12/01/2014 Sunday Politics Scotland

of political pundits, Helen Lewis, Jan and Ganesh and Nick Watt. They

will be tweeting faster than France or long scoots through Paris. Nick

Clegg sticks to his New Year resolution to sock it to the Tories,

the is how he described Tory plans for another 12 billion of cuts on

welfare after the next election. You cannot say, as the Conservatives

are, that we are all in it together and then say that the welfare will

not make any additional contributions from their taxes if

there is a Conservative government after 2015 in the ongoing effort to

balance the books. We are not even going to ask that very wealthy

people who have retired who have benefits, paid for by the

hard-pressed taxpayers, will make a sacrifice. The Conservatives appear

to be saying only the working age pork will be asked to make

additional sacrifices to fill the remaining buckle in the public

finances. Nick Legg eating up on the Tories

a, happens almost every day. I understand it is called aggressive

differentiation. Will it work for them? It has not for the past two

years. This began around the time of the AV referendum campaign, that is

what poisoned the relations between the parties. They have been trying

to differentiation since then, they are still at barely 10% in the

polls, Nick Clegg's personal ratings are horrendous, so I doubt they will

do much before the next election. It is interesting it has been combined

with aggressive flirtation with Ed Balls and the Labour Party. There

was always going to be some sort of rapprochement between them and the

Labour Party, it is in the Labour Party's interests, and it is intent

macro's interests, not to be defined as somebody who can only do deals

with the centre-right. A colleague of yours, Helen, told me there was

more talk behind closed doors in the Labour Party high command, they have

to think about winning the election in terms of being the largest party,

but not necessarily an overall majority. There is a feeling it was

foolish before the last election not to have any thought about what a

coalition might be, but the language has changed. Ed Miliband had said, I

cannot deal with this man, but now, I have to be prismatic, it is about

principles. Even Ed Balls. Nick Clegg had specifically said that Ed

Balls was the man in politics that he hated. He said that was just a

joke. Of course, it is about principles, not people! When Ed

Balls said those nice things about Nick Clegg, he said, I understood

the need to get a credible deficit reduction programme, although he

said Nick Clegg went too far. The thing about Nick Clegg, he feels

liberated, he bears the wounds from the early days of the coalition, and

maybe those winds will haunt him all the way to the general election. But

he feels liberated, he says, we will be the restraining influence on both

the Conservatives, who cannot insure that the recovery is fair, and the

Labour Party, that do not have economic red ability. He feels

relaxed, and that is why he is attacking the Tories and appearing

pretty relaxed. He could also be falling into a trap. The Tories

think what they suggesting on welfare cuts is possible. The more

he attacks it, the more Tories will say, if you gave us an overall

majority, he is the one it. He keeps taking these ostensibly on popular

positions and it only makes sense when you talk to them behind the

scenes, they are going after a tiny slice of the electorate, 20%, who

are open to the idea of voting Lib Dem, and their views are a bit more

left liberal than the bulk of the public. There is a perverse logic in

them aggressively targeting that section of voters. In the end, ten

macro's problem, if you do not like what this coalition has been doing,

you will not vote for somebody who was part of it, you will vote for

the Labour Party. The Tories are too nasty, Labour are to spendthrift,

Lib Dem, a quarter of their vote has gone to Labour, and that is what

could hand the largest party to Labour. That small number of voters,

soft Tory voters, the problem for the Liberal Democrats is, if you

fight, as they did, three general elections to the left of the Labour

Party, and at the end of the third, you find yourself in Colour Vision

with the Conservatives, you have a problem.

