27/11/2013 Y Sgwrs

Welcome to the programme.

The vision for an independent Scotland has been announced.

But are Alex Salmond's plans fantasy or fact?

One of the questions for our panel on Y Sgwrs.

Tonight, we'll be covering the future of the United Kingdom.

And during a week of programmes

looking at drug and alcohol addiction,

we'll discuss the image and reality of an addict.

I could go to a casino, lose £50,000 in a few hours

and go on the Internet and borrow that much money back.

I ended up with a debt of £100,000.

Bethan Rhys Roberts is hosting another programme tonight,

so I'm just keeping the seat warm.

I'm joined by Vaughan Roderick.

Our guests tonight are the Tory, Felix Aubel,

the broadcaster, Catrin Beard

and joining us from Edinburgh, Professor Richard Wyn Jones.

A warm welcome to the three of you.

What sort of a place would an independent Scotland be?

That was the question being considered yesterday

as the First Minister, Alex Salmond, announced his plans for the future

if there's a yes vote in the referendum next September.

He would want to keep the Queen as the head of state,

keep the pound and remain a member of the European Union and NATO.

Alex Salmond tried to answer 650 questions in the white paper,

but did he succeed? That's the question we'll begin with.

The simple answer is yes and no.

There are some questions which are answered

and others which are impossible to answer.

Independence would result from discussions

between the Scottish Government, the UK Government

and bodies like the European Union and NATO.

It is impossible to predict what the result of those discussions would be.

I think it is a fair effort to ease people's fears.

It is some kind of manifesto in terms of what the SNP would do

if it formed the first independent government in Scotland.

It allowed Mr Salmond to offer goodies to the voters,

but in reality, it's not relevant to the basis of the argument.

You're in Edinburgh, where the dust has settled since that announcement.

Is this a policy document from the SNP,

rather than a vision for an independent Scotland?

I think people feel it's a combination of things.

The international media were here yesterday,

but now most of them seem to have disappeared.

We return now to the Scottish people discussing the future of Scotland.

The document was designed carefully.

The fact it was 670-pages long was not a coincidence.

The SNP want to create a feeling of confidence

and that they have answers.

The purpose of the document was to provide answers,

but they have also got to inspire people

with a vision of what an independent Scotland would be like.

Part of that is inspiring workers in Scotland.

The white paper signifies the start of the campaign

and there is no doubt the yes campaign has a far better machinery.

They had not really begun serious campaigning until now.

But now they want to inspire people

to go out and knock on doors.

They're aware that they are trailing,

but they're also thinking that by having a very good campaign

that they have been preparing for for many years,

they still think they can win.

As a Conservative, Felix,

I know which side of the fence you will sit on.

But you can't accuse Alex Salmond

of failing to provide a detailed document.

As a person who believes in self-determination,

Scotland are welcome to be an independent country.

But that is down to the Scottish people to decide,

not politicians from other countries.

But the document makes a number of predictions.

There is no certainty that the European Union

would accept Scotland as an independent country.

The simple fact is the Catalans in Spain

could also try to become independent

and a country like Spain would veto Scotland's inclusion.

Alex Salmond also wants to keep the pound.

Under European Union laws, any new country has to accept the euro.

There are too many assumptions, not enough certainties.

There is certainly a lot to discuss.

As someone on the outside,

if you read the white paper and were allowed to vote,

would you be convinced by this document?

I'm glad Vaughan explained some of the background there.

I watch the news, I read the newspapers

and I don't feel I'm getting the correct information.

I don't think journalists located in London,

the British press, I don't think they are completely unbiased.

I was listening to the Today programme this morning,

or yesterday morning on Radio 4,

and they were talking to an SNP member.

And all they kept asking was, "What's your Plan B?"

I don't want to know the details.

"What are you going to do if this happens?"

There is too much detail from the journalists in London,

but on the other hand, you have Welsh nationalists

and Scottish nationalists saying, "We have to go for this."

