:00:39. > :00:43.Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Politics. Up to 1 million
:00:44. > :00:49.public sector workers will strike this week. It is one of the biggest
:00:50. > :00:56.walk-out since 2010, the country's top trade union and the Business
:00:57. > :01:00.Minister go head-to-head. The Tour de France seems to have cheered him
:01:01. > :01:03.up. Just as well. Nick Clegg has nothing more to smile about. He
:01:04. > :01:09.joins me live from Sheffield to discuss the Lib Dem plight.
:01:10. > :01:13.Just over ten weeks until Scotland determines its future, the man
:01:14. > :01:18.leading the campaign against independence, Alistair Darling,
:01:19. > :01:22.joins me from Edinburgh. Coming up on Sunday Politics
:01:23. > :01:25.Scotland, an independent report commissioned by the Scottish
:01:26. > :01:26.Government recommends cutting taxes and overhauling regulation in the
:01:27. > :01:35.North Sea. journalists always ahead
:01:36. > :01:38.of the peleton - Nick Watt, They'll be tweeting faster than Tour
:01:39. > :01:52.de France cyclists can pedal. The news is dominated this morning
:01:53. > :01:55.by stories swirling around allegations of an historic
:01:56. > :01:58.Westminster paedophile ring. Concern has grown because
:01:59. > :02:00.of the disappearance of a dossier handed over to the Home Office in
:02:01. > :02:02.1983, along with over 100 official files related to it and possibly
:02:03. > :02:05.containing details of historic child Labour is calling for a public
:02:06. > :02:10.inquiry led by a child protection But speaking earlier on
:02:11. > :02:15.The Andrew Marr Show this morning the Education Secretary Michael Gove
:02:16. > :02:24.ruled that out. The most important thing that we
:02:25. > :02:29.need to do is ensure that the due process of law pursues those who may
:02:30. > :02:32.be guilty of individual crimes and we also learn lessons about what may
:02:33. > :02:35.or may not have gone wrong in the past, but it is also important to
:02:36. > :02:40.emphasise that many of the allegations that are being made are
:02:41. > :02:45.historic. And what we do now in order to keep children safer is
:02:46. > :02:49.better and stronger than was the case when 20 or 30 years ago.
:02:50. > :02:53.Without getting into a boring tit-for-tat, public inquiry, "yes"
:02:54. > :02:58.or "no"? No. Helen, can the Government go on resisting calls for
:02:59. > :03:01.a full-scale inquiry? It is very hard. There are cynical and
:03:02. > :03:06.non-cynical reasons for calling for an inquiry. The cynical one allows
:03:07. > :03:10.you to say I can't comment on this. The non-cynical is it manages to get
:03:11. > :03:14.people to air allegations in a way that is safe. What we saw at the
:03:15. > :03:18.Leveson Inquiry was helpful, people who felt they had been shut out from
:03:19. > :03:22.justice getting a chance to tell their side of the story. A public
:03:23. > :03:26.inquiry in this case is a good idea. Labour have called for a lot of
:03:27. > :03:32.public inquiries. A list was made in 2012 of how many they called for.
:03:33. > :03:36.Not only Savile, but the West Coast Main Line and breast implants. On
:03:37. > :03:39.this particular issue, the people don't trust the politicians, they
:03:40. > :03:43.don't trust the police either because they may have been complicit
:03:44. > :03:48.in a cover-up. They may not trust the Home Office who we are told some
:03:49. > :03:52.of their officials were mentioned in the dossier? That is what David
:03:53. > :03:56.Cameron is hanging on to. This is a matter now because they are alleged
:03:57. > :04:00.criminal activity, it is for the police to investigate. In that big
:04:01. > :04:04.piece in the Sunday Times, Tim Shipman reports one of the people
:04:05. > :04:06.making the allegations lives in the United States
:04:07. > :04:08.making the allegations lives in the been out to the United States to
:04:09. > :04:11.interview him. The Prime Minister would say that is how serious the
:04:12. > :04:16.police are taking it. The problem for the Prime Minister - he
:04:17. > :04:19.police are taking it. The problem allergic to big public inquiry. His
:04:20. > :04:22.finest moment was his response to the Bloody Sunday inquiry shortly
:04:23. > :04:35.inrequest -- that inquiry took 12 years to report. The problem is the
:04:36. > :04:41.dossier has gone missing, the files have gone missing, more allegations
:04:42. > :04:43.keep coming out either directly or indirectly. It doesn't look like it
:04:44. > :04:51.is going to go away? The fact the dossiers are missing means it is
:04:52. > :04:55.inappropriate for the Home Office to be investigating this. There is
:04:56. > :04:55.inappropriate for the Home Office to a police investigation. If after
:04:56. > :05:03.that, there are questions unanswered which can only be answered by
:05:04. > :05:03.that, there are questions unanswered public inquiry, or which require
:05:04. > :05:06.resources that can only be commanded by a public inquiry, I could see the
:05:07. > :05:12.case for going down that road. I fear that sometimes in this country
:05:13. > :05:17.we invest almost supernatural powers in what a public inquiry can do. I
:05:18. > :05:21.wonder whether there is another example of a country that goes
:05:22. > :05:25.through this stale ritual every few years of a scandal emerging, the
:05:26. > :05:28.opposition calling for an inquiry, the Government saying no and then
:05:29. > :05:32.holding the line or giving in. I don't know what we think this
:05:33. > :05:37.inquiries can do. It comes back to your point, Helen, you should be
:05:38. > :05:43.careful what you call an inquiry on so it doesn't devalue the concept.
:05:44. > :05:45.On Thursday up to a million public sector workers - including teachers,
:05:46. > :05:47.firemen and council workers - will go on strike.
:05:48. > :05:49.Their unions have differing gripes but the fact they're all striking
:05:50. > :05:51.on the same day is designed to send a strong message to the government.
:05:52. > :05:54.As the economy picks up again they're demanding an end
:05:55. > :06:00.Growth has returned strongly to the UK economy
:06:01. > :06:03.and unemployment is at its lowest level for more than five years.
:06:04. > :06:06.So why is there still talk of austerity
:06:07. > :06:11.The deficit is coming down but much more slowly than the government
:06:12. > :06:18.And accumulated deficits - the national debt -
:06:19. > :06:27.The UK is now in hock to the tune of ?1.3 trillion - and rising.
:06:28. > :06:30.In fact, we're only 40% of the way through George Osborne's planned
:06:31. > :06:33.austerity, with the chancellor now saying he won't manage to balance
:06:34. > :06:39.Unions are now rebelling against tight pay controls.
:06:40. > :06:43.Since 2010, average public sector pay, which goes to about 1 in 5
:06:44. > :06:50.Over the same period, prices increased by 16% -
:06:51. > :06:54.meaning the average public sector worker saw their pay squeezed
:06:55. > :07:01.Going head-to-head on the public sector strikes and austerity -
:07:02. > :07:04.the general secretary of the TUC Frances O'Grady, and Conservative
:07:05. > :07:24.We have seen it, public sector pay squeezed by 9% under the Coalition
:07:25. > :07:29.Government. Isn't it time to take your foot off the brake a bit? I
:07:30. > :07:34.don't think it is the right time to let go of the public finances at
:07:35. > :07:38.all. We were always clear that this is what's called a structural
:07:39. > :07:44.deficit, it doesn't go away just because the growth is returning and
:07:45. > :07:47.the economy is coming back. We have protected and are protecting the
:07:48. > :07:54.lowest paid public sector workers who weren't part of the pay freeze
:07:55. > :07:59.and now pay going up by 1%. These are difficult decisions. We have had
:08:00. > :08:04.that discussion many times. They are necessary in order to keep that plan
:08:05. > :08:08.on track and as we can see in the wider economy, it is working.
