:00:20. > :00:21.Good afternoon and welcome to Politics Scotland.
:00:22. > :00:23.The yes and no camps in the independence debate
:00:24. > :00:25.both claim victory following last night's TV clash
:00:26. > :00:27.between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling.
:00:28. > :00:30.Did either man do much to convert those who are undecided?
:00:31. > :00:32.And with six weeks of campaigning to go
:00:33. > :00:42.Also today, Holyrood debates the Trident nuclear weapons system.
:00:43. > :00:44.Its renewal is reserved to Westminster but the future
:00:45. > :00:47.of the nuclear submarines and warheads on the west coast
:00:48. > :00:52.of Scotland have become a central issue ahead of next month's vote.
:00:53. > :00:54.So it's the afternoon after the night before.
:00:55. > :00:57.As the dust settles on the STV debate between the two standard
:00:58. > :00:59.bearers in the independence campaign just what are the Yes Scotland
:01:00. > :01:03.and Better Together teams making of how events unfolded?
:01:04. > :01:05.First Minister Alex Salmond and the former chancellor
:01:06. > :01:09.Alistair Darling clashed in a wide ranging debate that
:01:10. > :01:12.allowed the two men to cross examine each other and take questions
:01:13. > :01:16.In a moment we'll discuss whether either side provided
:01:17. > :01:19.the crucial undecided voters with the answers they were looking for,
:01:20. > :01:28.but first our political editor Brian Taylor reports.
:01:29. > :01:36.Alex Salmond today dismissed claims that he had lost the debate, arguing
:01:37. > :01:41.polls indicated a shift towards independence. Any eight-year-old can
:01:42. > :01:45.tell you the flag of a country and the currency. Alistair Darling
:01:46. > :01:54.pursued him vigorously over currency. Mr Salmond quoted a
:01:55. > :01:56.20th-century movie icon in his defence. In the words of Sharjah Aga
:01:57. > :02:08.bore match amen are not match. People do look to that. In his
:02:09. > :02:17.return, the First Minister encouraged people to realise that an
:02:18. > :02:24.independent such -- Scotland can succeed. The only poll that mattered
:02:25. > :02:27.was won on the 18th of September. The Nationalists are running out of
:02:28. > :02:34.arguments that they are running out of time to make the arguments. What
:02:35. > :02:42.are the dogs on the street same? I was undecided but I am going towards
:02:43. > :02:48.the yes side now. I think Alistair Darling scored the winning point and
:02:49. > :02:53.the winning point was that Alex Salmond was unable to come up with
:02:54. > :02:59.his answer to what is your option be? I am no further on than I was
:03:00. > :03:06.before they started. They are not delivering any definite answers to
:03:07. > :03:07.questions I have got. More to come including a BBC debate later this
:03:08. > :03:09.month. With me now Professor John Curtice
:03:10. > :03:11.of Strathclyde University and also here
:03:12. > :03:23.our political editor Brian Taylor. Both sides are claiming victory, how
:03:24. > :03:28.do you rate it? And accurate it is like choosing between Lulu and Kylie
:03:29. > :03:34.ceremony of the Commonwealth Games! They both had moments where they
:03:35. > :03:37.were productive, the pursuit of currency from Alistair Darling, the
:03:38. > :03:39.pursuit on the issue of whether an independent Scotland could survive
:03:40. > :03:52.from Alexander some of -- Alec Salmond. They had moments where they
:03:53. > :04:00.faulted as well. Alex Salmond stumbled on the issue of pursuing
:04:01. > :04:05.relatively minor matters, would the pandas go, would we have to drive on
:04:06. > :04:08.the right-hand side? I understand what he was doing. He said there
:04:09. > :04:11.were scare stories coming from Better Together and if they could
:04:12. > :04:18.not be trusted about, they could not be trusted on the big things. I
:04:19. > :04:22.think it was too prolonged and peripheral. Would the undecided
:04:23. > :04:26.people have changed their mind as a result of what they saw last night?
:04:27. > :04:32.We saw that woman on the streets of Inverness saying she was still none
:04:33. > :04:36.the wiser! I am not surprised. One of the remarkable things about last
:04:37. > :04:41.night's debate was the degree to which both sides ignored the issue
:04:42. > :04:44.which all the polling evidence suggests was by far and away the
:04:45. > :04:47.most important issue as far as voters are concerned and that is
:04:48. > :04:52.whether or not independence or remaining in the union is the better
:04:53. > :04:56.option so far as far as the future economic austerity of Scotland is
:04:57. > :05:00.concerned. Apart from the argument about whether not Alistair Darling
:05:01. > :05:03.did or did not agree with the primary step that an independent
:05:04. > :05:10.Scotland could be a prosperous country, the issue was not
:05:11. > :05:14.addressed. Both sides were keen to address issues which appealed to
:05:15. > :05:19.their partisans, such as the currency for No voters or that
:05:20. > :05:24.Scotland should not be governed by a Tory government on the yes side.
:05:25. > :05:28.Those are arguments which are not central to the undecided voters.
:05:29. > :05:31.Both participants seemed to want to hang on to the comfort zone of
:05:32. > :05:36.arguments they like and their fellow supporters like, rather than
:05:37. > :05:40.thinking of the crucial group out there, the undecided voters for whom
:05:41. > :05:46.this exercise was supposed to be intended. Are they avoiding that
:05:47. > :05:51.argument because it is an Achilles heel? It is difficult. We are not
:05:52. > :05:55.talking about the macro economy or economic theory, what people want is
:05:56. > :05:58.an answer about what exactly, and the meanings Ackley, the
:05:59. > :06:05.circumstances regarding their own personal household economy, their
:06:06. > :06:12.salary. It is entirely understandable that they want to
:06:13. > :06:16.know precisely. The timetable for independence at a minimum is spring
:06:17. > :06:19.2016, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can tell you what the
:06:20. > :06:27.economy will be like in two weeks, let alone two years. There is
:06:28. > :06:31.uncertainty intrinsic in politics and in economic forecasting, and yet
:06:32. > :06:35.people are entirely reasonably and entirely understandably expecting a
:06:36. > :06:43.certain answer which frankly neither side can give. Both sides are using
:06:44. > :06:49.opinion polling which has been commissioned since to try and say
:06:50. > :06:54.that they came out on top. What do you make of that opinion polling and
:06:55. > :06:59.whether it has much weight in terms of the wider debate? There was one
:07:00. > :07:06.poll from ICM, about 500 people so it should not be overinterpreted.
:07:07. > :07:11.Headline was apparently Mr Darling had won, 56% thought he had done
:07:12. > :07:14.best. But when you look at the innards what you discover is
:07:15. > :07:23.essentially yes voters thought Mr Salmond had one. There are more yes
:07:24. > :07:28.voters than no voters so Mr Darling comes out ahead. If you can take
:07:29. > :07:33.anything out of this poll, the answer is that as far as its impact
:07:34. > :07:39.on voting intentions are concerned, it was a draw. In advance of the
:07:40. > :07:46.debate, the 512 people who answered the questionnaire after the debate
:07:47. > :07:53.were split 47% yes 53% for no. After the debate, in aggregate, they split
:07:54. > :07:59.47% for yes, 53% for no. In other words, there is no discernible
:08:00. > :08:02.impact on voting trends. We will be looking to see what more regular
:08:03. > :08:09.polls come up with in the next week or two. The first glint we have got
:08:10. > :08:14.from the ICM poll is probably, do not expect too much to change. The
:08:15. > :08:19.no side will be happy with that, as the side ahead all they wanted was a
:08:20. > :08:23.draw, if that indeed is what it is, they will be content. The yes side
:08:24. > :08:27.will be asking themselves why did this apparently golden opportunity
:08:28. > :08:33.to reach out to Scotland apparently not get exploited by us more
:08:34. > :08:38.effectively. STV tell us it was a peak audience watching the debate in
:08:39. > :08:43.Scotland last night and 5000 viewers watched online, although there were
:08:44. > :08:46.problems with STV's on demand service. That tells us that people
:08:47. > :08:51.are engaged with the process and they want to get answers from the
:08:52. > :08:55.politicians. Do you think different formats might suit politicians in a
:08:56. > :09:01.better way. I thought it was a good show, to be frank and
:09:02. > :09:05.congratulations to STV. It was a good audience as well. I think the
:09:06. > :09:15.nature of the debate is we have had a referendum campaign going on since
:09:16. > :09:22.40 years. The positions are laid out. What we're getting now is a van
:09:23. > :09:25.July the of those positions. I think John has a good point. --
:09:26. > :09:30.evangelising those positions. People are sticking to their comfort zone.
:09:31. > :09:38.They are almost adopting positions which they know will be familiar to
:09:39. > :09:42.each other. It is like that they know the roles they are expecting to
:09:43. > :09:47.adopt and they are adopting them. But perhaps they need to strike out
:09:48. > :09:51.into other areas. People who are undecided do not want to hear
:09:52. > :09:55.rhetoric, they do not want to hear clever smart stuff, they want
:09:56. > :09:59.answers. I'd do not know if they can get the answers in the detail that
:10:00. > :10:04.they want. But I think they want it in more of a moderate, controlled
:10:05. > :10:09.and calm fashion. Perhaps that would be more of the nature of further
:10:10. > :10:14.debate but it was a good show. Just on that point, John Curtice, of the
:10:15. > :10:19.format, both men look quite nervous at the beginning, clearly they felt
:10:20. > :10:23.there was a lot riding on this. Both of them looked nervous and their
:10:24. > :10:27.voices were shaky. The truth is, the programme took off in the middle,
:10:28. > :10:32.with the inquisition of the two sides. It is great theatre for those
:10:33. > :10:37.of us who like politics, whether it was illuminating for voters was
:10:38. > :10:41.debatable. Mr Salmond seems to be more comfortable at the end of the
:10:42. > :10:44.programme when he could talk to voters directly in the audience. But
:10:45. > :10:52.the middle section, I think Mr Salmond found easier. On balance,
:10:53. > :10:57.the Better Together camp seemed happier as a consequence of this.
