:00:43. > :00:46.Sunday Politics. Just two months to go until Scotland decides whether it
:00:47. > :00:49.should stay in work with the UK. At the campaign has for the final
:00:50. > :00:53.furlong, what are the issues an argument that will determine the
:00:54. > :00:58.result? Nicola Sturgeon joins me live will stop David Cameron has
:00:59. > :01:03.scheduled a major cabinet reshuffle on Tuesday. Many of those tipped for
:01:04. > :01:06.promotion are women. At efforts to promote diversity in public life
:01:07. > :01:13.barely started, or have they already gone too far?
:01:14. > :01:18.I don't know whether to support Germany or Argentina in the game
:01:19. > :01:19.tonight? Fear not. We are bringing you a political guide to the World
:01:20. > :01:21.Cup. Coming up on
:01:22. > :01:22.Sunday Politics Scotland: Plans to establish
:01:23. > :01:24.the UK's first spaceport will be A number of sites
:01:25. > :01:41.in Scotland could be in the frame. Yes, eat your heart out, ITV,
:01:42. > :01:46.because for top football analysis we've got Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen,
:01:47. > :01:50.and Alan Shearer. And
:01:51. > :01:52.for top political analysis you may as well tune in to them too because
:01:53. > :01:56.all we could come up with is Nick David Cameron will reshuffle
:01:57. > :02:06.his cabinet on Tuesday. The Sunday papers are full
:02:07. > :02:09.of stories telling us who'll be in and who'll be out,
:02:10. > :02:11.though they don't really know. The Mail on Sunday has one
:02:12. > :02:14.of the more eye-catching lines, reporting that former defence
:02:15. > :02:16.secretary and right-winger Liam Fox is in line for a return to
:02:17. > :02:20.the political front line. But there's general agreement that
:02:21. > :02:27.women will do well and some of the old men
:02:28. > :02:30.in suits guard will do badly. It's good to make parliament
:02:31. > :02:46.Davis speaking to this programme. But you've got to do it
:02:47. > :02:49.in a way that doesn't create injustices, and you can't put people
:02:50. > :02:53.in a job who can't do the job. And I've seen that too over
:02:54. > :03:01.the last 20 years, people being accelerated too far too fast
:03:02. > :03:03.and they come to a screeching halt where they have to
:03:04. > :03:21.catch up with themselves. I am not going to give an example.
:03:22. > :03:27.Is this not a bit cynical? He is going to promote these women into
:03:28. > :03:32.cabinet positions, but they will not be able to do anything. I am
:03:33. > :03:39.sceptical of Cabinet reshuffle. It is an un-written pact in that the
:03:40. > :03:43.media and the government have a great interest in talking it up. The
:03:44. > :03:49.government says, haven't we refreshed ourselves? Generally it
:03:50. > :03:53.doesn't refresh the government. David Cameron wants to send out a
:03:54. > :04:00.new signal. You're going to see the old guard getting a P 45 and you
:04:01. > :04:07.will see a lot of women come in and a lot of younger men. We will find
:04:08. > :04:13.there will be a lot of resignations. A lot of, dear Prime Minister, as I
:04:14. > :04:17.told you 18 months ago, I want to move on. Because the Conservatives
:04:18. > :04:22.have this perception of not being very good with women and not being
:04:23. > :04:27.good with black and ethnic minority voters, they are going to want to do
:04:28. > :04:33.something about that. Why did he not do it before? This reshuffle might
:04:34. > :04:39.be the triumph of the a list. A lot of the women coming through the
:04:40. > :04:44.ranks have been from the a list which was a half measure because
:04:45. > :04:49.they knew they could not bring all of them in. You are going to see
:04:50. > :04:53.more women but that is a result of a long-term strategy. David Cameron is
:04:54. > :04:59.not the world's most raging feminist. He is doing this for
:05:00. > :05:04.practical reasons. He knows he has an image problem for the party and
:05:05. > :05:12.he has to solve it. He was stung by that picture of the all-male bench
:05:13. > :05:15.at Prime Minister's Questions because visibly it gave you the
:05:16. > :05:21.problem that you have been talking about. I do not think he has allowed
:05:22. > :05:26.it to be all-male since that embarrassing image. I can understand
:05:27. > :05:28.the criticism made of this approach if it was the case that all the
:05:29. > :05:36.women being promoted by talentless but you have to be very harsh to
:05:37. > :05:50.look at them and say that they would have much less to offer than the
:05:51. > :05:54.likes of Andrew Lansley. You can be pro-feminist. The tests for David
:05:55. > :05:59.Cameron is that having raised expectations he has to give them
:06:00. > :06:04.substantial jobs. They have to be given departments to run or big
:06:05. > :06:06.portfolios to carry. If they are given media campaign positions in
:06:07. > :06:14.the run-up to the election it looks perfunctorily. He is under some
:06:15. > :06:20.trouble to perhaps suggest a female commissioner to the European Union
:06:21. > :06:25.Commission. Jean-Claude Juncker has made clear that if he proposes a
:06:26. > :06:35.woman candidate they will get a better job. Saying they would like
:06:36. > :06:38.ten out of the 28 to be women. We are going to get the name of the
:06:39. > :06:47.British candidate at the same time as the reshuffle. The first
:06:48. > :06:51.face-to-face meeting, he will be able to put a name. There are other
:06:52. > :07:03.names in the frame. People like Archie Norman. That come from? His
:07:04. > :07:06.name is in the frame. There would be great scepticism of giving it to
:07:07. > :07:10.Andrew Lansley. People would think he was the man who mucked up the
:07:11. > :07:19.reform of the NHS. Who is it going to be? Either a woman or a man. I
:07:20. > :07:25.would not be surprised if they go for someone believe dynamic. Someone
:07:26. > :07:31.who would square the party. Would that not mean a by-election? It
:07:32. > :07:37.might. She is a high profile Eurosceptic. She is a very competent
:07:38. > :07:42.former banker. It would be the smart choice. I have no idea but my
:07:43. > :07:50.favourite rumour is Michael Howard. That had some legs for a while.
:07:51. > :07:55.The Mystic Megs of Fleet Street predict with confidence that the PM
:07:56. > :07:56.is going to promote more women in his cabinet reshuffle.
:07:57. > :07:59.The move can be seen as part of a move across British public life
:08:00. > :08:02.to do more to make our institutions less male and less white.
:08:03. > :08:04.But as the list of schemes to encourage diversity
:08:05. > :08:15.grows ever-longer, have we abandoned the idea of appointment by merit?
:08:16. > :08:24.Tunnelling. Hard hats, and all for new trains. It does not get more
:08:25. > :08:26.macho than the Crossrail project. When Crossrail looked at the
:08:27. > :08:37.construction industry they realise that less than 20% was made up
:08:38. > :08:38.construction industry they realise women and they asked, can we fix it?
:08:39. > :08:44.They are trying with a recruitment drive that has brought in female
:08:45. > :08:48.engineers like this woman. She even has a tunnel named after her. Having
:08:49. > :08:52.more female engineers and construction brings a bigger range
:08:53. > :08:57.of opinions, a bigger range of ideas, more diversity, into the
:08:58. > :09:01.industry, and makes it better as a whole. It is the issue being
:09:02. > :09:06.grappled in another male dominated workplace, the Cabinet. There is
:09:07. > :09:10.about to be a reach shuffle and the rumour is David Cameron is going to
:09:11. > :09:15.promote a lot of female ministers. It was a lack of promotion that
:09:16. > :09:19.annoyed Harriet Harman this week. She claimed Gordon Brown did not
:09:20. > :09:24.make her Deputy Prime Minister because she was a woman. It was
:09:25. > :09:28.strange that in a hard-fought highly contested election to be deputy
:09:29. > :09:32.leader of the Labour Party, and having won against men in the
:09:33. > :09:35.Cabinet, to succeed to be deputy leader of the Labour Party I
:09:36. > :09:40.discovered that I was not to be appointed as Deputy Prime Minister.