:08:09. > :08:13.People's living standards will have to continue to fall if you are in
:08:14. > :08:17.the public sector? We need to keep public spending under control and
:08:18. > :08:20.pay restraint is one of the main ways of being able... The answer is
:08:21. > :08:24.yes? The answer is this is necessary. The answer is yes, this
:08:25. > :08:27.is necessary. It isn't because we want to. We have to. This strike
:08:28. > :08:30.isn't going to change the Government's mind, is it? It does
:08:31. > :08:33.seem like the Government isn't listening. We have had years... They
:08:34. > :08:37.are listening, they just don't agree. Ordinary people, including
:08:38. > :08:41.those in the public sector, are finding it really tough. What really
:08:42. > :08:46.sticks in the throat is the idea that money can be found to give tax
:08:47. > :08:52.cuts to billionaires, to millionaires and to big
:08:53. > :08:58.corporations. But it can't be found to help 500,000 workers in local
:08:59. > :09:01.government, dinner ladies, school meal workers, lollipop men and women
:09:02. > :09:05.who are earning less than the living wage. What do you say to that? We
:09:06. > :09:08.have protected those who are the least well-paid in the public
:09:09. > :09:13.sector. But this is about a long-term... How can you? Hold on.
:09:14. > :09:16.You have said you have protected them. This involves ordinary people,
:09:17. > :09:24.many watching this programme, they have had a 1% pay rise in some cases
:09:25. > :09:30.since 2010. The average gas bill is up 57%, electric bill up 22%, food
:09:31. > :09:36.costs up 16%, running a car 11%, in what way have you protected people
:09:37. > :09:41.from spending they have to make? Firstly, you read out the average
:09:42. > :09:44.increases in public sector pay. That has had the biggest impact at the
:09:45. > :09:50.top end and those at the bottom end have been best protected, as best we
:09:51. > :09:53.could. Of course, we have also taken two million people out of income tax
:09:54. > :09:57.and increased the income tax threshold which has a big positive
:09:58. > :10:01.impact. We have frozen and then cut fuel duty, which would have been 20
:10:02. > :10:05.pence higher. I wanted to take on this point about priorities. We have
:10:06. > :10:10.got to make sure that we get the economy going at the same time and
:10:11. > :10:16.we raised more money from those at the top than we did before 2010,
:10:17. > :10:20.partly because we have encouraged them to invest. And this is a really
:10:21. > :10:25.important balance of making sure we get the books back in order, we have
:10:26. > :10:30.stability for family finances and we get the economy going. Why not
:10:31. > :10:34.spread the living wage? We know you could pay for that pay increase
:10:35. > :10:38.itself if you spread the living wage through the private sector and
:10:39. > :10:44.guarantee... The living wage being above the minimum wage? Absolutely.
:10:45. > :10:52.?7.65 in the rest of the country, ?8.80 in London. What is the answer?
:10:53. > :11:00.I'm a fan of the minimum wage. But not for public sector workers. Being
:11:01. > :11:02.able to pay low-paid workers as much as possible within the constraints
:11:03. > :11:05.of the public finances is something I have pushed very hard. The
:11:06. > :11:11.evidence we can increase the minimum wage has to be balanced which the
:11:12. > :11:18.Low Pay Commission do with the impact on the number of jobs... Even
:11:19. > :11:24.after a pay freeze for quite a while among public sector workers, they
:11:25. > :11:32.are still paid 15% on average more than those in the private sector?
:11:33. > :11:36.That is not true. It is, according to the ONS figures. I read that
:11:37. > :11:40.report this morning. If you look at the whole package, what they are
:11:41. > :11:49.saying is public service workers are worse off. Average earnings in the
:11:50. > :11:55.public sector are ?16.28 an hour compared to ?14.16 private. You are
:11:56. > :11:58.comparing apples and pears. It's the kind of jobs and the size of the
:11:59. > :12:04.workplace that people work in. They are still overall on average better
:12:05. > :12:09.off? Lower paid workers tend to be better off because unions negotiate
:12:10. > :12:17.better deals for lower paid workers. They are more unionised in the pry
:12:18. > :12:22.private sector. The public sector is worse off. This is a political
:12:23. > :12:25.strike, isn't it? There is a whole disparate range of reasons. The
:12:26. > :12:30.strike is saying that you are against this Government, that is
:12:31. > :12:34.what this is about? I this I what firefighters, local government
:12:35. > :12:37.workers and health workers who are protesting, too, alongside teachers
:12:38. > :12:41.are saying is that this Government is not listening, it is out of
:12:42. > :12:46.touch, people can't carry on having cuts in their living standards
:12:47. > :12:50.depending on benefits. When will the public sector worker ever get a real
:12:51. > :12:56.increase in their pay under a Conservative Government? Well, we
:12:57. > :13:01.certainly hope to have the books balanced by 2018. Not before then?
:13:02. > :13:07.2018 is when we hope to be able to be in surplus. It is testament...
:13:08. > :13:15.So, no real pay increase for public sector workers before 2018?
:13:16. > :13:19.Interestingly, this isn't just about the Conservatives and the Lib Dems,
:13:20. > :13:23.the Labour Party leadership have said it is a test of their
:13:24. > :13:27.credibility that they support the squeeze on public sector pay. I look
:13:28. > :13:30.forward to them, they ought to come out and say very clearly that these
:13:31. > :13:33.strikes are wrong and they are against the strikes and stop taking
:13:34. > :13:39.union money. It is a democratic right. Hold on. They are - they
:13:40. > :13:47.think the policy of pay restraint is necessary. Alright. On this point
:13:48. > :13:52.about democracy... Ask yourself why so many ordinary decent public
:13:53. > :13:59.service workers are so fed up. They have seen so many billions of pounds
:14:00. > :14:10.wasted through outsourcing to organisations like G4 S. In Unite
:14:11. > :14:17.and UNISON the turnout in this vote was under 20%. Alright. OK. One
:14:18. > :14:20.final question... Hold on. You said millions and millions voted on
:14:21. > :14:25.this... I want to ask you this question. Is the story in the Mail
:14:26. > :14:30.on Sunday today that Mr Cameron's planning a big crackdown on the
:14:31. > :14:35.unions over balloting, is that true? Well, strikes like this... I know
:14:36. > :14:39.the cases, is it true you are going to dhang the law? Strikes like this
:14:40. > :14:43.make that argument stronger. The Conservative Party is in Government
:14:44. > :14:45.on the basis of 23% of the electorate... We have run out of
:14:46. > :14:49.time. Thank you very much. "Should Scotland be
:14:50. > :14:52.an independent country?" That's the question the people of
:14:53. > :14:54.Scotland will answer in a referendum If the polls are to be believed,
:14:55. > :14:58.the voters will answer "no". But in 2011 - ten weeks before
:14:59. > :15:00.the Holyrood elections - the polls told us that Labour was going to win
:15:01. > :15:02.and look what happened there - a Alistair Darling is leading
:15:03. > :15:25.the campaign against independnence. is one that puts the matter of
:15:26. > :15:31.independence to bed for a generation. In numerical terms, what
:15:32. > :15:36.would that be? We need a decisive result in September, I think we will
:15:37. > :15:40.get that provided we get our arguments across in the next couple
:15:41. > :15:46.of months. What would it be in figures? I am not going to put a
:15:47. > :15:52.number on it. People will look at it and say, OK, you have had two and a
:15:53. > :15:58.half years of debate and Scotland has now decided. The polls may be
:15:59. > :16:01.encouraging at the moment but I am not complacent, there is still a
:16:02. > :16:07.long way to go. Speculating... If you don't want to answer that, that
:16:08. > :16:13.is fair enough. Your side claims that a vote for independence is a
:16:14. > :16:18.vote for massive uncertainty but if it is a no vote there is lots of
:16:19. > :16:22.uncertainty too. All of the Westminster parties are promising
:16:23. > :16:29.devolution but there is no timetable, no certainty. Yes, there
:16:30. > :16:31.is. For the first time I can remember, all three parties are more
:16:32. > :16:38.or less on the same page in terms of or less on the same page in terms of
:16:39. > :16:43.additional powers, we already have powers in terms of policing and
:16:44. > :16:48.transport, now more powers are planned in relation to tax and
:16:49. > :16:55.welfare. But you are all saying different things. Between 2009 and
:16:56. > :16:59.2012, the three parties have slightly different proposals but
:17:00. > :17:04.they came together and there was an agreed series of reforms in relation
:17:05. > :17:12.to tax which are now on the statute book. If you go back to the
:17:13. > :17:16.devolutionary settlement in 1998, people unified around a single
:17:17. > :17:20.proposition so there is history here and these three parties have
:17:21. > :17:25.delivered and they will deliver in the event of people saying we will
:17:26. > :17:30.stay part of the UK. If Scotland vote no to independence, when will
:17:31. > :17:33.Scotland get these extra powers? I would imagine that in the general
:17:34. > :17:39.election all three parties will have something in their manifesto and you
:17:40. > :17:43.would expect to see legislation in the session of Parliament that
:17:44. > :17:48.follows that. Imagining is not certainty. Because the three parties
:17:49. > :17:55.have said this is what they will do, and it is important having said that
:17:56. > :17:58.they stick to it. If you look in the past when the Nationalists said the
:17:59. > :18:06.same thing, when they cast doubt over what would happen in 2012, we
:18:07. > :18:09.delivered. The only party that walked out of both of these
:18:10. > :18:13.discussions were the Nationalists because they are not interested in
:18:14. > :18:17.more powers, they want a complete break. You cannot say that if
:18:18. > :18:23.Edinburgh gets more devolution that wouldn't mean fewer Scottish MPs in
:18:24. > :18:30.Westminster, can you? Nobody has any plans to reduce the number of MPs.
