:00:29. > :00:38.peas are warning that an independent Scotland risks damaging the
:00:38. > :00:44.UKpoz-mac international reputation. All the no campaigners and the Tory
:00:44. > :00:49.party would be better to address what a fundamental strength it would
:00:49. > :00:53.be as opposed to size. Conservatives call for funding
:00:53. > :00:59.changes to help secure the voluntary sector. That is our coverage of the
:00:59. > :01:02.daypoz-mac debate in Holyrood. The finance secretary criticises the UK
:01:02. > :01:07.Governmentpoz-mac independent forecaster and called for Scotland
:01:07. > :01:12.to have its very own office of budget responsibility.
:01:12. > :01:17.An independent Scotland would leave the rest of the UKpoz-mac
:01:17. > :01:20.international reputation damaged according to MPs. A report by the
:01:20. > :01:29.Commons foreign affairs committee says the UKpoz-mac influence in the
:01:29. > :01:34.UK would decline if there was a yes mad Mac. I am joined by our
:01:34. > :01:42.political commentator for the afternoon. First of all, another
:01:42. > :01:50.report from MPs. No SNP in that committee. Either nationalists
:01:50. > :01:57.taking it too seriously? They do not seem to be. There is a problem for
:01:57. > :02:04.them. They have taken a battering on a number of issues, the pound and
:02:04. > :02:09.the economy. There is a sense of uncertainty around their platform.
:02:09. > :02:14.Last weekend was the most recent presentation from the Scottish
:02:14. > :02:18.social attitudes survey and they made it quite plain the sense of
:02:18. > :02:23.uncertainty about the nationalist platform is losing them support,
:02:23. > :02:28.particularly among women, but among all voters. That is a problem for
:02:28. > :02:33.them. That feeds in from the currency and pensions issue. Are
:02:33. > :02:39.there any point in the report that could be considered valid
:02:39. > :02:44.criticisms? For example MPs warning about the reputation of the UK
:02:44. > :02:49.internationally. But that does not affect an independent Scotland.
:02:49. > :02:54.There is some conflict as well in the report for the Nationalists. The
:02:54. > :03:00.report asks for more information and that is the kind of thing that
:03:00. > :03:03.Westminster has been trying to avoid. We do not want to discuss
:03:03. > :03:09.what the preconditions are for an independent Scotland, what it might
:03:09. > :03:12.look like in foreign policy terms. We do not want to go there. The
:03:12. > :03:17.committee is saying, we would like more information, we need to know
:03:17. > :03:22.what this independent Scotland might look like. The UK Government say
:03:22. > :03:26.they will not pre-negotiate, but we will get the White Paper on
:03:26. > :03:32.independence in the autumn. More fundamental point there, more hard
:03:32. > :03:37.truths? That goes back to the first point I made, that we have been
:03:37. > :03:43.waiting a long time for that. This is just the latest issue. There are
:03:43. > :03:49.opponents have been able to take pot at them and say, what is going to
:03:49. > :03:52.happen? There is not a clear answer, not a policy position coming back.
:03:52. > :04:02.It is going to be right is a caricature of the point, but maybe
:04:02. > :04:06.there is in that. Another item in today's news, the deaths of members
:04:06. > :04:12.of the Royal Highland Fusiliers in Helmand province. The Prime Minister
:04:12. > :04:17.making some comments on that. Do you think this may increase pressure on
:04:17. > :04:24.him to bring the troops home? We have the timetable for withdrawal by
:04:24. > :04:28.next year. It is shocking news, first and foremost. Anyone who has
:04:28. > :04:35.been there or has had anything like this though the devastation amongst
:04:35. > :04:42.those involved. I really do not think we can speed up the process.
:04:42. > :04:46.We will be back with you shortly. MSP 's have voted unanimously in
:04:46. > :04:50.favour of a system of voluntary press regulation underpinned by
:04:50. > :04:56.Royal Charter. But the culture secretary warned if the proposal
:04:56. > :05:06.failed tougher legal measures could be imposed. It comes after the
:05:06. > :05:37.
:05:37. > :05:40.newspaper industry rejected the we agree to that being made
:05:40. > :05:45.compliant to Scottish devolved responsibilities and Scots law and
:05:45. > :05:50.circumstances? The bulk of our proposed amendments would have to
:05:50. > :05:55.apply to any royal charter to give it proper effect in Scotland. The
:05:55. > :06:00.counter proposals as they stand would leave Scotland without a press
:06:00. > :06:04.regulation system that takes Scots law into account. There is a
:06:04. > :06:08.consensus on the following points based on the Levenson proposals
:06:08. > :06:13.which were broadly welcomed. There needs to be a voluntary regulatory
:06:13. > :06:18.body established by the press themselves. There should be a
:06:18. > :06:24.recognition process so that the criteria needed to deliver the
:06:24. > :06:26.recommendations of Levenson can be implemented. The recommendations
:06:26. > :06:34.themselves and the appointments body should all be independent of
:06:34. > :06:37.government. Importantly, the freedom of the press is a precious
:06:37. > :06:41.cornerstone of democracy and although politicians may not like
:06:41. > :06:48.what is written, the press must have the freedom to question, to
:06:48. > :06:52.challenge and to comment. Where there has been less consensus is
:06:52. > :06:57.around statutory underpinning. In practice although it is recognised
:06:57. > :07:03.that there is some need for statute, indeed the UK Government has passed
:07:03. > :07:07.policies in two build in Westminster on entrenchment and consensus, this
:07:07. > :07:10.statutory underpinning is something this parliament will need to
:07:10. > :07:17.consider in terms of Scots law although it is not essential at this
:07:17. > :07:22.moment in time. There was one issue we raised as worthy of further
:07:22. > :07:27.consideration, but the UK Government have indicated they do not agree it
:07:27. > :07:33.should appear in the charter. That was coverage of the deceased. The
:07:33. > :07:39.Leveson Inquiry herd moving evidence on this from the Watson family.