:09:41. > :09:48.For women in this country, no matter how able they are, the matter how
:09:49. > :09:51.hard they might work, they are still not equal. There are initiatives to
:09:52. > :09:57.make the world feel more equal. In the City the EU wants a quarter for
:09:58. > :10:02.women in the boardroom but that goal of making 40% of the top floor
:10:03. > :10:08.female. At the BBC the boss of the TV division says no panel show
:10:09. > :10:13.should ever be all-male. In the ever glamorous movie business the British
:10:14. > :10:18.film Institute announced their new thematic system to get lottery
:10:19. > :10:24.funding projects improving diversity on screen and off and helping social
:10:25. > :10:29.mobility. Employers like Crossrail are not allowed to positively
:10:30. > :10:34.discriminate but under the quality act of 2010 if two candidate for a
:10:35. > :10:37.job are just as good you are allowed to base your decision on
:10:38. > :10:43.characteristics like race, sexuality and gender. Some worry it has
:10:44. > :10:51.chipped away at the idea of hiring on merit. A woman and three men
:10:52. > :10:54.going for a job, two of the men are really good and the woman is not
:10:55. > :11:02.quite as good but she gets the job anyway. That will create injustice,
:11:03. > :11:09.a feeling that she did not deserve the job, resentment. It does not
:11:10. > :11:15.advance equality in society at all. On this project they want to leave a
:11:16. > :11:19.concrete legacy of a more diverse construction industry. The question
:11:20. > :11:31.is, what tools do you use when it comes to the rest of society?
:11:32. > :11:32.I'm joined now by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown,
:11:33. > :11:35.a columnist for the Independent, and by Munira Mirza, the deputy
:11:36. > :11:43.mayor of London responsible for education and culture.
:11:44. > :11:51.Cabinet wee shovel coming up punches though. Should David Cameron be
:11:52. > :11:58.promoting women? He is going to do it anyway. He should have a long
:11:59. > :12:02.time ago. It does not feel quite right that a few months before the
:12:03. > :12:07.election it would do the party a lot of good to be seen as a party
:12:08. > :12:13.properly reflective of the entire population. He should promote women
:12:14. > :12:17.because they are women? I think he should think about lots of different
:12:18. > :12:23.factors, whether the people he wants promote have proven themselves in
:12:24. > :12:26.their current reefs, whether they are good performers in the media,
:12:27. > :12:31.whether they represent different parts of the party, but the main
:12:32. > :12:37.principle is to promote on basis of merit. There are many talented women
:12:38. > :12:42.who fill that description. It should be that merit is the important thing
:12:43. > :12:44.rather than what you were born with. The thing about positive
:12:45. > :12:51.discrimination as it flies in the face of that kind of principle. You
:12:52. > :12:53.are shaking your head. We have always had positive discrimination.
:12:54. > :13:00.Men of a certain class have appointed in their own image because
:13:01. > :13:05.they feel most comfortable with that. We have had unspoken positive
:13:06. > :13:11.discrimination in this country and every other country throughout
:13:12. > :13:17.history. We are asking as women, all minorities, let us get into the same
:13:18. > :13:21.game. What do you say? You cannot solve the racism or the sexism of
:13:22. > :13:27.the past by more racism and sexism. It is not the past. There are
:13:28. > :13:32.complex reasons why a smaller number of women will appear in certain
:13:33. > :13:36.industries. It has a lot to do with childcare, education, expected. You
:13:37. > :13:42.cannot short cut that by setting a target. That is not how you achieve
:13:43. > :13:44.equality. Things are changing and more women are appearing in
:13:45. > :13:49.engineering and so on but it will take time. My worry is that these
:13:50. > :13:52.kinds of measures are counter-productive and undermine the
:13:53. > :13:53.perception that women can do it on their own merit rather
:13:54. > :13:57.counter-productive and undermine the perception that women can do it than
:13:58. > :14:02.because they need a helping hand. It is not a helping hand. It is to say,
:14:03. > :14:12.we are as good as men and these hidden barriers. Dot. Either they
:14:13. > :14:14.are not as good or they do not want it, which is just how we persuade
:14:15. > :14:20.are not as good or they do not want it, which ourselves that it is not
:14:21. > :14:25.happening, or there are barriers. How we judge meritocracy is at the
:14:26. > :14:32.heart of it. Are lots of industries won there are not that many women,
:14:33. > :14:38.such as engineering. We need more engineers generally. I think it is
:14:39. > :14:46.fine to try to encourage more women to study that subject. By setting a
:14:47. > :14:54.target you put pressure on an organisation. You tried to ignore
:14:55. > :15:17.the complex reasons why women do not go into those sectors. I think an
:15:18. > :15:22.all-female short list achieved miracle in Parliament. This is
:15:23. > :15:26.following up from having an injection of women coming up because
:15:27. > :15:34.the system was changed and a large percentage of women went into
:15:35. > :15:41.Parliament under the all-female short list were brilliant, so why
:15:42. > :15:46.not? So if the Prime Minister is mailed the Deputy Prime Minister has
:15:47. > :15:55.to be female and vice versa? Yes, absolutely, 50-50. We need to
:15:56. > :16:02.reflect the population. If we want to play this as a symbolic gesture,
:16:03. > :16:07.ideally we should have one of each. Why should a man get the job if you
:16:08. > :16:16.have a great female prime minister and a great female Deputy Prime
:16:17. > :16:24.Minister? I personally wouldn't mind this. I hear the disgruntled man and
:16:25. > :16:30.I want to come -- them to come with us. You're choosing people on the
:16:31. > :16:36.basis of traits they were born with. Are there too many Indian
:16:37. > :16:40.doctors in the NHS? I would argue not. Given that we tend to have male
:16:41. > :16:45.prime ministers rather than female ones, and we don't see another
:16:46. > :16:55.female one coming down the pipe very quickly... In the time before women
:16:56. > :16:59.short lists by the way. If you had a male prime minister with a female
:17:00. > :17:06.Deputy Prime Minister, wouldn't that give some balance? Why women? Why
:17:07. > :17:11.not working class person, which group do you prioritise? I would go
:17:12. > :17:15.with you that we need something fundamental to change. This idea
:17:16. > :17:19.that what we have now is a reflection of a genuine meritocracy
:17:20. > :17:21.is highly questionable. I would argue that when you look at the
:17:22. > :17:23.statistics things are changing. argue that when you look at the
:17:24. > :17:28.statistics things There are more women appearing in parts of public
:17:29. > :17:36.life, that is a long-term trend, but if you are trying to appoint people
:17:37. > :17:40.on what they were born with... That is not the only reason but it is an
:17:41. > :17:46.additional reason. She has to be able to do the job, obviously. I am
:17:47. > :17:50.saying the policy of hazard to discrimination explicitly state that
:17:51. > :17:54.you should choose somebody who is female because they are female. At
:17:55. > :18:00.the moment there is already enough suspicion about women who are
:18:01. > :18:04.successful to get to the senior position and if you institutionalise
:18:05. > :18:11.it you reinforce that suspicion. Harriet Harman is still complaining
:18:12. > :18:15.women are not being treated fairly. I think the policy reinforces the
:18:16. > :18:21.prejudice that women are not getting there because they are treated on
:18:22. > :18:25.the same basis. Although you may not want to have the all-female short
:18:26. > :18:30.list forever, wasn't it the kind of shock to the system that made a
:18:31. > :18:38.visible change in female representation, which the Tory side
:18:39. > :18:43.hasn't got? Of course it will work short-term but longer term it has a
:18:44. > :18:47.very degrading effect on the principle of equality and the fact
:18:48. > :18:51.Harriet Harman is saying she wasn't treated equally, whether it is true
:18:52. > :19:00.or not, the perception is still there. A number of women find this
:19:01. > :19:05.position must be reserved for a woman lying patronising, and
:19:06. > :19:13.speaking of patronising women, you spoken your Independent column, she
:19:14. > :19:18.presses all of the buttons for white people... Was that patronising and
:19:19. > :19:23.offensive? Probably. I wrote it because I felt that at the time but
