09/01/2013 Politics Scotland

Welcome to the first Politics Scotland of 20 the team. The year

kicks off with big changes to welfare reform. We look at what

that could mean. Keep watching the money flowing. The Scottish

Government are positive about the future of Scotland's oil.

And here, the UK government says removing the Trident from the Clyde

after independence would cost thousands of jobs and billions of

pounds. The SNP says that is not true.

First, last night, MPs at Westminster voted for a 1% cut in

benefits increases. The UK Government wants to rein in

spending. -- 1% cap. The review is that the UK reforms

are coming too deep and too fast, we disagree with some of the

changes the government in the UK are making. These reforms are

coming against the backdrop of some of the biggest cuts we have seen to

the welfare system in a generation. Let us go to the Garden Lobby.

Wigan's Peter Kenneth Gibson from the SNP. He is joined by

representatives from Labour and the Conservatives. Good afternoon. Alex

Johnson, Nicola Sturgeon was speaking. Why cut too fast and wide

target working people? That has always been one of the things that

the SNP say, but they never say how fast and how deep. The truth is

that welfare reform has been overlooked as a priority by

successive governments, and we have been prepared to grasp that nettle.

If we want to keep the best welfare system in the world, we need to

make sure resources and support are going to the people who need it,

and we need to make sure there is public support for its continuation

long term. That is what this is about. We have seen single-parent

families being targeted. You say that you want the people who need

it most deserve it. They did not believe single -- I do not believe

single-parent families are being targeted. This comes on top of a

5.2% increase last year, well above inflation. I do not remember anyone

praising Iain Duncan Smith for that at the time. We have to have

consistent. Michael McMahon from Labour, you are stuck in the middle

here. It is a rather awkward position because you want to look

tough on so-called benefit scroungers, but you also have to

keep your voters on the left happy, don't you? That is not the way to

the captive. Voters on the left or the right should agree that what we

want to do is support those who need it when they needed, but

support those who want to get into work to get to work, stay and work

and access work. Our concern, regardless of what wing of the

Labour Party you may come from, is that the Conservative Party's

agenda is a slash-and-burn process to cut the welfare budget at the

expense of the most vulnerable. That is not acceptable. It is

hardly slash-and-burn, when they are only capping increases. It must

be difficult to justify why you voted against that yesterday, when

you can see the challenges they face. It is not just of --

difficult to justify it. The Conservative Government are cutting

corporation tax and tax to millionaires. This is supposed to

be something we are all in this together, but they are not pursuing

an agenda that would indicate that. In the context of the wider welfare

reforms, we see budgets being slashed on the introduction of

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment. There is an

agenda here, about cutting the budget and expense of the most

vulnerable. Let us turn to Kenneth Gibson from the MSP. We see the

challenges we face. -- from the SNP. Why should benefits go up more than

wages? A family with one earner on minimum wage will be �13 a week

worse off by 2015, it is hardly an incentive for people to get back

into work when those on minimum wage will be hit hard. I was

listening to the radio this morning, and a representative said that

people want to get into work but disagreed with a point that Alex

Johnson said, that people should leave the Community to seek work.

Do you not think that if people are out of work they should go to try

to find work elsewhere? It is an insult to those out of work to say

that they don't. Most people out of work look at all options available

to them. I think that will continue, and will for many years. Many

people in Scotland have left two other areas over many generations

to seek work, so I think that is a comment I would not agree with.