:18:31. > :18:36.If you step back from this moment, what people have been asked to do in
:18:37. > :18:41.September is to vote on the future of their country, Scotland, and
:18:42. > :18:44.whether we should be part of the UK. When I say part of the UK, full
:18:45. > :18:48.members of the UK with representation in the House of
:18:49. > :18:52.Commons and the institutions that affect our lives. This is a
:18:53. > :19:00.critically important vote. We want to see more decentralisation of
:19:01. > :19:05.power to Scotland, and to local authorities within Scotland, but we
:19:06. > :19:09.don't want a complete break with the uncertainties, the risks and the
:19:10. > :19:19.downright disadvantages that would throw Scotland's away if we were to
:19:20. > :19:28.make that break. The economic arguments are dominating people's
:19:29. > :19:41.thinking, the polls show, that is what is dominating at the moment.
:19:42. > :19:45.You cannot guarantee continued membership of the European Union
:19:46. > :19:52.given all the talk now about an in-out UK referendum. Firstly I
:19:53. > :19:56.don't think anyone has ever argued Scotland wouldn't get back in. The
:19:57. > :20:00.big question is the terms and conditions we would have to meet and
:20:01. > :20:05.we are applying to get into something that is established, it
:20:06. > :20:10.wouldn't be a negotiation. What we have said is there is no way Europe
:20:11. > :20:15.would let Scotland keep the rebate which Scotland has, there would be
:20:16. > :20:22.big questions over whether we have to join the euro, and other terms
:20:23. > :20:28.and conditions. The European Union does not act with any great speed,
:20:29. > :20:33.on average it takes eight and a half years to get into Europe. I don't
:20:34. > :20:38.want that uncertainty or the disadvantages that would come
:20:39. > :20:44.Scotland's away that come with losing clout in the European Union.
:20:45. > :20:48.The second point you asked me about is in relation to the UK's
:20:49. > :20:53.membership of the European Union, and if you look at polls, the
:20:54. > :21:04.majority of people still want to stay in the UK. Frankly, a lot of
:21:05. > :21:09.people on my side didn't make the argument against independence for a
:21:10. > :21:15.long time, we have been doing that over the last two and a half years
:21:16. > :21:20.and we are making progress and that is why I can say I think we will win
:21:21. > :21:23.provided we continue to get our arguments across. Similarly with the
:21:24. > :21:29.European Union, the case needs to be made because it is a powerful case.
:21:30. > :21:37.Isn't it true that the Nationalists win either way? They win if it is a
:21:38. > :21:46.yes vote, and they win if it is a no vote. They wanted devolution max so
:21:47. > :21:49.they win either way. There is a world of difference between
:21:50. > :21:55.devolution and further devolution where you remain part of the UK.
:21:56. > :21:59.There is a world of difference between that and making a break,
:22:00. > :22:04.where Scotland becomes a foreign country to the rest of the UK. You
:22:05. > :22:11.lose that security and those opportunities. You lose the same
:22:12. > :22:19.currency, the opportunity with pensions and so on. They are
:22:20. > :22:24.entitled to argue this case with passion, they want a break, but the
:22:25. > :22:30.two things are worlds apart. Gordon Brown said that the no campaign was
:22:31. > :22:34.too negative, have you adjusted to take that criticism into account?
:22:35. > :22:39.Ever since I launched this campaign over two years ago I said we would
:22:40. > :22:46.make a strong powerful case for remaining part of the UK. Look at
:22:47. > :22:51.our research, where we have had warnings from people to say that if
:22:52. > :22:56.we do well with research in Scotland we get more than our population
:22:57. > :23:01.share of the grand and we gain from that. There is a positive case but
:23:02. > :23:05.equally nobody will stop me from saying to the Nationalists, look at
:23:06. > :23:09.the assertions you make which are collapsing like skittles at the
:23:10. > :23:15.moment. Their assertions don't stand up. They assert that somehow milk
:23:16. > :23:19.and honey will be flowing. It is perfectly healthy within a
:23:20. > :23:27.referendum campaign to say that what you are saying simply isn't true.
:23:28. > :23:42.You have been negative, we all know about the so-called Cyber Nats book
:23:43. > :23:51.you compared Alex Salmond to the leader of North Korea. On! The
:23:52. > :23:57.context was that Alex Salmond was being asked why it was that UKIP had
:23:58. > :24:02.additional seat and he appeared to blame television being been doing
:24:03. > :24:11.from another country, from BBC South of the border. If you cannot have
:24:12. > :24:16.humour in a debate, heaven help us. I think it is important in this
:24:17. > :24:21.debate that people from outside politics should be allowed to have
:24:22. > :24:26.their say whatever side they are on because that will make for a far
:24:27. > :24:30.better, healthier debate. Nobody should be put in a state of fear and
:24:31. > :24:36.alarm by worrying about what will happen if they stand up. Despite the
:24:37. > :24:43.nastiness, more and more people are making a stand. We have run out of
:24:44. > :24:49.time. Thank you. I will be talking to the SNP's
:24:50. > :24:55.hippity leader, Nicola Sturgeon, next week on Sunday Politics.
:24:56. > :25:00.Scotland: For Richer or Poorer will be on BBC Two at 9pm tomorrow.
:25:01. > :25:06.Disastrous results in the European elections, it is fair to say the Lib
:25:07. > :25:11.Dems are down in the doldrums. In a moment I will be speaking to Nick
:25:12. > :25:26.Clegg, but first Emily has been asking what Lib Dems would say to
:25:27. > :25:35.the Prime -- Deputy Prime Minister on Call Clegg. Our phone in this
:25:36. > :25:38.week is the challenges facing the Liberal Democrats. They are rock
:25:39. > :25:44.bottom in the polls and have dire results in the local and European
:25:45. > :25:49.elections so what can the party do to turn things around? Get in
:25:50. > :25:55.touch, we are going straight to line one and Gareth. How much is a
:25:56. > :25:59.problem of that loss of local support? It is a massive problem
:26:00. > :26:03.because those are the building blocks of our success. The
:26:04. > :26:07.councillors who gets the case work done are also the people who go out
:26:08. > :26:13.councillors who gets the case work and deliver the leaflets and knock
:26:14. > :26:18.on doors. Interesting, and it is not just local support the party has
:26:19. > :26:22.lost, is it? In the next general election there are some big-name
:26:23. > :26:32.Liberal Democrat MPs standing down like Malcolm Bruce and Ming
:26:33. > :26:37.Campbell, how much of a problem will that be? That is a real challenge
:26:38. > :26:43.and we have some of our brightest and best reaching an age of maturity
:26:44. > :26:47.at the same moment so that is quite an additional test in what will be a
:26:48. > :26:52.difficult election anyway. So how does the party need to position
:26:53. > :26:59.itself to win back support? Let's go to Chris online free, has the party
:27:00. > :27:07.got its strategy right? There is always a danger of appearing to be a
:27:08. > :27:10.party that merely dilutes Labour or dilutes the Conservatives. We have a
:27:11. > :27:15.of is serious, positive messages and we need to get those across in the
:27:16. > :27:20.next election because if we don't people will vote for the Tories.
:27:21. > :27:26.Nick, what do you think of the party's message at the moment? I
:27:27. > :27:32.have had a look at early draft of our manifesto and there is some good
:27:33. > :27:37.stuff in there but the authors are probably too interested in what may
:27:38. > :27:42.think we have achieved in the last five years and not really focusing
:27:43. > :28:10.on what the voters will want to be hearing about the next five years.