:19:24. > :19:30.the point is that I was a token when I was appointed. The paper brought
:19:31. > :19:35.me in because I was a woman and I was a muslin or whatever. You are
:19:36. > :19:48.not writing about yourself. I was writing... It doesn't mean you don't
:19:49. > :19:56.criticise other women. We absolutely have to be tough, Manira is tough
:19:57. > :20:02.and so am I. Do you want to take back what you wrote? No. Do you
:20:03. > :20:10.really think positive discrimination has gone too far? I think there is
:20:11. > :20:14.already a suspicion out there that in certain sectors women are being
:20:15. > :20:18.promoted for the wrong reasons or ethnic minorities are being promoted
:20:19. > :20:24.for the wrong reasons. That is a shame and my worry is that by tying
:20:25. > :20:29.funding to your ethnicity or your gender, by saying you will get a
:20:30. > :20:33.promotion if you check that box, but you feel that resentment and
:20:34. > :20:43.prejudice and undermine the case for inequality. I wanted to be treated
:20:44. > :20:49.equally, because I am capable of doing that job. Only two months to
:20:50. > :20:59.go before Scotland takes its biggest constitutional decision in 300 years
:21:00. > :21:04.- should it quit or stay with the UK? For some in Scotland campaign
:21:05. > :21:10.has been going on forever. What has been the impact on the campaign to
:21:11. > :21:14.date? Alex Salmond says Scotland would
:21:15. > :21:19.remain part of the European Union with sterling as its currency in a
:21:20. > :21:23.monetary union with the rest of the UK, but he has also promised more
:21:24. > :21:30.public spending, increased child care provision and free personal
:21:31. > :21:37.care for the elderly. The SNP claims it would leave people better off by
:21:38. > :21:43.?1000 though that partly depends on the price of oil. With the Better
:21:44. > :21:48.Together arguing against independence, it has naturally been
:21:49. > :21:55.attacking the SNP on all fronts. George Osborne says there will be no
:21:56. > :22:00.monetary union. President Barroso told the BBC it would be extremely
:22:01. > :22:11.difficult for Scotland to join the EU after a yes vote. His successor
:22:12. > :22:21.this week said he agreed. Unions claim Scotland benefit by ?1400 by
:22:22. > :22:27.being part of the UK. A poll this morning shows a significant lead of
:22:28. > :22:34.57% for the no campaign, leaving the SNP to claim it will go their way in
:22:35. > :22:38.the last ten weeks. Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister of
:22:39. > :22:44.Scotland, joins me now. You want an independent Scotland to keep the
:22:45. > :22:49.pound, stay in NATO, stay in the EU, Scotland already has all of that
:22:50. > :22:56.but you cannot guarantee it would have any of it in an independent
:22:57. > :23:00.Scotland, why take the risk? All of these things should be the case
:23:01. > :23:06.because they are in the best interests of Scotland and the rest
:23:07. > :23:12.of the UK but we want the powers to enable us to grow our economy
:23:13. > :23:17.faster, to be productive, and overtime increased the prosperity of
:23:18. > :23:21.people living in Scotland. We also want powers over our social security
:23:22. > :23:28.system so that we can create a system that meets our needs, one
:23:29. > :23:32.that also has a safety net for the most vulnerable people in our
:23:33. > :23:38.society. Independence is about letting us decide our own
:23:39. > :23:42.priorities. You didn't answer my question, you cannot guarantee you
:23:43. > :23:47.would be able to keep the pound within a monetary union, stay in
:23:48. > :23:52.NATO and the EU, you cannot guarantee you could produce any of
:23:53. > :23:58.these things, correct? I would argue that we can because these things are
:23:59. > :24:03.also in the interest of the rest of the UK. No country can be prevented
:24:04. > :24:08.from using the pound, I suggest we use that within a formal monetary
:24:09. > :24:12.union. We have had the UK minister quoted in the Guardian saying the
:24:13. > :24:17.position of the UK Government right now is one based on campaign
:24:18. > :24:24.rhetoric and following a yes vote, of course there would be a currency
:24:25. > :24:29.union. Who is that minister? The Minister is unnamed, but
:24:30. > :24:34.nevertheless that story in the Guardian was a solid one and not
:24:35. > :24:39.substantially denied. So you are basing your monetary policy on one
:24:40. > :24:49.on named minister in one story? Basing it on Common sense because
:24:50. > :24:52.monetary union would be in the best interests for Scotland but also
:24:53. > :24:58.overwhelmingly in the interests of the rest of the UK, given their
:24:59. > :25:05.trading relationship with Scotland and the contribution Scotland's
:25:06. > :25:11.exports make. We are having a very good debate and the UK Government
:25:12. > :25:20.and the no campaign, and this is not a criticism, want to talk up in --
:25:21. > :25:26.uncertainty to make people feel scared, but after independence there
:25:27. > :25:29.will be constructed process of negotiation. Let's stick with the
:25:30. > :25:33.monetary union because most economists agree it would be very
:25:34. > :25:38.good for an independent Scotland to have a monetary union but George
:25:39. > :25:43.Osborne, Ed Balls, Danny Alexander are unequivocal, they say you won't
:25:44. > :25:49.get it. You claim they are bluffing but again you cannot guarantee that
:25:50. > :25:53.so why the risk? I would say the benefits of independence are
:25:54. > :25:57.substantial but I would also say to George Osborne and his counterparts
:25:58. > :26:01.in the other parties that it would be a very brave Chancellor that says
:26:02. > :26:06.to businesses in the rest of the UK that they have to incur unnecessary
:26:07. > :26:09.additional transaction costs of half a very brave Chancellor that says to
:26:10. > :26:12.businesses in the rest of the UK that they have to incur unnecessary
:26:13. > :26:17.additional transaction costs of half. What we are doing is making a
:26:18. > :26:22.case that is based on common sense and voters in Scotland will listen
:26:23. > :26:27.to that case being put forward by the other side as well, and they
:26:28. > :26:34.will come to a judgement of the common-sense position. Let's look at
:26:35. > :26:43.EU membership because you haven't been able to guarantee the monetary
:26:44. > :26:48.union. When President Barroso said that a seamless transition to EU
:26:49. > :26:53.membership for an independent Scotland was anything but certain,
:26:54. > :26:59.and one said it could even be impossible, you dismissed him
:27:00. > :27:08.because he was standing down, but been -- venue EU president says the
:27:09. > :27:12.same, do you dismissed him? What we are doing... I should say at the
:27:13. > :27:17.outset of this, we have said repeatedly to the UK Government,
:27:18. > :27:22.let's go jointly and ask for a formal opinion on the EU
:27:23. > :27:28.commission. The EU commission have said they will only do that at this
:27:29. > :27:34.stage if the UK Government ask for it, they are point blank refusing to
:27:35. > :27:40.do that, you have to ask why? It is in their interests to talk up
:27:41. > :27:44.uncertainty. Scotland is an integral part of the European Union, we have
:27:45. > :27:50.been for 40 years, we comply with the rules and regulations... Mr
:27:51. > :27:57.Juncker knows all of that but he still says it will be anything but a
:27:58. > :28:02.seamless transition. He said you could not join the European Union by
:28:03. > :28:15.sending a letter, that is not our proposal. We set down a robust
:28:16. > :28:20.proposal and the timescale we think is reasonable under these
:28:21. > :28:25.circumstances. There are many nationals of other states living in
:28:26. > :28:29.Scotland right now, if we were to be outside of the European Union for
:28:30. > :28:33.any period of time, something the current treaty doesn't even provide
:28:34. > :28:37.for, they would lose their right to stay here. The interests of Scotland
:28:38. > :28:43.and the interests of European Union are in favour of a seamless
:28:44. > :28:45.transition. It comes down to common sense and people in Scotland will
:28:46. > :28:47.make sense and people in Scotland will
:28:48. > :28:54.their own judgement on who is talking the common-sense. What about
:28:55. > :28:59.NATO, two years ago you told Newsnight the SNP's position is that
:29:00. > :29:05.we wouldn't stay in NATO. We had a democratic debate, we looked at
:29:06. > :29:08.whether it would be in the interests of an independent Scotland, which
:29:09. > :29:17.forms a significant part of the territory of the North Atlantic and
:29:18. > :29:25.the party changed its mind. It did so in a thoroughly democratic way.