us move to another issue coming up on the agenda this afternoon. As

the Scottish Government put it, the huge benefits of maximising the oil

and gas recovery. Alex Johnson, the Scottish government say that they

believe there is far more oil to be extracted from the North Sea, which

could increase revenue. Do you agree? There is a lot more or oil

to come out of the North Sea, and we should encourage exploration and

continued development of it. But we have to accept there will be a

downward trend over time, and the amount of revenue that can be

recovered over that will be limited. What worries me is that the

prospect of this government holding out for future revenue schemes

seems to indicate they want to squeeze more tax out of the

industry, either on the production or service side, which is very

important to the economy of Aberdeen and the north-east. We

want the industry to remain a success, not to become the cash-cow

that will fund an independent Scotland. We cannot afford to have

a conveyor belt out of the North Sea and Aberdeen to front the

exaggerated promises that have been made by the SNP. It is a highly

sensitive political point, how much revenue we can extract from the

North Sea. Do you agree with his Scottish Government that it is a

lot still to be extracted there, and they can get a lot more money

out of the North Sea? That is a very valid argument to make, which

is something we would want to pursue. If there are avenues we can

work along with the oil and gas industry to make Scotland more

profitable, then why would we not want to pursue that? An independent

Scotland would be quite well off? Not necessarily because you are

throwing all your eggs in one basket if you look at the oil and

gas industry as the means of this. That is one of the down sides of

the SNP's argument, this is what they based all their economic

assessment on. We would rather we were part of an economy which was

not so dependent entirely on one sector, the way the SNP predict.

Kevin Gibson, you are putting all your eggs in one basket, relying on

revenue from a very volatile resource. That has been pointed out

by the well-known think tank, the CPP are. -- CPPR. For a start, in

Norway, their standard of living is 70% higher than Scotland and most

of it was from oil and gas. No one says they are in trouble.

Biotechnology is also increasing. I would like to comment on what Alec

Johnson said. He made a shameful comment about taxation, in view of

the fact that two years ago the Tories increased taxation on oil

exploration by 12% without consulting anyone. Just let him

finish. What we want is a stable regime for oil taxation, not the

ham-fisted approach. There is a boom in investment in the North Sea,

based on confidence of the taxation regime we have in place today, and

that well supported. Based on the Tory retreat of their ham-fisted

actions in 20th March 11 when they put on tax to an industry that was

not -- in March, 2011, when they put tags on an edition that was not

in support of its. Thank you to you all.

A political commentator, Hamish Macdonell, is here in the studio.

We will get onto the oil and gas debate in a moment. Let us Pickup

on the benefits. There. Alex Johnson, very stoutly defending

what the UK have been doing. I am intrigued by a couple of things

there. MSPs from all parties will be relieved that this is not

something they have to deal with. Welfare reform and benefits are

something the Westminster government has to work its way

through, and the MSPs can attack from the sidelines without having

to make tough choices. I was also intrigued by the language being

used by the three MSPs. They were all talking about protecting hard-

working families. No one seems to be having a go at the Ben Nevis

giving to people who are unemployed, and that is where this debate is

being fought. Alex Johnson was very bullish in his defence, and he had

two tough competitors. And Michael McMahon from Labour, perhaps they

are stuck in the middle of this debate. Is it hard for them to know

how to position themselves? They do not want to alienate potential

voters. Labour here and in London and a where of the opposing -- and

here, with opposing views,... People who hide behind the curtains

while other people go to work. There is opposition to people who

are seen as benefit scroungers, which Labour know. They stress

about hard-working families, pinning this down to the benefit

cuts being made to people working, trying to avoid the benefit cuts

being made to those who are not. The language of the debate was

interesting when it came to the Liberal Democrats, because we had a

Lib Dem MP deciding to rebel. A lot of it was because of the language

that is used in Mr Bate. Yes, the Conservatives are much more happy

being in that place. -- the language used in the debate. The

Lib Dems are not happy with that. They are much softer on that. We

saw Danny Alexander, although he backed the Government, when he was

drawn on that on the radio, he stood away from the language, too.

The Lib Dems are in a difficult position and it makes it hard for

them. For the SNP, they say that if they had full control they would be

able to decide and they would not target families and so on, but if

they did have full control of spending, they could have to face

some tough choices. Yes, they do not have to make any choices on

welfare at the moment so they can hit from the sidelines and have a

pop about this. Nicola Sturgeon said many families will be targeted

with the benefits cut. It is great to be able to say that now, but if

they are in charge of everything it would be up to the government in

Scotland to make the stuff choices that Westminster is facing at the

more mint. Before we go to the oil and gas debate in the chamber, it

is a highly politicised debate because so much of it depends on

how well off an independent Scotland may be. The Independent's

argument has been based around oil and gas revenues for the last 30

years. At what pace will be a decline and when will we lose that

money? The SNP would say let us take advantage of that money as

soon as possible before it runs out. Thank you. Let us head back to

Holyrood, where is the debate on oil and gas going on. Glen Campbell

The debate has just got under way. In the light and they importance of

this sector to the debate on independence, you will not beat

surprise to hear that there has been an emphasis on the

contribution that oil and gas revenues could make in the future.

