11/01/2012 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to the first Politics Scotland of 2012. The new

political year starts with a bang. We have a date for the referendum.

Edinburgh and London now embark on a mammoth tussle ahead of the

historic vote. A date for the referendum has to be the autumn of

2014, because this is the biggest decision the people of Scotland has

made for 300 years. The constitutional genie is now

well and truly out of the bottle. And here at Westminster, a rare

show of unity between Labour and the Conservatives on the issue.

It has been quite a week. And it is still only Wednesday. London and

Edinburgh's competing plans for an independence referendum have been

raised again at Westminster today. The Labour leader has called for

cross-party talks. The Prime Minister has repeated that the vote

in autumn 2014 would be unlawful under existing devolved powers. Let

us discuss this further with Professor John Curtice of

Strathclyde University and political editor Brian Taylor. Good

afternoon to you both. Brian, it has been some week already. Before

we get into various issues, can you give an update on where we stand?

We have gone from a period on Sunday and Monday where there was

something of an aggressive tone from Westminster, a sense of

putting Alex Salmond in his box, and perhaps understandably a at an

assertive response from Mr Salmond. Then we had Michael Moore's

statement, which was more conciliatory in tone, of wanting to

work with the Scottish Government to find a resolution to what he

believes a legal issues with the referendum that Alex Salmon does

not believe exists. We have had responses from Alex Salmond that he

can top that because Fiat, but will not because seat everything away.

He is negotiating from a position of said -- from a position of

strength. The Scottish Government will want to run the referendum

here, a founding and basing it in Scotland, setting the date of what

and 2014, which Alex Salmond announced last night. And the

possibility of a second question on devo max. And also the possibility

of 16-17-year-olds being allowed to vote. Alex Salmond is not making

concessions on any of these points down the line, but there may be

concessions on both sides if the referendum goes ahead. It will go

ahead, but it has to be accepted. Concessions on both sides. Do you

think we are reaching some kind of agreement? We're closer, but not

there, and no guarantee we will secure an agreement. Mr Salmond

announcing the referendum in autumn 2014, towards the beginning of the

time frame he had given as, that means the difference between

Hermann the UK coalition Government, which is 2013, is not so great. --

the difference between him and the UK coalition Government. But the

16-17-year-olds will be allowed to vote will not be so central. I

think the one that is the real difficult issue potentially is the

question of whether or not there will be one or two referendum

questions. For the time being, even though the SNP say the preferences

for one question, because all they are interested in his independence,

they are insisting they want to keep alive the possibility of

including devolution max. I will just interrupt, we are going live

to Holyrood, where there has been a point of order.

They took 47 questions from members of parliament. In Scotland, the

First Minister announced his date for the referendum, not to the

Scottish Parliament but to Sky News. Ryan Taylor disputes that fight

outside. Given this decision relates to what they have First

Minister called the first question -- the biggest question for

Scotstoun 300 years, that the Government is involved with the

respect agenda, will they make a statement to this Parliament today?

Will you not be able to respond positively to such a risk is --

such respect when it to be made? response to they are point of order,

I have had no request from the Government or time to make a

statement today. The next item of business is a debate on motion

number 167 on education and Culture Committee's inquiry... That is the

presiding officer replying to a point of order from the Lib Dem

leader asking why did date of the referendum was announced to Brian

Taylor, not the parliament. What do you make of that? Just to pick up

on that point, I spoke about the first break been on BBC Radio

Scotland, but I am not competitive about these things. It is an

intriguing point that he is making. Some are suggesting that last

night's denies that was rushed and forced by circumstances. -- that

last night's statement. This has been worked on for quite some time.

Is it possible that the announcement last night was handy

in that it -- in that it worked alongside the Secretary of State

for Scotland's statement? This will ultimately be a Parliamentary

matter and when it comes to the state than being made in terms of

announcing the details of the proposed consultation and also down

the line a referendum Bill, if it is to be processed through this

parliament, that will certainly be a Parliamentary matter. It is

almost undoubtedly true that if the same point of order had been raised

with John Bercow in relation to a UK Government, John Bercow would

not have given such a short reply. He is insistent that ministers

should make their announcements and Parliament and he would have

insisted ministers should come to the chamber. Just on the date of

autumn 2014, not so much a date as a season, what do you make of that?

