06/08/2014 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon and welcome to Politics Scotland.

The yes and no camps in the independence debate

both claim victory following last night's TV clash

between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling.

Did either man do much to convert those who are undecided?

And with six weeks of campaigning to go

Also today, Holyrood debates the Trident nuclear weapons system.

Its renewal is reserved to Westminster but the future

of the nuclear submarines and warheads on the west coast

of Scotland have become a central issue ahead of next month's vote.

So it's the afternoon after the night before.

As the dust settles on the STV debate between the two standard

bearers in the independence campaign just what are the Yes Scotland

and Better Together teams making of how events unfolded?

First Minister Alex Salmond and the former chancellor

Alistair Darling clashed in a wide ranging debate that

allowed the two men to cross examine each other and take questions

In a moment we'll discuss whether either side provided

the crucial undecided voters with the answers they were looking for,

but first our political editor Brian Taylor reports.

Alex Salmond today dismissed claims that he had lost the debate, arguing

polls indicated a shift towards independence. Any eight-year-old can

tell you the flag of a country and the currency. Alistair Darling

pursued him vigorously over currency. Mr Salmond quoted a

20th-century movie icon in his defence. In the words of Sharjah Aga

bore match amen are not match. People do look to that. In his

return, the First Minister encouraged people to realise that an

independent such -- Scotland can succeed. The only poll that mattered

was won on the 18th of September. The Nationalists are running out of

arguments that they are running out of time to make the arguments. What

are the dogs on the street same? I was undecided but I am going towards

the yes side now. I think Alistair Darling scored the winning point and

the winning point was that Alex Salmond was unable to come up with

his answer to what is your option be? I am no further on than I was

before they started. They are not delivering any definite answers to

questions I have got. More to come including a BBC debate later this

month. With me now Professor John Curtice

of Strathclyde University and also here

our political editor Brian Taylor. Both sides are claiming victory, how

do you rate it? And accurate it is like choosing between Lulu and Kylie

ceremony of the Commonwealth Games! They both had moments where they

were productive, the pursuit of currency from Alistair Darling, the

pursuit on the issue of whether an independent Scotland could survive

from Alexander some of -- Alec Salmond. They had moments where they

faulted as well. Alex Salmond stumbled on the issue of pursuing

relatively minor matters, would the pandas go, would we have to drive on

the right-hand side? I understand what he was doing. He said there

were scare stories coming from Better Together and if they could

not be trusted about, they could not be trusted on the big things. I

think it was too prolonged and peripheral. Would the undecided

people have changed their mind as a result of what they saw last night?

We saw that woman on the streets of Inverness saying she was still none

the wiser! I am not surprised. One of the remarkable things about last

night's debate was the degree to which both sides ignored the issue

which all the polling evidence suggests was by far and away the

most important issue as far as voters are concerned and that is

whether or not independence or remaining in the union is the better

option so far as far as the future economic austerity of Scotland is

concerned. Apart from the argument about whether not Alistair Darling

did or did not agree with the primary step that an independent

Scotland could be a prosperous country, the issue was not

addressed. Both sides were keen to address issues which appealed to

their partisans, such as the currency for No voters or that

Scotland should not be governed by a Tory government on the yes side.

Those are arguments which are not central to the undecided voters.

Both participants seemed to want to hang on to the comfort zone of

arguments they like and their fellow supporters like, rather than

thinking of the crucial group out there, the undecided voters for whom

this exercise was supposed to be intended. Are they avoiding that

argument because it is an Achilles heel? It is difficult. We are not

talking about the macro economy or economic theory, what people want is

an answer about what exactly, and the meanings Ackley, the

circumstances regarding their own personal household economy, their

salary. It is entirely understandable that they want to

know precisely. The timetable for independence at a minimum is spring

2016, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can tell you what the

economy will be like in two weeks, let alone two years. There is

uncertainty intrinsic in politics and in economic forecasting, and yet

people are entirely reasonably and entirely understandably expecting a

certain answer which frankly neither side can give. Both sides are using

opinion polling which has been commissioned since to try and say

that they came out on top. What do you make of that opinion polling and

whether it has much weight in terms of the wider debate? There was one

poll from ICM, about 500 people so it should not be overinterpreted.