He quoted one expat who suggested that oil would continue to flow

from the Noci well into the 20 forties. -- the North Sea.

Just before the Christmas period, stat Oil announced an investment in

the North Sea creating 700 new jobs. They are expecting to produce oil

for the next 30 years. There is a vibrancy to this sector there we

must celebrate and encourage in these tough economic conditions. I

have visited all of these and many other companies. I want to dispel

the myth that this is just an offshore industry. Each company

supports a long supply chain, offshore and onshore, providing

Scottish jobs and commercialising Scottish technological advances.

Are our offshore industry is part of the economy on shore and

Aberdeen is one of the world's most important energy hubs. It's as a

great reputation for its engineering and answer sups seat

skills. We have seen new innovations and developments beyond

Aberdeen. New offices have opened in the Clyde gates weight and

Dunfermline related to what the industry in the North Sea. 400 more

jobs have just been announced before Christmas. In our Eileen gas

strategy, the Scottish government seeks to support the industry in

any way it can. Our strategy has been developed, almost devised, by

industry. It sets out a compelling long-term vision of the future of

the sector. It focuses on innovation to improve recovery

rates. Scotland's historic court recovery rate is only 40 per cent

on average. 60 per cent of our precious commodity remains in the

ground. Our oil and gas strategy sets an ambition to improve average

recovery rates to 50 per cent, taking out more than we leave

behind. To put this in perspective, an increase of just one percentage

point in our recovery rates would result in a rise in economic output

of �89 billion as taxation off �22 billion. That is money that we all

would wish to see used for such things as a vital public services.

Derek key issues in the strategy. - - and there are several key issues.

The focus is now on delivery of the strategy with industry, government,

academia, economic development agencies and Scottish Enterprise.

Scottish Enterprise is supporting the industry over the next three

years looking at innovative projects that can improve the

integrity and reliability of oil and gas industry assets. The first

awards will be made in the next few months. Feature research and

development will take place in the spring and autumn of this year to

improve reservoir imaging. I anticipate a further two calls in

2014 if the output continue to merit this approach. Scottish

Enterprise is working with industry to leverage more expertise from

within the industry to make the room was even greater. Hydrocarbons

will remain a central element of the energy mix for some time to

come. Arts draft electricity generation statement demonstrates a

clear need for hydrocarbon since -- hydrocarbon fuel. Carbon capture

and storage could reduce the greenhouse emissions. Linking this

would enhance the Isle recovery could accelerate development of ccs

and unlock several billion barrels a while from the North Sea. We aim

to develop understanding of new technologies to create a commercial

use for carbon dioxide captured from power plants and industry. It

will help us to realise the true economic potential of this gas for

Europe. I recognise the view of industry then no -- that more work

needs to be carried out before this industry becomes fully viable. I

give way. I am grateful to the Minister for

giving way. I am sure he will accept it but even if the CCS as a

technology can be brought to my charity has no effective role to

play in relation to the carbon in issues coming from our oil used,

not energy generation. It is a little bit cart before the horse to

use the CCS industry as a way of extracting ever more fossil carbon

from the ground which will end up in the atmosphere?

I do not agree with that. It will allow huge reserves of oil to be

extracted which is hugely beneficial. I would have thought

they would welcome CCS because it would allow 90 percent of the

carbon emissions to be reduced. I thought that was a good thing.

Without CCS, I do not know have the E U energy emission targets can be

achieved. Only the application of CCS apply to power stations can

make the reduction in carbon emissions on a scale necessary to

achieve targets. Those used have been expressed by the International

Atomic Energy Authority his chief executive spoke at a in a member

Council of Ministers that I attended in 2011. I to disagree

with Mr Harvey on this issue. It has become increasingly Clear Dept

-- increasingly clear that there are ought to 24 billion barrels of

resources still to be recovered. At least 5 billion may not be

extracted duty infrastructure issues. This relates to 85 billion

in lost revenues. We cannot afford to lose revenue on this scale. Nor

can we afford to lose the tax revenues that I have described that

are linked to that. Irrespective of what our politics may be, no one

can afford to forfeit or loses vital opportunity.

Fergus Ewing speaking live in parliament. Let us pick up on some

of the issues raised in that debate with our political commentator for

the afternoon, Hamish Macdonnell. Paper you have to be a little bit

careful with these figures. He said it was �24 billion over the

lifetime of the oil reserves. He did that make interesting. There.

The SNP are saying that if we could increase the efficiency of the Isle

feels, we could improve tax revenue. -- oilfields. An important point

was made by Patrick Harvie, drawing in this contradiction in be the

position of the Scottish government, which on the one hand is in favour

of oil and gas to averment as on the other wants to pursue an

environmentally friendly and green agenda. He was essentially asking

how those match up. How do you deal with fossil fuel extraction on the

one hand and stop burning greenhouse gases in the future. It

is a hard one for the Scottish governments to get out of.

We will hear from Labour in a moment. This place into the hands

of the SNP in terms of the independence debate. Fergus Ewing

made a clear. That that money could be spent on services. In our debate

earlier the point was made that there are concerns about the tax

regime that may be in place in an independent Scotland. The our oil

companies may be worried about that as well, hearing that all that

money might go on services. Oil and gas has been the gold mine

on which the idea of independence has been founded for many years.

The key point here is the question of how long the reserves will last.

Fergus Ewing said there were 24 billion barrels of oil still to be

recovered from the North Sea but nobody knows how recoverable those

barrels are. It might not be economic to get more than 10

barrels of that out of the ground. The longer we go on before we ever

get to independence, the more of that money will be spent and the

less I will there is to recover and the less gold mine there is far

funding an independent Scotland. All these things meshed together

and come to the heart of what we have in terms of constitutional

debate. Oil has been at the heart of the

constitutional debate since the 1970s.

Yes, and it will continue to be said. If the independence

referendum is defeated in a couple of years' time, it could be a

generation is the future before there is another referendum and by

then will there be enough oil to support an independent Scotland?

We just heard from the energy minister Fergus Ewing there. Let us

hear from Labour now back in the Chamber.

The Minister has been emphasising what has still to flow from the

North Sea. Many billions of barrels are still untapped and they will be

worth many billions of pounds to the UK or an independent Scotland's

in the future. The other parties will warn of the dangers of basing

economics, the economic prospects of Scotland, on what they regard as

an unpredictable resource. That is the theme Labour will touch on in

their contribution. I could only imagine the real

concern of that and the risks involved. This is a very small

aspect of training undertaken. It was a real eye up there with regard

to the risks, being submerged upside down in a swimming poor and

finding your way out of a vehicle was challenging. This was in a very

safe environment in comparison with the North Sea. That is why the

recent problems with offshore transportation helicopters are

extremely worrying. I have had constituents express concern to me

about their work because of the lack of transportation to oil rigs.

Workers are suffering financial hardship because of this. The

industry is looking at the problem with helicopters and alternative

transportation but given the hostile environments in which oil

and gas platforms are situated, it is difficult to see a safer

solution to transportation. The workforce is vulnerable to such

changes and steps must be taken to make sure they do not suffer

hardship while the safety issues are dealt with the. Safety in the

industry is every workers business. The unions have pushed safety to to

the top of the agenda by using safety representatives. Research

commissioned recently shows that learning enhance his employees'