:07:39. > :07:45.Paragraph eight sets out minimum requirements for the standards codes
:07:45. > :07:48.of a new regulator and we suggested it might be amended to include an
:07:48. > :07:54.additional criteria of appropriate taste and decency of reporting and
:07:54. > :07:58.commenting on the recently deceased were the only public interest in
:07:58. > :08:04.them is in the manner of circumstances of their death. There
:08:04. > :08:09.is no intention to prevent comment on Robert Maxwell or Baroness
:08:09. > :08:13.Thatcher, this is about people who are of public interest because of
:08:13. > :08:19.how they died, not those who are of interest because of actions in their
:08:19. > :08:22.life. The Minister will be aware of the concerns raised by my
:08:22. > :08:29.constituent Margaret Watson. While she would welcome some of the
:08:29. > :08:34.comments, also she has brought forward the proposal there should be
:08:34. > :08:42.a legal backdrop by which action could be taken on behalf of of the
:08:42. > :08:47.deceased. That goes into areas of defamation law and the issue is here
:08:47. > :08:50.of what is in the code and I want to pursue that if at all possible.
:08:50. > :08:57.Although the press complaints commission contains provision about
:08:57. > :09:00.not being unduly intrusive, it does not contain any direct protection
:09:00. > :09:10.for the recently deceased themselves. We believe a new
:09:10. > :09:20.standards code should and Ince that we will pursue that end by other
:09:20. > :09:23.
:09:23. > :09:27.means. I am encouraged that this has been stressed in the house of lords.
:09:27. > :09:32.What Mrs Watson wants us to do on her behalf and on behalf of of the
:09:32. > :09:36.people we are talking about today is to look at the area of defamation
:09:36. > :09:39.and to see whether or not there is a possibility of there being
:09:39. > :09:45.provisions in law that would protect people in her position and that of
:09:45. > :09:51.others. I know the Cabinet Secretary made reference to Lord Hunt, but
:09:51. > :09:56.Lord Hunt has made it clear that the UK Government has already attempted
:09:56. > :10:02.to enshrine such a provision in law, holding on to the principle that a
:10:02. > :10:08.deceased person cannot be defamed because reputation is a personal
:10:08. > :10:12.thing that ends with the death of the individual themselves. I would
:10:12. > :10:16.ask the Cabinet Secretary whether she might want to have discussions
:10:16. > :10:20.with her Cabinet colleagues to see if there is a way in which we could
:10:20. > :10:27.help people like the Watson family in discussions we have in the
:10:27. > :10:31.future. There is a need for balance and a workable solution as has been
:10:31. > :10:37.outlined, that supports the integrity of the vast majority of
:10:37. > :10:42.journalists, but punishes those who do not respect the privacy of
:10:42. > :10:46.individuals in a responsible manner. There is also an understanding that
:10:46. > :10:51.whatever we decide must respect the subtle but very important
:10:51. > :10:55.distinction between a breach of law and a breach of ethics. A
:10:55. > :11:01.distinction that has been debated for thousands of years, but a very
:11:01. > :11:06.important one. A virtuous person is somebody who is naturally disposed
:11:06. > :11:10.to behave in the right way for the right reasons and who can do this by
:11:10. > :11:15.voluntary action rather than by force. We all recognise we would
:11:15. > :11:18.prefer that. But the key question remains as to whether the major
:11:18. > :11:27.players believe an improved voluntary code of ethics is
:11:27. > :11:32.sufficient. Mike Wade from the Times is still with me now. The first
:11:32. > :11:39.point we can talk about is the fact that the McCluskey report has been
:11:39. > :11:42.ignored by the Scottish government and the other parties. That is a bit
:11:42. > :11:47.embarrassing for the Scottish government. It was a very
:11:47. > :11:51.hard-hitting report. If you watched Lord McCluskey in the committee he
:11:51. > :11:57.dressed it up in nationalist colours. He said, we need something
:11:57. > :12:02.distinctive for Scotland. He particularly drew attention to the
:12:02. > :12:11.Watson kiss. He said we need something for Scotland. This largely
:12:11. > :12:17.has gone completely to one side as Lord McCluskey has noted. On the
:12:18. > :12:24.Watson kiss and we were hearing the Scottish government would pursue the
:12:24. > :12:29.protection of dead people, by what other means can they do it? Would
:12:29. > :12:34.that mean a change in the defamation law in Scotland? Possibly, it could
:12:34. > :12:41.be a tightening of the privacy law. It was a very distressing kiss,
:12:41. > :12:50.there is no doubt about that. I think press attitudes have changed
:12:50. > :12:55.since then. That point was made by the editor of the Herald. It would
:12:55. > :13:03.be bad to frame law on a kiss, for all its immediacy for the people
:13:03. > :13:07.involved, was almost a generation ago in newspaper terms. I do think
:13:07. > :13:15.the press has changed. I know that from personal experience. For
:13:15. > :13:23.example, I was covering the killings in Cumbria by Derek Bird. Our
:13:23. > :13:30.newsdesk was absolutely clear that the first whiff of public resistance
:13:31. > :13:35.to what was a public interest story we should go and we left after four
:13:35. > :13:42.days which is long enough for most people in Cumbria. But we were out
:13:42. > :13:46.and that was indicative of a change. So there might be tightening
:13:46. > :13:50.of the privacy law. From your experience as a newspaper journalist
:13:50. > :13:56.is it important to have that freedom to examine what somebody has done
:13:56. > :14:03.after they have died? I am thinking of the Jimmy Savile kiss. There is
:14:03. > :14:13.so much around now, of course you have to do that. I am not a lawyer,
:14:13. > :14:17.but there will be a lot of lawyers fees to be paid. Now to the debate
:14:17. > :14:21.in the chamber at Holyrood. The Scottish Conservatives are calling
:14:21. > :14:26.for a voluntary organisations and charities to have their government
:14:26. > :14:31.funding extended to three-year deals instead of 12 months. They say it
:14:31. > :14:36.gives them stability and gives them time to submit funding bids. Gavin
:14:36. > :14:45.Brown has been speaking on that. Now Willie Rennie, the Lib Dem leader,
:14:45. > :14:50.is asking a question. With an increasing focus on preventative
:14:50. > :14:59.measures, does he think three-year funding would secure those long-term
:14:59. > :15:05.hopes? I welcome his support and it is not the first time I have heard a
:15:05. > :15:08.Liberal Democrat support the measure of the funding. Would it help with
:15:08. > :15:13.preventative measures? It undoubtedly would in comparison to
:15:13. > :15:20.single year funding. There will be occasions where longer term funding
:15:20. > :15:23.is deemed necessary and is required and is the right thing to do. There
:15:23. > :15:29.will be occasions when short-term funding is the only option and is
:15:29. > :15:32.better than nothing. The general proposition is three-year funding is
:15:32. > :15:42.a fire better suggestion for the project and annual funding which is
:15:42. > :15:57.
