31/08/2014 Sunday Politics Scotland

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

People have come here for hundreds of years sharing

their culture and skills, but would an independent Scotland attract

the number of immigrants it needs - and what number should that be?

No currency deal, no debt - that's the threat from Scottish

But what level of risk does that carry and how

We'll be putting those questions live to the First Minister,

who's one of our guests today and to Willie Rennie, the leader

of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who's in our Edinburgh studio.

Wanting more or less divergent views in the independence debate

David Cameron's policy of cutting immigration to under

100,000 was said to be in tatters this week when net migration to

As the UK government tries to stem the surge, the Scottish Government

take the opposite view for an independent Scotland wanting

more and more younger workers to support an ageing population.

As Andrew Kerr reports, behind the figures there's an age-old story

Drolet Hills Italy a later will lead. A brave move further slant

stepping out into the world to open a cafe in Glasgow that is still run

by his grandson. He started in the shipyards. He worked as a carpenter.

From there he built us money together and opened a shop. The

Italians were part of Scotland's stories and then other waves of

immigrants from Pakistan to Poland. Emigration is a positive thing.

Migrants tend to be young, the draw unless public services, public

spending, the increased tax receipts. That is a good thing

compared to the older population who in fiscal terms require extra

spending in terms of pensions, health care and social services.

Originally the family here were strangers to this land but they

worked hard and became fully integrated, they became part of the

fabric of the city. That is the hope of many people who come to the

shores, but sadly not the reality. The latest figures worry the UK

government. Net migration into the UK totalled 243,000 in the year to

March, up from 100 and 73,000 in the previous 12 months. -- 173,000. The

UK Government promised to reduce net migration to tens of thousands and

that has proved impossible for a number of reasons. That opens it to

critique from UKIP and anti-immigrant groups. One of the

mistakes made by the Conservative government is that they have

responded to that by responding to a populist and symbolic policies

designed to restrict access to welfare and health services. A

points -based system would be used to attract workers and keep students

on a post-IDV 's. They have a net migration total of 24,000. The

policy could face the resorts of hurdles. The first one, would

Scotland attract that level of immigration. Around 24,000 a year?

If it were able to attract that level of attraction, a lot of public

opinion? Would it be able to pursue that liberal policy within the rest

of the UK and Ireland? Back at the cafe, the coffee is on but there is

trouble brewing over the numbers. A keen insider from the Labour years

thinks that the figures are over the peak. We will have to get them from

outside Europe. What does that mean? It means Africa and Asia. That

is what we do not want to let us know. The SNP now it is deeply

unpopular amongst working class mail undecided voters. They should have

the honesty to tell the truth. He is a nice man, he is also our spin

doctor. I know I can tell what he is stretching, the average is just a

little bit. This Scottish government is not concealing anything, it is

trying to do its best to calculate the number of skilled workers that

we need. 1 million is a bit of nonsense. As arguments by all over

it as the people who are here in Scotland know who face tough choices

on how they want their communities to look and how they want them to

survive. In a few moments we will speak to the first Minister Alex

Salmond. And Willie Rennie. leader Willie Rennie. But first, the

UK's national debt - and what would happen to Scotland's share of it in

the event of a Yes vote has been With both the first minister

and Finance minister John Swinney insisting Scotland could walk away

from its share if the UK government Here's a reminder

of what the Finance Secretary had to We support our currency union in

which we would take our fair share of the debt which has been built up

over time. But if the UK is going to seize the assets then it is welcome

to all the liabilities and we will not be having any of them.

So what would it mean for us as investors and consumers to walk

away from Scotland's share of the UK national debt?

Well, in the short term it would save us money - but what impact

would it have on international markets and future investors?

How would they react to a country walking away from

Since Scotland isn't legally responsible for the UK debt if it

becomes a new independent state, it would not be in default. How

international viewers would see it, there would be a number of issues.