commitment to safety. Training is another issue promoted by the trade

union movement. Training and development of skills within the

workforce is extremely important but the oil and gas industry still

has some way to go on this. In a recent inquiry by the economy,

energy and tourism committee, one above the common complaints from

the renewable industry was with a while they were investing in skills,

the oil and gas industry were not. Due to a shortage in the

engineering field, many of them trained personnel were being

poached by the Ireland gas industry because higher wages were available

there. -- oil and gas industry. The sector will require a further

10,000 employees over the next few years while other reports suggest

remain needs an extra 120,000 workers in Aberdeen in the next

decade. We are facing a skills shortage in engineering and

industry as well as governments have a role to play in addressing

the problem. The industry has a look at how it accommodates

apprentices of shock, there by growing its own workforce. The

industry has an ageing workforce and needs to act now to ensure they

have adequate skills into the Now, down to Westminster, for a

very heated Prime Minister's Questions. David Cameron was

quizzed on the coalition's midterm review, but it was the cap on

benefits that could cause the biggest.

-- biggest stir. Could the Prime Minister tell us why he failed to

publish his filled promises? will publish all the promises,

every 399 in the midterm review. This will be full, frank and

completely and varnished, -- unvarnished. We said we would cut

the deficit, it is down by 25%. We said we would cut immigration, it

is down by 25%. We said we would rebalance the economy, one million

private sector jobs. Another broken promise, on women. He said this, in

his usual modest way, we want to make sexual inequality history.

That is a big commitment. That needs a serious commitment, clear

policies and clear leadership, so will be audit tell us about another

broken promise about the benefit changes hating women? I think the

Chancellor should come down a bit too. -- calm. The benefit changes

are hitting women three times as hard as men. There are more women

in work... There is too much noise He will be able to see that there

are more women in work than at any time in history. There are pension

reforms helping women, and we are helping women with extra childcare

for four year-olds, for the year old and two-year-olds. What a

contrast between a government that is prepared to publish of the piece

of information about every pledge on what has been achieved and a

party opposite who cannot apologise for the mess they left the country

in. Does the Prime Minister excel at that we brought in an 11% rise

in the child element of the tax credit, followed by a 5% rise, and

He makes a very important point about how we focused help for those

in need. But because we have raised the income tax threshold, someone

on minimum wage has seen their income tax bill cut in half. We

want to see people get on. Can he confirm that a single mum in my

constituency who works all the hours she can in Tesco, but does

not earn enough to gain from the new elements, each will be a

staggering �1,250 a year worse off? Everyone is affected by those

changes, everyone on tax credits will be affected. Everyone on an

out-of-work benefits will be affected by the fight there is only

a 1% increase. But we have to ask ourselves, if we are saving �5

billion through those changes, which I believe our fair, how would

the party opposite fill in the plughole? What would you take it

Let us speak to David Porter, standing by on College Green. We

are speaking about the changes to welfare reform, and hearing about

the Prime Minister, who spent a large proportion of Prime

Minister's Questions defending the cap on benefits. Yes, already

welfare is proving to be a very important political issue.

which brings a very sharp divide of -- dividing line. Both sides of the

argument want to be seen on the side of fairness. It is one of the

key issues of 2013, when they come in later in the year. I will make a

prediction, when we are doing a round-up at the end of 2013,

welfare will be one of the key issues. Another issue causing great

interest his defence, given added impetus yesterday by the

publication of evidence from the UK government that says if an

independent Scotland withdraw Trident from the Clyde, it would

cost billions of pounds, and the SNP say that is not true. I am

joined with two people from both sides. Angus Robertson, the leader

of the SNP, at Westminster,... Let me put that to you from the UK

government. Removing Trident from Faslane would cost thousands of

jobs and billions of pounds. Happy New Year. I do not know if we are

delighted to be black, but important things being discussed. -

- delighted to be back. On the defence issue, we have to remind

ourselves what is at stake, and if we want to be a country whose home

to weapons of mass destruction has or not. Whether we want to have

proper military forces or not. Unfortunately we are seeing the UK

government spread the usual scare stories about Scotland's options,

and I am in favour of Scotland having conventional forces based at

Faslane, securing thousands of jobs, rather than spending billions of

pounds on weapons of mass destruction that we can have a use.