Chris Grayling is a busy man, he has had to deal with aid riot at HM

Prison Oakwood, barristers on strike and unhappy probation officers

taking industrial action. Prison works. It ensures that we are

protected from murderers, muggers and rapists. It makes many who are

tempted to commit crime think twice. Traditional Tory policy on criminal

justice and prisons has been tough talking and tough dealing. Not only

have they tended to think what they are offering is right, but have had

the feeling, you thinking what they thinking. But nearly two decades

after Michael Howard's message, his party, in Colour Vision government,

is finding prison has to work like everything else within today's

financial realities. The Justice Secretary for two years after the

election had previous in this field. Ken Clarke. Early on, he signalled a

change of direction. Just binding up more and more people for longer

without actively seeking to change them is, in my opinion, what you

would expect of Victorian England. The key to keeping people out of

prison now, it seems, is giving them in a job, on release. Ironically,

Ken Clarke was released from his job 15 months ago and replaced by Chris

Grayling. But here, within HM Prison Liverpool, Timpson has been working

since 2009 with chosen offenders to offer training and the chance of a

job. Before you ask, they do not teach them keep cutting in a

category B prison. The Academy is deliberately meant to look like a

company store, not a prison. It helps. You forget where you are at

times, it feels weird, going back to a wing at the end of the day. It is

different. A different atmosphere. That is why people like it. Timpson

have six academies in prisons, training prisoners inside, and

outside they offer jobs to ex-offenders, who make up 8% of

their staff. It has been hard work persuading some governors that such

cooperation can work. I have seen a dramatic change positively, working

with prisoners, particularly in the last five years. They understand now

what business's expectation is. Timpson do not just employ

offenders, but as one ex-prisoner released in February and now

managing his own store says, the point is many others will not employ

offenders at all. From what I have experienced, on one hand, you have

somebody with a criminal conviction, on the other, somebody who does not

have one, so it is a case of favouring those who have a clean

record. Anybody with a criminal conviction is passed to one side and

overlooked. That, amongst myriad other changes to prison and how we

deal with prisoners, is on the desk of the man at the top. Ever since

Chris Grayling became Secretary of State for Justice, he has wanted to

signal a change of direction of policy, and he is in a hurry to make

radical reforms across the board, from size and types of prisons to

probation services, reoffending rates, legal aid services, and there

has been opposition to that from groups who do not agree with him.

But what might actually shackle him is none of that. It is the fact that

he is in government with a party that does not always agree with him,

he has to abide by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights,

and in those famous words, there is no money left. We would like to go

further and faster. I would like him too, but we are where we are. If the

Liberal Democrats want to be wiped out at the next election based on

what they believe, that is fair enough. We accept there has to be

savings, but there are areas where we feel that there is ideological

driven policy-making going on, and privatising may not save any money

at all, and so does not make any sense. The question is, we'll all of

that means some of Chris Grayling's reforms need closer inspection?

Chris Grayling joins me now. Welcome. We have a lot to cover. If

you get your way, your own personal way, will be next Tory manifesto

promise to withdraw from the European Convention of human

rights? It will contain a promise for radical changes. We have to

curtail the role of the European court here, replace our human rights

act from the late 1990s, make our Supreme Court our Supreme Court,

they can be no question of decisions over riding it elsewhere, and we

have to have a situation where our laws contain a balance of rights and

responsibilities. People talk about knowing their rights, but they do

not accept they have responsible it is. This is what you said last

September, I want to see our Supreme Court being supreme again... That is

clear, but let's be honest, the Supreme Court cannot be supreme as

long as its decisions can be referred to the European Court in

Strasbourg. There is clearly an issue, that was raised recency --

recently. We have been working on a detailed reform plan, we will

publish that in the not too distant future. What we will set out is a

direction of travel for a new Conservative government that will

mean wholesale change in this area. You already tried to reform the

European Court, who had this declaration in 2012, do you accept

that the reform is off the table? There is still a process of reform,

but it is not going fast enough and not delivering the kind of change we

need. That is why we will bring forward a package that for the

different from that and will set a different direction of travel. We

are clear across the coalition, we have a different view from our

colleagues. You cannot be half pregnant on this, either our

decisions from our Supreme Court are subject to the European Cup or not,

in which case, we are not part of the European court. I hope you will

see from our proposals we have come up with a sensible strategy that

deals with this issue once and for all. Can we be part of the

Strasbourg court and yet our Supreme Court be supreme? That is by point,

we have to curtail the role of the court in the UK. I am clear that is

what we will seek to do. It is what we will do for this country. But

how? I am not going to announce the package of policies today, but we

will go into the next election with a clear strategy that will curtail

the role of the European Court of Human Rights in the UK. The

decisions have to be taken in Parliament in this country. Are you

sure that you have got your own side on this? Look at what the Attorney

General says. I would be asking Strasberg a

different question to that. If the best in class, he is saying is

enough is enough, actually somebody in Strasberg should be asking if

this has gone the way it should have done. I would love to see wholesale

reform in the court tomorrow, I'm not sure it is going to happen which

is why we are going to the election with a clear plan for this country.