:15:57. > :16:04.It diverts staff from delivering. Any time spent filling in
:16:04. > :16:11.application forms his time spent not on the front line. It can lead
:16:11. > :16:15.to instability. What is required is a stable environment for staff in
:16:15. > :16:21.the third sector and a stable and consistent service for users who
:16:21. > :16:26.required to use the service. Relationships, close and long, art
:16:26. > :16:32.key for the most vulnerable citizens using this service and any
:16:32. > :16:36.hint of instability is something we want to avoid. When you combine
:16:36. > :16:43.inefficiency and instability it leads to a less effective service
:16:43. > :16:47.for those who truly needed and it has an overall negative impact. It
:16:47. > :16:52.is important to have this debate conducted in Parliament because it
:16:52. > :17:00.is difficult for individual charities and individual voluntary
:17:00. > :17:03.sector groups to stand up for themselves publicly. If you are a
:17:03. > :17:08.charity reliant on one local- authority for survival, you are
:17:08. > :17:14.unlikely to complain seriously about only getting a single year
:17:14. > :17:19.deal because by doing so, the perception, even if not the reality,
:17:19. > :17:23.or it could be both, the perception nurse at it will count against you
:17:24. > :17:27.in the next funding round. So you take it on the chin and hope for
:17:27. > :17:32.the best for next year and the hereafter and probably the year
:17:32. > :17:37.after that. It is critical Parliament stands up for the third
:17:37. > :17:42.sector because it is difficult for individual organisations to do so.
:17:42. > :17:46.The issue of three-year funding was recognised by many in the public
:17:46. > :17:51.sector and I have to say, including the present Scottish government. It
:17:51. > :17:58.is responsible for pulling together the joint statement on the
:17:58. > :18:07.relationship at local 11 between government and the third sector. --
:18:07. > :18:11.local level. On paper, it is a useful piece of work covering what
:18:11. > :18:18.a successful relationship should look like, talking about funding,
:18:18. > :18:22.shared services and valuations. On paragraph seven, it says as a
:18:22. > :18:27.general rule funders will take a three-year approach to both Grant
:18:27. > :18:34.and contract funding. It is there in black and white. It has been
:18:34. > :18:38.signed up to by all parties. However, what matters is what
:18:38. > :18:43.happens on the ground in relation to three if funding not what
:18:43. > :18:48.appears in a document. I except there isn't a full evidence based
:18:48. > :18:53.at this stage out lining how many local authorities have followed it
:18:53. > :18:59.and that is something we are calling for. But the anecdotal
:18:59. > :19:03.evidence, and the heavy anecdotal evidence, is that the joint
:19:03. > :19:07.statement has not made an enormous difference in practice in relation
:19:07. > :19:12.to three-year funding. Many organisations say three years is
:19:12. > :19:16.the exception rather than the rule and it is ignored almost as much
:19:16. > :19:22.and potentially more than it is applied. During a discussion
:19:22. > :19:27.attended by a members from across the chamber, it came forward that
:19:27. > :19:34.annualised funding was the most common form and on occasion a six-
:19:34. > :19:38.monthly funding happened also. Work sometimes lasting months was done
:19:39. > :19:43.up front before a contract was in place, which means they bear the
:19:43. > :19:47.risk if the contract was not concluded. One particular
:19:47. > :19:53.organisation stated that 40% of their engagements with the public
:19:53. > :19:59.sector have no contract at all and only one in six of their contracts
:19:59. > :20:04.has multi- funding. This was a couple of months ago, with 10 weeks
:20:04. > :20:11.to go before the financial yeah end, they had no idea for the funding
:20:11. > :20:14.arrangements for 60% of their operations. It is clear that action
:20:14. > :20:22.is required and I have to say, the Scottish government in the last
:20:22. > :20:29.couple of months appears to be listing in this regard. I hope and
:20:29. > :20:33.I call on them today to take forward some of these ideas and to
:20:33. > :20:37.really help gather closely the evidence base to make progress to
:20:37. > :20:41.prevent single year funding and to go for three-year funding. It is
:20:41. > :20:46.our view that the spirit and the letter of the joint statement
:20:46. > :20:50.should be implemented in practice and, as a general rule and a
:20:50. > :20:54.default position, the public sector ought to give three-year funding to
:20:54. > :20:59.the third sector. The question becomes how can this most
:20:59. > :21:06.effectively be achieved? In our view, simply having a debate,
:21:06. > :21:10.particularly if a consensus is reached and we call on the Scottish
:21:10. > :21:15.government to remind organisations who presumably have direct and
:21:15. > :21:19.indirect influence to remind them about the joint statement and the
:21:19. > :21:24.responsibilities contained within it. It is time to examine in more
:21:24. > :21:28.detail the credible claims made by individual third sector players and
:21:28. > :21:31.groups representing them. We need evidence to show the extent to
:21:32. > :21:38.which three-year funding is happening on the ground in terms of
:21:38. > :21:42.volume and value. By shining a light, we believe we can initiate a
:21:42. > :21:52.degree of change and I have pleasure in moving the motion in my
:21:52. > :21:55.
:21:55. > :21:59.Gavin Brown speaking live in Parliament there. Listening is our
:21:59. > :22:04.guest. Let us look at the point that he was making about how a
:22:04. > :22:07.three-year funding deal would give organisations stability. Can you
:22:07. > :22:14.tell us a bit more about what that might do?
:22:14. > :22:19.I think it is an important point to make. Stability for an organisation,
:22:19. > :22:24.for the service and service users. A lot of issues around annual
:22:24. > :22:31.funding and staff retention and development. We have a standard
:22:31. > :22:36.process within the third process -- third sector where plans have to be
:22:36. > :22:40.put on hold while they look for next year's budget. Given three-
:22:40. > :22:44.year budgets, it would allow them to look strategically at issues
:22:45. > :22:49.which allow them to tackle on behalf of the people of Scotland.