:29:26. > :29:36.That is the nature of democracy. Would you accept the protection of
:29:37. > :29:41.the NATO nuclear umbrella? There is no doubt the SNP's position is that
:29:42. > :29:48.we do not want nuclear weapons in Scotland. That is not what I asked.
:29:49. > :29:53.The world rid themselves of nuclear weapons. One of the interesting
:29:54. > :29:59.point is of the 28 member countries of Natal 25 do not have nuclear
:30:00. > :30:09.weapons. An independent Scotland... I asked if you would accept the
:30:10. > :30:15.nuclear umbrella. The key feature of NATO's military dog train is now
:30:16. > :30:22.clear shrike. We would accept the basis of which NATO is founded but
:30:23. > :30:25.we would argue two things. We want Trident removed from Scotland rather
:30:26. > :30:31.than have a situation where might we are spending ?100 billion over the
:30:32. > :30:33.next generation replacing Trident and we would argue within the
:30:34. > :30:39.international community that the world should move much more quickly
:30:40. > :30:42.to rid itself of nuclear weapons. That is the principal position and
:30:43. > :30:50.won the SNP has held consistently for many years. You would get rid of
:30:51. > :30:54.one of the key parts of the NATO deterrent based in Scotland. You
:30:55. > :31:00.would kick that out. You would not accept all of the club rules because
:31:01. > :31:05.you do not like the idea of nuclear. Why would they like a member like
:31:06. > :31:09.you in? Because Scotland is a significant part of the territory of
:31:10. > :31:14.the North Atlantic. You do not subscribe to the rules. 25 of the
:31:15. > :31:23.member states of NATO are non-nuclear members. You are saying
:31:24. > :31:28.you do not follow the doctrine. NATO has said it wants to move away from
:31:29. > :31:32.reliance on nuclear weapons. An independent Scotland would be
:31:33. > :31:37.entering the majority mainstream of NATO as a country that did not have
:31:38. > :31:40.nuclear weapons. By leading by example our moral authority and
:31:41. > :31:47.encouraging others to do likewise would be increased. Money and oil,
:31:48. > :31:50.the finance minister has said that an independent Scotland would
:31:51. > :31:55.increase public spending by 3% a year. He would pay for that by
:31:56. > :32:00.borrowing. Your First Minister says he is going to stash money in an oil
:32:01. > :32:09.fund. You're going to borrow and save. How does that work? There are
:32:10. > :32:11.two points. Firstly in terms of the outlook for finances and what is one
:32:12. > :32:16.of the central debates of this referendum campaign, austerity that
:32:17. > :32:23.we know will continue if we stay as part of the Westminster system
:32:24. > :32:27.versus prosperity. The economy can afford a higher level of increase in
:32:28. > :32:33.public spending while we continue to have deficit levels at a sustainable
:32:34. > :32:38.level. What is the point of borrowing and saving at the same
:32:39. > :32:40.time? People who have a mortgage and the savings account would not
:32:41. > :32:47.themselves what the wisdom of that is. This is based on recommendations
:32:48. > :32:52.of our expert fiscal Commission that as borrowing reduces to sustainable
:32:53. > :32:57.levels it makes sense to start saving a proportion of our oil
:32:58. > :33:03.wealth. In Norway, which has many similarities to Scotland, they have
:33:04. > :33:08.an oil fund worth ?500 billion. Scotland is part of the Westminster
:33:09. > :33:15.system is sitting on a share of UK debt. We can continue to allow our
:33:16. > :33:18.oil wealth, our vast oil wealth, to be mismanaged or we can decide we
:33:19. > :33:25.are going to manage that resource better in the years to come. Your
:33:26. > :33:28.figures do not add up unless you are about oil prices and revenue and you
:33:29. > :33:33.have been consistently wrong in your predictions. Last year you forecast
:33:34. > :33:38.that revenues would be the .7 billion more than they actually work
:33:39. > :34:30.-- 3.7 Production in line with industry
:34:31. > :34:33.estimates would be a real terms reduction. The Department of Energy
:34:34. > :34:38.and Climate Change in the UK Government is estimating 128
:34:39. > :34:42.dollars, so our estimate is compared to that a cautious one. These are
:34:43. > :34:46.robust estimates based on robust assumptions.
:34:47. > :34:51.They have recently been wrong. But let me move into the final point. We
:34:52. > :34:54.hear a lot from you and your fellow nationalists that you want a
:34:55. > :34:59.Scandinavian style social democracy. You certainly have the spending
:35:00. > :35:02.plans, spending like a social Democrat, but you never tell us
:35:03. > :35:06.about social democratic levels of taxation. All social democracies
:35:07. > :35:11.have higher levels of tax that Scotland have the, so what taxes
:35:12. > :35:17.would go up? We are not proposing tax increases. I want a Scottish
:35:18. > :35:20.style of social democracy. Our government has injuries policies
:35:21. > :35:23.like free education and medicine, and balance the books every single
:35:24. > :35:27.year we have been in government. We want to get more people into work,
:35:28. > :35:32.raise the level of participation in the level market -- labour market
:35:33. > :35:36.and make our economy more productive to increase the overall tax level
:35:37. > :35:44.government. Over the last 33 years, we have generated more tax per of
:35:45. > :35:49.population than the rest of the UK. Those last 33 years, oil prices will
:35:50. > :35:53.have been high in some, and low in some of this. We will also take
:35:54. > :35:58.different decisions. A report published last week shows that if we
:35:59. > :36:02.go as part of the Westminster system down the route of replacing
:36:03. > :36:06.Trident, the cost of that over the next generation will be as high in
:36:07. > :36:13.some years in the 20 20s as ?4 billion. Let's get our access to our
:36:14. > :36:16.own resources, so that we can make different and better decisions about
:36:17. > :36:21.how we spent the resources we already have. So let me get this
:36:22. > :36:23.clear, you are promising Scandinavian style social democratic
:36:24. > :36:31.levels of public spending, but you say you won't need a top rate of tax
:36:32. > :36:39.of 60%, as Scandinavia has, a VAT of 25%, as they have, and VAT on food
:36:40. > :36:44.between 12 and 15%. So you give us all the spending but none of the
:36:45. > :36:48.taxes that make that possible in Scandinavia. I'm sure for purely
:36:49. > :36:52.mischievous reasons you are misrepresenting me. We won levels of
:36:53. > :36:56.public spending in Scotland that the Scottish economy can afford, and I
:36:57. > :37:03.can also help us generate more wealth. We want to use Scotland's
:37:04. > :37:08.existing resources. We are the 14th richest country in the world in
:37:09. > :37:13.terms of what our economy produces per head of population. We don't
:37:14. > :37:18.want to waste resources on Trident replacement, we want to spend the
:37:19. > :37:20.resources we have on the priorities of people in Scotland, and these are
:37:21. > :37:23.the benefits and opportunities we only get we take the opportunity of
:37:24. > :37:25.voting yes in the coming referendum. Thank you for joining us
:37:26. > :37:28.will stop it is 11:35 a.m.. Viewers in Scotland leavers now for
:37:29. > :37:35.Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.
:37:36. > :37:46.Plans to establish the UK's first spaceport are to be announced at
:37:47. > :37:49.Several Scottish sites are in the running.
:37:50. > :37:52.Lib Dem MP Michael Moore has secured the rarity of a private
:37:53. > :37:54.He'll be talking to us live this morning.
:37:55. > :37:57.Scotland commemorates Srebrenica - 8,000 men
:37:58. > :38:00.and boys were massacred by Serbian forces 19 years ago this month.
:38:01. > :38:10.The Labour MP Ann McKechin talks to us about her visit to the town.
:38:11. > :38:13.The UK government will use the Farnborough Air Show next week
:38:14. > :38:15.to lay out plans for a spaceport in Britain.
:38:16. > :38:17.On Tuesday, ministers from the departments
:38:18. > :38:20.of Business and Innovation Skills, the Department of Trade
:38:21. > :38:23.and officials from the UK Space Agency will come together to reveal
:38:24. > :38:27.eight potential locations across the UK which have been shortlisted.