Would you want that to be a red line in any coalition agreement? My

mission is to win the next election with a majority. But you have to say

where your red lines would be. We have been very clear it is an area

where we don't agree as parties, but in my view the public in this

country are overwhelmingly behind the Conservative party. 95

Conservative MPs have written to the Prime Minister, demanding he gives

the House of Commons the authority to veto any aspect of European Union

law. Are you one of the people who wanted to sign that letter but you

couldn't because you are minister? I haven't been asked to sign the

letter. We need a red card system for European law. I'm not convinced

my colleagues... I don't think it is realistic to have a situation where

one parliament can veto laws across the European Union. I understand the

concerns of my colleagues, but when we set out to renegotiate our

membership, we have got to deliver renegotiation and deliver a system

which is viable, and I'm not convinced we can have a situation

where one Parliament can prevent laws across the whole European

Union. So you wouldn't have signed this letter? I'm not sure it is the

right approach. I support the system I just talked about. Iain Duncan

Smith has suggested EU migrants coming to work in this country

should have to wait for two years before they qualify for welfare

benefits, do you agree? Yes, I think there should be an assumption that

before you can move from one country to another, before you can start to

take back from that country's social welfare system, you should have made

a contribution to it. I spent two and a half years working in Brussels

trying to get the European Commission to accept the need for

change. There is a groundswell of opinion out there which is behind

Iain Duncan Smith in what he is saying. I think we should push for a

clear system that says people should be able to move from one country to

get a job, but to move to another country to live off the state is not

acceptable. You are planning a new 2000 capacity mega prison and other

smaller presence which will be run by private firms. After what has

happened with G4S, why would you do that? No decision has been made

about whether it will be public or private. What do you think it will

be? I'm not sure yet. There is no clear correlation over public and

private prisons and whether there are problems or otherwise. Oakwood

is in its early stages, it has had teething problems at the start, but

the rate of disturbance there is only typical for an average prison

of its category. If you take an example of Parc prison in Wales, a

big private run prison, run by G4S, when it was first launched under the

last government it had teething problems of the same kind as Oakwood

and is now regarded as one of the best performing prisons. Why would

you give it to a private company then? We have only just got planning

permission for the so we will not be thinking about this for another few

years. Some of the companies who run prisons are under investigation with

dreadful track records. In the case of G4S, what we have experienced is

acceptable and they have not been able to go ahead with a number of

contracts they might have otherwise got. They are having to prove to the

Government they are fit to win contracts from the Government again.

They are having to pay compensation to the Government and the taxpayer.

What has happened is unacceptable. So why would you give them a 2000

capacity mega prison? Or anyone like them? It cannot be said that every

private company is bad. In addition to problems at Oakwood, you are

quite unique now in your position that you have managed to get the

barristers out on strike the first time since history began. What

happens if the bar refuses to do work at your new rates of legal aid

and the courts grind to a halt? I don't believe that will happen. When

the barristers came out on strike, three quarters of Crown Courts were

operating normally, 95% of magistrates courts were operating

normally. We are having to take difficult decisions across

government, I have no desire to cut back lately but we are spending over

?2 billion on legal aid at the back lately but we are spending over

moment at a time when budgets are becoming tougher. You issued

misleading figures about criminal barristers, you said that 25% of

them earn over ?100,000 per year but that is their turnover, including

VAT. 33% of that money goes on their expenses, they have to pay for their

own pensions and insurance. People are not getting wealthy out of doing

this work. I don't publish figures, our statisticians do, with caveats

in place explaining the situation. Where you have high-cost cases,

where we have taken the most difficult decisions, we have tried

hard in taking difficult decisions to focus the impact higher up the

income scale. But do you accept their take-home pay is not 100,000?

I accept they have to take out other costs, although some things like

travelling to the court, you and I and everyone else has to pay for

travelling to work. That is net of VAT. We have had a variety of

figures published, some are and some are not. Let's be clear, the gross

figures for fees from legal payments include 20% VAT. On a week when even

a cabinet minister can be fitted up by the police, don't we all need

well-financed legal aid? There is no chance that as a result

well-financed legal aid? There is no changes people will end up in court

unable to defend themselves. We have said in exceptional circumstances,

if you haven't got any money to pay, we will support you, but there is no

question of anyone ended up in court, facing a criminal charge,

where they haven't got a lawyer to defend them. Let's look at how so

many dangerous criminals have managed to avoid jail. Here are the

figures for 2012. Half the people for sexual assault found guilty, not

jailed. I thought you were meant to be tough on crime? Those figures

predate my time, but since 2010 the number of those people going to jail

has been increasing steadily. If you put the figures for 2010 on there,

you would see a significant change. We will never be in a position where

everybody who commits violence will end up in jail. The courts will

often decided to his more appropriate to give a community

sentence, but the trend is towards longer sentences and more people

going to jail. That maybe but it is even quite hard to get sent to jail

if you do these things a lot, again and again. In 2012 one criminal

avoided being sent to jail despite having more than 300 offences to his

name. 36,000 avoided going to jail despite 15 previous offences. That

is why we are taking steps to toughen up the system. Last autumn

we scrapped repeat cautions. You could find people getting dozens. As

of last autumn, we have scrapped repeat cautions. If you commit the

same offence twice within a two-year repeat cautions. If you commit the

period you will go to court. You still might end up not going to

jail. More and more people are going to jail. I cannot just magic another

34,000 prison places. You haven't got room to put bad people in jail?