Headline was apparently Mr Darling had won, 56% thought he had done

best. But when you look at the innards what you discover is

essentially yes voters thought Mr Salmond had one. There are more yes

voters than no voters so Mr Darling comes out ahead. If you can take

anything out of this poll, the answer is that as far as its impact

on voting intentions are concerned, it was a draw. In advance of the

debate, the 512 people who answered the questionnaire after the debate

were split 47% yes 53% for no. After the debate, in aggregate, they split

47% for yes, 53% for no. In other words, there is no discernible

impact on voting trends. We will be looking to see what more regular

polls come up with in the next week or two. The first glint we have got

from the ICM poll is probably, do not expect too much to change. The

no side will be happy with that, as the side ahead all they wanted was a

draw, if that indeed is what it is, they will be content. The yes side

will be asking themselves why did this apparently golden opportunity

to reach out to Scotland apparently not get exploited by us more

effectively. STV tell us it was a peak audience watching the debate in

Scotland last night and 5000 viewers watched online, although there were

problems with STV's on demand service. That tells us that people

are engaged with the process and they want to get answers from the

politicians. Do you think different formats might suit politicians in a

better way. I thought it was a good show, to be frank and

congratulations to STV. It was a good audience as well. I think the

nature of the debate is we have had a referendum campaign going on since

40 years. The positions are laid out. What we're getting now is a van

July the of those positions. I think John has a good point. --

evangelising those positions. People are sticking to their comfort zone.

They are almost adopting positions which they know will be familiar to

each other. It is like that they know the roles they are expecting to

adopt and they are adopting them. But perhaps they need to strike out

into other areas. People who are undecided do not want to hear

rhetoric, they do not want to hear clever smart stuff, they want

answers. I'd do not know if they can get the answers in the detail that

they want. But I think they want it in more of a moderate, controlled

and calm fashion. Perhaps that would be more of the nature of further

debate but it was a good show. Just on that point, John Curtice, of the

format, both men look quite nervous at the beginning, clearly they felt

there was a lot riding on this. Both of them looked nervous and their

voices were shaky. The truth is, the programme took off in the middle,

with the inquisition of the two sides. It is great theatre for those

of us who like politics, whether it was illuminating for voters was

debatable. Mr Salmond seems to be more comfortable at the end of the

programme when he could talk to voters directly in the audience. But

the middle section, I think Mr Salmond found easier. On balance,

the Better Together camp seemed happier as a consequence of this.

But the yes camp say looking at that ICM poll, they are detecting

evidence that undecided people are moving slightly in proportion to

them and people who work previously hostile are beginning to shed some

hostility. With regard to that, the other side are saying, they is time

to make up the difference. Thank you, we will hear more from John

later. MSPs have come back early this year

as they'll be in recess again at the end of the month leading up

to the referendum vote Today in the chamber the subject

of Trident is being discussed. It's a debate sponsored by the SNP

calling on the Parliament to support the speediest withdrawal

of nuclear weapons from Scotland. Let's cross to Holyrood

and the opening of the debate. I know that the Scottish government

and of course, my party, are absolutely determined to seize the

opportunity to begin in six weeks time, the discussions which would

lead to the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland. I cannot

believe in addition to the SNP and the Green members and others in this

chamber, that there are not others in other parties who would not be

excited by that project, including among them lifelong campaigners

against nuclear weapons. Who would not be excited, whatever their views

on constitutional change, of getting rid of nuclear weapons. There is the

new generation of nuclear weapons and the yoke of their massive cost.

The presiding officer, the vast majority of countries in the world

neither have nor want nuclear weapons. Of the 193 United Nations

member states, it is believed that fewer than ten possess nuclear

warheads or aspired to do so. Of the current state which host nuclear

weapons, three have stated their wish to see them removed. The

Scottish government is a supporter of the Treaty on the

nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, and while some may question the

success of the treaty, the NPT provides a clear basis of the

management and control of nuclear material and technology. We must now

build on that framework in order to take the next step. The Scottish

government therefore believes that rather than renewing and developing

nuclear weapons systems, nuclear weapons states need to focus their

efforts towards nonproliferation and disarmament. And that is why during

the debate in March of last year, the Scottish government proposed a

plan for disarmament, set out by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

That plan builds on the NPT and calls on nuclear weapons and

non-weapon states to fulfil their... Within a context, I return

to the UK government's plans for the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons.

The Prime Minister has said in 2016 the UK government will decide

whether or not to replace the Trident nuclear submarine fleet.

This system would have massive indications for the UK defence

forces. If you look at the position of the three main parties at

Westminster, the so-called Trident maingate decision appears to have

been made. Both coalition parties and Labour have signalled their

support for a new fleet of submarines carrying Trident

ballistic support for a new fleet of

submarines carrying Trident missile is, with questions about whether

nuclear weapons should be on patrol continually. I think it's important

for the Labour backbenchers who feel strongly about nuclear disarmament,

to understand that the potential other option is the basing of

massively powerful nuclear weapons and the delivery systems in central

Scotland for the next 50 years or more. That is the alternative to

what we propose. And of course, the current UK government sticks to

their line that they have no plans to move those weapons from Clyde.

But we believe that information which is critical to that decision,

information on the costs and consequences on the future of the

key's Armed Forces, has not been made available to MPs at Westminster

or to the general public. Can While I disagree strongly with the support

for the UK retaining nuclear weapons, I was concerned by their

reports Trident replacement. The UK government has provided estimates on

the capital costs for replacing the submarine fleet which carries its

nuclear weapons and for extending the life of the nuclear weapons and

other infrastructure and warhead developments and according to the

commission's report, that alone comes to a cost of ?50.6 billion in

2012 prizes. On Trident money costs, the commission estimates a service

outlay of ?20 million. Over an assumed lifetime of 35 years, this

suggests a further ?55.2 million in running costs, taking the total

potential cost of the Trident successor programme to over ?100

billion at 2012 prizes. The commission's overall financial

assessment which excludes future costs suggests the current cost

would average ?2.9 billion a year, which is the equivalent of spending

nine present of the UK's current defence budget and nuclear weapons

each year. It equates to 20-30% of the entire capital budget of all

three services. We will be back in the chamber for

more of that debate later but let's discuss the two stories of today,

the TV clash on independence and the Trident issue. Joining me now from

the garden lobby at the Scottish Parliament are Stewart Maxwell and

Murdo Fraser. Stewart Maxwell, many commentators believe that Alex

Salmond didn't quite come up to the mark last night. How do you feel? I

don't know who they are but perhaps they are on the no side to begin

with. The figures that have come out after the debate quite clearly,

particularly from the ICM poll for the guardian, show that there was a

2% rise in support for the yes campaign and what is very

interesting is that amongst those who were undecided, those people

thought that after the debates, 74% of them said Alex Salmond won it and

only 24% thought that Alistair Darling won it. Given the rise in

support for yes and the heavy support for Alex Salmond's campaign

by those who didn't know, I will go with them rather than the

commentators. The sample size was pretty small in that one and John

Curtice's region of the figures is that they went out as they came in.