:38:28. > :38:29.The government says its ambition is to have
:38:30. > :38:34.A number of sites in Scotland have been suggested
:38:35. > :38:40.Among them is the former RAF base at Kinloss in Morayshire,
:38:41. > :38:43.although operational flights ceased there in 2011.
:38:44. > :38:47.It's now an army base but its runways have been maintained.
:38:48. > :38:51.RAF Lossiemouth, home to Tornados and from this
:38:52. > :38:54.summer, Typhoon squadrons, had been mooted when it was threatened with
:38:55. > :39:00.The former MoD base at Machrihanish was handed over in the mid-1990s.
:39:01. > :39:03.In 2011 the Defence Secretary announced the closure of
:39:04. > :39:08.RAF Leuchars, though the base will be transferred to the army.
:39:09. > :39:10.I'm joined now by Craig Clark, who is the Chief Executive
:39:11. > :39:27.Craig, I was kind of hoping you would be called Boz! We should
:39:28. > :39:30.explain ClydeSpace. You built the first made in Scotland satellite,
:39:31. > :39:37.didn't you, which has just been launched? Yes, on Tuesday. In
:39:38. > :39:41.Kazakhstan. And that has done successfully? Yes, very
:39:42. > :39:46.successfully. We used a rocket which was similar to one of the ones that
:39:47. > :39:51.launched people into space, a very reliable rocket, and everything went
:39:52. > :39:55.perfectly. First, this idea of a spaceport. Is that a good idea, do
:39:56. > :40:01.you think? I think it is a fantastic idea. Only there are no such launch
:40:02. > :40:05.sites in Europe, said to have one in the UK, it puts is miles ahead of
:40:06. > :40:09.European sense of capability of putting a spacecraft into orbit, so
:40:10. > :40:13.it would attract lots of business to the UK. These sites we have been
:40:14. > :40:17.talking about in Scotland, it would seem that something like six of the
:40:18. > :40:22.eight potential sites are here. Yes, well Scotland is ideally
:40:23. > :40:27.placed, because when you launch a satellite into orbit, there is a
:40:28. > :40:31.technical explanation, but basically, you want to go north. So
:40:32. > :40:38.in the UK, Scotland is ideally placed. You also want to launch ever
:40:39. > :40:42.see, when nobody is living, in case anything goes wrong, and you don't
:40:43. > :40:45.want about any lives in jeopardy. So the idea of Kinloss or Machrihanish
:40:46. > :40:50.is, you go north and there is nothing there. Then this is
:40:51. > :40:56.presumably in case of accidents. Yes, that is right. OK. What would
:40:57. > :41:02.we launch from a UK space Port? We don't have any rockets, do we? There
:41:03. > :41:07.is a capability in the UK. We have missile capability, which most to
:41:08. > :41:11.other now about. We can also buy rocket technology from other
:41:12. > :41:14.countries like the US, or we could even have US companies locate
:41:15. > :41:19.themselves in the UK to launch spacecraft from here as well. When
:41:20. > :41:24.you say we have missile technology, do you mean we have technology that
:41:25. > :41:29.could launch something like UKube-1 into space? That's correct. The
:41:30. > :41:34.launch vehicle we were run on Tuesday was very day, and actually
:41:35. > :41:39.had a very large satellite, including our satellite, the size of
:41:40. > :41:42.a large car. You need a very large launch vehicle to take that sort of
:41:43. > :41:48.thing into orbit, but the typical spacecraft, it you can make it about
:41:49. > :41:51.the size of a shoe box. Other companies make satellite is the size
:41:52. > :41:56.of a washing machine. That those sorts of sizes, the launch vehicle
:41:57. > :42:01.technology is a lot simpler. So it is possible. So we could have
:42:02. > :42:05.business technology doing that? Yes. Will presumably, as you say, you
:42:06. > :42:08.could buy some rockets from the Russians of the same model that you
:42:09. > :42:13.used. Plenty of people do that already around the world. Tell us a
:42:14. > :42:23.bit more about UKube-1. The first one went up, it had experiments on
:42:24. > :42:27.it. Using space particles to generate random numbers. What on
:42:28. > :42:37.earth is that all about? Well, in space, we have radiation, and one
:42:38. > :42:44.type of radiation will cause a zero to go to a one in memory, and I will
:42:45. > :42:51.basically cause a random number to be generated. So the radiation
:42:52. > :42:55.particle hits the Itronix... I presume eventually, the idea is that
:42:56. > :42:59.you have space particles generating random numbers, which can be as for
:43:00. > :43:03.something like internet security purposes? That's right, so maybe
:43:04. > :43:08.military satellites or something like that. Is that feasible? Are we
:43:09. > :43:15.talking far future or is that something that could be in a few
:43:16. > :43:18.years? We use random number generators are ready for secure
:43:19. > :43:21.communications, but it is all done on software, so there is a limit to
:43:22. > :43:25.how random they are. To take that further, they are trying different
:43:26. > :43:28.techniques. What difference would it make to have a company making these
:43:29. > :43:33.things if we had a space base? I think it would track lots of
:43:34. > :43:37.business to the UK. We are in the business of making very small
:43:38. > :43:39.satellites. So if you had a regular series of these little missile
:43:40. > :43:45.launchers you're talking about, that would be easier? Absolutely. To
:43:46. > :43:48.launch our satellite, travelling to Moscow and Kazakhstan, there were
:43:49. > :43:53.lots of issues. The Scottish Government, when it commented on
:43:54. > :43:56.this story said, the Scottish space industry can only develop further if
:43:57. > :44:01.we become independent. Is that how it looks from where you are? From my
:44:02. > :44:07.point of view, we are maybe an export business, so most of our
:44:08. > :44:12.customers are worldwide, and about a third of our sales are in the US, to
:44:13. > :44:15.NASA and organisations like that. So whether we are independent or not
:44:16. > :44:16.would not really make much difference to us. Well, thank you
:44:17. > :44:18.very much. Now, one of the coalition
:44:19. > :44:21.government's proudest pledges was that Britain's overseas aid budget
:44:22. > :44:23.would be protected from George In fact, last year Britain met
:44:24. > :44:27.for the first time the international target of spending
:44:28. > :44:31.0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. But should that target be enshrined
:44:32. > :44:33.in law Michael Moore, the Liberal Democrat
:44:34. > :44:39.MP and former Scottish Secretary, He'll be putting down a private
:44:40. > :44:59.members bill to that effect, and it Michael Moore, the obvious problem
:45:00. > :45:02.with your bill is that, as I understand it, the importance of it,
:45:03. > :45:10.and there are some Conservative MPs who have already said so, they can
:45:11. > :45:13.just talk it out? They could. There are all kinds of parliamentary
:45:14. > :45:20.tricks that could be used to prevent it from getting through all its
:45:21. > :45:23.stages, but I think the important point here is, this is an issue on
:45:24. > :45:25.which the important point here is, this is an issue on which there is
:45:26. > :45:30.cost party consensus. Labour, the Conservatives, the SNP and ourselves
:45:31. > :45:33.will support the principle of putting this target in law, and it
:45:34. > :45:37.draws attention to a really important issue, that aid for people
:45:38. > :45:41.in the least developed parts of the world, people who are really
:45:42. > :45:48.suffering, is still very important, and we in the UK are rightly proud
:45:49. > :45:52.of having reached the target, but we have to make sure we keep reaching
:45:53. > :45:56.the target. When you asked by the Lib Dem leadership to pick this
:45:57. > :46:01.topic? No, I was considering a range of different bills, and a Private
:46:02. > :46:06.Members' Bill has to be one that has a good chance of getting through by
:46:07. > :46:15.getting cross-party consensus. I know there is a strong consensus for
:46:16. > :46:22.this. I respect the fact that there are people in other parties who
:46:23. > :46:23.oppose it. I am happy to meet them and argue the case. The reason I ask
:46:24. > :46:24.you is because enshrined in this in law was in the coalition agreement