The courts will take the decisions, and it is for them to take the

decisions and not me, that two men in a bar fight do not merit a jail

sentence. These figures contain a huge amount of offences from the

most minor of offences to the most despicable. Something is wrong if

you can commit 300 offences and still not end up in jail. That's

right, and we are taking steps so this cannot happen any more. Nick

Clegg said this morning you are going to make 12 billion of welfare

cuts on the back of this, he is right, isn't he? People on the

lowest incomes are often not paying tax at all, the rich... But these

cuts will fall disproportionately on average earners, correct? Let's look

at the proposal to limit housing benefit for under 25s. Until today,

after people have left school or college, the live for a time with

their parents. For some, that is not possible and we will have to take

that into account, but we have said there is a strong case for saying

you will not get housing benefit until you are some years down the

road and have properly established yourselves in work. And by

definition these people are on lower than average salaries. Give me a

case in which those on the higher tax band will contribute to the

cuts. We have already put in place tax changes so that the highest tax

rate is already higher than it was in every year of the last

government. The amount of tax... There is no more expected of the

rich. We will clearly look at future policy and work out how best to

distribute the tax burden in this country and it is not for me to

second-guess George Osborne's future plans, but we need to look at for

example housing benefit for the under 25s. Is it right for those who

are not working for the state to provide accommodation for them?