There is a rise over the two-hour debate from 45% support for yes

beforehand to 47%, which is a clear increase of 2%. If you take that

poll against the July poll, there was a rise in people over 55

supporting yes. Clearly there is a momentum towards the yes campaign,

so I'm very pleased with the way the debate has gone. We have laid on

some very important marks on the ground and made some important

points. Murdo Fraser, disappointed that Alistair Darling, who leads the

Better Together campaign, which you support, feels he can't agree with

the Prime Minister on whether or not Scotland would flourish as an

independent country? I thought Alistair Darling did very well in

the debate last night. Why do you think you struggled with that

question? Somebody who is a Labour politician doesn't naturally wish to

agree with somebody who is a conservative. You'd have to ask

Alistair Darling that. It's pretty clear from all the commentary that

this was a clear win for Alistair Darling. Stewart Maxwell is doing a

good glass of the figures but the sample size he refers to is 22

people, which is not in any way significant. If you talk to SNP

people around the Parliament this morning, they don't talk about

anything like the optimistic gloss that Stuart is talking about. Very

optimistic gloss. It was a clear win for Alistair Darling. Does it matter

that much? Actually, I don't think it does. This is not a debate about

two personalities, two individuals who will be gone in a few years,

because this is an irreversible vote if it is a yes. It will change the

constitution for ever. It is much more important than the personality

or one TV debate. I would agree that it isn't about Alex Salmond or the

SNP but a much bigger question about the future of our country and I

think the people of Scotland can see that this is a question that really

matters not just to them but their children and grandchildren and will

look at it in that context. Let me ask you about Trident. The debate is

going on in the chamber. We just heard from the transport minister

opening the debate. He talked about the party signing up to a five point

plan which would negotiate for disarmament but ultimately, your

party's position is to get rid of nuclear weapons from Scotland and

hand them back to the rest of the UK. That doesn't give you any scope

to negotiate for a reduction in nuclear weapons around the world. I

disagree. The removal of WMD from Scotland would be in extremely

important step towards disarmament around the world and would be seen

around the world as a step towards peace and a rejection by Scotland of

nuclear weapons. That would be a very symbolic message that would be

sent out. Our voice in the world would then become stronger and we

would join other non-nuclear nations who support the removal of nuclear

weapons from their own territories and the rest of the world and we

could join with those countries. Murdo Fraser, your party supports

the retention of Trident. Under what circumstances could you in village

the nuclear weapons being used? The whole point of nuclear weapons is

that they are a deterrent. We've had nearly 70 years of peace in the

Western world following the Second World War. A major component that is

the fact we've had the nuclear deterrent. Likes nuclear weapons or

wants to contemplate using them. -- nobody likes nuclear weapons. We

know that George Osborne said if your party winds the next UK general

election, there will be more austerity. We just got some of the

figures and the cost of the renewal of Trident and its annual renewal

costs, well over ?50 billion. Could that not be better spent? Firstly, I

think you cannot put a price on freedom and security and defending

the realm. The second point is that if you'll occur in the lifetime

costs of a Trident replacement, even a Scottish government White Paper

put that cost at ?250 million per year. Put that into context, that is

less than 2% of the annual deficit of running an independent Scotland.

So the idea that scrapping Trident frees up a vast amount of money to

spend on other things, in the context of the deficit, the black

hole in Scotland's finances, is nonsensical. I know Murdo Fraser

tries to underplay ?163 million a year that it is costing Scotland and

the ?4 billion that it will cost Trident. -- cost to renew Trident.

We are talking about 2700 teachers or 3000 nurses. These are very

important sums of money that could be spent on social and literature.

There are 8000 jobs. No, there are not. That's not true. We know from

data. We know from the UK government it is 520 civilian jobs. That is the

number, not the ridiculous numbers. You have to look at the wider

economy. The removal of Trident would not mean the removal of those

bases because they would have been open in an independent Scotland as

naval headquarters and the join forces headquarters. Lots of good,

solid jobs for the civilian population. Murdo Fraser tells us

that having the nuclear deterrent makes people feel safer. Stewart

Maxwell, hasn't the situation we've just seen in eastern Ukraine and

Russia's response to that told us that actually, some of the threats

we thought had gone in the world have not gone? Maybe it's too soon

to think about disarming this deterrent. The idea that Trident

nuclear submarine missiles actually prevent acts of terrorism is just

nonsensical. Nuclear weapons are part of the NATO defence, which is

being used to apply pressure and bad Amir Putin. I don't think it is. The

fact is that that aeroplane was down by conventional weapons. -- apply

pressure on Vladimir Putin. We cannot have a situation where we

waste ?100 billion to replace the Trident nuclear system and at the

same time we have austerity in the UK. What Murdo Fraser needs to tell

us is, what does he mean to cut from social programmes to pay the money

for weapons of mass destruction? We'll leave that question hanging.

It's a ?12 billion black hole in the Scottish budget. We have to leave

things there because I wished to return to the Trident debate in the

chamber where the Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie is moving an

amendment. Today could be a big opportunity for

the Government. After last night's debate, perhaps they are licking

their wounds, perhaps they are hunting for a game changer that

resurrect their campaign for September. From the public there is

a thirst for answers. The minister and his backbenchers could perhaps

provide some of those answers this afternoon that so far have been far

too limited. First of all, what I want to do is try to tackle some of

the sunshine is that the Nationalists make about this issue.

They employ that you are not serious about nuclear disarmament unless you

support independence. I will put aside that in this chamber we are

all disarmament is. Some are multilateral disarmament, some are

unilateral ones. The NPT treaty requires us all to work towards

nuclear disarmament. What we need to consider is the fact that on the

Labour benches, there am many people who support unilateral nuclear

disarmament. But their commitment to that cause has been questioned by

this side and I think that is unfair and is something they should

reconsider. I also believe that this is something that they try to apply

to a whole range of issues. If you look at child care, you're not fully

committed to child care unless you support independence. I believe

firmly in expanding childcare and I've shown my commitment in this

chamber. Is my commitment to childcare questioned by those people

on those benches? But also, the commitment to Scotland. I've got

tremendous ambition for Scotland. I want Scotland to do more. I want the

best possible platform upon which Scots can achieve that great

ambition that we have and that great talent. But I am questioned because

I don't believe in an independent Scotland. They also argue that

Scotland will automatically - and independent Scotland would

automatically result in fewer nuclear weapons and a fan shall

benefit to Scotland and it would keep us safe here, including on the

Clyde. Some have been convinced by those arguments but let's look at

each one those arguments in turn. First of all, on cost. Scotland's

share of Trident, ?200 million, we would no longer have to pay that. I

admit it. We would save ?200 million. It's a small fraction of

the total defence budget but it is not insignificant. But compare that

with the significant economic loss that would result as a result, in

Jackie Baillie's constituency, of the 800 jobs that would be lost

because the vast bulk of the annual cost of Trident is spent within that

area so that would make us worse off. ?200 million the Scottish

Government would benefit. Can you explain how I am making that issue

up? Thanks very much for inviting me. First of all, there will be jobs

but they will be working on nuclear weapons. So every single penny of

investment, the ?2.5 billion that is currently invested in Trident

nuclear weapons system is, the vast bulk of that goes to Faslane and

Helensburgh, will be automatically replaced? That is a commitment from

the SNP government? Survey will be spending ?2.5 billion alone in that

area? Well, that is a new policy from the SNP that has not been

costed in the White Paper and it would be very interesting to see the

exact numbers. I will take an intervention. That's Willie Rennie

talking in the Parliament. Professor John Curtice from Strathclyde

University is still here in the studio. Let's talk about Trident.

Obviously, it's a divisive issue but how divisive is it amongst all the

wider society? The truth is, Scotland is pretty divided but on

balance, more people are probably opposed than are in favour. Last

year we found 37% of people accepting the principle of nuclear

weapons and 46% opposed. It is not true as it is sometimes argued that

Scotland is overwhelmingly opposed but it is true that Scotland is

probably on balance opposed. To that degree at least, it is some degree

different to England which is probably on balance in favour. Yes,

Scotland has a somewhat antinuclear character but it should not be

exaggerated. What is interesting is how important this issue is in the

referendum. The SNP say it is very important. It is very important to

them as a party but it is not so clear if it is important to the

electorate. Going back to last year's survey, we found among no

voters almost as many people opposed to nuclear weapons as people in

favour. That gives you some indication that there were lots of

people out there who are opposed to nuclear weapons, in principle as far

as the UK are concerned, who are nevertheless going to vote no. It is

true that those people are somewhat more likely to vote yes but the

difference is not that large and it does not look as though the issue of

nuclear weapons, fundamental about arguably is, it is not a defining

issue for most voters in Scotland. It is going back to what you said

about that phrase, it is the economy, stupid. At the end of the

day, what most distinguishes yes and no voters is whether or not you

think independence is a sensible idea economically or not. Of course,

the views of the SNP are deeply held. The party has long been

associated with the antinuclear movement. One understands why they

have adopted the movement that they do. Both sides say it is crucial but

it is not central to voters' decisions. They are also talking

about the economics of nuclear weapons and how much money not

having nuclear weapons could feed into the economy. You heard both

sides of the debate this afternoon. The no side keep edging what will be

the dire consequences. The SNP say they will be able to replace them.

They say they can spend less money on defence and have more money to

other things. One thing you have got to remember about all these

arguments about an independent Scotland, that may well be what the

SNP would like in principle, but there is no guarantee that an SNP

will be running an independent Scotland and that will happen.

Uncertainties about economics and also uncertainties about the future

of Trident in an independent Scotland. Once again, thank you very

much. It's been a busy day on the

political front not just here in The resignation of Baroness Warsi

over the UK government's response to the bloodshed in Gaza continues to

put pressure on David Cameron. Also in the past few hours London

Mayor, Boris Johnston has announced he wants to return to the Commons

and will stand in the next election. Let's speak now to our Westminster

correspondent, David Porter. David, tell us how much discomfort

you believe David Cameron is under because of Baroness Warsi's

decision? It is interesting, David Cameron goes on holiday, one of his

ministers resign is one day and perhaps his biggest rival for the

leadership of the Tory party announces the next day that he wants

to stand for Parliament in 2015. That may be an argument for prime

ministers not going holiday. Westminster behind me is on it long

summer break. Yesterday was quite an interesting day at Westminster.

Baroness Warsi had made it known for some time that she was unhappy with

the UK government's stance on Gaza. She felt UK government was not being

critical enough. She was the first female Muslim who had been in a UK

Cabinet. She was a Foreign Office Minister and she had been saying for

some time that she believed Britain should have been taking a stronger

line against what Israel is doing in Gaza and making that more vocal. She

did not speak to David Cameron before she resigned. She gave her

resignation and he only just found out literally before she tweeted

that she was resigning. There was some annoyance in the traditional

exchange of letters yesterday when he said he would have liked the

opportunity to have spoken to her before she resigned. She later went

on to give a few interviews where she was not holding back. I think

there is annoyance among the higher echelons of the Conservative Party

and some frustration that she resigned in the way she did. I think

there is also some nervousness. They think, what will she do next? She

already gave an interview to an online blog where she expanded her

views. She gave a series of broadcast views yesterday, where it

was plain that she was very, very unhappy with the way the

Conservative Party part of the coalition was operating,

particularly regarding the situation in Gaza. Let's talk about Boris

Johnson. He wants back into Parliament. Is he likely to be a

thorn in the flesh of David Cameron in that he will be a distraction

because many people believe he covets the job of leader of the

Conservative Party and ultimately Prime Minister? He made a speech

stents are bleak about the European Union where he was floating the idea

that if Britain does not get concessions at once, it may be right

for Britain to withdraw from the European Union. That goes down with

the right wing of the Conservative Party. In the question and answer

session there was the question about would you like to be an MP in 2015?

Normally he form of words so his term finishes in London that is what

he is concentrating on. Today he said he would like to find a seat

for the 2015 general election. I think there is no doubt that a safe

Conservative seat will be found for him. The MP of the Uxbridge seat is

standing down at the next election. That would be a prime target for

Boris Johnson. It has caused a bit of a stir here at Westminster. A lot

of people are saying if Boris Johnson is back in 2015 whether the

Conservatives are in power or not, could he potentially be a leadership

rival to David Cameron? Publicly David Cameron has tweeted that it is

fantastic news that Boris Johnson is planning to come back. Privately, he

may not be so keen. The SNP have been talking about Boris's Euro

credentials as well because there will be a lot of focus in 2015 on

the potential of an in-out referendum if the Conservatives win?