:22:49. > :22:54.Issues such as unemployment, homelessness and drug use and many
:22:54. > :23:00.more which are dip -- deep-rooted issues and they need more than one
:23:00. > :23:05.year to tackle. It was right of Gavin Brown to point out it is just
:23:05. > :23:10.-- it is not just about funding for a three-year sector but individuals
:23:10. > :23:16.who use the service that there sector delivers. Annual budgets
:23:16. > :23:20.provide them with no stability in their service and, in fact, it
:23:20. > :23:25.takes a three-year approach to tackle many of these issues and
:23:25. > :23:29.problems in Scotland today. could sound like a positive change
:23:29. > :23:34.in giving stability. John Swinney was sitting there listening
:23:34. > :23:38.intently. Do you think he might be changing his mind? I think the
:23:38. > :23:42.conversations we have had with government and individuals in the
:23:42. > :23:47.Scottish Parliament are along those lines. We very much recognise this
:23:47. > :23:52.is an issue that has cross-party support within Scotland and we have
:23:52. > :23:55.been very clear as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations
:23:55. > :24:00.that we are willing to work with anyone who wants to look at this
:24:00. > :24:05.issue and take it up on behalf of the third sector and along with the
:24:05. > :24:10.third sector. What are the politics tied to funding of charities and
:24:10. > :24:15.voluntary organisations? Is there a reason why a government White --
:24:15. > :24:20.might want to keep it on a 12 month basis? I don't think there is any
:24:20. > :24:25.reason at all. It is the way it has been done. Scotland's third sector
:24:25. > :24:30.has spoken about this for some years and the joint statement that
:24:30. > :24:36.Gavin alluded to was signed in 2009 so it is welcome today that this
:24:36. > :24:40.debate has finally come to the chamber. The issues of Scotland's
:24:40. > :24:44.third sector and what they are dealing with is above politics. It
:24:44. > :24:52.is about helping the people of Scotland and those in the community
:24:52. > :24:59.who need the help the most. Thanks very much for joining us.
:24:59. > :25:04.Let us cross to Westminster. Good afternoon, Tim. Thank you for
:25:04. > :25:10.joining me. The first question of the day and it was quite a busy day.
:25:10. > :25:14.Their headline is Crown Office is disappointed over Cable letter.
:25:14. > :25:22.Vince Cable wrote to the Advocate- General over the ongoing inquiry
:25:22. > :25:29.into the Royal Bank of Scotland. What has been happening? A bit of a
:25:29. > :25:37.spat. The Lord Advocate in Scotland and Minns cable. Bins cable wrote
:25:37. > :25:42.to his colleague, the Lib Dem the Lord Advocate General asking about
:25:42. > :25:46.the progress of the inquiry into those who were at their head of RBS
:25:46. > :25:52.when it really collapsed five years ago. He was pointing out there was
:25:52. > :25:57.no lack of public appetite for bankers to be prosecuted and asking
:25:57. > :26:02.for progress, suggesting he did not want to be influencing in any way a
:26:02. > :26:06.decision but trying to find out what was going on. The Lord
:26:06. > :26:11.Advocate has written back suggesting that, first of all, he
:26:11. > :26:15.shouldn't be doing this through the media. Secondly, it would be
:26:15. > :26:20.unfortunate if there was any political influence trying to be
:26:20. > :26:23.put on a complex case. He said the Crown Office which is in charge of
:26:23. > :26:28.deciding whether or not to prosecute in Scotland, is dealing
:26:28. > :26:32.with a huge amount of evidence and is dealing with the issue and
:26:32. > :26:36.should Mr Cable want to get in touch with him personally he will
:26:36. > :26:39.update him. There is some suspicion about the timing of his
:26:39. > :26:43.intervention from Mr Cable as their local elections going on and
:26:43. > :26:47.polling day is tomorrow. Perhaps the Lib Dems want to make it seemed
:26:47. > :26:53.as if they are in charge and have their fingers on the pulse of what
:26:53. > :26:59.should happen to bankers. Another big story is the report from there
:26:59. > :27:05.foreign affairs select committee about the role of the UK and
:27:05. > :27:09.Scotland in the wider world. The SNP's say it is coming from people
:27:09. > :27:13.at opposed to independence and the Lib Dems have pointed out that you
:27:13. > :27:17.may be questioning the credibility of witnesses who gave evidence to
:27:17. > :27:23.the committee's. A clearly it is another report which the SNP are
:27:23. > :27:27.able to say that they did not have anyone on the go bitty and
:27:27. > :27:31.therefore it is a partial account. Committee points out that the SNP
:27:31. > :27:36.did not try to become a part of the foreign affairs committee and did
:27:36. > :27:40.not seek membership and they have these credible witnesses and a
:27:40. > :27:44.welter of information which they have gone through. As a result,
:27:44. > :27:49.they have said an number of things about what the foreign affairs
:27:49. > :27:52.impact of independence would be. That is that the rest of the UK
:27:52. > :27:58.would inherit those treaties and international organisation
:27:58. > :28:07.membership like NATO and the UN and Adam Mynott be as easy as the SNP
:28:07. > :28:11.is suggesting in joining. They might be a big impact on the rest
:28:11. > :28:15.of the UK post independence and that would be in terms of
:28:16. > :28:19.international influence, the reputation of the rest of the UK,
:28:19. > :28:24.partly depending on how negotiations go towards
:28:24. > :28:29.independence and what the impact is afterwards. Nicola Sturgeon pointed
:28:29. > :28:35.out it is an unbalanced report but she picked up on bits that the SNP
:28:35. > :28:39.do like. In particular, an element that says that membership of the UN
:28:39. > :28:43.and the EU should be pretty straightforward. It is just another
:28:43. > :28:47.element to the argument of independence and another report
:28:47. > :28:51.which the Yes camp and the No camp cannot argue over four months to
:28:51. > :29:01.come. Thanks very much.
:29:01. > :29:02.