Thank you for being with us. All three major parties at

Westminster agree there's an urgent need to build more homes for

Britain's growing population. But how they get built, and where, looks

set to become a major battle ground in the run-up to the next general

election. Although 16% more house-builds were

started in 2012/13 than the previous year, the number actually completed

fell by 8% - the lowest level in peacetime since 1920. The Office for

National Statistics estimates that between now and 2021 we should

expect 220,000 new households to be created every year. At his party's

conference last autumn, Ed Miliband promised a Labour government would

massively increase house-building. I will have a clear aim but by the end

of the parliament, Britain will be building 200,000 homes per year,

more than at any time for a generation. That is how we make

Britain better than this. The Labour leader also says he'd give urban

councils a "right to grow" so rural neighbours can't block expansion and

force developers with unused land to use it or lose it. The Government

has been pursuing its own ideas, including loan guarantees for

developers and a new homes bonus to boost new house-building. But David

Cameron could have trouble keeping his supporters on side - this week

the senior backbencher Nadhim Zahawi criticised planning reforms for

causing "physical harm" to the countryside. Nick Clegg meanwhile

prefers a radical solution - brand new garden cities in the south east

of England. In a speech tomorrow, Labour's shadow housing minister

Emma Reynolds will give more details of how Labour would boost

house-building, and she joins me now. It is not the politicians to

blame, it is the lack of house-builders? We want a vibrant

building industry, and at the moment that industry is dominated by big

house-builders. I want to see a more diverse and competitive industry,

where self build plays a greater role. In France over 60% of new

homes are built by self builders, but small builders build more homes

as well. 25 years ago they were building two thirds of new homes,

now they are not building even a third of new homes. That's because

land policies have been so restrictive that it is only the big

companies who can afford to buy the land, so little land is being

released for house building. I agree, there are some fundamental

structural problems with the land market and that is why we have said

there doesn't just need to be tinkering around the edges, there

needs to be real reforms to make sure that small builders and self

build and custom-built have access to land. They are saying they have

problems with access to land and finance. At the end of the day it

will not be self, small builders who reach your target, it will be big

builders. I think it is pretty shameful that in Western Europe the

new houses built in the UK are smaller than our neighbours. But

isn't not the land problem? France is 2.8 times bigger in land mass and

we are and that is not a problem for them. There is a perception we are

going to build on the countryside, but not even 10% is on the

countryside. There is enough for us to have our golf courses. There is

enough other land for us to build on that is not golf courses. The

planning minister has said he wants to build our National Parks, I am

not suggesting that. The single biggest land border is the public

sector. It is not. There are great opportunities for releasing public

land, that is why I have been asking the government, they say they are

going to release and of public land for tens of thousands of new homes

to be built, but they say they are not monitoring how many houses are

being built on the site. When your leader says to landowners, housing

development owners, either use the land or lose it, in what way will

they lose it? Will you confiscated? This is about strengthening the hand

of local authorities, and they say to us that in some cases,

house-builders are sitting on land. In those cases, we would give the

power to local authorities to escalate fees. This would be the

compulsory purchase orders, a matter of last resort, and you would hope

that by strengthening the hand of local authorities, you could get the

house-builders to start building the homes that people want. Would you

compulsory purchase it? We would compulsory purchase it? We would

give the local authority as a last resort, after escalating the fees,

the possibility and flexible it is to use the compulsory purchase

orders to sell the land on to a house builder who wants to build

orders to sell the land on to a houses that we need. Can you name

one report that has come back in recent years that shows that

hoarding of land by house-builders is a major problem? The IMF, the

Conservative mayor of London and the Local Government Association are

telling us that there is a problem with land hoarding. Therefore, we

have said, where there is land with planning permission, and if plots

are being sat on... Boris Johnson says there are 180,000 plots in

London being sat on. We need to make sure the house-builders are building

the homes that young families need. They get planning permission and

sell it on to the developer. There is a whole degree of complicity, but

there is another problem before that. That is around transparency

about land options. There is agricultural land that

house-builders have land options on, and we do not know where that is.

Where there is a need for housing, and the biggest demand is in the

south-east of England, that is where many local authorities are most

reluctant to do it, will you in central government

reluctant to do it, will you in to the London exchequer. I do not

think anybody seriously believe George Osborne would have any

intention of handing it back to Scotland to finance the childcare

programme. You will maintain free personal care and prescriptions,

increase tax credits, these are a few of the things you have

promised, the money will have to go a long way? Be ?100 million as an

estimate of the initial costs of childcare which is covered by the

other changes we make in the White Paper. You seem to suggest there is

a long delay in these matters. Changes in the female participation

in the labour market can occur quickly. Over the last year there

has been a 3.5% rise. These changes can take place very quickly but our

point is that we will only get to that level of participation in the

Labour Party, which Sweden has already achieved, if we have the

childcare policies to back it up. This transformation we talk about in

an independent Scotland would keep that environment. It is a

tremendously positive discussion to have about the economic gain of

progressive policies. It is in terms of how you reach it with finance. If

the number of women working rose by 2% we would see a rise of ?200

million in income tax receipts, what salary is that based on? That model

talks about the benefits to the economy but you will also find in

the paper published today that for an average wage then the benefit in

terms not just of income tax but the range of taxes people in employment

peak, is very substantial indeed, about ?7,000. That is income tax,

national insurance, tax macro -- VAT, all the things people who are

not work not pay. If you take into account part-time as well as

full-time working the average gross salary falls to somewhere in the

region of ?17,000. There is a shortfall question --? . Their

quality in the Scottish economy works through a 6% charge. You are

basing that on an average wage of ?26,000, many do not earn that. Let

me complete the sentence. The first figure, the ?700 million we

published that paper today so that everyone can read and understand.

The second is an illustration that people don't just pay income tax but

national insurance and the range of other things. The ?700 million come

from the equilibria model of the Scottish economy. That is what

happens. With evidence for the last year, not a crystal ball or nickel

and be a model but what has actually happened in the Scottish economy,

60,000 more women are working, the vast majority of these extra jobs

are full-time, these changes can take place in a short period of

time. As soon as people are working they start paying tax, everybody

knows that. To reach that 700 million figure 104,000 extra women

would need to join the workforce, we did these jobs? 60,000 women have

joined the workforce, are now working from the year to October

last year. Which jobs well the game? 40 start, we showed the full extent

of the childcare policies, 30,000 people, women and workers will be

required to fully extend that policy but there is also the general effect

through the economy of having that extra participation. If 60,000 more

women are working in a year, in employment, not just joining the

labour force, it is not unreasonable to suggest that over the period of

five years we will have 100,000. 60,000 in void in one single view

has already happened so 100,000 good be done in five years. The second

part of the calculation published today is equally important. It is

now beyond doubt that if Scotland has its own exchequer we get the

benefits of that economic boost. The problem now, under devilish and that

fixed Budget arrangement, you cannot finance such a policy which is why

the Labour Party ended up with such a political disaster voting against

school meals. That is the difference between independence on the one hand

and revolution on the other. We have academics in support of the union

today. The say you cannot keep charging students from elsewhere in

the UK who keep studying here in the event of independence. Do you have

legal advice on this? This was set out in page 200 of the White Paper.

Everything in that is based on the advice we receive. Universities

Scotland published last April from Anderson Strathearn how you could go

around this providing an objective justification for the policy.