:28:11. > :28:14.Perhaps they should get out more and test some of these messages on the
:28:15. > :28:18.doorstep. So you want to see the top ranks of the party on the doorstep.
:28:19. > :28:22.Gareth online one also wants to make a point about the manifesto. There
:28:23. > :28:27.is clearly a problem somewhere near the top and there are some people
:28:28. > :28:30.who seem to be obsessed with power for power's sake, and happy with a
:28:31. > :28:36.timid offer but the Liberal Democrats want to change things. We
:28:37. > :28:40.are running out of time so let's try to squeeze one more call in. What
:28:41. > :28:45.are your thoughts on the long-term future of the party? I think serious
:28:46. > :28:50.long-term danger is that the party could be relegated to the fringes of
:28:51. > :28:54.the UK and no longer being a national party. We have gone back
:28:55. > :28:57.decades if that happens because for many years we have been represented
:28:58. > :29:01.in every part of the country at some level and we have got to rescue
:29:02. > :29:05.ourselves from that. Some interesting views but we are going
:29:06. > :29:09.to have to wait until the general election next year to find out how
:29:10. > :29:14.well the Lib Dems face up to these challenges. Thanks for listening, we
:29:15. > :29:16.are going to finish with an old classic now.
:29:17. > :29:19.# I'm sorry, I'm sorry... #. Nick Clegg, welcome to the
:29:20. > :29:23.programme. I want to come onto your situation in a minute but as you
:29:24. > :29:26.will have seen in the papers, there is mounting concern over and
:29:27. > :29:28.historic Westminster paedophile ring, and files relating to it
:29:29. > :29:32.mysteriously disappearing. Why are you against a full public enquiry
:29:33. > :29:42.into this? I wouldn't rule anything out. I think we should do anything
:29:43. > :29:57.it takes to uncover this and achieve justice.
:29:58. > :30:02.delivered, even all these many years later. How do you do it? There is an
:30:03. > :30:06.inquiry in the Home Office about what's happened to these documents,
:30:07. > :30:09.serious questions need to be asked about what happened in the Home
:30:10. > :30:13.Office and those questions need to be answered. There are inquiries in
:30:14. > :30:18.the BBC, in the NHS and most importantly of all the police are
:30:19. > :30:23.looking into the places where this abuse was alleged to have taken
:30:24. > :30:29.place. All I would say is, let's make sure that justice is delivered,
:30:30. > :30:34.truth is uncovered and I think that the way to do that, as we have seen,
:30:35. > :30:38.is by allowing the police to get on with their work. You say that, but
:30:39. > :30:42.there are only seven police involved in this inquiry. There are 195
:30:43. > :30:46.involved in the hacking investigations. We can both agree
:30:47. > :30:51.that child abuse is more important and serious than hacking. The Home
:30:52. > :30:54.Office, there are reports that Home Office officials may have been
:30:55. > :31:00.mentioned in the dossier, people don't trust people to investigate
:31:01. > :31:04.themselves, Mr Clegg? No, I accept that we need to make sure that - and
:31:05. > :31:07.the police need to make sure that the police investigations are
:31:08. > :31:13.thorough, well resourced. I can't think of anything more horrendous, I
:31:14. > :31:16.can't, than powerful people organising themselves and worse
:31:17. > :31:20.still, this is what is alleged, covering up for each other to abuse
:31:21. > :31:24.the most vulnerable people in society's care - children. But at
:31:25. > :31:30.the end of the day, the only way you can get people in the dock, the only
:31:31. > :31:32.way you can get people charged, is by allowing the prosecuting
:31:33. > :31:38.authorities and the police to do their job. I have an open mind about
:31:39. > :31:42.what other inquiries take place. A number of other inquiries are taking
:31:43. > :31:45.place. I assume any additional inquiries wouldn't be able to second
:31:46. > :31:49.guess or look into the matters which the police are looking into already.
:31:50. > :31:52.All I would say is that people who have information, who want to
:31:53. > :31:55.provide information which they think is relevant to this, please get in
:31:56. > :32:00.touch with the police. Alright. Let's come on to our own inquiry
:32:01. > :32:04.into the state of the Lib Dems. You have attempted to distance yourself
:32:05. > :32:08.and the party from the Tories, but still stay in Government - it is
:32:09. > :32:14.called aggressive differentiation. Why isn't it working? It's not
:32:15. > :32:20.called aggressive differentiation. It is called "coalition". It is two
:32:21. > :32:22.parties who retain different identities, different values, have
:32:23. > :32:26.different aspirations for the future. But during this Parliament
:32:27. > :32:30.have come together because we were facing a unique national emergency
:32:31. > :32:34.back in 2010, the economy was teetering on the edge of a
:32:35. > :32:38.precipice. I'm immensely proud, notwithstanding our political
:32:39. > :32:40.challenges, which are real, I'm immensely proud that the Liberal
:32:41. > :32:43.Democrats, we stepped up to the plate, held our nerve and without
:32:44. > :32:46.the Liberal Democrats, there wouldn't now be that economic
:32:47. > :32:49.recovery which is helping many people across the country. Why
:32:50. > :32:57.aren't you getting any credit for it? Well, we won't get credit if we
:32:58. > :33:01.spend all our time staring at our navals. If it wasn't for the Liberal
:33:02. > :33:06.Democrats, there wouldn't be more jobs now available to people. They
:33:07. > :33:14.don't believe you, they are giving the Tories the credit for the
:33:15. > :33:18.recovery? Well, you might assert that, we will assert and I will
:33:19. > :33:23.shout it from the rooftops that if we had not created the stability by
:33:24. > :33:26.forming this Coalition Government and then hard-wired into the
:33:27. > :33:30.Government's plans, not only the gory job of fixing the public
:33:31. > :33:33.finances, but doing so much more fairly than would have been the
:33:34. > :33:36.case, if the Conservatives had been in Government on their own, they
:33:37. > :33:41.wouldn't have delivered these tax cuts. They wouldn't have delivered
:33:42. > :33:48.the triple lock guarantee for pensions or the pupil premium. OK.
:33:49. > :33:53.Why are you 8% in the polls? Well, because I think where we get our
:33:54. > :34:03.message across - and I am here in my own constituency - this is a
:34:04. > :34:09.constituency where I am a campaigning MP - we can dispel a lot
:34:10. > :34:12.of the information and say we have done a decent thing by going into
:34:13. > :34:16.Government and we have delivered big changes, big reforms which you can
:34:17. > :34:23.touch and see in your school, in your pensions, in your taxes and
:34:24. > :34:27.then people do support us and, in our areas of strength, we were
:34:28. > :34:30.winning against both the Conservative and Labour parties. It
:34:31. > :34:33.is a big effort. Of course, there are lots of people from both left
:34:34. > :34:37.and right who want to shout us down and want to vilify our role in
:34:38. > :34:42.Government. What we also need to do - and Nick Harvey was quite right -
:34:43. > :34:47.having been proud of our record of delivery, we also need to set out in
:34:48. > :34:53.our manifesto as we are and as we will our promise of more, of more
:34:54. > :35:01.support in schools. So why is it then... Why is it then that a Lib
:35:02. > :35:05.Dem MP in our own film says you are in danger of no longer becoming a
:35:06. > :35:07.National Party. That could be the Clegg legacy, you cease to be a
:35:08. > :35:11.National Party? are in danger of no longer being a
:35:12. > :35:16.National Party, that could be your legacy. I am a practical man and I
:35:17. > :35:21.believe passionately in what we have done in politics. I don't spend that
:35:22. > :35:28.much time speculating endlessly that the end might be nine. Let's get out
:35:29. > :35:31.there, which is what I do, which is what thousands of activists do, and
:35:32. > :35:34.say we are proud of what we have done, we've done a good thing for
:35:35. > :35:38.the country, we've delivered Maud Lib Dem policies than the party has
:35:39. > :35:43.ever dreamt of delivering before, and we have a programme of change,
:35:44. > :35:47.of reform, of liberal reform for the future which is very exciting. I
:35:48. > :35:52.have been setting out our plans of providing more help to carers, to
:35:53. > :35:57.making sure that teachers are properly qualified, that all
:35:58. > :36:00.children in schools are being taught a proper for curriculum. That part
:36:01. > :36:04.company from the ideological rigidity with which the
:36:05. > :36:09.Conservatives deal with education policy. Those are things which speak
:36:10. > :36:14.to the values of people who support us in the past and might do in the
:36:15. > :36:17.future. You say that but when another senior Lib Dem gets out and
:36:18. > :36:21.about, he told this programme two weeks ago that he finds that you,
:36:22. > :36:29.personally, are toxic on the doorstep! As everybody knows, being
:36:30. > :36:32.the leader of a party which, for the first time in its history, goes into
:36:33. > :36:36.government, which is already a controversial thing to do because
:36:37. > :36:41.you are governing -- of winning without erstwhile enemies, the
:36:42. > :36:45.Conservatives, and then doing the difficult and unpopular things to
:36:46. > :36:49.fix the broken economy, left to us by Labour, of course, as leader of
:36:50. > :36:52.that party, I get a lot of incoming fire. The right to say that I am
:36:53. > :36:57.stopping the Conservatives doing what they want. There is a good
:36:58. > :37:01.reason for that, they didn't wind the election. The left say that we
:37:02. > :37:13.have left our soul, when we haven't. That happens day in and day
:37:14. > :37:15.out. That will have some effect, but my answer is not to buckle to those
:37:16. > :37:18.criticisms, those misplaced criticisms, but to stand up proudly
:37:19. > :37:21.for what we have done and what we want to do in the future. Is it
:37:22. > :37:24.still your intention to fight the next election against and in out
:37:25. > :37:33.referendum on Europe unless there is a major change? Our position hasn't
:37:34. > :37:38.wavered. It won't. We will not flip flop on the issue of the referendum
:37:39. > :37:41.like the Conservatives do. We want and in out referendum, and we have
:37:42. > :37:47.legislated for the trigger when that happens. That is what we have said
:37:48. > :37:56.for many years. We have legislated for that. There is no change. We
:37:57. > :37:58.expect a reshuffle shortly, will you keep Vince Cable as Business
:37:59. > :38:03.Secretary all the way to the election? I am immensely proud of
:38:04. > :38:08.what he has done. Yes, I am absolutely intent on ticking sure
:38:09. > :38:13.that Vince Cable serves the government in his present capacity.