:46:25. > :46:27.between yourselves and the Conservatives, and David Cameron
:46:28. > :46:33.decided not to proceed with that, even though it was in the coalition
:46:34. > :46:36.agreement. So cynics would say that apart from your concerns about the
:46:37. > :46:40.third World, which I don't think anyone would doubt, this looks like
:46:41. > :46:44.a ploy to expose divisions in the Conservative Party. There are
:46:45. > :46:49.certainly people in the Conservative Party who are opposed to this. Some
:46:50. > :46:53.of them oppose all Private Members' Bills, some have an ideological
:46:54. > :46:58.opposition to government money being spent on aid. However, to give
:46:59. > :47:02.credit to the many in the Conservative Party alongside Liberal
:47:03. > :47:06.Democrats and the SNP and Labour who are very strongly supportive of
:47:07. > :47:13.this, including successive secretaries of State, and one key
:47:14. > :47:15.back of my bill is Andrew Mitchell, who is the first Conservative
:47:16. > :47:18.Secretary of State for International development back in 2010. I think it
:47:19. > :47:22.is to their credit along with others that this has got consensus to go
:47:23. > :47:25.forward. The obvious argument against this is that you are tying
:47:26. > :47:29.the hands of future governments, perhaps in the middle of a financial
:47:30. > :47:34.crisis, and also, for many in this country, times have been very tough
:47:35. > :47:38.recently. For example, why not write a law saying you can't cut the NHS
:47:39. > :47:44.budget? The reason I have drawn attention to this, and generations
:47:45. > :47:49.of campaigners and politicians have argued for this, is that the
:47:50. > :47:52.disparity, the gap between the very wealthy of the world and those in
:47:53. > :47:57.abject poverty in the developing world is huge, and sadly, not
:47:58. > :48:01.getting closed quickly enough. There has been a United Nations target to
:48:02. > :48:08.get to this level of government spending since 1970, so we are not
:48:09. > :48:11.exactly rushed to get here. We are seeing, let's get a floor under
:48:12. > :48:15.which we do not go in terms of development. It is not .7%. Not a
:48:16. > :48:21.huge amount of money, and then we can start making short, doubling our
:48:22. > :48:24.efforts to make sure it is well spent and well targeted. Briefly,
:48:25. > :48:28.the other criticism that is made is that we give money to some countries
:48:29. > :49:11.that arguably should not receive it. Let me give you one example. Nigeria
:49:12. > :49:12.has just rearranged its GDP in a way many economists think is credible,
:49:13. > :49:13.making it the richest country in Africa, Richard and South Africa,
:49:14. > :49:13.yet it is receiving British aid. Although there are problems in
:49:14. > :49:14.Nigeria, people would say it is to do with governance, not lack of
:49:15. > :49:15.money. Their economy is growing faster than ours. That is
:49:16. > :49:15.legitimate. We need to focus our assistance on the right countries
:49:16. > :49:16.and the right bits within countries, because property is not universally
:49:17. > :49:18.experienced, and I don't think we will shy away from having a close
:49:19. > :49:20.focus on development aid and how it is spent, but we can't escape the
:49:21. > :49:24.fact that millions of people are in extreme hunger, millions do not get
:49:25. > :49:25.access to clean water, millions do not get vaccinations that could save
:49:26. > :49:28.them and their children, and I think well that remains the case, we
:49:29. > :49:34.should be focusing our efforts in this way. There is also also talk
:49:35. > :49:39.about a Cabinet reshuffle tomorrow. You don't have fond memories of the
:49:40. > :50:04.last one. You think Nick Clegg should reshuffle himself? Do you
:50:05. > :50:04.think he should lead the Lib Dems into the next election? Of course he
:50:05. > :50:05.should. I think it is absolutely right that Nick should take is
:50:06. > :50:06.through to the next election. I think he is the right guy to do it.
:50:07. > :50:07.By your poll ratings are disastrous. They are dire, but they will not be
:50:08. > :50:17.changed by a leadership election largely featuring people who like
:50:18. > :50:22.Nick and me have been in coalition. You describe Radio 1 poll ratings as
:50:23. > :50:27.dire. How could he be any more dire by having a new leader? My personal
:50:28. > :50:31.judgement which I know is shared by most colleagues is that Nick is the
:50:32. > :50:35.right guy to be leading us and a distraction of a leadership contest
:50:36. > :50:39.right now when the electorate are expecting us to set out our
:50:40. > :50:43.programme for the next Parliament would be completely self-indulgent
:50:44. > :50:51.and wrong. With the benefit of hindsight, do you think the Liberal
:50:52. > :50:57.Democrats should have gone into coalition? I do. The country was on
:50:58. > :51:02.our financial precipice in 2010 and we had real questions to be answered
:51:03. > :51:08.about our economic viability. We needed the government to have the
:51:09. > :51:12.commitment and strength to go through five tough years. For us to
:51:13. > :51:17.have avoided that and sat in the comfort zone of the opposition
:51:18. > :51:23.benches would have created more difficulty. You betrayed personal
:51:24. > :51:27.pledges. You made a personal pledge not to increase tuition fees. That
:51:28. > :51:31.was the moment in which the credibility of the Liberal Democrats
:51:32. > :51:36.was shot and you have never recovered. I appreciate that and I
:51:37. > :51:40.have apologised for the reasons behind that strong change of
:51:41. > :51:43.position. We continue to argue with people the length and breadth of the
:51:44. > :51:48.country about what we have put in place that we believe actually is
:51:49. > :51:56.better at getting students from poor background into higher education and
:51:57. > :52:00.it is a fire system. Really? Nonetheless, I am not ducking your
:52:01. > :52:06.central point. We said we wouldn't and we did. In the process of
:52:07. > :52:14.explaining that to the public, we have the set out the other things we
:52:15. > :52:19.have achieved, not least out of ensuring pensioners get a fair deal
:52:20. > :52:26.from the state. Liberal Democrats have delivered some good things. Let
:52:27. > :52:31.me just caught you on the subject of betraying the pledge on tuition
:52:32. > :52:36.fees. You said, I signed a pledge that promised not to do that. I have
:52:37. > :52:42.done the worst crime a politician can commit. I have had to break a
:52:43. > :52:53.pledge very publicly in what is a car crash and it is deeply damaging
:52:54. > :52:59.to my party, me and lots of others. You're absolutely right, weren't
:53:00. > :53:04.you? If you recall, that was a private conversation which the Daily
:53:05. > :53:09.Telegraph recorded. But I stand by what I said. I perhaps put it more
:53:10. > :53:13.colourfully in private than I would have done in public. Nick Clegg,
:53:14. > :53:21.myself and others have apologised for that. There were senior Liberal
:53:22. > :53:31.Democrats including Charles Kennedy and so Ming Campbell who refuse to
:53:32. > :53:37.do what you did. They said -- sur Menzies Campbell.
:53:38. > :53:48.Vince Cable brought the policy for bird. Nick Clegg as leader and our
:53:49. > :53:51.Cabinet colleagues were going to support this. It would have been
:53:52. > :53:56.ridiculous for us not to. We believe the solution we brought forward was
:53:57. > :54:02.the best available in the circumstances and prevented huge
:54:03. > :54:05.cuts in the higher education spending in England and Wales. I am
:54:06. > :54:10.not getting away from the difficulties of that and the legacy
:54:11. > :54:15.it has left. It is much more profound than that. Ming Campbell
:54:16. > :54:21.said my credibility would be shot to pieces if I did anything other than
:54:22. > :54:26.stick to the promise I made. He was right, wasn't he? Your personal
:54:27. > :54:31.credibility as a politician has been shot to pieces. Each of us is
:54:32. > :54:37.accountable to our electorate and our constituents across the country.
:54:38. > :54:44.We have do explain decisions which are different to what we have said.