Why is 2014 significant? Many people claim it is a good time to

do it, because Scotland may well feel particularly nationalist with

the anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, the Commonwealth Games,

where Scotland is its own country, but the truth is it was all so

obvious that that is a clear and obvious time for doing it. It

Scotland were to vote yes, there will have to be Nicosia she's

between the Scottish and UK governments. Presumably the

Scottish Government want to be around for those so. Leaving it too

late and their term, there would be election -- there would be an

election and the SNP would be out of power. Thank you for joining us.

Let us go back to Holyrood and speak to Nicola Sturgeon. Good

afternoon. I just want your reaction to that. Back of order

from Willie Rennie. 2014 it is an important date chiming with other

significant ones. Why was that announced? The final decision will

be Parliament, as Brian Taylor just said. The First Minister set out

clearly yesterday why we have arrived at the conclusion of a

preferred date of autumn 2014. We are about to have a consultation,

then a legislator process, a convention in Scotland of a six-

month period between the passing of legislation under any referendum

taking place. We do not want to coincide with the Commonwealth

Games or European elections in June 2014, so that takes us to autumn

2014, giving maximum time for the people in Scotland to discuss and

debate this extremely important issue, the most important issue the

people Scotland will have taken him 300 years. The First Minister talks

about the respect agenda from West Minister, but wasn't this

disrespectful to announce this when the Secretary of State was on his

feet in the House of Commons? Scottish cabinet was scheduled to

discuss and sign of the consultation paper that will launch

before the end of this month. The difference between the Scottish and

Westminster governments is we have thought about this for some time.

Everything coming from Westminster would suggest that they have been

rushing it, grasping at it, trying to wrest control. I think that is

why we have ended up in such a mess this week. But we are where we are

now and will discuss matters with the Westminster Government. But

there is an important principle at stake for the Scottish Government,

that the referendum should be made, built and arranged in Scotland and

the people of Scotland should decide. And it has been a busy

couple of days. What are your reactions to Westminster? Ed

Miliband wanted immediate cross- party talks about the timing and

nature of the question and the involvement of the Electoral

Commission. What is your reaction? There will be lots of debates.

There is one tomorrow morning on other matters mentioned here. We

will set out thinking on all of that and the consultation we will

publish within the next few weeks. The most telling thing in

Westminster earlier is that Labour was siding with the Tory Liberal

coalition. I do not think that will go down well in Scotland. Whatever

the people in Scotland think about independence, one of four, against

it or have not made up their mind, the overwhelming consensus is that

the decision should be made in Scotland. I do not think people

will appreciate a Westminster coalition tried to wrest control

away. I want to talk about that win Ed Miliband made about the

Electoral Commission. A Scottish spokesman has accused the Electoral

Commission of been politicised and questioned their independence.

Would you question that the body that run the 2007 agger successful

2011 election? I will not get into questions of any body. We will

publish the consultation paper would be in the next couple of

weeks, which will set out thinking on an entire range of matters. The

key principle we are discussing this week is the principle that it

is for the Scottish Parliament and people to be in charge, both of

this process and the final outcome. On that principle, opinion rests

with the opinion of the SNP Government. We have your

consultation coming out on the 23rd January. As the Westminster

coverage have their consultation coming out. On this afternoon, what

I knew it issues with the Westminster Government? How can we

reach consensus for as the Prime Minister said a clear, legal

decisive and fair referendum? will be a clear, legal decisive

referendum and the Scottish Parliament has the ability to hold

that. As we have made clear earlier this week, we do not think we need

a transfer of legal power, but we will not stand in the we of

Westminster wanting to do that. What we object to is any octet --

is any attempt to attach strings or conditions to that. We will talk to

the Westminster Government. The key point is the people of Scotland

should get the right to choose their own future and will get to do

that in the autumn of 2014. Times described devo max as maquis.

You think the question is getting murkier and it could be dropped and

just have a simple yes or no question? We stand what

independence and believe in independence. That is the option we

want and is the one we will campaign for, but we are democrats

and are not the only people with an there should be another option on

the ballot paper, that has to be listened to and it is wrong to rule

that out at the moment. If you listen to other parties, these

parties now trying to dictate the choice and restrict the choice the

Scottish people should have, at the same parties that spent the last

four years trying to block a referendum altogether. The decision

rests with the Scottish people and that is how it should and will be.

Deputy First Minister, thank you for joining us.

Let us turn attention to another issue now. In the chamber at

Holyrood, they are debating the educational attainment of looked

after children or, as they are sometimes known, children in care.

I am joined by Brian Evans of the charity Children First. Good

afternoon. What are you looking for this afternoon? We are looking for

continued and growing investment in the early years for children. We

recognise that children up to the age of three, their brains develop

most and they do not want to wait until children are in school before

drawing attention to the fact some children are attaining less well

than others. It is continued and growing investment in the early

years for children. And we know that significant lead in those

early years the attachment with parents, style of parenting, the

environment in the home, whether parents play with their children,

whether parents read with their children, all of those things are

important for development and impact on the educational

attainment of children as children get older. All these things, the

intervention at early as possible stages, is what we are looking

bored. What comparisons are there between the educational attainment

of looked after children and children who grew up with parents

of other guardians at home? When you look at all the factors, issues

to do with child attendance at school, attainment at school, the

positive destinations which have achieved when children at Leeds

School, although those a less good for children who have been looked

after. -- when children leave school. You can look at children

looked after at home or in residential or foster care, those

looked after in their own homes, in all those areas, the achievements

are less good than those in residential or foster care. It is

those looked after at home, we want to make sure the support from their

families is there, make sure their What difference is there in

spending money in the early years, and those who are post 16

education? We need to think about all the factors in choke line. If

you intervene early, you can improve their life chances on a

whole range of areas, so for terms of health, emotional health,

education, and in terms of avoiding negative outcomes. For India -- for

instance, involvement in youth crime, and teenage pregnancy. If

you intervene early, you can avoid lots of negative outcomes, and

improve the other outcomes than when you try to intervene at a

later stage. Even in primary school, the gap between the most and least

advantage is significant. We will return to you and a second. Let us

to meet some of these tireless individuals during their visit to

Glasgow in November, and I would like to pay tribute to the work

they do. This debate is unusual because there is no report to

debate. We wanted to do things differently, to try to get the

views of members across the chamber, before we wrote the report. This

parliament is beginning to think about the reform agenda, crosses

many committees, and perhaps this is our start but others wish to

follow. On the issue as important as this, I am delighted that all

members, regardless of whether they are on the educational committee,

regardless of their party allegiance, and regardless of the

area of Scotland represent, have the opportunity to influence the

committee's final report. I look forward to hearing the

contributions. Members will listen carefully this morning, and my hope

is that this debate will shape our report that is robust, rigorous and

informative. Hopefully this will contribute to making a difference

to looked after children. Many of these children have been failed.

Betws not keep on repeating that failure. Let us get it right for a

pre- looked after child. But us get some reaction. That was

Stuart Maxwell. Do you think he was saying what you were looking for?

Yes, it is a good point to try to take it away from political agenda

as. It has -- one issue that has become political is whether a child

has adopted or not, and we want to take that out of the political

frame. It is focused on what is best for the child. Whether a child

should be adopted or not, and how quickly that should happen is an

issue that should be taken on assessment of that child's needs,

the ability of the parents to care for the child and whether there is

appropriate placement. That is one area that has become politically

fraught, and I welcome the fact that he is saying that these issues

should be taken out of the political friend, and they should

be addressed in a non-political we. Was that a problem in the past?

clear drive for the SNP is to intervene at an earlier stage. It

is not necessarily a bigger problem in the past, but we want to form a

collaborative approach between all parties, and see what evidence is

out there, and move forward on that evidence, rather than on a

political approach. Brian Evans, from the charity children first a -

- Children First. Still to come: I passionately

believe that we are stronger David Cameron fields questions in

Prime Minister's Questions. The Scottish Green Party are pro-

independence, and have called for the referendum to be called, as

they put it, without strings. Patrick Harvie is with us. What is

your reaction to the tumultuous events over the past few days?

I would love to see the programme the thick of it deal with the past

few days. It has been very satirical. However, as things

settle down, after the bizarre events of the last few days, I

think both governments have the opportunity to give ground a little,

the SNP could... Scotland should determine matters, not have them

attached conditions to the power that the UK Government wanted all.

If we could have some ground given by both governments, we to move on

to questions about policy and division. That is where the debate

should be. What kind of country do we want to be? That is the point

that the Prime Minister and Ed Miliband were making, to try to get

away from the process. If we can keep on the process bought a little

bit longer, you mentioned a lulling 16 and 17 year-olds are the board.

Why is that so important? Why do you think the UK Government are

opposed to that? They do not seem to want to debate about that in

relation to the referendum or the wider electoral system. I am open

to the debate about this. A referendum about Scotland's future,

there is an additional argument that says that people who are

growing up, people there are maybe just below the 18 years old

threshold, are going to be living their lives in the Scotland that is

decided by this referendum, and I think many of them who want to be

politically engaged, who we should want and welcome their political

engagement and interest, they will be more encouraged to take an

interest in the future of the country if they have got a say.

This is a good opportunity to move on the debate about whether 16 and

17 year-olds who pay tax, who can work and have other aspects of

their lives that are addled, should have a say in the Ritz -- the

running of the country. If the SNP Thank you for joining us.

I am joined by Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University.

Just to pick up on the electoral commission., how do you think this

will come out in the wash? Patrick Harvie said the bigwigs on the

commission might end up being in the Scottish commission. Part of

the reservation that they have is that this should be a referendum

made and undertaken by Scott and, so being run by an ordination --

organisation that is UK wage may at least be part of their objections.

The obvious potential source of compromises that may be that

Scotland Commissioner John McCormick should be regarded as the

accounting officer. In practice, the officers of the commission,

should perhaps still be called upon to run the referendum. It has to be

said, if you look at the draft that the SNP came up with before the

2011 victory, they are very close to the UK rules. There are only

minor changes. Let us focus on the legality issue.

This has been the main thing of the Westminster government. Where has

this come from? Before Christmas it may be did not seem such an

important point, and there was talk of a consultative referendum. Was

that bubbling and are the surface? There has always been doubt as to

whether the SNP could Crafter referendum that would be within the

confidence of the Scottish Parliament, given that the issue of

this constitutional position, and the Union of the crimes between

England and Scotland, was a so- called reserved matter in Scotland,

and that is something that still lies within the remit of the

Westminster Parliament. The way that the SNP have tried to deal

with this is to say it if we craft the question and a certain kind of

way, for example by talking about asking the Scottish government to

hold negotiations that might lead to independence, we might think

that we are safe and able. But any question that is worded to

encourage independence is outside the remit. There is a distinguished

professor in Edinburgh that says the Scottish Parliament could have

the constitutional ability to do this, and another equally famous

one in Glasgow things that they would not. It is an area of dispute,

and one could see how it is possible that this might go through

the courts. Thank you very much. The issue of

the independence referendum dominated Scottish questions at

Westminster this morning. We will have coverage of that after this

programme. Here is a flavour of what happened.

Will the Minister acknowledged that international companies investing

in Scotland since the election of the SNP Scottish government and

include Hewlett-Packard, does the... What I acknowledge his these

companies have invested in spite of the uncertainty. Think of the level

of investment Scotland could achieve if there was not

uncertainty. Angus Robertson for. That is the usual mantra be here

from the Government, so perhaps he can answer Scotland's leading

entrepreneur, who said, business is not concerned about the

independence referendum. Whilst many of us in business are

convinced about is that the prospect and future of the country

depends upon securing economic powers through constitutional

change. Will the UK Government dropped its bullish conditions so

we can secure the change? -- it's foolish conditions?

He is entitled to his opinion, as is any other citizen of Scotland.

And I am sure you will encourage them to contribute to our

consultation on the independence referendum. There will be an

independence referendum in 2014, decided by the people of Scotland.

If the Secretary of State is so concerned about the legal powers of

the referendum, why does he not devolve the legal powers without

condition, and I see the Prime Minister has walked an honest

debate. I would encourage him to come to Scotland as much as

possible,... The Prime Minister will be a full

participant in the debate, as will all people across the United

Kingdom. What is important is that we have a referendum made in

Scotland for the people in Scotland about this and future in Scotland.

-- about our future. Before we can get near this, we have to make sure

it is illegal. I hope the Scottish government will work with us to

ensure that is the case. Let us stay at Westminster for

Prime Minister's Questions. In an unusual outbreak of consensus,

David Cameron and Ed Miliband stated their commitment to the

union. The Labour leader called for cross-party talks on the referendum

in Scott and. We believe the United Kingdom

benefits the people of Scotland and the people of the best of United

Kingdom in equal measure. We are stronger together. Does the Prime

Minister agree that we must make the case for the union not simply

against separatism, but the positive case about the shared

benefits to us all about Scotland's part in the United Kingdom? The

shared economic interests, the shared institutions, Defence forces

and the BBC, and the shared values This is an area where we are in

100% agreement. I pass to believe in the future of our United Kingdom,

stronger together rather than breaking apart. I am sad we are

even having this debate, but we have to respect the fact that

Scotland voted for a separatist party at the elections. The first

thing that is right to do is make E-Clear the legal position about a

referendum, which is what the Scottish Secretary has been doing.

-- make clear. We want a referendum made in Scotland and held in

Scotland. I look forward to have been the debate, because there have

been too many in the SNP who are happy to talk about the process,

but do not want to talk about the substance. I sometimes feel

listening to them it is not a referendum at the want, it is

another referendum. Let us keep our mac country together. This is not

about a fight about process between the Westminster Government and the

Westminster -- between Westminster and Scottish Government. Or between

the Prime Minister and First Minister. We need immediate cross-

party talks in Scotland about timing of the referendum, the

nature of the questions and a vital involvement of the Electoral

Commission. The Scottish Government was elected what an overwhelming

mandate to deliver an independence referendum in the second half of

the Parliamentary term. It is that back. In contrast, the Conservative

Party has less members of parliament than there are giant

pandas in Edinburgh Zoo. White is the Prime Minister tried to emulate

Margaret Thatcher by dictating to Scotland? Why it the opposite, a be

want to give Scotland the power to hold a legal referendum. -- quite

the opposite, we want. Quite across this house, there is uniform belief

that needs to happen so discussions can be entered into about timing,

the nature of the referendum, to make sure it is fair, decisive, the

people of Scotland deserve nothing less. Let us cross live to

Westminster now. Standing by on College Green is Westminster

Correspondent David Porter with a panel of guests after an historic

week in politics. It has been. And it is only

Wednesday. Who knows what will happen in the next couple of days?

To talk about those topics and going forward, I am joined by four

guests who know the Scottish scene well. Some are responsible for

making part of the policy. David Mundell, Margaret Curran, Malcolm

Bruce and Stewart Hosie. Stewart Hosie, let me begin with you, did

Alex Salmond announce a referendum date because of the initiative that

had happened down here? No mac, absolutely not. -- no. The one

thing we conceit is that Alex played a blinder on this and was

not bounced into it by anything the UK Government did. Malcolm Bruce,

do you can car? It was not heeded it just as Michael Moore made his

statement. -- do you agree? He did not seem to respect a Scottish

Parliament either. But the situation has now moved on, we now

have a certain date. What needs to be clear is the question is legal,

fair and decisive and we could move to the debate as to whether

Scotland should leave the union or not. This has moved the debate

firmly into that camp. Margaret Curran, one striking thing is the

outbreak of unity between your party and the coalition Government.

I think what is important is this does not descend into squabbles.

But that is between Alex Salmond and David Cameron particularly,

because the referendum belongs to the people of Scotland. Process is

important, but we need to get on to Scotland's future. David Mundell,

as the Scotland Office Minister, you and your boss have said, as was

the Prime Minister, that you want the referendum's sooner rather than

later. The SNP wanted in the autumn of 2014, will it take place then or

before? We are having a consultation. That was announced

yesterday. Then the Scottish Government came forward with a

preferred date and we welcome that, because in the months of discussion

we have had, there had been no indication as to when the

referendum might take place. We have had clarification on the

question, the fact that Nicola Sturgeon indicated it would be a

question on in or out independence. Mr Salmond himself has acknowledged

the legality issue is, so we have moved tremendously. We have a

consultation out there, or want to see all Scottish interests coming

forward with their views on the timing, the franchise, the conduct

of the election. Bob a point of clarity, you regard what the SNP

had said as nearly part of a consultation exercise and will not

be found by it? It is a consultation exercise we are

holding, the Scottish Government have a legitimate view to put

forward. But as there has been made clear, the Scottish Parliament

cannot hold a referendum, cannot set the date, that has to be the

subject of discussion between Westminster and Scotland and we

welcome the opportunity. Margaret Curran, on the date of the

referendum, do you favour before bottom 2014? -- autumn 2014?

will be 7.5 years since the SNP came to power, a long time for your

most all the mental belief and flagship policy. Johann Lamont is

clear that we need this sooner rather than later. The SNP say it

is a solution to all of Scotland's problems. We cannot have it hanging

over a us for ever. It is an important question. Let us decide

it as all four main parties agreed. One single question yes or no.

now rather than later, do you think it should be before autumn 2014?

cannot see the arguments for delaying yet, having been in power

for so many years. We have had consultations, referendum plans

published before, why take so long? The question is it is political

expediency. It is not a principle at stake here. Malcolm Bruce, could

be held earlier? Of course it could, but it has to be decided in

Scotland. The governments of Britain and Scotland need to talk

together to decide the best thing to have it and on what basis, who

will set the question and administer it? It has to be fair,

legal and decisive on it will not have the confidence of the people

of Scotland. That is another reason for a straight question. The issue

of more Paris is not something the SNP have added been interested in.