Maybe there is a sense of Scotland not living up to its moral

obligations to shoulder responsibility for its share of the

UK debt, people might consider that a reason to be cautious about future

lending. On the other hand, Scotland would be starting with a new sheet.

That could mean it would be able to repay any new debt it took on more

easily. People might judge it as a better risky.

An independent Scotland would undoubtedly result in changes to

interest rates, but the extent of it remains largely uncertain.

The most likely affect on the bills that the householder would have to

pay for mortgage payments and other things, we would be looking of an

increase of one percentage point. It could be a bit more or less and that

is whether Scotland takes the debt with that. If it walks away with --

from the debt, we do not know how much more or maybe even less those

costs would change. It is really... It is very likely that the risks

would be higher, that is the outcome.

The First Minister Alex Salmond was listening to that and joins us

from Strichen Community Park this morning.

Can I ask you about immigration. These latest figures that we have on

immigration to Scotland, your plans are for more than double that. What

ever is still you have that people in Scotland are enthusiastic about

such a substantial increase in immigration? Can I correct you on to

raise. Over the period since Devil loosen the average net migration

figure has been 22,000 into Scotland. But also the second

correction is that we are talking about net migration and not

immigration. There are more people who leave Scotland who are younger.

-- devolution. The net migration figure takes into effect the job

figures available to those people who are leaving. It is a good thing

if people who have skill and ability who want to stay and contribute to

our country. The difference between net migration and immigration is

very important. I saw a headline saying that Salman and targets

24,000 immigration. The journalist who wrote the article would be

counted in their terms as part of that immigration figure, they have,

from is England and Wales and our in our communities. They are not the

same thing as was being suggested. If you do run a more expansive

immigration policy which you do want to do, no matter how you define it,

obviously the UK Government would have concerns about that. There

would be nothing to stop people coming here and driving to London.

How would you deal with British Government concerns about that? We

are suggesting a points -based system. In terms of continuing

employment, like the graduate employment scheme that we used to

operate a few years ago until the UK Government stopped us from doing as

they can do. If the UK Government thought people could take advantage

of that, how would you stop them? Ireland has operated a different

immigration system that is part of the common travel area, the Green

card system. The Isle of Man operates a different immigration

system. It is attached a points -based and to employment, that is

the whole point of the system that we are putting forward. Every person

watching this, every family watching this will have relatives who have

had to go far from Scotland to seek employment in opportunity. We are

suggesting a combination of attracting skilled people who can

attract much to our communities, and opportunities are young people in

our own land which will allow us to be a society that will meet the

Democratic challengers meeting every country in western Europe. The UK

Government kicks out people with ability and then we have the

situation were young Scots have to go to London or elsewhere to find

lifetime opportunities. Danny Alexander has written to John

Swinney this morning asking the Ennis -- SNP to scrap plans not to

take on the UK debt. Will you withdraw that idea? We will

certainly not. The answer is in the Treasury note as to the markets on

the 13th of January this year which the Chief Secretary is familiar

with. The first sentence of which there is in the event of Scottish

independence, the continuing UK Government will accept congrats all

-- contractual obligations in its name. Danny Alexander, just as the

new earlier, he is... He is not calling it a default. Interestingly

enough Douglas Alexander did a BBC programme a few days ago and said

that five times. Scotland... He says it is irresponsible and that

financial markets would take a dim view of it. Whether you call it a

default and not does not matter. It does matter because you cannot have

a default which is a matter of fact we know is no default. The liability

lies with the UK Government. We are putting forward an argument that we

should share assets and liabilities. Danny Alexander is suggesting that

he waltzed as having access to the financial assets to the Bank of

England. 27% of the gilts that have been issued under quantitative

easing. If he wants to take all of the assets, then he gets stuck with

all of the liabilities. You say you have a sovereign mandate to

negotiate the currency here. Can you hear me? We will have a mandate. We

had a small technical problem there. We lost you for a second. Hang on a

second, you say you have a sovereign mandate to negotiate a currency

union if there is a yes vote. The Green party wants an independent

currency. Jim Sellers described your plans on the currency as stupid.