:54:45. > :54:49.People are giving us a clearer hearing than perhaps you are
:54:50. > :54:52.suggesting. Yes, the Paul rating remains dire and we need to do
:54:53. > :54:58.better. Over the next nine months, we will have our opportunity to set
:54:59. > :55:03.out our stall for the next elections. Are there any red lines
:55:04. > :55:07.left for the Liberal Democrats? Suppose the Conservatives did well
:55:08. > :55:14.in the next general election but again didn't have an overall
:55:15. > :55:24.majority and wanted going to coalition with the Liberal Democrats
:55:25. > :55:30.again, David Cameron might say that he needed the EU Referendum Bill
:55:31. > :55:35.stop would you let him have that? There are a number of stages before
:55:36. > :55:39.we get to any coalition negotiations. I don't want there to
:55:40. > :55:44.be a referendum that is on different terms to the one we agreed in this
:55:45. > :55:53.parliament with the Conservatives which is to say were there to be a
:55:54. > :55:57.major transfer of powers to Brussels then there should be a referendum. I
:55:58. > :56:03.am not in the position to say there is a red line on anything. Nobody
:56:04. > :56:08.believes there is one. Everybody sees every political party,
:56:09. > :56:14.including labour, the Conservatives and the SNP, they have to make
:56:15. > :56:19.compromises. We will set out our position in the build-up to the
:56:20. > :56:26.election and on that basis we will submit colleagues which we hope will
:56:27. > :56:30.be elected to Parliament. I think it is fair to say you were probably not
:56:31. > :56:42.delighted when you were replaced as Secretary of State for Scotland. Is
:56:43. > :56:48.it helpful that Alistair Carmichael is rumoured to be replaced after the
:56:49. > :56:55.referendum? Having been through various boats of speculation, you
:56:56. > :57:02.learn to Don thick skin very quickly. Alistair is doing a superb
:57:03. > :57:11.job and there are lots of talented colleagues. He is not going to be
:57:12. > :57:16.replaced in September? That is not my decision. That is a decision for
:57:17. > :57:20.the leader. In my personal view, I think Alistair is doing a fantastic
:57:21. > :57:26.job and I hope he continues doing it. Thank you for joining us.
:57:27. > :57:27.You're watching Sunday Politics Scotland.
:57:28. > :57:32.Scotland could become the base for the UK's spaceport, the first of
:57:33. > :57:38.The UK Government will reveal eight potential locations for the
:57:39. > :57:44.Its ambition is to have the port fully operational by 2018.
:57:45. > :57:47.Kinloss in Morayshire, RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Leuchars
:57:48. > :58:06.have all been mentioned as possible locations in the past.
:58:07. > :58:09.The First Minister has said the North Sea oil industry would be
:58:10. > :58:11.a bonus, not the basis of an independent Scotland's economy.
:58:12. > :58:14.He is responding to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny
:58:15. > :58:17.Alexander, who has accused him of promising milk and honey after the
:58:18. > :58:20.UK Office for Budget Responsibility revised down the amount of cash it
:58:21. > :58:22.expects to be raised from oil and gas revenues. Mr Salmond argued
:58:23. > :58:25.the industry has been neglected and undermined by successive UK
:58:26. > :58:39.A project to reduce the cost and time it takes to establish
:58:40. > :58:41.offshore wind farms is to benefit from ?2.2 million of Scottish
:58:42. > :58:44.Nine developers with around 70% of the UK's offshore energy
:58:45. > :58:46.capacity will work to share knowledge and best practice
:58:47. > :58:54.in areas including the maintenance of turbines and cable installation.
:58:55. > :58:56.It has been confirmed that Rod Stewart will headline
:58:57. > :58:59.the opening ceremony of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.
:59:00. > :59:03.He will perform in front of 40,000 people at the event at Celtic Park.
:59:04. > :59:06.Susan Boyle, Nicola Bennedetti and Amy MacDonald are also included
:59:07. > :59:08.in the line up which is expected to be watched internationally
:59:09. > :59:29.Many of us saw some range of in the overnight period. That has cleared
:59:30. > :59:37.from the mainland although it will linger over Orkney and Shetland.
:59:38. > :59:42.Elsewhere, it looks predominantly dry. Some servers breaking out
:59:43. > :59:48.towards more eastern parts of the country. We could see some highs of
:59:49. > :59:53.21 degrees. A fairly pleasant afternoon for most. This evening,
:59:54. > :59:57.drive a clear spells. Last Friday,
:59:58. > :00:01.Scotland marked Srebrenica Memorial Those involved commemorated
:00:02. > :00:06.the massacre of 8,000 men and boys It was the worst atrocity in the
:00:07. > :00:14.three and a half year war that broke out following the disintegration
:00:15. > :00:16.of Yugoslavia involving Bosnia, 100,000 people died during the
:00:17. > :00:20.conflict, 80% of whom were Bosnian, Labour MP Ann McKechin visited the
:00:21. > :00:36.town earlier this year and she's One of the things that struck me as
:00:37. > :00:44.most disturbing and what you said after you came back in February was
:00:45. > :00:49.that there was little sign of any reconciliation in the town itself? I
:00:50. > :00:58.have visited a number of sites were genocide has occurred. Auschwitz,
:00:59. > :01:01.Rwanda and Buenos Aires where the disappeared were tortured and
:01:02. > :01:07.killed. When I visited Bosnia, the atmosphere was distinctly different.
:01:08. > :01:11.People are not allowed to grieve properly in the town were this
:01:12. > :01:17.dreadful massacre took place. One of the site is still used as a school
:01:18. > :01:22.by the Serbian population. People are not allowed to lay flowers were
:01:23. > :01:30.people were shot and killed. The distance between the communities in
:01:31. > :01:36.this small part of the world is still growing. When you see people
:01:37. > :01:45.are not allowed to lay flowers, how does that work? Technically, this is
:01:46. > :01:50.all Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is the Serbian Republic part of it
:01:51. > :01:58.effectively working as an autonomous unit? That's right. The threatening
:01:59. > :02:03.to join Serbia. The fact that there is an agreement which set up the
:02:04. > :02:09.political structure within Bosnia-Herzegovina and that was
:02:10. > :02:12.really there to stop the killing and have a cease-fire. It is not a
:02:13. > :02:17.serious long-term political settlement for that country and it
:02:18. > :02:19.is not engendered the necessary grassroots reconciliation which
:02:20. > :02:27.allows people to grieve for their dead properly, to move on and start
:02:28. > :02:36.to live and grow together. That is why it demands our attention. What
:02:37. > :02:40.you think needs to be the European Union has understandably had a focus
:02:41. > :02:43.in Ukraine. But the leadership needs to show focus here in encouraging a
:02:44. > :03:04.mum on to -- a momentum for change. Do you think there can be
:03:05. > :03:13.reconciliation within the new state of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or do you
:03:14. > :03:18.think they would only ever be reconciliation if the Serbian
:03:19. > :03:27.Republic would be allowed to break away? I think that would be
:03:28. > :03:34.disastrous. People are very afraid that could occur. What we require is
:03:35. > :03:38.encouragement to the government of Bosnia and surrounding countries to
:03:39. > :03:46.work together for a new political process which will not happen
:03:47. > :03:48.overnight. This will be a very long process because the horror of
:03:49. > :03:54.Srebrenica and that war which lasted for four Mac years and affected the
:03:55. > :04:00.whole country when thousands of people lost their lives, that will
:04:01. > :04:07.take a long time to forget. The past is not sorted out. As I understand
:04:08. > :04:17.it, there are still investigations into missing people? People are
:04:18. > :04:27.still being identified as we speak. Bones were scattered over a wide
:04:28. > :04:32.radius. These need to be properly interred. People were directly
:04:33. > :04:38.involved in the killing and have never been brought to justice. They
:04:39. > :04:59.are living and working, in some cases holding senior positions.
:05:00. > :05:17.Quite openly. What about the Dutch role in this? Apparently, a criminal
:05:18. > :05:20.case was not possible as the UN has immunity. But do you think the Dutch
:05:21. > :05:23.role should just be put in the past, or do you think it is a live issue?