:29:02. > :29:10.Let us get some political reaction at Holyrood now. Gentlemen, good
:29:10. > :29:14.afternoon. A busy screen they in Holyrood. First to you Rob Gibson.
:29:14. > :29:19.We were talking about the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report.
:29:19. > :29:23.You may say it was put forward by people opposed to independence, but
:29:24. > :29:28.the witnesses who gave evidence were very credible and reliable
:29:28. > :29:33.witnesses, such as former ambassadors, weren't they? We have
:29:33. > :29:38.to remember that Scottish reputation was not taken into
:29:38. > :29:43.account and we have to put up with the illegal Iraq war and trident
:29:43. > :29:47.here. We have fantastic renewable resources which are being talked
:29:47. > :29:52.down and witnesses did not cover these things. We do not think it
:29:52. > :29:57.was credible at all. Of course, they are pointing out that
:29:57. > :30:05.independent Scotland would be incurred hide diplomatic costs. If
:30:05. > :30:12.an independent Scotland barked its own weight in the world. That is a
:30:12. > :30:19.fair., isn't it? When we vote for yes, we will negotiate these things
:30:19. > :30:22.and it will be easier then. But it points out that Scotland will incur
:30:22. > :30:30.massive costs so is that an argument for independence then?
:30:30. > :30:34.They would see -- they would say that but I don't believe it. If the
:30:34. > :30:42.rest of the UK wants the assets then maybe they could keep the debt
:30:42. > :30:52.as well. Tavish Scott, they say the rest of the UK and his reputation
:30:52. > :31:03.
:31:03. > :31:10.could suffer. Why would an currency. But on the other hand they
:31:10. > :31:15.could not get a guy about the rest of the United Kingdom and Wales.
:31:15. > :31:22.This is an important report. Nicola Sturgeon welcomed some of it, but
:31:22. > :31:26.did not like other parts. To say it has no credibility is ridiculous.
:31:26. > :31:32.These are people who study foreign affairs around the world and study
:31:32. > :31:36.how we best put our feet forward around the globe. It has pointed out
:31:36. > :31:40.some really serious observations about the nationalist case. They
:31:40. > :31:47.assert everything will be fine, but we have not heard any back-up of
:31:47. > :31:50.that whatsoever. The report does call for more clarity and scanned
:31:50. > :31:55.from the Scottish government, but there is also a call for more
:31:55. > :32:00.information from the UK Government. We heard that in the Lords report a
:32:00. > :32:05.few weeks ago as well. The UK Government say they refused to
:32:05. > :32:12.pre-negotiate. Is it not fair that people of Scotland maybe get answers
:32:12. > :32:15.to some of their questions? burden on that lies on the SNP
:32:15. > :32:21.government who are putting forward the proposition of independence, but
:32:21. > :32:25.who have yet to spell out the consequences. Even in your question
:32:25. > :32:30.you indicate it is balanced. It is typical of the SNP when they do not
:32:30. > :32:35.like some of that conclusions, they shoot the messenger and pull down
:32:35. > :32:39.those responsible for writing the report rather than trying to address
:32:39. > :32:43.the serious questions, such as the thousands of treaty is an
:32:43. > :32:48.independent Scotland would have to sign up to. The resource involved in
:32:48. > :32:53.that process alone in terms of manpower in relation to negotiating
:32:53. > :32:59.and signing up to thousands of treaties is immense. What is going
:32:59. > :33:04.to be the cost of that resource? Where is it going to come from? We
:33:04. > :33:12.are not getting these answers at the moment. The first Minister was
:33:12. > :33:20.quoting a Cambridge academic saying it would all be done in good time.
:33:20. > :33:24.Let me pick up on that point about pre-negotiation. When it comes to
:33:24. > :33:29.these questions, is it not incumbent upon the UK Government to give some
:33:29. > :33:32.of those answers when it comes to currency and foreign affairs? That
:33:32. > :33:38.would help inform the people of Scotland and help people make a
:33:38. > :33:42.decision. The SNP are putting forward the proposition on
:33:42. > :33:46.independence and it is up to them to answer the questions. The UK
:33:46. > :33:54.Government does not support independence, and that might come as
:33:54. > :33:57.a surprise to some people, but that is their position. Why would they be
:33:57. > :34:03.pre-negotiating in the likely event of Scotland voting yes in the
:34:03. > :34:09.referendum. The SNP have to answer these questions, it is not up to the
:34:09. > :34:15.UK Government to do their work for them. When it comes to international
:34:15. > :34:19.affairs Rob Gibson was pointed out the war in Iraq which the Tony Blair
:34:19. > :34:27.government at the time said was illegal, but when it comes to that,
:34:27. > :34:30.does the UKpoz-mac reputation get damaged internationally anyway? If
:34:30. > :34:40.an independent Scotland went its own way it could start afresh without
:34:40. > :34:44.that kind of damaged reputation. do not believe that and I believe we
:34:44. > :34:50.would not be part of a much stronger UK entity and there is further
:34:50. > :34:55.confusion around the nationalist case. There is huge confusion over
:34:55. > :35:01.serious global issues including the potential for as to be a member of
:35:01. > :35:05.the European Union and on what terms as well. This report shows the SNP
:35:05. > :35:12.have failed to put forward a persuasive, detailed case about why
:35:12. > :35:19.Scotland would benefit from separation. Everything coming out
:35:19. > :35:25.from Westminster is all nationalist dash anti-SNP. It is not a
:35:25. > :35:28.particularly fair way of going around it. Some nationalists have
:35:29. > :35:35.exempted themselves from these committees. But we will talk about
:35:35. > :35:40.information. We have had a number of papers coming from the UK
:35:40. > :35:44.Government. I do not always defend the UK Government, but we have seen
:35:44. > :35:54.significant papers coming forward in terms of international treaties, on
:35:54. > :35:59.currency and monetary policy. But we have to wait until October to get
:35:59. > :36:04.the White Paper on the bill. It is the SNP and those who favour
:36:04. > :36:08.separation who are failing this debate by refusing to put forward
:36:08. > :36:13.their proposition. Rob Gibson, let me put that point to you and give
:36:13. > :36:19.you a chance to respond. I want to put that point to you about the
:36:19. > :36:23.uncertainty. You could say that, but a fiscal commission dealt with this
:36:23. > :36:29.matter and was not given the same views as other reports which were
:36:29. > :36:37.drawn up by a failed chancellor and a former press officer of the
:36:37. > :36:46.Cairngorm National Park. We had a put litter prizewinner, a Nobel
:36:46. > :36:55.prizewinner dot-mac that is the quality of the argument. We are not
:36:55. > :37:00.getting the UK engagement in this. The UK Government will not discuss
:37:00. > :37:04.and that is why we are not getting the debate. One other issue we are
:37:04. > :37:08.covering today, starting with Richard Baker and the debate in
:37:08. > :37:12.Parliament this afternoon which we covered live on voluntary
:37:12. > :37:17.organisations, perhaps moving from 12 month funding to three years.