:38:14. > :38:16.Look what he has done on apprenticeships, industrial policy.
:38:17. > :38:21.He's done more than many people to make sure we build up manufacturing
:38:22. > :38:25.in the north, not just the south. We've have talked about some heavy
:38:26. > :38:30.things, let's finish on a lighter note. You got into kick boxing to
:38:31. > :38:39.get fit, is there any danger of you becoming a middle aged man in
:38:40. > :38:44.Lycra? Will the Tour de France influence you to become one?
:38:45. > :38:48.Absolutely not. Having seen the grant apart, the Tour de France
:38:49. > :38:53.start yesterday near Leeds, I have the yellow Yorkshire sign on my
:38:54. > :38:56.pullover, I am going to see them later whisked through my
:38:57. > :39:00.constituency, they are very impressive but I will not try to
:39:01. > :39:06.emulate them. To the relief of a grateful nation. Nick Clegg, thank
:39:07. > :39:09.you very much. Coming up to 11:40am, we say goodbye to viewers in
:39:10. > :39:15.Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.
:39:16. > :39:21.A commission of independent experts calls for an overhaul of tax
:39:22. > :39:28.and regulation systems for the North Sea oil and gas sector.
:39:29. > :39:31.Ryanair moves a third of its flights from Prestwick to Glasgow.
:39:32. > :39:32.We'll ask the Transport Minister Keith Brown what
:39:33. > :39:44.the future holds for the Ayrshire airport bought for ?1.
:39:45. > :39:49.I name this ship Queen Elisabeth. May God bless her and all who sail
:39:50. > :39:55.in her. HMS Queen Elizabeth,
:39:56. > :39:57.described as the jewel in the crown of UK defence, but questions remain
:39:58. > :40:03.over her deployment. The North Sea needs a new tax
:40:04. > :40:06.and regulation regime, An independent commission set up
:40:07. > :40:10.by the Scottish government is recommending "fundamental change"
:40:11. > :40:12.to encourage new investment The Scottish government promises
:40:13. > :40:16.a more stable tax regime if there's a yes vote in the
:40:17. > :40:19.independence referendum, but the UK government argues that it's better
:40:20. > :40:35.placed to support the industry. The commission, chaired by
:40:36. > :40:39.Campbell, is working on the bases there are around 24 billion barrels
:40:40. > :40:44.of oil store be -- to be extracted from the North Sea, and they see
:40:45. > :40:48.that as a major opportunity but one which the UK continental shelf is
:40:49. > :40:51.not as attractive in investment as it was. We are at a tipping point
:40:52. > :40:55.and there is part of the tax regime which would be appropriate going
:40:56. > :41:01.forward with some changes, but there are other parts where, if we will
:41:02. > :41:06.target accessing the more difficult oil and more expensive oil, we will
:41:07. > :41:10.have to modify and update the tax regime. To change that, they say
:41:11. > :41:14.government needs to work out a more stable, predictable and
:41:15. > :41:18.internationally competitive tax regime and they suggest lower taxes
:41:19. > :41:21.with a modified allowances could incentivise new development. The
:41:22. > :41:25.Scottish covenant has welcomed their report and promised a stable tax
:41:26. > :41:29.regime if Scotland becomes independent. If you are investing
:41:30. > :41:36.several billion dollars, then you want to know you're not going to be
:41:37. > :41:39.hit with sudden tax hikes. The tax regime in the UK has been
:41:40. > :41:46.characterised, I'm afraid, by a series of unheralded tax breaks,
:41:47. > :41:50.most recently by Danny Alexander in 2011, brought forward without any
:41:51. > :41:59.consultation whatsoever. That was a disaster. The UK Government argues
:42:00. > :42:00.that the industry's best supported within a large economy, less
:42:01. > :42:02.dependent on oil and gas revenues. Well, joining me now is
:42:03. > :42:05.the economist and journalist George Kerevan and, in London, Kiran Stacey
:42:06. > :42:16.who's a political correspondent One of the things I found very
:42:17. > :42:21.sobering is there has been talk about so much oil left, and
:42:22. > :42:25.investment at record levels, but what it says is that while it is
:42:26. > :42:34.true that investment is at record levels, exploration activity are at
:42:35. > :42:42.a record low, which kind of puts this into perspective, doesn't it? I
:42:43. > :42:45.don't think... The UK Treasury has treated this will industry as a
:42:46. > :42:51.piggy bank to squeeze out as much cash as much as possible. This is
:42:52. > :42:56.not a farmer working the field, squeezing the crops and destroying
:42:57. > :43:04.the fields, you need to think longer term. They want to get away from a
:43:05. > :43:07.policy of get as much tax revenue out as possible as quickly as
:43:08. > :43:12.possible to let's grow the industry, let's grow the jobs and
:43:13. > :43:18.technology and look longer term. If you do that, you'll get the money as
:43:19. > :43:22.well. That is a fundamental shift. The problem is the Scottish covenant
:43:23. > :43:25.have made so many promises about independence which are reliant on
:43:26. > :43:30.these oil revenues. The aggregate revenues over a number of years
:43:31. > :43:33.might increase if you could get the North Sea to go on longer but, in
:43:34. > :43:39.the short time, with these proposals, it would mean taking it
:43:40. > :43:45.on annual. It doesn't actually say cut taxes as such. It does,
:43:46. > :43:52.actually. Cutting the headline rate, right. The tax regime in the North
:43:53. > :44:00.Sea is fiendishly complicated. We are not getting into it! Do not do!