I am on the same side of the argument as the Scottish Trade

Union Congress, all of Scotland's churches, the voluntary sector and

the majority of public opinion, and it is important to send out a

strong message that it is only with a "yes" vote in the referendum that

we can make an appropriate choice. The UK government is not prepared

to do this in the south coast of England for safety reasons, but it

is safe in Scotland, apparently. We have a choice, and unfortunately

the Labour Party is choosing to be on the same side as the Tories.

do you back the UK government on this argument? It is the Scottish

Affairs Select Committee that have uncovered this information, and

have done a very useful job here. What they have shown his separation

would be a devastating blow to the economy, particularly for the West

of Scotland in this case that we are discussing. 6,500 jobs at a

naval base on the Clyde, which will rise to over 8,000. Plus, an

additional 4,500 additional jobs in the economy every single year, all

of that gone. And what for? A gamble and very weak and flimsy

plans. I would be delighted if we would debate on what defence we

should have as a country. I wrote to Angus last year, and I still

wait for the answers to a whole raft of questions. Are you saying

that the economics of success Trump the argument about whether Scotland

should have a nuclear deterrent based in Scottish waters?

issues of whether or not we have a continuous nuclear deterrent has to

be taken on his own merits, but we have to also look at the economic

impact of separation, and that is the impact the Scottish Affairs

Select Committee have put out very plainly, all of those jobs and

money gone. You do not lie eight nuclear weapons, that is no secret.

But there is -- you do not like nuclear weapons, but they do

provide a lot of high-paid secure jobs in Scotland. I am on the same

side as Ian Davidson, and we both think it is not a good thing to the

new -- renewed Trident, but Gemma are saying there are no options,

but there are options. Surely the Labour Party must have a plan for

Faslane after we choose not to have weapons of mass destruction. I have

yet to hear a single proposal from the Labour Party to what that might

be. Our preferences but we have proper conventional naval forces.

How many submarines? We have to go through a process of negotiation.

You have no idea! But we cannot go through a process of negotiation

until we have a decision. I am on the same side of the STUC, the same

side as the churches and... As I have explained once and I will

explain again, we have to go through a process of negotiation. I

throw the message back to you. Your party is committed to nuclear

disarmament, what are your plans for Faslane when that is achieved?

As he knows full well, it is the nationalists, his party will want

to break up Britain, who want to take away... You must have plans

for Faslane. Parliament supported renewal of the nuclear deterrent,

which we support, it is his party will want to shut down the naval

base on the Clyde. He will also shut down the shipyards on the

Clyde. No foreign country has built a warship -- the UK has not built a

warship in any other country in decades, all of those contracts

would be lost. Let us finish with one more thing. Should we have a

proper discussion, a wide-ranging discussion, on what defence in an

independent Scotland might look like? We have to have a tale of two

futures, what are the options? What a Labour's plans for defence within

the UK? How many service personnel will there be, what basis will

there be? We saw a track record which saw 11,000 jobs cut under

Labour, and a massive multi- million-pound defence underspend.

The records as atrocious. Do we need a wide-ranging discussion

about this? We need the nationalists to come forward with

detailed plans, they have not come forward with this. For decades we

have been pursuing -- and they have been pursuing independence. This is

something that is going to run and run. Thank you for joining me.

Defence will also be their day in Our commentator is Hamish Macdonell.

A very fiery debate. Let us move on to a topic which is not related.

Scottish whisky, there has been a proposal to levy tax on Scotch

whisky, �1 tax per bottle. What has that come from? It has come from

SNP thinkers and advisers, basically looking at the Scotch

whisky industry, seeing it is doing extremely well, and has thought

that if they could put extra tax on it, we would get more money. What

is interesting as we have been talking about oil, we are now

talking about whisky, the two things that underpin Scottish

manufacturing, and the SNP have complained when there has been a

tax regime to put up tax on oil, but there is a suggestion that they

might do the same with whisky. But they have to be careful because the

message to business that comes out of any of this, high taxes on one

of Scotland's more successful product, is not particularly good.

That advice came from John Keys. Yes, he is a influential voice.

is not government policy, but it shows that perhaps what is going

around at the back end of Scottish Government thinking as we move

towards the river in them. referendum. Thank you for joy in in