:37:17. > :37:21.Would you like to see that happening? Absolutely, I asked about
:37:21. > :37:30.it five years ago and then he said he was in favour of it and we will
:37:30. > :37:34.get some action on the Scottish government. Your colleague Gavin
:37:34. > :37:39.Brown was making that point in Parliament, but for any government
:37:39. > :37:46.embarking on a three-year deal of funding, either sometimes strings
:37:46. > :37:50.attached to the money that goes to charities? This is a conservative
:37:50. > :37:55.debate and we are using conservative debating time to tackle this issue
:37:55. > :38:00.that affects the voluntary sector. Everybody agrees with this. The
:38:00. > :38:04.voluntary sector have signed up to it, but it is not happening. What we
:38:04. > :38:09.are calling on the Scottish government to do is for them to use
:38:09. > :38:15.their clout to make this happen. It is not working on the ground, so do
:38:15. > :38:20.something about it. Savage Scott, I presume you would agree with that as
:38:20. > :38:26.well. Either difficulties in providing these three-year funding
:38:26. > :38:28.deals? 12 months is probably a lot easier to cope with. Ministers do
:38:28. > :38:33.not like three-year funding deals because it stops them having control
:38:33. > :38:40.over the budget and they want the ability to set the budget from one
:38:40. > :38:44.year to the next and to be able to make announcements. It is very handy
:38:45. > :38:49.before referendums. That is what is going on here. The nationalist
:38:49. > :38:55.ministers are not making any long-term announcements. Whatever
:38:55. > :38:59.happens today will happen, but we will see lots of choreographed
:38:59. > :39:05.announcements over the next couple of months or aimed at one date in
:39:05. > :39:12.September next year. What Mr Scott is saying as a minister it is easier
:39:12. > :39:17.to have a 12 month deal. Do you think they might be changing their
:39:17. > :39:22.mind and going for a three-year deal? I certainly hope it is moving
:39:22. > :39:26.in that direction. People have wanted 10-year deals and I believe
:39:26. > :39:31.it is a good example of how we are limited by the cash we get through
:39:31. > :39:41.the settlement from the Treasury. I believe we can move forward with
:39:41. > :39:41.
:39:41. > :39:46.independence. Let Robin Gibson finished. Thank you all very much
:39:46. > :39:51.for joining us live from Parliament. Let's speak to my weight from The
:39:51. > :39:59.Times. Let's pick up on the voluntary organisation conversation
:39:59. > :40:04.we were having, moving from this annual deal to a three-year deal. It
:40:04. > :40:06.would give charities a lot more stability. It was particularly
:40:06. > :40:13.interesting to hear that it is important for government ministers
:40:13. > :40:16.to keep tabs on the funding arrangements. Well, it is, but many
:40:17. > :40:24.charities are effectively small businesses. Any business like that
:40:24. > :40:30.once the security. It seems a no-brainer as you might say. It is
:40:30. > :40:34.interesting to see the Conservatives putting it forward to that seems to
:40:34. > :40:41.be a change from the old nasty party we used to know. It is the big
:40:41. > :40:47.society. It seems a different tack than the Conservative party is
:40:47. > :40:52.taking in England at the moment. That is the interesting part of it.
:40:52. > :40:58.The gentleman who was on earlier named the Conservative MP and what a
:40:58. > :41:02.good job he was doing. They do not do that very often. Let's pick up on
:41:03. > :41:07.the other debate we are having about the foreign affairs select committee
:41:07. > :41:11.report. What did you make about the discussion there? This is coming
:41:11. > :41:17.from a committee of MPs who are partial and there are no
:41:17. > :41:21.nationalists on that committee. thing that was going through my mind
:41:21. > :41:30.was why so much of what we here comes through the Scottish
:41:30. > :41:34.Parliament which has an SNP majority and the majority on the committees.
:41:34. > :41:39.That did not completely wash with me. There are all sorts of opinions
:41:39. > :41:44.in this debate and surely the Westminster opinion is an important
:41:44. > :41:50.opinion, especially the amount of work that has been done on it. The
:41:50. > :41:56.energy regulator says its plans to simplify electricity tariffs are the
:41:56. > :41:59.most radical since competition began 18 years ago. Its spokesman was
:41:59. > :42:06.addressing the energy committee were MSP is pressed him on what the
:42:06. > :42:10.changes would mean for Scotland. reforms we have proposed either most
:42:10. > :42:17.radical changes to the retail energy market its competition was
:42:17. > :42:23.introduced about 15 years ago. They needed to be radical. When we looked
:42:23. > :42:27.at the market a couple of years back customers were being put off from
:42:27. > :42:31.engaging in the market because of the confusing array of tariffs,
:42:31. > :42:36.because of the complexity of the tariffs that were being offered.
:42:36. > :42:40.When they did engage, they did not have a particularly good experience.
:42:40. > :42:48.We know about the instances of mis-selling and this is why we had
:42:48. > :42:55.to act. Our proposals are intended to introduce a more simple, clearer
:42:55. > :42:57.and fairer market for consumers, . In terms of progressing the
:42:57. > :43:04.imbalance of fuel poverty, the disproportionate fuel poverty
:43:04. > :43:10.suffered on Scotland and her islands in comparison with England, in what
:43:10. > :43:17.way will the measures you describe earlier mitigate that situation?