Everything in the White Paper is consistent with the advice we

received. We have advice from an independent body and it seems

strange that the better together campaign were not aware of that or

did not want to mention it. Just to be clear, the River President as

regards legal advice and the European Union, you have legal

advice on this specific issue? You do not confirm legal advice or the

existence of legal advice. Why is this issue different? Can I just

point out, you do not confirm the detail of legal advice or the

existence of legal advice but what you can say is that the White Paper

is consistent with any advice we received. That is what all

governments see. I am also pointing out it is already published from

universities Scotland advice that was published last year which sets

out resident requirement which could be done. The White Paper examines

this in page 200. That is the advantage of having published the

White Paper on independence. Very many thousands of people in Scotland

have taken the opportunity of reading it. Perhaps some of the

Better Together campaign might do that themselves. You've campaigned

for this issue but quite some time. I congratulate the Scottish

Government on what they've achieved so far. I do, and I welcome what

they've done this week will stop Alex Salmond and I have not always

seen eye to eye on this issue and I pleased that he is changed his mind.

Often, politicians get criticised when they conduct this kind of

change, but this is him making the right decision, so I want to thank

him for the extra childcare we will see. Secondly, there has been a big

focus on getting people back to work will stop the reason we want people

to do this is to give people the best start in life. Experts have

told us that if you can invest before the age of three in a child's

development, you can change their life chances for the rest of their

life. To extend this to more children as the government wants to

do, they say they need independence because they need the revenue

generated from taxation will stop a point out in this paper today that

under the act, women going into the labour market, the taxation would

not bow to them. 80% would go to Westminster. I welcome the detail of

what has been said today will stop it is a case for investing in

childcare and education. He set out the economics of spend to save and

that is something I welcome in this area. Actually, Scotland is lagging

behind England. He said it is lagging behind because he does not

have the finances to invest. Where will the money come from? It is not

about power, it is about money. That is why England is ahead with

two-year-old and three and four-year-olds. Alex Salmond has the

money, he has the investment he could make, but he has fallen

behind. So he has ?700 million that he is secreting somewhere? He is

saying the rest of the UK is travelling in a different direction

to Scotland. That is not a dividing line for the independence movement

though. We are travelling in the same direction. I actually think all

parties will be arguing for more childcare at the next action. If

that was not the case, you might have an didn't, but he doesn't. We

can all advance further. There is not a dividing line for

independence. We've actually invested more. Look at the evidence.

We don't agree with Lord Osborne 's approach -- George Osborne 's

approach. What we are are doing is the evidence so far is that, even in

top times, the Coalition Government has investigated -- has invested in

childcare. The evidence in Scotland is that it is lagging behind. We are

travelling in the same direction and that is a good ring. But in terms of

welfare reform generally, would you support more? I think Nick Clegg has

been clear on this. If you are going to more expenditure, we should start

at the top, not the bottom. We need to get the deficit under control and

we are getting big progress. So the benefit cuts have gone as far as

they should, as far you hope concerned? There will be more

changes, but you should start at the top, not the bottom. What with the

bedroom tax doing? Well, all the parties are in favour of change, but

when you do introduce reforms like this, you need to do it with actual

care and make sure you got the proper mitigation measures in place.

Thank you for joining us. The Labour MP Jim Murphy says the independence

referendum is not the antidote to what he calls the poison of

coalition policies from Westminster. In an article, he says quitting the

UK would be to abandon a safety net for Scotland. A spokesman for the

Conservatives said changes to welfare benefits are necessary.

The former Scottish Secretary's interventions stresses that the vote

should not be seen as a friend on the current UK Government or its

reform policies. He argues that at one level, the SNP's case would be

seductive if it wasn't so superficial. Their current taxi --

tactic is to add people to vote yes to say no to the bedroom tax and

David Cameron. That is not a reason to vote to leave the UK.

Jim Murphy joins me now in the studio. Your article ends with you

saying, why would we leave now when a fairer Scotland can still lie

ahead by smack is that an acceptance that errors -- that varies and

fairness in Scotland? My point is that Tory policies are a poison that

Scotland does not want to drink and does not have to drink. The antidote

to that poison isn't the referendum this year but the Labour government

in 2015. Why vote no? A Tory government can be gone within a

year. Independence is permanent, it is for ever. The MPs have tried a

discussion about economy, the currency, defence, and in most cases

they find it difficult to gain traction for their argument. So

they've retreated into, if you don't like the Tories, vote for

independence. It is ludicrous, desperate politics. Given what we've

seen in the last bit years, people seeing what they've called a

democratic deficit when there is a Tory government in Westminster, you

cannot give Arent you that that will not happen again if the current

system continues. This referendum is much more important than any general

election with ever faced. Governments come and go, this is for

ever. This is more important than the first election in January 1910,

more important than the general election post war in 1945. It is the

biggest decision ever taken in history in Scotland. To reduce it to

who hates the Tories most when they could be gone in a year is pretty

desperate and shallow. Let's say someone's objection is nuclear

weapons, for instance. How should they vote? Well, which party in 2015

has a different approach to nuclear weapons? The Labour Party would like

to see a world we of nuclear weapons. It is how you would

negotiate your way away from having nuclear weapons and towards a

nuclear free world. They would love that to happen through negotiations

with Obama and Putin. The contradiction is that ultimately,

what you are saying is you would confirm that I prefer a Conservative

Party in Westminster rather than a Labour Party running in Scotland.