We're not seeing the reality.

What is interesting to me, in one sense,

I think the yes campaign has already won the argument

because you would expect a debate surrounding Scottish independence

would be between the feeling of being Scottish

and the feeling of being British.

But as far as I see it, there's no dispute over nationalism.

What they keep saying is, "You can be Scottish, we love Scotland,

"but we're stronger if we change things."

Let's bring the discussion closer to home now.

There were a few references to Wales in Alex Salmond's press conference.

They weren't very complimentary, I must say,

but we need to look at the possible consequences for Wales

if Alex Salmond's plans become a reality.

What could it mean for us?

Under the SNP's vision, an independent Scotland

would benefit from the gas in the North Sea,

facilities which currently provide money for the UK Treasury.

But how would it affect our economy?

The SNP also wants to keep the pound,

but Carwyn Jones has promised to prevent Scotland

from sharing responsibility for the pound with the Bank of England.

Carwyn Jones' government in Wales might benefit.

He wants to get rid of the Barnett Formula,

which decides the way public money is distributed across Britain.

Some say the Welsh Government would be more likely to win the argument

if Whitehall lost responsibility for funding Scotland.

Rhodri Morgan described Britain as,

"an English elephant with Celtic blood".

But Wales may get more attention if Scotland became independent.

Or would Wales suffer

if Scotland had a stronger voice in the House of Commons?

And what about independence for Wales?

Less than 10% are in favour, according to the opinion polls.

What effect would Scotland's destiny have on that?

And there would be cultural changes.

Last year, people across Britain celebrated the success of Team GB.

There would be no room for cyclists Geraint Thomas and Chris Hoy

in the same squad under independence.

Would they need a different flag from the rest of Britain?

And a new name for the Lions.

British, Irish and Scottish Lions.

You are welcome to support Andy Murray,

but independence for Scotland would mean

you are supporting a player from a foreign country.

One thing Carwyn Jones has said many times

is that we need a new constitution.

He has called for a convention in the past.

What does he mean by that?

What would the obligations of that be?

What was interesting about Carwyn Jones' speech in Edinburgh

was that he was basically saying that Wales

should have a seat at the table

when things like the future of the pound are discussed.

To me, that means Carwyn Jones is suggesting

the sovereignty of the United Kingdom

now rests in the individual countries.

Things like the Good Friday Agreement

and this issue in Scotland have set that precedent.

I think Carwyn Jones is going further than just a federal constitution,

whether Scotland is a part of it or not.

He's talking about something more confederal,

something much less central than what we've got now.

Richard, you earn your bread and butter discussing this issue.

What is often said if there is a yes vote, or if it was close,

there would be further devolution to Scotland,

which would inevitably mean further devolution in Wales.

Is there any basis to that theory?

The opinion polls in Scotland

showed that there isn't much support

for the status quo in Scotland.

Even if there is a no vote next September,

it doesn't mean the Scots are happy with where they are.

There is certainly an understanding in Whitehall

that they have to offer more in terms of devolution.

But if there is further devolution,

you have to start altering the institutions which are centralised.

Devolution has changed things radically

in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,

but there has been very little change in London.

But to get more devolution in Scotland,

you are talking about far more complex systems.

Things would need to change centrally to enable that.

That raises the question, where does Wales sit in that equation?

If Scotland is given further devolution, the state will change

and Wales' position within that would change.

In terms of the Conservatives,

who should we believe in terms of their position on devolution?

The Welsh Secretary, David Jones,

has a strong opinion on devolution.

We have a Tory group in the Assembly that has warmed to the idea.

What is the position of the party?

The Tory Party accepts devolution.

We are here to make it work.

The fact is that David Jones wants to provide

tax-varying powers to the Assembly,

which shows that he supports devolution.

So people in Wales would have the right

not just to vote on who's in charge in the Assembly...