:44:01. > :44:07.I will not. Every new field has a new tax regime. The accountants
:44:08. > :44:10.cannot cope with it. What they are suggesting, the industry
:44:11. > :44:17.heavyweights, is let's simplify the whole thing. The overall tax take
:44:18. > :44:21.home will be the same. So, the headline rate might come down but
:44:22. > :44:27.there might be changes for different fields. So, they are not suggesting
:44:28. > :44:31.to cut the tax. What they want instability, knowing that when you
:44:32. > :44:35.wake up on budget day, they haven't changed the taxes so your whole
:44:36. > :44:40.business plan is out of the window, which is what has happened in the
:44:41. > :44:42.past. There is nothing, is there, that the UK Government would
:44:43. > :44:48.necessarily disagree with in this report. The fundamental point,
:44:49. > :44:53.taking the politics out of it is that the existing tax regime was
:44:54. > :44:57.developed when it was on the rise. It is now a declining area. And they
:44:58. > :45:02.want to maximise investment because it is higher cost to get things out,
:45:03. > :45:07.therefore you need a different tax regime. I think that's right. We
:45:08. > :45:11.have already had another review which has been accepted across the
:45:12. > :45:14.political divide which suggests something similar, they suggest
:45:15. > :45:19.there needs to be more collaboration both within the industry and between
:45:20. > :45:23.government and the industry to get more stability into the tax and
:45:24. > :45:30.regulation regime. It talks about a lot of collaboration, even after
:45:31. > :45:35.independence. What the industry has in mind is what happened in 2011,
:45:36. > :45:41.that you hinted at, which was caught Osborne mounting a 2 billion pound
:45:42. > :45:45.tax rate on the industry, which frightened a lot of people out
:45:46. > :45:50.there. It made people think again about what kind of regime they need
:45:51. > :45:55.to have. The facts are stark. The cost of developing oil have gone up
:45:56. > :45:59.five times over the last decade, but the review thought that if those
:46:00. > :46:04.proposals were carried out, it could mean an extra ?200 billion worth of
:46:05. > :46:10.oil and gas coming through into Scottish covers, or UK cough is, as
:46:11. > :46:13.a result of that. So this is pushing in the same direction, talking bout
:46:14. > :46:18.collaboration, stability of tax regime, talking about people having
:46:19. > :46:23.the time to plan because it is harder and harder and more and more
:46:24. > :46:27.expensive to get oil and gas out of the North Sea. You, presumably,
:46:28. > :46:31.would agree with that. Moffatt Campbell made the point that he
:46:32. > :46:36.would like this to be taken on board, irrespective of the
:46:37. > :46:40.referendum, said if it is no vote, he'd like the UK Government to say
:46:41. > :46:47.it is quite sensible and to have a look at it. This is common-sense.
:46:48. > :46:51.The question is will the politicians deliver North and South? I think
:46:52. > :46:58.what you might find from the Scottish Government is that it will
:46:59. > :47:06.take on board the proposal... That individual fields, with the license
:47:07. > :47:09.is provided to them, that is a commitment that the Scottish
:47:10. > :47:12.Government will have to consult if there are any changes. It is too
:47:13. > :47:17.easy for politicians to say they will consult, that has to be a legal
:47:18. > :47:25.basis. Written into the contract? Yes. Are you preventing the kind of
:47:26. > :47:31.tax grab that we were talking about? Consultation doesn't stop
:47:32. > :47:34.politicians changing the taxes but what you are committed to doing is
:47:35. > :47:39.having a formal period of consultation. If you do that, you
:47:40. > :47:43.create stability long-term. The problem is that it has happened time
:47:44. > :47:48.and time again, you wake up on the morning of the budget, and things
:47:49. > :47:52.have changed, and your entire investment strategy is dead in the
:47:53. > :47:57.water. Is there an elephant in the room here, which is that we all
:47:58. > :48:01.assumed... I am not getting your question, sorry. Is there an
:48:02. > :48:08.elephant in the room that oil prices would stay high, but with shale oil,
:48:09. > :48:12.shale gas, huge new reserves coming on stream, renewables and great
:48:13. > :48:15.efficiencies, the outlook for the North Sea might be more trouble than
:48:16. > :48:22.has been assumed? That is exactly right. The tax regime is beside the
:48:23. > :48:26.point. The reality is, as I mentioned before, it's hard and more
:48:27. > :48:30.expensive to get oil out, but it is cheaper and more profitable to get
:48:31. > :48:36.it out of other places, particularly in the States with the massive shale
:48:37. > :48:40.gas boom. That kind of development is driving down oil costs, so what
:48:41. > :48:43.the industry has to cope with is this situation where it is more
:48:44. > :48:47.expensive to get oil out, they are not getting as much money for it as
:48:48. > :48:52.they sell it on, and the tax regime is not that much to do with it,
:48:53. > :48:55.although it does generate certainty if the government can say over a
:48:56. > :48:59.long period of time this is what we will taxi. What these companies want
:49:00. > :49:03.is for the oil prices to be higher, and there's nothing that the
:49:04. > :49:05.government can about that. Thank you both.
:49:06. > :49:07.Last month, the Scottish Government outlined its multimillion pound
:49:08. > :49:09.investment plans for the recovery of Prestwick Airport.
:49:10. > :49:11.This week, the airport's only passenger carrier, Ryanair,
:49:12. > :49:13.announced new routes from Glasgow and Edinburgh airports with a
:49:14. > :49:17.What does this mean for the airport's commercial viability?
:49:18. > :49:24.Bought for ?1 and with an eye watering amount
:49:25. > :49:27.of excess baggage, the future of Prestwick Airport is a key concern
:49:28. > :49:40.The Scottish Government is making an investment in the airport. That
:49:41. > :49:44.investment will be in the form of loan funding, and we want a
:49:45. > :49:50.long-term return for taxpayer money. That investment is worth nearly
:49:51. > :49:53.?10 million on top of ?5.5 million The money will fund repairs and make
:49:54. > :49:56.improvements to the terminal, but there's concern fewer passengers
:49:57. > :50:11.will be passing through its doors as It is clearly serious reducing the
:50:12. > :50:17.number of flights and passenger movements. We are slightly
:50:18. > :50:23.disappointed that it did not support those at Prestwick airport but
:50:24. > :50:32.Ryanair will continue to have a role at Prestwick which is quite
:50:33. > :50:39.positive. The change will move brutes away from Prestwick bringing
:50:40. > :50:45.the number of Ryan near passengers down to 500,000 per year. The firm
:50:46. > :50:52.insists it is not backing away from your sure. We are in discussions
:50:53. > :50:57.with Prestwick airport and the Scottish Government. We have a large
:50:58. > :51:06.presence with over 300 staff employed at Prestwick airport. The
:51:07. > :51:13.passenger side seems to have taken a bit of a blow this week. Additional
:51:14. > :51:21.routes will attract more customers in an overcrowded market. I do
:51:22. > :51:21.believe there is enough business for everyone
:51:22. > :51:25.believe there is enough business for but at the end of the day the
:51:26. > :51:30.airlines will fly wherever they want, where they think they will
:51:31. > :51:31.make more money so the airlines will decide on their plans for the
:51:32. > :51:37.future. There is a growing focus on the main
:51:38. > :51:58.competitors in the central belt. There was a monopoly in the central
:51:59. > :52:04.belt but Ryan near enabled the first low-cost flights to come in to
:52:05. > :52:09.Stansted. Now that they are competing heavily you do not need
:52:10. > :52:15.that degree of competition so Prestwick which was a useful
:52:16. > :52:22.bargaining chip simply is not that relevant to the low-cost airlines
:52:23. > :52:28.today. Only half of the airport's current income is generated by
:52:29. > :52:40.passenger trade, the rest is dedicated to free it. It is a unique
:52:41. > :52:47.airport in the UK, it is fog free, it is linked to the real network. We
:52:48. > :53:02.are hopeful the is a sustainable future. -- rail network. Industry
:53:03. > :53:11.experts say unwanted delays should be expected. I am joined by the
:53:12. > :53:16.transport minister and a Conservative MP from Aberdeen. Isn't
:53:17. > :53:20.the sad reality that you might have been better at keeping your pound in
:53:21. > :53:26.your pocket and alarming Prestwick to close. As was being said their
:53:27. > :53:37.comedy does not seem a lot of point to it? There are 400 people directly
:53:38. > :53:43.in Clwyd and more than 3000 rely on it directly for their employment. In
:53:44. > :53:50.economic terms and aviation terms wouldn't it be better to move those
:53:51. > :54:01.jobs elsewhere. -- directly employed. Whether it is freed or
:54:02. > :54:06.aircraft repair, crucially in terms of passenger services the airlines
:54:07. > :54:15.will move around. We have to make sure the facilities are such that we
:54:16. > :54:20.can attract new flights in. Have you got any proposals? Are their any
:54:21. > :54:28.discussions going on to get new airlines to operate from Prestwick?