When he votes yes to independence, why is he giving your man did it --

a mandate to negotiate currency. That is why we published a White

Paper, that is the mandate... Yes, but you do not agree with an

independent currency. Millions of other people are as well. It is

supported among the Scottish people. I am dubious about this. If I vote

yes to independence and I give you a mandate for a currency union, what

else are people in Scotland giving you a mandate for in your white

paper? Take taxation, your mandate policy is to cut corporation tax in

big business. If there is a yes vote does that mean it is the sovereign

will of April in Scotland to cut tax on big business? Now. -- live.

Please let me answer the question. There is a common-sense agreement to

have a common currency. It will be subject to the will of the Scottish

people. The idea is that the SNP have have been seen many times in

the White Paper. It will be tested against whatever Willie Rennie has

to see. The common-sense agreement will shape the advent of Scottish

independence. I think most people watching will appreciate the

difference. Thank you very much for that. We heard your golden words but

your picture froze a few times. Thank you very much. Listening to

that was the reader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats who is in our

other studio. Going back to this immigration business, why not

devolved powers so that the Scottish Government can do what they want to

do? The issue here is whether you can have a common travel agent

serving the British Isles with radical immigration differences

between the different countries. You could see people coming to Scotland

with a more liberal approach and then travelling down south to take

up work. You can imagine the rest of the United Kingdom might have a

problem. It has not been a problem with the isle of man on the Republic

of Ireland. But it could be a problem if you look at the detail.

In that case, having more immigration and giving the ageing

palatial and in Scotland which your site is almost screaming about, one

way is to have more immigrants. If we cannot do that within the UK,

isn't that a good reason to be independent and have a completely

separate immigration policy? The beauty of the United Kingdom is a

broad population with strong working shoulders to support the economy. I

think that is a good reason we should say no to independence. What

we can do is stick with the UK and have that security for the future.

If Scotland does become independent what do you think it's currency

should be? That is an issue for Alex Salmond to spell out. Now, you are

the leader of the Lib Dems and that I would have thought as a major

political party you might have some idea what you would be advocating in

two weeks time. I would pick from a range of tenable options. Alex

Salmond is not spelling out the consequences. The cutting edge of

the Lib Dems is moved to pick? Yes, if we look at the options presented

to people it would be quite Draconian. You would have impacts on

businesses, being able to support the leaders of the economy. These

would be quite dramatic. So you don't know? I tell you what I know,

I know we are Better Together in the United Kingdom. So, if there is a

yes vote would you advocate a currency union? It is Alex Salmond

that is proposing to put up barriers. If your side lose the

referendum what will you argue? A currency union? What I will argue

for right now, forgive me, this is what I am arguing for in this

referendum, it is for the United Kingdom to stay together. You were

leading me down the garden path there, I thought you were going to

ask the question! What exactly is your evidence for the UK debt? The

United Kingdom has never defaulted on its debt. That is widely Kingdom

has credibility across the globe. Scotland is part of that, we have a

good reputation for sound money. If, on the first day of independence, we

were to walk away from our fears she of debt that would trash our

reputation across the globe. -- their share. If it is walking away

from ?100 billion of UK debt which it could then put into a

stabilisation fund to deal with any problems of the sterilisation of the

currency, then it would be saving. That is extraordinary, that they

would be prepared to walk away from the Hundred years reputation of

sound money for that. Crawford Beveridge set out quite clearly that

if it smells like a default and looks like a default it is the

default. I would not want an independent Scotland to start off by

defaulting on its debt. Householders across Scotland would resent that.