Or he wants the Welsh Government's accounts to be run in London?

..or who distribute the grant,

but if voters in Wales have a say on taxes in the first place,

we would have more input from Wales.

The Tory Party is clear

that it wants devolution to work effectively.

I believe in self-governance for the Celtic countries

in Gladstone's tradition of Home Rule.

That means a federal system, independence of home matters,

but foreign policy in the hands of the Westminster Government.

My concern is, while I wish Scotland every success,

if they become independent, I'm sure we can have an agreement

because we can still work as brothers on the British Isles.

But Scotland has to be very careful economically.

They say that when Scotland sneezes,

Wales catches the cold in terms of devolution.

Is that how you see it?

I don't know.

Whoever you listen to, people are saying different things.

Everyone seems to have a different view.

You don't know who to believe.

It just shows how complicated the process is.

It didn't come to an end when the Assembly was formed.

We are on a long journey.

This week, there are a series of powerful programmes on this channel

looking at the effects of drug and alcohol addiction.

According to one person who works in the field,

attitudes towards those who have problems

with drugs of all kinds need to change.

It draws attention to the media's treatment of the Paul Flowers story,

the former chairman of the Co-op bank,

who was arrested following allegations that he bought cocaine.

It has certainly challenged the common view

of the type of people who take drugs.

Daniel Davies reports.

On the surface, a respectable man in his 60s.

A Methodist minister and the chairman of a bank.

The allegations about Paul Flowers' personal life

have been scorned by many.

But others say a man who is now looking for professional help

deserves our sympathy.

I'm very disappointed with the self-righteous response

from many corners of the media.

It's a problem throughout society.

Every layer of society.

It is easy to point the finger.

It's poisoning our society at the moment.

What this proves is it's a very real problem

which is weakening our community.

The Living Room in Cardiff welcomes addicts.

People like Iwan Jones, who runs a restaurant.

He got a taste for gambling and alcohol when he was young.

Throughout my 30s, I carried on as if I was 16.

I would still go out to nightclubs,

stay out all night, come in at 7am in the morning.

My wife was going mad.

At that stage, you realise you are different to other people.

At one stage, Iwan was bankrupt.

Before the recession, it was easy enough

to find the money to feed the habit.

Throughout the 2000s, the banks would throw money at you.

I could go to a casino and lose £50,000 in a couple of hours

but then go on the Internet and borrow that amount back.

I ended up with debts of £100,000.

He says things have improved recently,

although he still loses his way from time to time.

The last time was two months ago.

It lasted three or four days.

I ended up in hospital.

Every time I drink now, I end up in hospital

because I can't stop.

It has a much bigger effect now because of the bingeing element,

instead of drinking every day, as many people think alcoholics do,

you drink a lot more in a short period of time.

It has a much bigger effect on the body.

People from all backgrounds come through these doors.

The message is that there's a fine line between using and dependency.

Some of them turn up in their BMWs and their Jaguars.

They are people without much hope,

who have most probably been to see their GP,

who has given them medication and sent them away.

These people are without much hope.

And they realise they have to do something.

When you listen to the experience of that individual,

do you feel sympathy, or no sympathy at all?

I have a lot of sympathy.

I speak as a minister of over 20 years.

And I have dealt with these people as part of my work.

It is easy to point the finger,

but once you are in a hole,

it is very difficult not to fall down that hole even further.

That is why I welcome ventures like The Living Room

which try and help people.

And you have got to understand this state of mind

and make them acknowledge that they have a problem in the first place.

They tend to avoid that.

Once they acknowledge their dependency,

we can start treating them.

If we look at Paul Flowers,

he says he is going to find help after being caught buying drugs.

But he has become a bit of a scapegoat to politicians.

Even today at Prime Minister's Questions.

-Is that fair?

-Of course not.

What's also not fair is that this man found himself in this job,

where he clearly could not cope,

but nobody picked up on the fact he was unable to cope.