:54:29. > :54:33.There is a prospect. The fact that Ryanair have moved and are tripling
:54:34. > :54:40.the flights to Dublin rather than from Glasgow and Prestwick. Who are
:54:41. > :54:48.these airlines that are going to move in? EasyJet? You do not
:54:49. > :54:59.restrict yourself to one carrier. Name one. There is no restricted
:55:00. > :55:05.list, any of them. You can surely tell us who you are discussing
:55:06. > :55:12.with? That is up to the airport and the people in charge of marketing.
:55:13. > :55:16.It was losing between one and ?3 million per year, we are only in the
:55:17. > :55:25.first three months of taking over the airport. It is not making money,
:55:26. > :55:30.is it? Faced with the prospect of closure and the massive
:55:31. > :55:37.redundancies... So you do not actually, in response to why you did
:55:38. > :55:43.not close it and redeploy the people elsewhere, your answer is you are
:55:44. > :55:46.not sure. You are having unspecified negotiations with unspecified
:55:47. > :55:53.carriers who might do unspecified things that sometime in the future?
:55:54. > :55:57.That was not the answer. There are other services that go on at
:55:58. > :56:03.Prestwick, whether the fleet services, unique services such as
:56:04. > :56:13.the train service. We think there are real selling points for the
:56:14. > :56:18.airport. One of the reasons for not having publicly owned airports in
:56:19. > :56:32.the first place was because the airlines do more than ministers for
:56:33. > :56:37.them. The Conservatives keep saying there must be a proper business
:56:38. > :56:42.case, are you convinced there is one? I am not convinced the is one.
:56:43. > :56:50.They did the right thing by not allowing the airport to collapse
:56:51. > :56:54.overnight but the government is not taking the opportunity it has to go
:56:55. > :57:01.forward and do other things as a government to improve the prospects
:57:02. > :57:05.of Prestwick airport. I have been talking for years about the
:57:06. > :57:11.replacement for the group development fund. Prestwick could
:57:12. > :57:17.benefit enormously from one of those which supported the creation of new
:57:18. > :57:25.routes. Give us an example, Keith Brown could not, will you be more
:57:26. > :57:31.specific? Tell me an airline or the route that you could get into
:57:32. > :57:36.Prestwick. I cannot tell you the name of an airline that may be
:57:37. > :57:41.interested but in the past Prestwick found a niche as an airport on the
:57:42. > :57:48.extreme north-west of Europe that serve all airlines by refuelling
:57:49. > :57:52.aircraft crossed the Atlantic and after the arrived here. The Scottish
:57:53. > :57:57.Government is talking about bringing long-haul flights to Scotland in a
:57:58. > :58:03.way we have not done in the past. That could involve the use of
:58:04. > :58:10.extremely large passenger aircraft and Prestwick may be the place to
:58:11. > :58:17.land and take them off in Scotland. Perhaps I was wide off the mark with
:58:18. > :58:22.Korean airlines but he is suggesting they may well come? I did not say I
:58:23. > :58:30.could not give you an airline but I would not. It is sensitive matter
:58:31. > :58:37.shall activity. He is suggesting use the runway to do intercontinental
:58:38. > :58:42.flights that at the moment do not come into Scotland. Alex Salmond is
:58:43. > :58:49.keen on more links with China, would Prestwick be the place for that? It
:58:50. > :58:55.could be. We have to get the right package to these airlines. He knows
:58:56. > :58:58.it is outlawed by The European Commission and we have been
:58:59. > :59:06.successful at getting new routes into Lascaux, Edinburgh and Aberdeen
:59:07. > :59:11.by providing a package. We use that same expertise to attract new
:59:12. > :59:13.business into Prestwick as well as the vitally important freight and
:59:14. > :59:20.ground-based activities going on just now. I'd macro if the worst
:59:21. > :59:25.comes to it and Prestwick airport has to close, that whole operation
:59:26. > :59:29.could be moved somewhere else, could it not? Or it could stay at
:59:30. > :59:38.Prestwick even if it was not an airport? Our plan is to keep it as
:59:39. > :59:44.an airport. It is a long-term proposal. It is the long-term skill
:59:45. > :59:53.to get them back into the operation we would like to see. It will take
:59:54. > :59:58.some time to get this back. We will have to leave it there. Thank you
:59:59. > :00:10.both for joining us. Now let us cross for the news. Good afternoon.
:00:11. > :00:16.Oil and gas experts are recommending a new tax and regulation regime for
:00:17. > :00:25.the North Sea. There are calls for fundamental change to encourage
:00:26. > :00:31.funding. There are estimates that 24 billion barrels of oil are still to
:00:32. > :00:36.be extracted. We are at the tipping point. There are parts of the tax
:00:37. > :00:42.regime that could go forward with changes. If we are going to target
:00:43. > :00:48.accessing the more difficult oil we will have to modify and upgrade the
:00:49. > :00:53.tax regime. The Scottish Government has welcomed the report and promised
:00:54. > :01:01.a stable tax regime if Scotland becomes independent. A search is
:01:02. > :01:09.continuing today after a canoeist went missing in Perthshire. Boat
:01:10. > :01:15.capsized shortly before five yesterday evening in culling area.
:01:16. > :01:24.One of the occupants made it to shore. A 29-year-old man is still
:01:25. > :01:30.missing. -- Killin. Friends of the Earth has criticised organisers of
:01:31. > :01:37.the Commonwealth Games. The say they have fallen short of the original
:01:38. > :01:46.promises to create low emission zones. Time for a look at the
:01:47. > :01:51.weather. Good afternoon. Little change in terms of the weather this
:01:52. > :01:57.afternoon. More in the way of sunshine and showers. The focus of
:01:58. > :02:02.the showers will be across the West Highlands and into Western
:02:03. > :02:06.Aberdeenshire. There could be some heavy and thundery downpours.
:02:07. > :02:13.Glasgow and the south-west hold onto drier weather with the West Coast
:02:14. > :02:23.seeing plenty sunshine. That is the forecast. That is all for now. Back
:02:24. > :02:28.to the studio. The first Sea Lord describe it as the first dual in the
:02:29. > :02:36.crown of the UK sea defence. The largest warship ever built for the
:02:37. > :02:42.Royal Navy was officially built and -- was officially commemorated by
:02:43. > :02:51.the Queen. The ship still has to be fitted out and launched. Significant
:02:52. > :02:58.spending decisions which will decide how the carriers are used in the
:02:59. > :03:01.future are yet to be decided. A further order is expected in the
:03:02. > :03:08.next three months but the carriers will be without any planes until
:03:09. > :03:18.2020. The role of the second carrier is still in the balance. Others are
:03:19. > :03:27.still to be commissioned. We are joined by an expert now. Can I ask a
:03:28. > :03:34.very basic question, someone in a radio programme the other day said
:03:35. > :03:38.the problem with these carriers is that the Russians already have
:03:39. > :03:41.missiles which can blow them out of the water so they are obsolete as
:03:42. > :03:48.they are launched, is there any truth in that? The military
:03:49. > :03:55.capability exercise by many nations, not just Russia but Japan, China,
:03:56. > :03:59.Iran, Israel, everyone holds anti-ship missiles which could
:04:00. > :04:06.theoretically take on any aircraft carrier, whether British, US,
:04:07. > :04:11.Chinese, Korean, Japanese, they could be hit and sunk by one of
:04:12. > :04:16.these missiles. Normally when a ship goes to see it is surrounded by
:04:17. > :04:21.layers of protection which enable that threat to be defeated. It is
:04:22. > :04:30.not just those on board but other ships around it which enable those
:04:31. > :04:34.risks to be exercised at sea. Be allowed on board systems and they
:04:35. > :04:44.have them on-board frigates and destroyers surrounding it, with the
:04:45. > :04:48.guarantee it could not hit? There are concerns that there aren't a
:04:49. > :04:51.sufficient number of destroyers to provide protection against a
:04:52. > :04:57.high-end thread. On the other hand, you can mitigate against such
:04:58. > :05:02.threats by how you position and use the carrier. If you go back to the
:05:03. > :05:07.Falklands in 1982, eight destroyers were used to protect the carrier in
:05:08. > :05:10.various ways. It was still felt there was a significant threat is
:05:11. > :05:17.not from missiles but from submarines, and, as such, both of
:05:18. > :05:20.the carriers that were used words kept it significant distance for