:10:58. > :11:02.But the yes camp say looking at that ICM poll, they are detecting
:11:03. > :11:08.evidence that undecided people are moving slightly in proportion to
:11:09. > :11:12.them and people who work previously hostile are beginning to shed some
:11:13. > :11:16.hostility. With regard to that, the other side are saying, they is time
:11:17. > :11:18.to make up the difference. Thank you, we will hear more from John
:11:19. > :11:21.later. MSPs have come back early this year
:11:22. > :11:26.as they'll be in recess again at the end of the month leading up
:11:27. > :11:29.to the referendum vote Today in the chamber the subject
:11:30. > :11:33.of Trident is being discussed. It's a debate sponsored by the SNP
:11:34. > :11:36.calling on the Parliament to support the speediest withdrawal
:11:37. > :11:38.of nuclear weapons from Scotland. Let's cross to Holyrood
:11:39. > :11:55.and the opening of the debate. I know that the Scottish government
:11:56. > :11:58.and of course, my party, are absolutely determined to seize the
:11:59. > :12:01.opportunity to begin in six weeks time, the discussions which would
:12:02. > :12:06.lead to the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland. I cannot
:12:07. > :12:09.believe in addition to the SNP and the Green members and others in this
:12:10. > :12:12.chamber, that there are not others in other parties who would not be
:12:13. > :12:20.excited by that project, including among them lifelong campaigners
:12:21. > :12:23.against nuclear weapons. Who would not be excited, whatever their views
:12:24. > :12:30.on constitutional change, of getting rid of nuclear weapons. There is the
:12:31. > :12:36.new generation of nuclear weapons and the yoke of their massive cost.
:12:37. > :12:39.The presiding officer, the vast majority of countries in the world
:12:40. > :12:46.neither have nor want nuclear weapons. Of the 193 United Nations
:12:47. > :12:51.member states, it is believed that fewer than ten possess nuclear
:12:52. > :12:56.warheads or aspired to do so. Of the current state which host nuclear
:12:57. > :13:00.weapons, three have stated their wish to see them removed. The
:13:01. > :13:03.Scottish government is a supporter of the Treaty on the
:13:04. > :13:09.nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, and while some may question the
:13:10. > :13:14.success of the treaty, the NPT provides a clear basis of the
:13:15. > :13:17.management and control of nuclear material and technology. We must now
:13:18. > :13:23.build on that framework in order to take the next step. The Scottish
:13:24. > :13:26.government therefore believes that rather than renewing and developing
:13:27. > :13:30.nuclear weapons systems, nuclear weapons states need to focus their
:13:31. > :13:35.efforts towards nonproliferation and disarmament. And that is why during
:13:36. > :13:41.the debate in March of last year, the Scottish government proposed a
:13:42. > :13:46.plan for disarmament, set out by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.
:13:47. > :13:54.That plan builds on the NPT and calls on nuclear weapons and
:13:55. > :14:01.non-weapon states to fulfil their... Within a context, I return
:14:02. > :14:06.to the UK government's plans for the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons.
:14:07. > :14:09.The Prime Minister has said in 2016 the UK government will decide
:14:10. > :14:21.whether or not to replace the Trident nuclear submarine fleet.
:14:22. > :14:24.This system would have massive indications for the UK defence
:14:25. > :14:28.forces. If you look at the position of the three main parties at
:14:29. > :14:33.Westminster, the so-called Trident maingate decision appears to have
:14:34. > :14:38.been made. Both coalition parties and Labour have signalled their
:14:39. > :14:38.support for a new fleet of submarines carrying Trident
:14:39. > :14:39.ballistic support for a new fleet of
:14:40. > :14:44.submarines carrying Trident missile is, with questions about whether
:14:45. > :14:48.nuclear weapons should be on patrol continually. I think it's important
:14:49. > :14:51.for the Labour backbenchers who feel strongly about nuclear disarmament,
:14:52. > :14:57.to understand that the potential other option is the basing of
:14:58. > :15:00.massively powerful nuclear weapons and the delivery systems in central
:15:01. > :15:05.Scotland for the next 50 years or more. That is the alternative to
:15:06. > :15:07.what we propose. And of course, the current UK government sticks to
:15:08. > :15:14.their line that they have no plans to move those weapons from Clyde.