So far we will only get an in-out referendum if the Conservatives are

back in power as they have the numbers to ensure that in 2017,

after a period of negotiation, there would be a referendum which David

Cameron has said would be in out. If he did not get the right guarantees

then there would be a referendum in 2017 on whether Britain ought to

stay within the European Union or not. Boris Johnson is one of those

politicians of whatever he says about whatever issue, people will

pick up, they will run with it. Quite frankly, if you read names out

from the London phone directory, people would make a story out of it.

He is a double-edged sword. He is box office, he is one of the most

recognisable MPs potentially that the Conservatives have, he is

certainly one of their most recognisable political figures. If

he returns to Westminster, he can be a great asset, but he can also

potentially be trouble for the top of the party as well. Thank you.

Back to the chamber at Holyrood and the debate over Trident.

The Scottish Greens leader Patrick Harvie is speaking now

with an amendment to the government's motion.

At a time when military innovation is focused on precise, targeted

weapons, Trident and it's like begin to look like an absurd relic, as

convincing piece of technology as the blunderbuss. Secondly, the claim

that it is safe and reliable. Nuclear weapons have shown that they

cannot deter states from taking conventional action against their

neighbours, as the situation in Ukraine demonstrates, despite that

country's membership of NATO's partnership for peace. But we should

acknowledge the long history of nearness incidents where threats,

accidents and even weather phenomena have been misinterpreted and could

have lead to nuclear exchanges with catastrophic ones I went as. Nuclear

weapons are unsafe, unstable and work areas. The myth that nuclear

weapons have kept the peace for 60 years, can anyone seriously look at

the history of the last 60 years and say, as we were told at the time,

that there is a clear dividing line between the clear dividing line --

between the pre-nuclear age and the post-nuclear age. The record of the

UK in wars, whether for reasons we call justified or not and the

continual power of the arms industry, this technology has not

kept the peace. And finally, the nuclear genie cannot be put back

into the bottle. The argument that it cannot be an invented may be

true. But that does not confer utility on a technology which has no

useful purpose. There is a clear possibility and a growing momentum

for a global ban on nuclear weapons, as shown at the conference

attended by over 140 government in Mexico earlier this year. A written

constitution can achieve this in Scotland, but not only that, it can

challenge the nonsense that a journey from unilateral disarmament

to multilateral disarmament is any way compatible with the UK's policy

of unilateral rearmament. I can only imagine the Commonwealth standard

mental gymnastics required to make that link.

And that debate goes on until five o'clock. You can watch the rest of

it online on the BBC's democracy live website. Professor John Curtice

from Strathclyde University is still here. Let's talk a little bit about

Boris Johnson. A fascinating development at Westminster because

he is actually a successful Conservative politician in that he

wins elections. Certainly, his last victory at London Mayor in 2012 was

done despite rather than because of his party. He is definitely box

office and his box office enables the Conservatives to win votes they

cannot otherwise win. In truth, David Cameron will not be returning

to Boris's return to the Commons, unless Mr Cameron himself fears

losing the UK general election. I think it is clear that Mr Cameron --

if Mr Cameron does not retain office in 2015, either as the head of a

majority government or a minority government, or the coalition, then

his ability to retain the leadership of the Conservative Party has always

looked rather dubious, because the truth is many in the party have

never forgiven him for failing to win an overall majority in 2010. If

Boris Johnson is then available as an alternative leader, somebody who

won the one hand has demonstrated the ability to appeal to the public

as we have said, but has also made a speech that I think many people will

read as interpreting that he is willing to withdraw from the EU, in

a way many people suspect David Cameron is not, that will help him

in terms of appealing to MPs and the mention of the Conservative Party.

Certainly, the prospect of Boris as leadership challenger is clearly a

potential. He is a colourful character. Thank you.

That is all for this afternoon. Back at the same time next week. Until

then, goodbye.