:05:21. > :05:24.periods of time, and then surged as they moved forward. They mitigated
:05:25. > :05:30.the risk both from missiles and from submarines. These are conjugated
:05:31. > :05:36.questions. I understand, but there is an element here to say that don't
:05:37. > :05:40.take the carrier anywhere dangerous, yet the hall point is precisely to
:05:41. > :05:48.take it somewhere dangerous. I think that's right. There are degrees of
:05:49. > :05:52.risk and danger. If you're going up against a very sophisticated
:05:53. > :05:55.high-end threat, you'd want to be taking most of the Royal Navy to
:05:56. > :06:00.protect this carrier and you'd be wanting to have some extra
:06:01. > :06:05.assistance, perhaps from American or French colleagues and counterparts,
:06:06. > :06:10.perhaps as part of a NATO group, but for 90% of the time, when you're
:06:11. > :06:16.doing constabulary operations, perhaps supporting operations with
:06:17. > :06:19.the French in North Africa, you require less protection. It depends
:06:20. > :06:25.on the situation and the risk you're willing to take. What about HMS
:06:26. > :06:30.Prince of Wales? Danny Alexander said it would be available to the
:06:31. > :06:34.British Armed Forces, but is it down there in black-and-white? Have a
:06:35. > :06:38.definitely decided to keep it? And if they have, have they decided to
:06:39. > :06:43.keep it in such a way that it could be operational when the first
:06:44. > :06:49.carrier is in dock for maintenance? This is a good question and it
:06:50. > :06:52.hasn't been codified yet. So far, the position with Prince of Wales is
:06:53. > :06:59.that it could be put in, but they could also sell it to the Brazilians
:07:00. > :07:03.or another state, they could mothball it, and not use it at all,
:07:04. > :07:09.they could bring it out and use it in an amphibious role with just
:07:10. > :07:13.helicopters. I think these decisions are ready important. It will
:07:14. > :07:17.characterise how Britain will do intervention in the future. With one
:07:18. > :07:24.carrier, we are limited like the French to Britain going in, going in
:07:25. > :07:29.fast, hard, turning around and going home so your mission is done within
:07:30. > :07:34.eight or nine months. That is attractive with some models of
:07:35. > :07:39.intervention like the recent operations in Africa. But for
:07:40. > :07:45.something long-term, you need to have more than one carrier. And here
:07:46. > :07:50.we look at Kosovo, Bosnia, those ones that have had real success. Not
:07:51. > :07:55.just in the war fighting or deterrence. In the 1960s, Iraqi was
:07:56. > :08:03.going to invade Kuwait, and it looked likely that it that region
:08:04. > :08:08.was going to be taken over with the threat to the UK because of the
:08:09. > :08:12.cut-off of supply. They walked in, fronted up, they didn't even need to
:08:13. > :08:17.launch aircraft because that statement of intent prevented that.
:08:18. > :08:18.Thanks very much indeed for joining us.
:08:19. > :08:23.Now it's time for a look at the week ahead.
:08:24. > :08:26.Our guests this week are Alan Roden, Scottish political editor
:08:27. > :08:28.of the Daily Mail, and Murray Ritchie,
:08:29. > :08:34.former political editor at the Herald.
:08:35. > :08:42.Just a quick comment on this oil and gas report which came out this
:08:43. > :08:48.morning. You could argue it either way. It will be used by both sides
:08:49. > :08:54.of the referendum campaign. Of course, the Scottish Government will
:08:55. > :08:58.-- has responded, and the UK Government will respond. The UK
:08:59. > :09:01.Government will say that the tax regime is better with the UK, the
:09:02. > :09:06.Scottish Government will say the opposite. The UK Government will say
:09:07. > :09:09.the oil is harder to get out, the Scottish Government will say there
:09:10. > :09:14.is lots left. The Scottish Government have welcomed it, which
:09:15. > :09:19.is significant. Oil is more expensive to get out, and the tax
:09:20. > :09:23.regime reflects that. So it is a perfectly sensible report, and both
:09:24. > :09:30.governments will welcome it although the UK Government is being a bit
:09:31. > :09:35.iffy. Other stuff, a story about academics and independence, Sir Paul
:09:36. > :09:44.nurse is asking the Scottish and British government is to pledge that
:09:45. > :09:48.academics will not be penalised. Is this academics worrying needlessly?
:09:49. > :09:53.There was some evidence earlier this year when a Dundee University
:09:54. > :09:56.academics spoke out and then the university was contacted by a
:09:57. > :09:59.Scottish government minister, said there is some evidence that there
:10:00. > :10:02.might be some element of intimidation going on, but academics
:10:03. > :10:06.are bright enough to know they should be able to speak out, and
:10:07. > :10:12.plenty of them have spoken out and will continue to do so. Whatever the
:10:13. > :10:17.details of that is, the suggestion that somehow or other, you will be
:10:18. > :10:21.penalised in the sense you might not get research funding, is there any
:10:22. > :10:26.evidence for that? There is no strong evidence, but there are fears
:10:27. > :10:31.of that, which is what we have seen entered a's papers. More
:10:32. > :10:35.interestingly, it is businesses that are concerned about the impact of
:10:36. > :10:40.this. They are more scared to speak out because of fear of being
:10:41. > :10:43.penalised. Even if the Scottish Government has listened to this,
:10:44. > :10:51.there is a bit of fear around. People laugh hearing... Part of the
:10:52. > :10:57.problem is that lots of places are tied to the state. Yes, but nobody
:10:58. > :11:03.is being deliberately silenced. Their arguments all over the place.
:11:04. > :11:07.Academics are reticent, they are always desperate to give their
:11:08. > :11:17.latest eye views and opinions. So I don't see why they shouldn't. And it
:11:18. > :11:24.looks the independence referendum look positively polite! Other
:11:25. > :11:27.stories, the police and guns. Graham Pearson has written to Kenny
:11:28. > :11:31.MacAskill over the lack of consultation. This is about... We
:11:32. > :11:36.should make it clear, the police have had guns for some time, but
:11:37. > :11:39.they were carried by guns, you had to contact a senior officer to
:11:40. > :11:42.unlock them, but we are moving to a situation where the police are
:11:43. > :11:49.carrying them around on the street and there seems to be a blip
:11:50. > :11:58.concern, and I am not sure whether the fact that there was no
:11:59. > :12:04.consultation is the worry. It is worrying. I am comfortable with the
:12:05. > :12:10.fact that the police are not routinely armed, unlike America or
:12:11. > :12:14.Belfast. At the airport, when you see a machine gun, it can be
:12:15. > :12:18.disconcerting. So when people are aware the police are armed and not
:12:19. > :12:24.telling us they are armed, it is alarming. If they told us they were
:12:25. > :12:27.doing it for a specific purpose, if there was a terrorist threat or
:12:28. > :12:34.security problem, but if they are doing it covertly, we have to watch
:12:35. > :12:39.that carefully. The latest case was people complaining that in a
:12:40. > :12:44.McDonald's restaurant in Inverness, there were policeman in their openly
:12:45. > :12:48.carrying weapons. I agree with Murray. It is the Highland region
:12:49. > :12:52.where we have seen police carrying the guns. I think because it has
:12:53. > :12:58.spread to there. It didn't happen in that area before. The lack of
:12:59. > :13:02.consultation is worrying. We've seen other examples of this with Police
:13:03. > :13:06.Scotland now that it is centralised, we were not being told
:13:07. > :13:08.enough, and the public are rightly concerned. If the police are
:13:09. > :13:15.carrying guns, that would cause alarms. With the stop and search
:13:16. > :13:18.issue, there are allegations that police are making up stop and
:13:19. > :13:22.searches in their reports because they are being bullied into senior
:13:23. > :13:26.officers. And they are also doing a lot of stop and searches that have
:13:27. > :13:30.no statuary bases. There's a lovely quote saying you breach and rights
:13:31. > :13:36.by doing it, but you expect us to do it. Stop and search is a big issue
:13:37. > :13:41.and happening a lot more in Scotland than in England. Add there is a
:13:42. > :13:46.problem. If they catch someone with a knife, that's a good thing.
:13:47. > :13:51.Excessive bureaucracy, and we should stop it. Right, so don't do any
:13:52. > :13:55.more? All right. That is all we have time for this week. I'll be back at
:13:56. > :13:58.the same time next week. From all of us, goodbye.