:05:24. > :05:27.We need to understand the strength of feeling within the Bosnia
:05:28. > :05:30.immunity in Srebrenica about what occurred, and the total failure of
:05:31. > :05:34.the international community to protect them adequately. The UN must
:05:35. > :05:35.except this issue and take responsibility for it, because
:05:36. > :05:36.people need to have trust in the United Nations and international
:05:37. > :05:37.organisations if we are to achieve the type of peace and resolution and
:05:38. > :05:38.security we all seek. In the first of a series,
:05:39. > :05:41.we've been asking people on both sides of the referendum
:05:42. > :05:43.campaign for a personal account Chris Agee, author,
:05:44. > :05:46.poet and writer-in-residence at Strathclyde University,
:05:47. > :06:01.begins by giving us his account. I stay in Partick and will be voting
:06:02. > :06:06.Yes in the referendum, but I grew up in the United States and have lived
:06:07. > :06:11.most of my life in Ireland. I have yet to meet a single Scottish Scots
:06:12. > :06:28.resident writer who does not intend to vote Yes. Writers tend to take
:06:29. > :06:31.the long view, both in terms of the future, but in relation to the past.
:06:32. > :06:34.Turning to my own particular reasons, the removal of nuclear
:06:35. > :06:37.weapons, the ending of the half nation for the full nation, the
:06:38. > :06:43.obvious, pate and better prospect for social justice and democratic
:06:44. > :06:46.participation. Avoidance of what is sometimes called political capture
:06:47. > :06:48.by special interests or classes, as in the City of London. Continued,
:06:49. > :06:51.secure membership of the European Union. Altogether, these potential
:06:52. > :06:56.changes or developments will have an enormous impact, obviously, on
:06:57. > :07:02.England in general, and London in particular. Small, well off
:07:03. > :07:09.democratic polity is like the Nordic countries do social justice and
:07:10. > :07:14.democratic participation better than the large, loose federal structures
:07:15. > :07:18.structure is embodied by Russia, China, US, and to a certain extent,
:07:19. > :07:21.the UK, which are now riven with the most enormous social inequalities,
:07:22. > :07:25.as exemplified by what might be called the citystate of London.
:07:26. > :07:30.Scottish independence does not represent a move towards insularity,
:07:31. > :07:34.but a move towards international is. Imagine all the distinct,
:07:35. > :07:38.independent Scottish voices that can exist in international bodies, and
:07:39. > :07:43.at the same time, Scottish independence has the potential for a
:07:44. > :07:47.major, positive influence on the reconciliation of two parts of
:07:48. > :07:52.Ireland, and the reordering any more natural way of the various parts of
:07:53. > :07:53.this planet. Next week, we'll have
:07:54. > :07:55.our second guest to explain what's shaped his decision to vote No
:07:56. > :08:03.in September's referendum. Now, time for a look at what is in
:08:04. > :08:13.the papers and what is happening in the week ahead.
:08:14. > :08:19.I am joined by Penny Taylor and by Andrew Pickering. Let's start with
:08:20. > :08:24.Scots in space. There might be a space based in Scotland. Exciting?
:08:25. > :08:31.My initial reaction is, is this another indie referendum bribe,
:08:32. > :08:39.because they cannot afford their own space programme, I think, so I am a
:08:40. > :08:43.little curious of this timing. I think the scepticism is fairly well
:08:44. > :08:48.founded, but it is quite exciting. It fires the imagination. It is
:08:49. > :08:53.July, when these sort of stories traditionally happen. But this is
:08:54. > :08:57.not speculation, it is announced by the government. We sent up our first
:08:58. > :09:02.satellite, launched in Kazakhstan. Yes, one made in Scotland. And this
:09:03. > :09:09.has been on the go for a couple of years. A couple of stories in the
:09:10. > :09:16.Herald. Better Together have the wrong address. You mentioned the
:09:17. > :09:21.silly season! You get about halfway through this, and you realise it is
:09:22. > :09:25.really not a story, because the Electoral Commission are saying, it
:09:26. > :09:30.is fine with us, there is not a problem. So I am not entirely
:09:31. > :09:33.convinced by this. I have been reading and rereading it, looking
:09:34. > :09:37.body significance. I cannot understand what it would mean if the
:09:38. > :09:40.Electoral commission has said, you have registered your address in
:09:41. > :09:48.Glasgow instead of Edinburgh. Does it mean there is No a? What would be
:09:49. > :09:54.the indication? I presume there would be at implication, if you
:09:55. > :09:59.remember that the CBI was technically not registered properly.
:10:00. > :10:05.I guess that is the comparison. Scotland on Sunday, arguably, there
:10:06. > :10:10.is a new poll, Penny Taylor. Yes, and polls leave me a little bit
:10:11. > :10:19.cold. This one shows 2% gain for the Yes campaign, and 80% loss for the
:10:20. > :10:21.No camp will stop I am not a statistician, but I wonder as
:10:22. > :10:25.statistically significant that is. However, the detail in this is
:10:26. > :10:29.really interesting. It shows for the first time, for instance, that more
:10:30. > :10:34.women are declaring for Yes than men. Up until now, we have thought
:10:35. > :10:38.that women were the ones who were hanging back. This says differently.
:10:39. > :10:47.Something I am also finding very interesting, there has been a loss
:10:48. > :10:53.of 9% in the No vote from people aged over 65, according to this
:10:54. > :10:57.poll. I think it is maybe pinch of salt stuff. On the face of it, good
:10:58. > :11:04.news for the No camp. I think the Yes camp or will consult themselves
:11:05. > :11:08.with 21% and undecided. The one jumped out at me was 86% of No
:11:09. > :11:13.voters would still reject independence if there wasn't any
:11:14. > :11:19.offer of more powers. Presumably, the concern for the Yes camp is that
:11:20. > :11:26.there has now been a series of polls which, at best, showed No particular
:11:27. > :11:30.movement. Yes. But what it does show is, they are still in the race. Even
:11:31. > :11:36.with weeks to go, which is what I think they are working towards. Two
:11:37. > :11:40.months on Friday, and it is still incredibly tight, so the game is for
:11:41. > :11:45.the playing. So they will be hoping a bit last Bush can turn it around.
:11:46. > :11:48.I think we will see quite a few polls after the Commonwealth Games
:11:49. > :11:57.as well, to take that into a new era. Cabinet reshuffle. Exciting?
:11:58. > :12:01.More women? Yes, it is saying in the Sunday Times that David Cameron has
:12:02. > :12:05.lined up a dozen women to be the new faces at the Tory party in the
:12:06. > :12:09.run-up to the general election. A lot of me wants to say, about time,
:12:10. > :12:12.but when you are looking at the detail of some of these women, you
:12:13. > :12:16.are wondering what difference it will make to party policy or the
:12:17. > :12:24.acceptability of a party in this neck of the woods. Penny is right in
:12:25. > :12:27.terms of about time. It begs the question, why have they not done it
:12:28. > :12:33.before now? Voters will probably look at it that way. What about some
:12:34. > :12:37.of the big positions? Any changes there? It is saying that the
:12:38. > :12:41.employment Minister Esther McVey is being lined up to replace Kenneth
:12:42. > :12:48.Clarke, that he is preparing to stand down as Minister Without
:12:49. > :12:52.Portfolio. Yes, although another rumour is that Esther McVey could
:12:53. > :12:56.replace Iain Duncan Smith. It is just a rumour. Even at the time of
:12:57. > :12:59.the last reshuffle, I was taught that George Osborne wanted to get
:13:00. > :13:04.rid of Iain Duncan Smith, because he took his own wealth reforms
:13:05. > :13:08.seriously, instead of just saving money. There has been a lot of
:13:09. > :13:13.conflict between those two camps. The one that intrigued me was Lynne
:13:14. > :13:17.Fawkes possibly making a return after three years in the wilderness.
:13:18. > :13:21.It will be interesting to see what happens there. Possibly Ed Davey
:13:22. > :13:26.replaced by Jo Swinson, though it seems a road is now denying that. I
:13:27. > :13:31.think we saw the response of Michael Moore to that, Yes. It has been
:13:32. > :13:35.mooted that Jo Swinson will be in the Cabinet, but possibly in
:13:36. > :13:38.September. Do you think she is deserving? She is certainly a
:13:39. > :13:43.popular MP, but what is interesting to me as a woman in Scotland as, the
:13:44. > :13:48.relevance of this to the Scottish debate at the moment. It feels quite
:13:49. > :13:49.remote. We will have to leave it there. Thank you both very much
:13:50. > :13:57.indeed. I'll be back at the same time
:13:58. > :14:00.next week. Until then, goodbye.