:15:15. > :15:18.But we believe that information which is critical to that decision,
:15:19. > :15:21.information on the costs and consequences on the future of the
:15:22. > :15:35.key's Armed Forces, has not been made available to MPs at Westminster
:15:36. > :15:39.or to the general public. Can While I disagree strongly with the support
:15:40. > :15:49.for the UK retaining nuclear weapons, I was concerned by their
:15:50. > :15:53.reports Trident replacement. The UK government has provided estimates on
:15:54. > :15:56.the capital costs for replacing the submarine fleet which carries its
:15:57. > :16:00.nuclear weapons and for extending the life of the nuclear weapons and
:16:01. > :16:03.other infrastructure and warhead developments and according to the
:16:04. > :16:09.commission's report, that alone comes to a cost of ?50.6 billion in
:16:10. > :16:18.2012 prizes. On Trident money costs, the commission estimates a service
:16:19. > :16:24.outlay of ?20 million. Over an assumed lifetime of 35 years, this
:16:25. > :16:28.suggests a further ?55.2 million in running costs, taking the total
:16:29. > :16:34.potential cost of the Trident successor programme to over ?100
:16:35. > :16:39.billion at 2012 prizes. The commission's overall financial
:16:40. > :16:42.assessment which excludes future costs suggests the current cost
:16:43. > :16:47.would average ?2.9 billion a year, which is the equivalent of spending
:16:48. > :16:53.nine present of the UK's current defence budget and nuclear weapons
:16:54. > :16:56.each year. It equates to 20-30% of the entire capital budget of all
:16:57. > :17:00.three services. We will be back in the chamber for
:17:01. > :17:04.more of that debate later but let's discuss the two stories of today,
:17:05. > :17:09.the TV clash on independence and the Trident issue. Joining me now from
:17:10. > :17:17.the garden lobby at the Scottish Parliament are Stewart Maxwell and
:17:18. > :17:20.Murdo Fraser. Stewart Maxwell, many commentators believe that Alex
:17:21. > :17:25.Salmond didn't quite come up to the mark last night. How do you feel? I
:17:26. > :17:30.don't know who they are but perhaps they are on the no side to begin
:17:31. > :17:33.with. The figures that have come out after the debate quite clearly,
:17:34. > :17:39.particularly from the ICM poll for the guardian, show that there was a
:17:40. > :17:42.2% rise in support for the yes campaign and what is very
:17:43. > :17:49.interesting is that amongst those who were undecided, those people
:17:50. > :17:55.thought that after the debates, 74% of them said Alex Salmond won it and
:17:56. > :17:59.only 24% thought that Alistair Darling won it. Given the rise in
:18:00. > :18:03.support for yes and the heavy support for Alex Salmond's campaign
:18:04. > :18:07.by those who didn't know, I will go with them rather than the
:18:08. > :18:13.commentators. The sample size was pretty small in that one and John
:18:14. > :18:19.Curtice's region of the figures is that they went out as they came in.
:18:20. > :18:24.There is a rise over the two-hour debate from 45% support for yes
:18:25. > :18:32.beforehand to 47%, which is a clear increase of 2%. If you take that
:18:33. > :18:37.poll against the July poll, there was a rise in people over 55
:18:38. > :18:42.supporting yes. Clearly there is a momentum towards the yes campaign,
:18:43. > :18:47.so I'm very pleased with the way the debate has gone. We have laid on
:18:48. > :18:55.some very important marks on the ground and made some important
:18:56. > :18:59.points. Murdo Fraser, disappointed that Alistair Darling, who leads the
:19:00. > :19:02.Better Together campaign, which you support, feels he can't agree with
:19:03. > :19:06.the Prime Minister on whether or not Scotland would flourish as an
:19:07. > :19:09.independent country? I thought Alistair Darling did very well in
:19:10. > :19:13.the debate last night. Why do you think you struggled with that
:19:14. > :19:17.question? Somebody who is a Labour politician doesn't naturally wish to
:19:18. > :19:21.agree with somebody who is a conservative. You'd have to ask
:19:22. > :19:24.Alistair Darling that. It's pretty clear from all the commentary that
:19:25. > :19:30.this was a clear win for Alistair Darling. Stewart Maxwell is doing a
:19:31. > :19:35.good glass of the figures but the sample size he refers to is 22
:19:36. > :19:40.people, which is not in any way significant. If you talk to SNP
:19:41. > :19:47.people around the Parliament this morning, they don't talk about
:19:48. > :19:57.anything like the optimistic gloss that Stuart is talking about. Very
:19:58. > :20:05.optimistic gloss. It was a clear win for Alistair Darling. Does it matter
:20:06. > :20:11.that much? Actually, I don't think it does. This is not a debate about
:20:12. > :20:15.two personalities, two individuals who will be gone in a few years,
:20:16. > :20:20.because this is an irreversible vote if it is a yes. It will change the
:20:21. > :20:26.constitution for ever. It is much more important than the personality
:20:27. > :20:30.or one TV debate. I would agree that it isn't about Alex Salmond or the
:20:31. > :20:33.SNP but a much bigger question about the future of our country and I
:20:34. > :20:36.think the people of Scotland can see that this is a question that really
:20:37. > :20:43.matters not just to them but their children and grandchildren and will
:20:44. > :20:48.look at it in that context. Let me ask you about Trident. The debate is
:20:49. > :20:53.going on in the chamber. We just heard from the transport minister
:20:54. > :20:58.opening the debate. He talked about the party signing up to a five point
:20:59. > :21:01.plan which would negotiate for disarmament but ultimately, your
:21:02. > :21:04.party's position is to get rid of nuclear weapons from Scotland and
:21:05. > :21:08.hand them back to the rest of the UK. That doesn't give you any scope
:21:09. > :21:12.to negotiate for a reduction in nuclear weapons around the world. I
:21:13. > :21:17.disagree. The removal of WMD from Scotland would be in extremely
:21:18. > :21:24.important step towards disarmament around the world and would be seen
:21:25. > :21:27.around the world as a step towards peace and a rejection by Scotland of
:21:28. > :21:31.nuclear weapons. That would be a very symbolic message that would be
:21:32. > :21:34.sent out. Our voice in the world would then become stronger and we
:21:35. > :21:38.would join other non-nuclear nations who support the removal of nuclear
:21:39. > :21:43.weapons from their own territories and the rest of the world and we
:21:44. > :21:47.could join with those countries. Murdo Fraser, your party supports
:21:48. > :21:51.the retention of Trident. Under what circumstances could you in village
:21:52. > :21:55.the nuclear weapons being used? The whole point of nuclear weapons is
:21:56. > :21:58.that they are a deterrent. We've had nearly 70 years of peace in the
:21:59. > :22:06.Western world following the Second World War. A major component that is
:22:07. > :22:13.the fact we've had the nuclear deterrent. Likes nuclear weapons or
:22:14. > :22:19.wants to contemplate using them. -- nobody likes nuclear weapons. We
:22:20. > :22:23.know that George Osborne said if your party winds the next UK general
:22:24. > :22:26.election, there will be more austerity. We just got some of the
:22:27. > :22:30.figures and the cost of the renewal of Trident and its annual renewal
:22:31. > :22:38.costs, well over ?50 billion. Could that not be better spent? Firstly, I
:22:39. > :22:41.think you cannot put a price on freedom and security and defending
:22:42. > :22:46.the realm. The second point is that if you'll occur in the lifetime
:22:47. > :22:51.costs of a Trident replacement, even a Scottish government White Paper
:22:52. > :22:57.put that cost at ?250 million per year. Put that into context, that is
:22:58. > :23:03.less than 2% of the annual deficit of running an independent Scotland.