:43:17. > :43:24.Energy prices are one part of what significantly that significantly
:43:24. > :43:31.contribute to fuel poverty. By making the market as effective as
:43:31. > :43:34.possible, customers are able to hold suppliers to account which will
:43:34. > :43:40.hopefully mean they pay no more than they need to and strive efficiencies
:43:40. > :43:50.through those companies and sheer -- ensured that they get the best deal
:43:50. > :43:52.
:43:52. > :43:58.that they can. How will you seek that no customers pay more than they
:43:58. > :44:04.need to? Consumer focus suggests the wealthier customers are three times
:44:04. > :44:07.more likely to use a comparison website than the poorest groups. I
:44:07. > :44:12.wonder if the proposals have been specifically designed to target
:44:12. > :44:18.parts of the market, for examples the lower end, with vulnerable
:44:18. > :44:21.customers who are not getting the best deal. What is being done to
:44:21. > :44:28.address that issue? Our proposals will improve the way the market
:44:28. > :44:31.functions for vulnerable customers. It may well be that these proposals
:44:31. > :44:40.that are going through at the moment are not enough and we recognise
:44:40. > :44:45.that. We think there is a role for what we have called at a glance
:44:45. > :44:50.capability or comparisons in this market. People can see simply by
:44:50. > :44:54.looking at a piece of paper or a set of numbers which deal is best for
:44:54. > :44:59.them without going through a comparison site. One of the ways we
:44:59. > :45:04.have proposed doing that is to provide customers with information
:45:04. > :45:09.about what the cheapest deal for them is across the whole market,
:45:09. > :45:13.taking into account their particular circumstances. That is not an easy
:45:13. > :45:20.thing to do. There are lots of questions about technology and
:45:20. > :45:24.enabling and about issues of whether that is better delivered through a
:45:24. > :45:30.third-party. We are proposing to go through a trial with that with
:45:30. > :45:40.suppliers and we have written to the suppliers and many of them have
:45:40. > :45:59.
:45:59. > :46:05.accepted to get together to work out It has been a concern for us that
:46:05. > :46:09.customers in areas might not be able to change supplier which could
:46:09. > :46:14.lead to making it more difficult for them to get out of debt if they
:46:14. > :46:24.pay more than they need to for electricity and gas and find they
:46:24. > :46:25.
:46:25. > :46:31.cannot swap to a cheaper deal. Suppliers are up still able to
:46:31. > :46:38.block customers in debt from switching but we have raised the
:46:38. > :46:44.limit of that from �200 to �500 to make it effect as few customers as
:46:44. > :46:49.possible. We certainly have watched with some concern about rising
:46:49. > :46:52.levels of customers in debt and rising levels of debt and we have a
:46:52. > :46:58.whole series of rules and requirements to treat those
:46:58. > :47:03.customers fairly and to give them the best opportunity possible of
:47:03. > :47:08.getting out of that position. The reality he's you do not have
:47:08. > :47:13.the teeth to make these recommendations bite? We have the
:47:13. > :47:18.teeth to make these recommendations bite and our willingness to enforce
:47:18. > :47:22.his demonstrated only a few leaks at -- weeks ago when we announce
:47:22. > :47:28.the find at -- against Scottish energy form this selling.
:47:28. > :47:38.Let us return to Holyrood again where they are discussing future
:47:38. > :47:43.
:47:43. > :47:48.Could I commend there's CBSO. Was the debate is about money, it is
:47:48. > :47:54.not just about more money necessarily but about getting the
:47:54. > :48:00.best fun you. No organisation can do that when its funding is decided
:48:00. > :48:04.annually or less, often so late in the budgetary process that many
:48:04. > :48:10.organisations are left in the dark as to whether services will be
:48:10. > :48:15.funded at all on the 1st April each year. I am sure I am not alone in
:48:15. > :48:19.having the usual anguished calls from third sector organisations as
:48:19. > :48:25.the end of the financial year approaches saying they have had to
:48:25. > :48:28.give redundancy notices to key employees in case funding was not
:48:28. > :48:33.forthcoming. No private or public sector organisation could ever be
:48:33. > :48:37.expected to operate like that and it cannot be right that a third
:48:37. > :48:41.sector organisations seem to be expected to do so. Thus has been
:48:41. > :48:44.made clear, the Government's intentions were honourable in
:48:44. > :48:48.bringing together the joint statement setting out the
:48:48. > :48:54.guidelines for best practice for funding of the third sector. It
:48:54. > :49:02.notes that funders will aim to take a three-year approach to grant and
:49:02. > :49:11.contract funding. Sadly, as we know, the best made plants... It is now
:49:11. > :49:15.to Clear, as in the briefing paper, three-year funding is rare to non-
:49:15. > :49:18.existent from local authorities to the third sector and I think we all
:49:18. > :49:24.agree they cannot go one. I would like to think that cross-party
:49:24. > :49:28.support of this motion seems to be emerging and it might begin the
:49:28. > :49:32.process of changing that situation. Everyone wants the same thing it is
:49:33. > :49:37.simply a question of having the will to make it happen. Presiding
:49:37. > :49:42.officer, in the short time remaining can I highlight a local
:49:42. > :49:47.situation. Almost a third of Scottish government funding for the
:49:47. > :49:54.third sector NXT will be delivered through the third sector in the
:49:54. > :50:04.face stricter -- interface structure. However, in Dumfries and
:50:04. > :50:04.
:50:04. > :50:13.Galloway it has been put in place. Two areas have felt they have had
:50:13. > :50:17.no option other than to exclude themselves. I can understand why
:50:17. > :50:23.there was no choice other than to press ahead with this, but I want
:50:23. > :50:32.to put on record my real concerns for the prospect of a third sector
:50:32. > :50:37.interface that now excludes third - - 50% of those involved. I have
:50:37. > :50:44.closed in supporting the motion. Can I apologise for the drilling
:50:44. > :50:54.and thumping that has been going on by our esteemed contract has. It is
:50:54. > :50:54.
:50:54. > :50:59.being dealt with, allegedly. I apologise. Can I call on our next
:50:59. > :51:03.member. Thank you. I take delight in taking part in this debate and
:51:03. > :51:07.in the comments made by the voluntary sector because I want my
:51:07. > :51:13.contribution to be about my experiences both as a volunteer and
:51:13. > :51:19.working in the voluntary sector. It must be a good 14 years ago that I
:51:19. > :51:29.was one of the volunteer founders and youth workers at a youth club
:51:29. > :51:30.
