Secretary Theresa May on the Government's plans for new Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales.

Download Subtitles