:23:04. > :23:08.So the idea that scrapping Trident frees up a vast amount of money to
:23:09. > :23:10.spend on other things, in the context of the deficit, the black
:23:11. > :23:17.hole in Scotland's finances, is nonsensical. I know Murdo Fraser
:23:18. > :23:20.tries to underplay ?163 million a year that it is costing Scotland and
:23:21. > :23:29.the ?4 billion that it will cost Trident. -- cost to renew Trident.
:23:30. > :23:34.We are talking about 2700 teachers or 3000 nurses. These are very
:23:35. > :23:40.important sums of money that could be spent on social and literature.
:23:41. > :23:49.There are 8000 jobs. No, there are not. That's not true. We know from
:23:50. > :23:56.data. We know from the UK government it is 520 civilian jobs. That is the
:23:57. > :24:03.number, not the ridiculous numbers. You have to look at the wider
:24:04. > :24:07.economy. The removal of Trident would not mean the removal of those
:24:08. > :24:11.bases because they would have been open in an independent Scotland as
:24:12. > :24:14.naval headquarters and the join forces headquarters. Lots of good,
:24:15. > :24:19.solid jobs for the civilian population. Murdo Fraser tells us
:24:20. > :24:24.that having the nuclear deterrent makes people feel safer. Stewart
:24:25. > :24:28.Maxwell, hasn't the situation we've just seen in eastern Ukraine and
:24:29. > :24:31.Russia's response to that told us that actually, some of the threats
:24:32. > :24:35.we thought had gone in the world have not gone? Maybe it's too soon
:24:36. > :24:42.to think about disarming this deterrent. The idea that Trident
:24:43. > :24:50.nuclear submarine missiles actually prevent acts of terrorism is just
:24:51. > :24:55.nonsensical. Nuclear weapons are part of the NATO defence, which is
:24:56. > :25:01.being used to apply pressure and bad Amir Putin. I don't think it is. The
:25:02. > :25:06.fact is that that aeroplane was down by conventional weapons. -- apply
:25:07. > :25:10.pressure on Vladimir Putin. We cannot have a situation where we
:25:11. > :25:13.waste ?100 billion to replace the Trident nuclear system and at the
:25:14. > :25:21.same time we have austerity in the UK. What Murdo Fraser needs to tell
:25:22. > :25:25.us is, what does he mean to cut from social programmes to pay the money
:25:26. > :25:32.for weapons of mass destruction? We'll leave that question hanging.
:25:33. > :25:35.It's a ?12 billion black hole in the Scottish budget. We have to leave
:25:36. > :25:39.things there because I wished to return to the Trident debate in the
:25:40. > :25:46.chamber where the Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie is moving an
:25:47. > :25:52.amendment. Today could be a big opportunity for
:25:53. > :25:57.the Government. After last night's debate, perhaps they are licking
:25:58. > :25:59.their wounds, perhaps they are hunting for a game changer that
:26:00. > :26:03.resurrect their campaign for September. From the public there is
:26:04. > :26:09.a thirst for answers. The minister and his backbenchers could perhaps
:26:10. > :26:14.provide some of those answers this afternoon that so far have been far
:26:15. > :26:17.too limited. First of all, what I want to do is try to tackle some of
:26:18. > :26:22.the sunshine is that the Nationalists make about this issue.