:51:30. > :51:37.and later, I went on to be... Before that, I was the voluntary
:51:37. > :51:41.librarian at a Marie Curie library. When my son went to school, I was
:51:41. > :51:50.fortunate that the voluntary sector came to me and asked me to work for
:51:50. > :51:59.them and I have worked in the Council for Voluntary Services in
:51:59. > :52:05.Eaton -- eastern Barton Show. I also worked in another area. A lot
:52:05. > :52:08.of the Commons I want to make are born out of that rather than on
:52:08. > :52:12.lots of facts and figures and evidence.
:52:12. > :52:17.John Sweeney says he wants to set up a Scottish alternative to the
:52:17. > :52:23.Office for Budget Responsibility which conduct economic forecasts on
:52:23. > :52:27.a UK-wide basis. I am joined by our political Correspondent, Raymond
:52:27. > :52:31.Buchanan. Why does he want to set up his own Office for Budget
:52:31. > :52:35.Responsibility? It was set up by the UK Coalition
:52:35. > :52:40.government after they came into power. It is independent and
:52:40. > :52:45.supposed to give it UK wide independent forecasts but it has
:52:45. > :52:49.been criticised because it often has to revise forecasts. It will be
:52:49. > :52:54.given a key role in a couple of years' time because in this place,
:52:54. > :53:01.MSPs will have greater control over land tax and income tax and the
:53:02. > :53:09.trees -- transition between fully controlling these... The Office for
:53:09. > :53:13.Budget Responsibility will seek how much MSPs have raised and how much
:53:13. > :53:22.should be deducted as a result of those taxes being devolved. It was
:53:22. > :53:26.an issue raised in the finance committee today. It was said that
:53:26. > :53:33.the forecasts of the Office for Budget Responsibility where
:53:33. > :53:42.critical, suggesting land tax was going up. But you to increases in
:53:42. > :53:47.recycling, he thought those projections were hopeful indeed.
:53:47. > :53:52.As a consequence of the transaction tax and the landfill tax and the
:53:52. > :54:00.Scottish rate of income tax, we acquire a set of responsibilities
:54:00. > :54:05.that will be about revenue raising and my view is that Scotland will
:54:05. > :54:10.require to have an independent forecasting body that can provide
:54:10. > :54:14.he independent assessment to both the government and Parliament about
:54:14. > :54:18.what may be generated as a consequence of these taxes and I'm
:54:18. > :54:23.giving consideration as to how I should be established.
:54:23. > :54:29.Political reaction has been interested. The Tories kind of
:54:29. > :54:31.think it might be a good idea? Indeed. The Conservatives set-up
:54:31. > :54:35.the Office for Budget Responsibility and they have been
:54:35. > :54:39.calling for further transparency in terms of how the Scottish
:54:39. > :54:44.government spends its cash. Other opponents of the Scottish
:54:44. > :54:49.government talk about the fact they believe this will be used in the
:54:49. > :54:53.constitutional debate they currently are having in Scotland.
:54:53. > :54:57.The question how independent a Scottish version of the Office for
:54:57. > :55:03.Budget Responsibility would be. During his evidence, he said he was
:55:03. > :55:09.hoping to set up this version to get an independent organisation
:55:09. > :55:14.using Scottish data. He said it would be best held in Scotland
:55:14. > :55:19.where officials can look at some of the policy of changes and some
:55:19. > :55:23.policy areas which will impact on how much in tax will be raised. He
:55:23. > :55:26.believes it should be collected and analysed here and the forecast
:55:26. > :55:31.should be made by this version of the Office for Budget
:55:31. > :55:39.Responsibility. Thank you very much. Let us get
:55:39. > :55:42.some final thoughts in the company of Mike Wade from the times. And
:55:42. > :55:48.Office for Budget Responsibility for Scotland. A good idea? It is
:55:48. > :55:56.interesting that the Conservatives also supported that. What struck me
:55:56. > :56:02.among the critics of the idea is that the Office for Budget
:56:02. > :56:05.Responsibility has been an independent body. It intervened to
:56:05. > :56:15.contradict David Cameron about six weeks ago when he claimed the
:56:15. > :56:19.recession was down to the eurozone. It was very critical. It will be
:56:19. > :56:26.interesting if a Scottish Op Art was as independent-minded as that
:56:26. > :56:32.and got stuck in to the Scottish government. Week saw when they set
:56:32. > :56:41.up their own version of Mark Leveson and they got that advice,
:56:41. > :56:48.they ignored it. It is an interesting proposition. However
:56:48. > :56:53.Scottish administration would react to an independent body.
:56:53. > :57:00.It would often be appearing on programmes like this. There
:57:00. > :57:10.authority would be quite commanding, wouldn't it? I think John Swinney
:57:10. > :57:12.
:57:12. > :57:17.alluded to a trait �28 billion project. It would be massive. With
:57:17. > :57:23.more powers coming under the Scotland Act, perhaps there is a
:57:23. > :57:28.well there. It has a modicum of support outside the SNP. Political
:57:28. > :57:32.reaction has been interesting. Labour work saying you cannot trust
:57:32. > :57:39.the words that come out of ministers mouth but others say it
:57:39. > :57:46.may be a good idea to have this. Exactly. There seems to be more
:57:46. > :57:51.support beyond the SNP. It should make it an interesting debate.
:57:51. > :57:58.Sweeney was saying he wants to see it set-up before 20th April 15 when
:57:58. > :58:03.the new taxes come in. So it would be part of life if he gets his way,
:58:03. > :58:09.whatever happens. It will be in a very powerful position and we
:58:09. > :58:17.should get the person in here immediately to scrutinise them.
:58:17. > :58:22.it almost took powerful, do you think? No, I don't think... Well,
:58:22. > :58:28.it is a huge budget and it is interesting the Conservatives have
:58:28. > :58:34.come over to that level of acceptance of the idea to suggest
:58:34. > :58:38.there is a will therefore someone to have that kind of budget. Thank