That is ludicrous. My argument is, you cannot reduce the referendum

this year into a Punch and Judy show about the government next year. I

joined the Labour government because I hate Tory policy. This is not a

protest vote about the Tories, this is a permanent decision about the

nature and future of our country. As to your question about defeatism, as

you probably know, I'm a big football plan. Unless you are away

to Barcelona, you never plan for a draw or a defeat. David Cameron is

not lying or messy and I think we can avoid tanning for a draw or a

defeat. There is a general unfairness about the way the economy

is organised. I think Scotland wants to be rid of that type of politics.

But the answer to getting rid of Tory policies isn't to change your

passport, it is to change your government. The problem is that the

UK, it is the UK Government. If you want to get rid of the UK bedroom

tax, you don't have to get a separate army. If you want era

energy prices, you don't have to take the huge risk involved in

taking on a new policy and currency. When the SNP cannot even answer

which currency would be in your pocket, it is clearly an enormous

risk will stop should you share a platform with Conservatives to

campaign for the union? I will not be sharing a platform with David

Cameron during the referendum. Why is your party in bed with them in

the Better Together campaign? On this issue, we shouldn't pretend

that when we disagree about almost everything else we don't agree with

them on one issue. It is not a surprise that the Tories are for the

union. From different political traditions, we come to a similar

answer on how you vote in this referendum, but only on this one

issue. And if people vote no, should your party offer people more powers

for the parliament in Edinburgh as a result of that vote? I think the

Labour Party will come forward with those plans in advance of the

referendum. Gordon Brown was suggesting there should be further

demolition. Well, there will be further demolition. After that, we

have to look at further powers. This debate cannot be about which group

of politicians in which parliament in which city exercise powers. There

are people whose lives are in crisis at the moment, people are using food

banks and moneylenders. Those people who are coping will go head to the

summer and think, how can I afford a summer holiday? If this conversation

is just about which power is in parliament, it is going to be a

turgid time for many people. This is not just about power, it is about

political will. Thank you. I'm joined again by the First

Minister who's been listening to that interview. Is it the case that

you've been trying to characterise this referendum vote as a debate

between your party and the Tories at Westminster? Well, I don't know what

debate Jim Murphy has been watching, but if you see from the White

Paper, the argument underpinning the case for an independent Scotland is

the proposition that the best people to decide the future of this country

are people living and working in this country. That is the argument

that runs through the White Paper like a golden thread. Jim Murphy

seems to be unaware of that. The second idea is that Tory governments

are temporary interludes. For two thirds of my life, Scotland has been

governed by parties we did not elect at Westminster. They are not

temporary interludes, they have been the norm that two thirds of my

life. Which is why I suspect so many Labour people - Charles Gray, for

example - take the opposite view to Jim Murphy. They can see the

advantages of having a socially and economically progressive Scotland,

which is why they are voting yes. In 2010, 16% of the UK -- the Scottish

population voted conservative will stop --. Why are you writing them

off? I will repeat that the thread running through the White Paper is

the best people to decide on the fate of this country are the people

living and working in this country. I want everyone who has the right to

vote to vote for independence. I don't exclude anyone, on that

proposition. People living and working you will make the best

decisions. That is the argument for independence across the globe. Some

people in the Labour Party now extend that argument to other

countries where they think self-determination is really

important and valuable, but they don't extend it to be argument for

independence in Scotland. Like other countries, I think Scotland will be

better off running all of its own affairs. Jim Murphy got into

substantial trouble when a Labour government supported the illegal war

in Iraq will stop that is in the decision the people in Scotland will

not have supported and no Scottish government would have participated

in. Thank you for joining us. Let's now cross for the news. Good

afternoon. Pro union academics claim charging tuition fees to students

from the rest of the UK in an independent Scotland could break

European law. Current regulations prevent undergraduates from

countries outside the UK being charged fees from Scottish

universities. Independence would mean students from the south of the

border would also be eligible for free education. The first minister

said the policy was compatible with EU requirements. A man and the boy

have died after their car came off the road and plunged into the River

Clyde near Bob will bridge in Lanarkshire yesterday morning.