:26:23. > :26:26.They employ that you are not serious about nuclear disarmament unless you
:26:27. > :26:31.support independence. I will put aside that in this chamber we are
:26:32. > :26:40.all disarmament is. Some are multilateral disarmament, some are
:26:41. > :26:46.unilateral ones. The NPT treaty requires us all to work towards
:26:47. > :26:50.nuclear disarmament. What we need to consider is the fact that on the
:26:51. > :26:56.Labour benches, there am many people who support unilateral nuclear
:26:57. > :27:00.disarmament. But their commitment to that cause has been questioned by
:27:01. > :27:06.this side and I think that is unfair and is something they should
:27:07. > :27:11.reconsider. I also believe that this is something that they try to apply
:27:12. > :27:14.to a whole range of issues. If you look at child care, you're not fully
:27:15. > :27:20.committed to child care unless you support independence. I believe
:27:21. > :27:24.firmly in expanding childcare and I've shown my commitment in this
:27:25. > :27:29.chamber. Is my commitment to childcare questioned by those people
:27:30. > :27:32.on those benches? But also, the commitment to Scotland. I've got
:27:33. > :27:38.tremendous ambition for Scotland. I want Scotland to do more. I want the
:27:39. > :27:40.best possible platform upon which Scots can achieve that great
:27:41. > :27:45.ambition that we have and that great talent. But I am questioned because
:27:46. > :27:57.I don't believe in an independent Scotland. They also argue that
:27:58. > :28:01.Scotland will automatically - and independent Scotland would
:28:02. > :28:04.automatically result in fewer nuclear weapons and a fan shall
:28:05. > :28:08.benefit to Scotland and it would keep us safe here, including on the
:28:09. > :28:12.Clyde. Some have been convinced by those arguments but let's look at
:28:13. > :28:17.each one those arguments in turn. First of all, on cost. Scotland's
:28:18. > :28:21.share of Trident, ?200 million, we would no longer have to pay that. I
:28:22. > :28:25.admit it. We would save ?200 million. It's a small fraction of
:28:26. > :28:31.the total defence budget but it is not insignificant. But compare that
:28:32. > :28:37.with the significant economic loss that would result as a result, in
:28:38. > :28:45.Jackie Baillie's constituency, of the 800 jobs that would be lost
:28:46. > :28:53.because the vast bulk of the annual cost of Trident is spent within that
:28:54. > :29:02.area so that would make us worse off. ?200 million the Scottish
:29:03. > :29:07.Government would benefit. Can you explain how I am making that issue
:29:08. > :29:15.up? Thanks very much for inviting me. First of all, there will be jobs
:29:16. > :29:25.but they will be working on nuclear weapons. So every single penny of
:29:26. > :29:28.investment, the ?2.5 billion that is currently invested in Trident
:29:29. > :29:34.nuclear weapons system is, the vast bulk of that goes to Faslane and
:29:35. > :29:38.Helensburgh, will be automatically replaced? That is a commitment from
:29:39. > :29:44.the SNP government? Survey will be spending ?2.5 billion alone in that
:29:45. > :29:47.area? Well, that is a new policy from the SNP that has not been
:29:48. > :29:50.costed in the White Paper and it would be very interesting to see the
:29:51. > :29:56.exact numbers. I will take an intervention. That's Willie Rennie
:29:57. > :29:59.talking in the Parliament. Professor John Curtice from Strathclyde
:30:00. > :30:06.University is still here in the studio. Let's talk about Trident.
:30:07. > :30:15.Obviously, it's a divisive issue but how divisive is it amongst all the
:30:16. > :30:17.wider society? The truth is, Scotland is pretty divided but on
:30:18. > :30:26.balance, more people are probably opposed than are in favour. Last
:30:27. > :30:31.year we found 37% of people accepting the principle of nuclear
:30:32. > :30:34.weapons and 46% opposed. It is not true as it is sometimes argued that
:30:35. > :30:39.Scotland is overwhelmingly opposed but it is true that Scotland is
:30:40. > :30:44.probably on balance opposed. To that degree at least, it is some degree
:30:45. > :30:51.different to England which is probably on balance in favour. Yes,
:30:52. > :30:55.Scotland has a somewhat antinuclear character but it should not be
:30:56. > :31:02.exaggerated. What is interesting is how important this issue is in the
:31:03. > :31:07.referendum. The SNP say it is very important. It is very important to
:31:08. > :31:11.them as a party but it is not so clear if it is important to the
:31:12. > :31:16.electorate. Going back to last year's survey, we found among no
:31:17. > :31:20.voters almost as many people opposed to nuclear weapons as people in
:31:21. > :31:24.favour. That gives you some indication that there were lots of
:31:25. > :31:27.people out there who are opposed to nuclear weapons, in principle as far
:31:28. > :31:32.as the UK are concerned, who are nevertheless going to vote no. It is
:31:33. > :31:35.true that those people are somewhat more likely to vote yes but the
:31:36. > :31:39.difference is not that large and it does not look as though the issue of
:31:40. > :31:50.nuclear weapons, fundamental about arguably is, it is not a defining
:31:51. > :31:54.issue for most voters in Scotland. It is going back to what you said
:31:55. > :32:02.about that phrase, it is the economy, stupid. At the end of the
:32:03. > :32:06.day, what most distinguishes yes and no voters is whether or not you
:32:07. > :32:12.think independence is a sensible idea economically or not. Of course,
:32:13. > :32:17.the views of the SNP are deeply held. The party has long been
:32:18. > :32:20.associated with the antinuclear movement. One understands why they
:32:21. > :32:28.have adopted the movement that they do. Both sides say it is crucial but
:32:29. > :32:34.it is not central to voters' decisions. They are also talking
:32:35. > :32:37.about the economics of nuclear weapons and how much money not
:32:38. > :32:43.having nuclear weapons could feed into the economy. You heard both
:32:44. > :32:53.sides of the debate this afternoon. The no side keep edging what will be
:32:54. > :32:58.the dire consequences. The SNP say they will be able to replace them.
:32:59. > :33:02.They say they can spend less money on defence and have more money to
:33:03. > :33:06.other things. One thing you have got to remember about all these
:33:07. > :33:11.arguments about an independent Scotland, that may well be what the
:33:12. > :33:14.SNP would like in principle, but there is no guarantee that an SNP
:33:15. > :33:19.will be running an independent Scotland and that will happen.