If you look at mortgage costs, they build everyone pays every single

day, the cost would go up. This is astonishing. We are using sterling

but we are not part of the formal currency union and we have walked

away from UK debt, it is not clear to me why the cost of the car loan

would go up? Because the reputation of an independent Scotland... There

may be an issue for Scotland borrowing money but why would

Barclays bank or RBS put the cost of the car loan up? People who were

investing in Scotland would charge us more which would cost government

more and individuals more as a result. That would be the cost, the

price of this. I understand the cost of government debt, you may or may

not be right, fiscal expansion might charge lots of money but why would

RBS timely -- suddenly turned round to people and say your mortgage is

going up? Because the ability of people in Scotland to GP that debt

would be diminished. -- repay that debt. It is quite straightforward.

You still have not explained why the mortgage would go up. Because the

cost of borrowing would go up. But the cost of borrowing from big

international banks would be exactly the same as before. The cost would

go up, that is what the experts tell us. The other thing you seem unclear

about is the argument that it financial institutions would not be

bailed out but, on the assumption that RBS for example, where to

become a UK company saw it were regulated by the UK, it is not clear

why that is a problem. The majority of customers would not be in

Scotland but elsewhere. They would want to operate in a financial

regime that was consistent with the customers. It would be a gradual

change over time but perhaps more dramatic in the short-term. This is

what the yes people mean when they say you are just negative all the

time. If there was a formal currency union and no lender of last resort

one of the big arguments is the problem with the banks is the know

if they mess up that governments will bail them out. That would not

exist under sterling eyes Asian with financial institutions in Scotland,

they would have to build up there on reserves and be able to take either

of themselves if they got into trouble. That is arguably a good

thing. That was argued last week but it was roundly criticised because it

would mean a significant number of job losses here in Scotland. These

companies want the security of a country behind them. The financial

sector in Scotland is 12 times the size of our economy which is way too

big for us to support in a time of crisis. Arguably lots of activities

which have never been anywhere near Scotland but are in fact based in

London. That is my point. The jobs would gradually drift southwards

over time, even more. There are functions of RBS here in Scotland.

There would be companies wanting to take advantage of the new regime. I

do not think it is negative to ask serious questions about these

chaotic plans that Alex Salmond has put forward. That is doing my duty

as a Scot. I do not want to end up with a chaotic financial system. I

would be letting down Scots if I failed to answer these questions, it

is not negative, it is doing my duty. We have to leave it there,

thank you for joining us. Now let's cross for the news. Good afternoon.

The two sides in the independence debate have been discussing the

future of immigration. Alex Salmond said he wanted a combination of

attracting skilled people and the opportunity of keeping youngsters

here. Willie Rennie raised concerns about how the Common travel area

would work. Sunbed users are still at risk of skin cancer even if they

do not burn according to researchers. It increases the risk

of developing a common cancer is by repeated planning rather than

burning. One fifth of skin cancers are said to be caused in that way.

Health professionals are to step up the attempt to see minimum pricing

for alcohol introduced here. A minimum unit price was passed at

Holyrood two years ago but it has pleased -- faced legal challenges

from alcohol producers. Now a look at the weather forecast. Hello, it

is looking like a lovely day ahead for many of us with an abundance of

sunshine on the cards and a load of dry weather as well. Plenty

sunshine, especially further east, in the West it will start to cloud

over with wet and windy weather by the end of the day. Temperatures

around 16 Celsius, up to 19 further east. That is it for now. Back to

Gordon. Now in a moment, we'll be discussing

the big events coming up this week. But first, let's take a look back

at the week that was The referendum campaign leaders went

head-to-head in a BBC television debate. They both claim the momentum

is with them but polls suggest that most felt the first Minister

performed better. The first referendum votes were cast after

postal votes were coming back. People were warned not to take

photographs of the papers to post them online to maintain the

integrity of the voting process. 130 businesspeople said leaving the UK

would threaten businesses and jobs. The Labour MP Jim Murphy suspended

his tour because of what he described as coordinated abuse by

voters of independence. The yes campaign said it condemned all forms

of offensive behaviour. It's time to have a look at what's

happening in the week ahead. I'm joined by the writer

and commentator David Torrance, and by Kevin McKenna, who is

a columnist for the Observer. I think Kevin would say he wins the

fashion stakes. That was all the rage in 1966. Maybe Kevin has come

from church. What did you make of what you heard about immigration. I

do not think it is an issue in this campaign but maybe you think it is.