-- more Paras. The SNP want independence, nothing else. You

want to negotiate what to do. are not too keen on new spending

this process out? That is how this is being spun. The Scottish

Government has the mandate to hold this referendum. The First Minister

has announced the date. This legality issue is a red herring.

The Scotsman was right today, saying what the UK Government has

said is against international convention. The referendum will be

held in the autumn of 2014. I agree with Malcolm that the question will

be set in Scotland, so we cannot have interference. We were elected

in Scotland, too. But we have a mandate to hold a referendum.

sure the question is clear, fair and decisive. It is not the issue

for one party. It will not have the confidence of the people of

Scotland if it is not clear and decisive. The question to each of

you, despite all the rhetoric we are getting, at the end of the day,

there will need to be negotiations and compromised by all sides to get

this through. There have to be discussions, but it is clear where

the mandate for the referendum lies. There is a legal entitlement for

the Scottish Government to halt a consultative referendum and that is

what will happen. Malcolm Bruce, there has to be compromise? There

will have to be and Alex Salmond has acknowledged the two

governments will have to tock. Both have an interest in the outcome and

need to talk for the benefit of the people of Scotland. It should be

cross-party in Scotland, because we have to have that consensus. We

have done that in the past and can do that again. Let us be sensible,

rational and co-operative. From the UK Government's point of view, you

are willing to talk and no go see it, David Mundell? Possibly there

will be compromise on the date, question or franchise? We are

consulting, or want the referendum to be legal, fair and decisive. I

cannot understand why anyone would want anything different. Those in

the SNP have campaigned three years and will want the opportunity for a

vote on that basis. Thank you all very much for joining me. The clock

has beaten us or the time. Over the days, months and years to come, I

think we will be revisiting this subject.

Thank you very much for that. Let us pick up on some of those issues

now in the company of this afternoon's political commentator

Professor John Curtice. Let us take a step back for a moment and look

at the strategy the UK Government have been pursuing. On Monday, firm

and hard on this, trying to hit the SNP. Was that a decision that had

been taken some time before, a strategy to hit the SNP? I am not

sure if that was a planned strategy and it clearly was not a strategy

were the two parts of the conceits -- two parts of the coalition were

singing from the same hymn sheet. One Sunday night, there was this

outbreak of the news that the UK Government was going to try and

think about paving the way for the referendum to be held. That made

the London media have set up and realise that indeed does referendum

was going to be held and that may be Scotland would leave the union.

But secondly, the UK Government was going to discuss setting a very

tight timetable for when this referendum would be held, sooner

rather than later, and that it was only going to be about independence

yes or no. But this not so much about a legal problem, but came

across as the UK Government saying, unless you do this, you will not be

allowed to hold your referendum. There was immediately a sense of

conflict. The first thing that happened was when the coalition

Government cabinet discussed this, it was decided not to call on a

hard day on the referendum, as was briefed to the press beforehand,

and now a 48 hours, we have the situation where Michael Moore is

opting for a different tone as that of David Cameron on Sunday, a tone

which says, there are some issues here, we accept you have the

mandate and we think we need to pass should have powers to let this

happen, but we have some problems about what can be done and need to

discuss it. Parts of that tour and have been adopted -- perhaps at

that tone was adopted 48 hours earlier, the position of the UK

Government would be stronger. us talk about the issue of

independence and the process. What will this mean for normal people

actually voting in this? We are discussing this, does this engage

people or even put people of independence? There is no doubt the

debate about process will not have much interest amongst the public.

But at the heart of this dispute is an argument about whether or not

the Scottish Parliament has the right to be able to hold a

referendum itself on independence or whether Westminster should be

involved. That goes to the heart of the issue of substance behind this

debate, because those who believe in independence believe the

Scottish Parliament should be able to determine all matters for

Scotland and there should not be any involvement from London at all.

That process is already anticipating the eventual debate

about substance. Thank you for that and for your company. And that is

all we have time for this afternoon. Remember to join us tomorrow at

noon formed First Minister's Questions, which should be