:33:20. > :33:22.Uncertainties about economics and also uncertainties about the future
:33:23. > :33:24.of Trident in an independent Scotland. Once again, thank you very
:33:25. > :33:27.much. It's been a busy day on the
:33:28. > :33:30.political front not just here in The resignation of Baroness Warsi
:33:31. > :33:35.over the UK government's response to the bloodshed in Gaza continues to
:33:36. > :33:37.put pressure on David Cameron. Also in the past few hours London
:33:38. > :33:40.Mayor, Boris Johnston has announced he wants to return to the Commons
:33:41. > :33:43.and will stand in the next election. Let's speak now to our Westminster
:33:44. > :33:54.correspondent, David Porter. David, tell us how much discomfort
:33:55. > :33:58.you believe David Cameron is under because of Baroness Warsi's
:33:59. > :34:02.decision? It is interesting, David Cameron goes on holiday, one of his
:34:03. > :34:06.ministers resign is one day and perhaps his biggest rival for the
:34:07. > :34:11.leadership of the Tory party announces the next day that he wants
:34:12. > :34:14.to stand for Parliament in 2015. That may be an argument for prime
:34:15. > :34:23.ministers not going holiday. Westminster behind me is on it long
:34:24. > :34:26.summer break. Yesterday was quite an interesting day at Westminster.
:34:27. > :34:31.Baroness Warsi had made it known for some time that she was unhappy with
:34:32. > :34:36.the UK government's stance on Gaza. She felt UK government was not being
:34:37. > :34:41.critical enough. She was the first female Muslim who had been in a UK
:34:42. > :34:44.Cabinet. She was a Foreign Office Minister and she had been saying for
:34:45. > :34:49.some time that she believed Britain should have been taking a stronger
:34:50. > :34:53.line against what Israel is doing in Gaza and making that more vocal. She
:34:54. > :34:57.did not speak to David Cameron before she resigned. She gave her
:34:58. > :35:03.resignation and he only just found out literally before she tweeted
:35:04. > :35:05.that she was resigning. There was some annoyance in the traditional
:35:06. > :35:09.exchange of letters yesterday when he said he would have liked the
:35:10. > :35:15.opportunity to have spoken to her before she resigned. She later went
:35:16. > :35:18.on to give a few interviews where she was not holding back. I think
:35:19. > :35:23.there is annoyance among the higher echelons of the Conservative Party
:35:24. > :35:27.and some frustration that she resigned in the way she did. I think
:35:28. > :35:32.there is also some nervousness. They think, what will she do next? She
:35:33. > :35:36.already gave an interview to an online blog where she expanded her
:35:37. > :35:40.views. She gave a series of broadcast views yesterday, where it
:35:41. > :35:45.was plain that she was very, very unhappy with the way the
:35:46. > :35:48.Conservative Party part of the coalition was operating,
:35:49. > :35:53.particularly regarding the situation in Gaza. Let's talk about Boris
:35:54. > :35:57.Johnson. He wants back into Parliament. Is he likely to be a
:35:58. > :36:01.thorn in the flesh of David Cameron in that he will be a distraction
:36:02. > :36:05.because many people believe he covets the job of leader of the
:36:06. > :36:10.Conservative Party and ultimately Prime Minister? He made a speech
:36:11. > :36:13.stents are bleak about the European Union where he was floating the idea
:36:14. > :36:18.that if Britain does not get concessions at once, it may be right
:36:19. > :36:21.for Britain to withdraw from the European Union. That goes down with
:36:22. > :36:26.the right wing of the Conservative Party. In the question and answer
:36:27. > :36:32.session there was the question about would you like to be an MP in 2015?
:36:33. > :36:39.Normally he form of words so his term finishes in London that is what
:36:40. > :36:43.he is concentrating on. Today he said he would like to find a seat
:36:44. > :36:50.for the 2015 general election. I think there is no doubt that a safe
:36:51. > :36:55.Conservative seat will be found for him. The MP of the Uxbridge seat is
:36:56. > :37:00.standing down at the next election. That would be a prime target for
:37:01. > :37:04.Boris Johnson. It has caused a bit of a stir here at Westminster. A lot
:37:05. > :37:09.of people are saying if Boris Johnson is back in 2015 whether the
:37:10. > :37:14.Conservatives are in power or not, could he potentially be a leadership
:37:15. > :37:18.rival to David Cameron? Publicly David Cameron has tweeted that it is
:37:19. > :37:23.fantastic news that Boris Johnson is planning to come back. Privately, he
:37:24. > :37:27.may not be so keen. The SNP have been talking about Boris's Euro
:37:28. > :37:33.credentials as well because there will be a lot of focus in 2015 on
:37:34. > :37:38.the potential of an in-out referendum if the Conservatives win?
:37:39. > :37:42.So far we will only get an in-out referendum if the Conservatives are
:37:43. > :37:47.back in power as they have the numbers to ensure that in 2017,
:37:48. > :37:54.after a period of negotiation, there would be a referendum which David
:37:55. > :37:57.Cameron has said would be in out. If he did not get the right guarantees
:37:58. > :38:00.then there would be a referendum in 2017 on whether Britain ought to
:38:01. > :38:05.stay within the European Union or not. Boris Johnson is one of those
:38:06. > :38:09.politicians of whatever he says about whatever issue, people will
:38:10. > :38:12.pick up, they will run with it. Quite frankly, if you read names out
:38:13. > :38:18.from the London phone directory, people would make a story out of it.