I think it is an important issue. It is important in terms of what we

want Scotland to looks like whether it is a yes or no vote. We a

population that is ageing more quickly than the rest of the UK. We

do need skilled immigration. We also have a moral responsibility to look

at depressed cultures economies to see what we can do to help them and

also to take something of their skills. David Torrence, the problem

with this for the first Minister is presumably, as I understand that

every poll that has been done on this shows that immigration --

attitudes to immigration, is very heated. There is a stronger argument

that I have heard on a points -based system, pointing out that Ireland

can do that. The point was you cannot have immigrants that are

coming in from over the Channel in France. This would controlled thing.

A much stronger argument. Where I think he is off is that by becoming

independent that Scots will no longer leave Scotland. London is a

global city and draws talent from several independent countries and

will continue to do sleep. What do you think of this sovereign mandate

for the currency union. It is a bit incoherent. The idea of having a

mandate to impose policy within your own five Dom makes sense. The idea

that you end up with a mandate to impose policy on another sovereign

country... I think you made that difference clear. If it is a yes

vote, it has been a popular mandate for him to negotiate over the next

18 months that will follow and radius issues. It has been declared

that one bit of the White Paper is the sovereign will of the Scottish

people should be vote yes, despite the fact that many people on the yes

I do not agree with the currency. I think those who have read the White

Paper know enough about how politics is conducted. You do not get

absolutely everything that you want are asked or. I think a lot of

people will treat the 18 months following a possible Yes vote as a

buffer zone. Yes, these are all the things that we understand are in the

White Paper that our priorities, but I don't think anyone will be

surprised that if at the end of the 18 months of negotiating, a lot of

them will remain. Let's move on to what is happening next week. West

Minister is back in session and it will no doubt be discussing the

developing international situations. In the Telegraph, we can

see it there, Platinum -- Vladimir Putin on the verge of war over

Ukraine. And we have also got a story in the Daily Mail. This is

comments from the former deputy NATO reader. Are we facing an alarming

international situation at the moment? Is this alarming,

particularly in Ukraine and the middle east? In all levels it is

alarming. Whether the UK will get involved is another matter. It puts

the Scottish referendum in to some degree of context. It is stuff that

we consider important, it is not a matter of life and death as it is in

other areas. The Telegraph are quoting Vladimir Putin on the verge

of war with Europe. This is come from leaders of the EU. People might

get worried. RB men to take that literally? There is an awful lot of

rhetoric, there has been ever since the current escalation of the

situation in the European developed... Vladimir Putin is seen

as a bogeyman. If it was not Russia and collective memories of the Cold

War, I don't think the rhetoric would just be as excitable. Putin

himself has become something that represents a lot of negatives in the

collective memory of European and British politicians and he knows

that. Anti-riot ships that are only takes advantage of it any knows that

certain types of freeze all a jig and those in the EU were dealing

with -- he knows there is a fear. Do you believe, this is very dramatic,

putting it on the verge of war with Europe. Do you think behind the

rhetoric there is any possibility whatsoever that the European union

or indeed NATO wants to get merit are involved -- millet had only

involved? The airline incident, the plane being brought down would have

been the flash point, the key moment for action. I think it seems

unlikely that it will follow any time soon. A lot of this is

predominantly rhetorical. Quickly on NATO, a story in the Independent

Scotland online. The idea that you can apply to be part of a nuclear

Alliance while getting rid of the key elements of that. Not entirely

sure of where this is coming from. This is something that I would have

expected to hear earlier in the campaign. I am surprised it has

taken so long for this fear. It is not officially NATO. All right,

thank you both very much. Thank you from all of us on the programme.

Back at the same time next week. Goodbye.