Divers located the car ran the people inside. A 38-year-old man and

a nine-year-old boy died at the scene. People are being urged to

complete bowel cancer screening tests which they will receive when

they turned 50 this year. They have to take part in screening every two

years and the plan is to improve survival rates by early detection.

Now for the early weather forecast with Judith. There is some rain in

the forecast later on but for most of us it will be dry with some

brightness this afternoon. The best sunshine reserve for Easter

Scotland. The rain will move into the West. As the rain marches in

across the country it will turn to snow, the forward edge of the rain

over the higher ground and central belt. That is all from now. Both

sides in the independence campaign have started the New Year

assertively. Now let's look at the headlines and what is coming up this

week. My guests this week are the Professor of economics at Glasgow

Caledonian University and political editor of the Scottish Daily Mail.

The front page of the Sunday Herald has Cameron's plea to put in saying

help to stop Salmond. This is a leak from the Kremlin that apparently

came out on Hogmanay suggesting a Cameron aid has warned independence

could send shock waves across the whole of Europe and enlisting the

help of land you put in, what you make of that? It is part of a

considered campaign to get other countries interested in the

referendum. David Cameron had a meeting with Spain to discuss it.

They are looking for their closest allies on this path towards the

restructure. This story has appeared because of the G8 this year. Cameron

has an interest in making the G8 countries aware of the potential

destructive nature of a yes vote. The Spanish Prime Minister has

something to say on this. Otherworldly doors do not want to

become involved and you can understand why. Listening to Jim

Murphy earlier saying it is not a protest vote, I think it is the

opportunity for a protest vote against the major economic

institutions that run our economy. Other countries are interested in

the opportunity the referendum provides us with for change. This is

bigger than just about Scotland. We will talk about another survey in

just a second but we will not expect Putin to have a grand pronouncement

in whether Scotland should or should not be independent? Now, of course

not. We will hear from more European leaders, EU leaders, in the next few

months. I know the SNP are trawling Europe for support. We will hear

more concern from other nations in the months ahead. We also have this

issue of tuition fees. That is in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper

today. An independent Scotland would not be able to charge those from

elsewhere in the UK as it currently does. The First Minister says this

is not the case and he believes he has legal advice which backs this

up, it is an interesting part of the debate? All last night I was talking

with friends over dinner about this very issue. Our education system is

inherently in equal and has been for many decades. We have widened access

but not participation, they are two very different things. I believe in

universalism and universal welfare provision but when it comes to our

higher education system it is time to revisit the introduction of fees

and means testing, I think it is fundamentally unfair. Fees for

everyone is a positive will -- possible alternative. David is a

potential for Scottish universities to lose out to the tune of ?150

million per year. This is typical of the SNP one thing to be a member of

DUP but not play with the rules. -- a member of the European Union. They

will find it offensive the fact they will let Irish, French and Spanish

students study for free but if you are English you will be charged.

There are different rules that can be brought to bear, some experts

say. Countries across Europe shared land borders, in Austria and Germany

the same debate is going on there. I do not think the SNP can get away

with this at all. There is survey in the Scotland on Sunday that says

almost half of the people elsewhere in the UK, this poll suggests that

the fear is that the rest of the UK would be weakened by Scottish

independence. This has not been touched on yet. What a yes vote

would mean for the rest of the UK in regards to the UN and other bodies.

This issue came up last night, people in the North of England are

supportive of Scottish independence because they think it revives a

radical framework for the departure of the past and past ways of

working. They would look for Scotland to provide that radical

framework and perhaps the bravery in Scotland to be more confident and do

things differently. I think we have the opportunity for a radical vision

and the childcare example is a great one. Transformational childcare is

key. What we have got at the moment is promises we are working towards

in an incremental way. Things cannot change overnight, we have issues

around capacity. The current government vision for childcare is

transformational and as an example of that radical way of thinking that

we can change things and make Scotland a better place for all of

us. Just to look at the week ahead we have the speech coming up from

the Scottish Secretary. We have had a big speech from Nicola Sturgeon in

recent days and it does feel as though things are really stepping up

a gear as regards this campaign. I think we will hear tomorrow about

more powers, that will be the theme of the unionist campaign in the

coming weeks. We heard from Gordon Brown yesterday talking about

further devolution. This is what we will hear more of in the coming

weeks. Is there a danger of people being turned off with too much

detail? Absolutely, the adverse serial nature needs to move on and

we need to talk about women in our communities, we need to talk deal.

That is all from us this week, goodbye.