:38:19. > :38:23.He is a double-edged sword. He is box office, he is one of the most
:38:24. > :38:26.recognisable MPs potentially that the Conservatives have, he is
:38:27. > :38:31.certainly one of their most recognisable political figures. If
:38:32. > :38:34.he returns to Westminster, he can be a great asset, but he can also
:38:35. > :38:40.potentially be trouble for the top of the party as well. Thank you.
:38:41. > :38:43.Back to the chamber at Holyrood and the debate over Trident.
:38:44. > :38:45.The Scottish Greens leader Patrick Harvie is speaking now
:38:46. > :38:50.with an amendment to the government's motion.
:38:51. > :38:57.At a time when military innovation is focused on precise, targeted
:38:58. > :39:03.weapons, Trident and it's like begin to look like an absurd relic, as
:39:04. > :39:07.convincing piece of technology as the blunderbuss. Secondly, the claim
:39:08. > :39:13.that it is safe and reliable. Nuclear weapons have shown that they
:39:14. > :39:18.cannot deter states from taking conventional action against their
:39:19. > :39:22.neighbours, as the situation in Ukraine demonstrates, despite that
:39:23. > :39:26.country's membership of NATO's partnership for peace. But we should
:39:27. > :39:30.acknowledge the long history of nearness incidents where threats,
:39:31. > :39:35.accidents and even weather phenomena have been misinterpreted and could
:39:36. > :39:41.have lead to nuclear exchanges with catastrophic ones I went as. Nuclear
:39:42. > :39:45.weapons are unsafe, unstable and work areas. The myth that nuclear
:39:46. > :39:49.weapons have kept the peace for 60 years, can anyone seriously look at
:39:50. > :39:53.the history of the last 60 years and say, as we were told at the time,
:39:54. > :40:00.that there is a clear dividing line between the clear dividing line --
:40:01. > :40:04.between the pre-nuclear age and the post-nuclear age. The record of the
:40:05. > :40:08.UK in wars, whether for reasons we call justified or not and the
:40:09. > :40:14.continual power of the arms industry, this technology has not
:40:15. > :40:18.kept the peace. And finally, the nuclear genie cannot be put back
:40:19. > :40:23.into the bottle. The argument that it cannot be an invented may be
:40:24. > :40:28.true. But that does not confer utility on a technology which has no
:40:29. > :40:32.useful purpose. There is a clear possibility and a growing momentum
:40:33. > :40:38.for a global ban on nuclear weapons, as shown at the conference
:40:39. > :40:42.attended by over 140 government in Mexico earlier this year. A written
:40:43. > :40:46.constitution can achieve this in Scotland, but not only that, it can
:40:47. > :40:52.challenge the nonsense that a journey from unilateral disarmament
:40:53. > :40:58.to multilateral disarmament is any way compatible with the UK's policy
:40:59. > :41:00.of unilateral rearmament. I can only imagine the Commonwealth standard
:41:01. > :41:06.mental gymnastics required to make that link.
:41:07. > :41:11.And that debate goes on until five o'clock. You can watch the rest of
:41:12. > :41:14.it online on the BBC's democracy live website. Professor John Curtice
:41:15. > :41:20.from Strathclyde University is still here. Let's talk a little bit about
:41:21. > :41:23.Boris Johnson. A fascinating development at Westminster because
:41:24. > :41:30.he is actually a successful Conservative politician in that he
:41:31. > :41:34.wins elections. Certainly, his last victory at London Mayor in 2012 was
:41:35. > :41:38.done despite rather than because of his party. He is definitely box
:41:39. > :41:41.office and his box office enables the Conservatives to win votes they
:41:42. > :41:47.cannot otherwise win. In truth, David Cameron will not be returning
:41:48. > :41:50.to Boris's return to the Commons, unless Mr Cameron himself fears
:41:51. > :41:55.losing the UK general election. I think it is clear that Mr Cameron --
:41:56. > :41:59.if Mr Cameron does not retain office in 2015, either as the head of a
:42:00. > :42:04.majority government or a minority government, or the coalition, then
:42:05. > :42:08.his ability to retain the leadership of the Conservative Party has always
:42:09. > :42:12.looked rather dubious, because the truth is many in the party have
:42:13. > :42:16.never forgiven him for failing to win an overall majority in 2010. If
:42:17. > :42:20.Boris Johnson is then available as an alternative leader, somebody who
:42:21. > :42:24.won the one hand has demonstrated the ability to appeal to the public
:42:25. > :42:28.as we have said, but has also made a speech that I think many people will
:42:29. > :42:32.read as interpreting that he is willing to withdraw from the EU, in
:42:33. > :42:37.a way many people suspect David Cameron is not, that will help him
:42:38. > :42:42.in terms of appealing to MPs and the mention of the Conservative Party.
:42:43. > :42:49.Certainly, the prospect of Boris as leadership challenger is clearly a
:42:50. > :42:54.potential. He is a colourful character. Thank you.
:42:55. > :42:56.That is all for this afternoon. Back at the same time next week. Until
:42:57. > :43:03.then, goodbye.