The system is to blame somewhere along the line.

But I welcome this week of raising awareness.

I welcome anything which tries to break the taboo

that it is some sort of weakness.

It is a weakness, but it isn't something to be ashamed of.

It is similar to taboos with mental health.

There is an England cricketer who has returned home due to stress.

I think that was a very brave thing to do.

It would have been easy for him to say he came home through injury.

But he admitted he had a problem.

It is important that people in the public eye

can acknowledge their problems.

There are examples of politicians who have been alcoholics.

The most recent to hit the headlines was Eric Joyce.

Does it come with the pressure of the work?

I am not sure about that.

The truth is, there was a period

where alcohol played a far more prominent part in everyday life.

There was a period culturally

when people would go to the pub at lunchtime if they were in work,

they would go to the pub after work.

And that could be the reason that so many people with these problems

are older people who were brought up with that culture,

where attitudes towards alcohol were very different.

I spent a year at Westminster around 25 years ago

and I suspect that a minority of MPs were completely sober

by the time they voted at 10pm.

A very large majority of them were drunk.

In the days of the mobile phone and the Internet,

people can no longer hide.

Wynford Ellis Owen recently wrote a blog about addiction.

And the point was made

that we seem to have little sympathy

towards the man or the woman in the street who has an addiction,

but we have even less sympathy for people who are well-known faces

who come out and admit to their addictions.

Is it now time for us to change our attitudes

when people acknowledge they are addicts?

I don't know whether we look at people differently.

I think every individual is an individual.

Some people would not want to come out publicly,

and you have got to respect that.

But in the same way that Stephen Fry has done it with bipolar,

he has raised awareness across the world of that condition.

And people like that are very valuable.

They are like ambassadors

who make us rethink the way we look at people.

Richard, coming back to Paul Flowers and the mayor of Toronto,

who has come under a lot of criticism recently,

that is not helpful when it comes to defeating this stigma

linked to drugs and alcohol and that element of dependency.

There are several elements.

You have got the human element.

You have got to admire the people who spoke in tonight's report

because it is very easy to scorn people

who gamble at that level and so on.

People are very brave to share their experiences. It is an eye-opener.

We have to move on to our final story,

which also involves attitudes.

The Welsh Secretary David Jones

doesn't like some of the aspects of the way the Assembly works.

In an interview with The Western Mail,

he says members look at their computers too much

and tend to address each other by their first names.

That does not promote a professional environment, according to Mr Jones,

or David to his friends. Maybe even Dai!

There was a campaign by the former Presiding Officer

to have a far more informal attitude compared to Westminster.

Yes, and I think things have become more formal over the last few years.

We are hearing people being addressed as ministers

or by their full names rather than just their first names.

But some say this is the reason Assembly sessions are boring.

At least the chamber is full most of the time,

which is not true of the House of Commons.

Does this informality shows a lack of respect?

I think it is nonsense.

I think David Jones has got a bee in his bonnet regarding the Assembly.

He spent a period of time there and several people have remarked

that the experience was obviously traumatic for him.

He is always ready to criticise the Assembly

and very often on the basis of ignorance

or a lack of information about what has happened

in the Assembly since he was there.

In Wales, in the Welsh language,

we have a problem in terms of addressing people by, "ti" or "chi",

which don't exist in English,

when people address each other in Welsh in the chamber.

It would be shocking if they addressed each other as, "ti".

I think it's important to address people by their first name.

If you say, "Minister," you can be mean to them.

But if I say, "Aled," I can't be as mean.

I would argue that this makes politics

more practical and more effective.

And one other dimension that doesn't occur in the Assembly

is things don't always go through the chair.

That's true.

With 60 members in the Assembly

and over 600 in Westminster,

the nature of the debate is going to be different.

Thank you very much. That's it for tonight.

Y Sgwrs will be return at the same time next week from London.

Good night.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd