11/06/2014 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland.

A special adviser to the First Minister says sorry to a

mother who says she's faced online attacks for supporting the Union.

The author JK Rowling has donated ?1 million to help fund the campaign

And problems with passports. Will a backlog of applications caused

travel misery for thousands? A special adviser to the

First Minister has apologised to a woman who said she was attacked

for supporting Scotland staying The mother-of-two, Clare Lally,

spoke at an event organised Campbell Gunn said he didn't intend

any personal slight on Ms Lally when Here's our political correspondent,

Glenn Campbell. Clare Lally took centre stage at

Better Together's rally in Glasgow on Monday. I am and ordinary mother

from Clydebank campaigning for Scotland to stay in the UK. Campbell

Gunn e-mailed a newspaper questioning her credentials. He said

she had previously joined Labour's Shadow Cabinet and wrongly suggested

she was related to Pat Ali. It was a misunderstanding. Saying that you

thought somebody was somebody else's daughter in law is not a grievous

insult. An apology is just not enough. If you see and understand

what has been said about her and the fact that the mother of a disabled

child has had to experience this, I do not think and apology is good

enough. I think this advisor has to go. Clare Lally received online

abuse because of her political links. She has also been sent an

unreserved apology from Campbell Gunn who says he applauds the

attacks on her and all those involved in the referendum debate.

What is the atmosphere like in Holyrood? Labour, the Conservatives

and the Lib Dems are calling on the First Minister to sack his special

adviser Campbell Gunn. He is employed as a senior political

spokesman for the First Minister. As you have reported, he has sent an

unreserved apology to Clare Lally for any offence which has been

caused to her and her family. He also says he deplores the cyber

attacks she and others associated with the independence referendum

debate have received. So, the First Minister Alex Salmond being

interviewed about this and he asked Campbell Gunn to apologise. Is this

a different situation for him? The First Minister believes he has dealt

with their situation in requiring their special adviser to make this

apology. He also said that he didn't regard what Campbell Gunn had said

as an insult. Just to remind you, what Campbell Gunn did was to pick

up on Clare Lally's what Campbell Gunn did was to pick

up on claim that she was standing there as an ordinary mother

campaigning for the Union for the sake of her children. What she

didn't say at that time was that she was a member of the Labour Party and

had been brought in by Johann Lamont as part of her Shadow Cabinet. That

does not change her right to have a point of view in the independence

debate but these things were not mentioned at the time and Campbell

Gunn was e-mailing the Telegraph newspaper to point out her political

links. He also wrongly claimed that she was a relation of the former

Labour Lord promised Pat Lally. That turned out not to be true. The First

Minister says that is not an insult, though, which is why he required an

apology and not dismissal. JK Rowling has donated ?1 million to

Better Together. Yes, they welcomed the money. It is the single largest

donation that Better Together has received. They have also welcomed

her support. She has written a blog explaining why she has decided to

back a no vote. She is worried about the economic implications of

independence. She worries that medical research would continue to

be funded in the event of independence. She has decided to

back the Better Together campaign. I'm joined in the studio now

for the duration of the programme by Professor John

Curtice of Strathclyde University. So, John, how difficult a position

is Alex Salmond in at the moment? Do you think Campbell Gunn has done

enough to stop the opposition parties calling for his dismissal? I

think you has done enough. I think the main thing is not the actual

e-mail but the follow-up abuse that Clare Lally received. I think

Campbell Gunn is correct in implying that she is someone with certain

political some these. But it is always dangerous in politics to play

the man or woman rather than the ball. At the end of the day, this is

a debate about ideas and alternative futures and not about who runs the

country. Both sides might heed the warning that maybe they should focus

on the argument and not spend too much time on undermining the

messenger, the -- be they from either side. We have heard for a

long time about these attacks from so called cybernats. Because people

are not opposite people they are attacking they did not realise they

are being abusive in an unacceptable way. Those people who say they are

yes supporters are three times as likely to say they use social media

than no supporters. There are lots of yes supporters using social media

but that's all we can tell. Now, Scottish farmers are concerned

their industry is facing a cut of millions of pounds

in payments from the European The budget for CAP, as it's known,

has been significantly reduced in In the chamber today,

the Rural Affairs Secretary, Richard Lochhead, has been laying

out what that means for the industry It must also protect biodiversity

and reduce carbon footprint and protect landscapes. I have already

increased the environment budget by ?10 million. The challenge here is

how to deliver environmental benefits without a disproportionate

hit on farming operations. For the free crop rule, we negotiated

improvements but there is an issue for specialist barley producers.

There is an alternative approach which gives equally good

environmental outcomes without affecting production and that will

have to be approved by Europe. Our intention to implement that change

as soon as possible. There should be more on climate change in the CAP

package as well. We have looked at options under the permanent

grassland measures, subject to commission approval, farmers covered

by this will have a fertiliser plant. We may also ask for that to

include soil analysis as well. Many farmers do this anyway to reduce

carbon footprints and increase profitability. We have to decide

what features count against the ecological features argued. There is

a balance which has to be struck. After detailed work with

stakeholders, I decided to go as far as I could and include as the F a

the following, buffer strips, fallow, hedges and ditches, catch

and cover crops, albeit subject to conditions, to help with

biodiversity. We will continue to work with stakeholders on these

details. I have decided to strengthen the rules on offer strip

is -- buffer strips. Scotland has an international reputation as clean

and green but we must stay head of competitors. This new package will

impact in particular sectors in Scottish agriculture. These latest

changes to improve targeting for beef and sheep will have no impact

on the arable or daily -- dairy sectors. The move to area based

payments as positive for crofters and the Highlands and Islands. In

response to the consultation exercise, I am reinstating a

separate capital grant scheme for crofters. The wider rural

development programme supports agriculture, and of course the ?459

million budget to underpin fragile communities. There is always the

risk of unforeseen circumstances. Despite the rhetoric about simple

navigation, this is the most complex CAP ever. Under EU rules, it can be

revisited each year but other things can only be renewed once or not at

all. That does not seem sensible so I will be calling on a mid-term CAP

health check of the new policy. It would be naive to content that the

European CAP is perfect for Scotland. If we look at the new

policy with a magnifying glass, no doubt we will find anomalies. I

believe the Government has exploited the positive aspects on what is on

offer and we will minimalise anomalies. Despite the strengths of

EU rules, their outrageous budget position we are in, and turbulent

market conditions, we are confident that this reflects Scotland's

priorities for successful agricultural industry. Cabinet

secretary will now take questions. We will have 30 minutes for the

questions and then move on. It would be helpful if members were to press

their request to speak button now. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for the

advanced copy of the statement. We have a lengthy statement accompanied

with briefing papers and we need is time to analyse the impact of these

decisions. I would urge the Government to make more time for

debate on this subject. Cap reform is... Scotland chose to delay the

shift from historic to area payments. We are now at the stage

with the decisions must be made. The debate has been dominated by those

who currently receive support and then impact on them but this is not

about the status quo, it is about change, and I support measures which

aim to achieve that. I am pleased that supporting estates have been

moved to the negative list as well as a decision to limit entitlements

to 2013. The decisions were always going to be challenging and I

appreciate it is difficult to get a balance but there were calls for a

quicker transaction and there are concerns that 2019 is at the top end

of the transaction period. Can I ask what the level of the national

reserve will be and if years confident demand can be met from

that? I have concerns around the pillar two support. The focus is on

agriculture but yesterday's emissions statistics show a need for

a focus on this. When I argued for a higher transfer between pillar one

and pillar to, I said a lot of the money was going back to farmers and

their statement today emphasises that. There are demands on pillar

two. Let's get some political reaction

at Holyrood now. I'm joined from the Garden Lobby

by Annabelle Ewing from the SNP and First of all, a shameful attack on

the mother of a disabled child. That is how Ruth Davidson spoke about the

Campbell Gunn issue. Is it right that he remains in his job after

contacting the Daily Telegraph? I think it's important to look after

the fact. Campbell Gunn sent one e-mail to one journalist and there

were two points in that e-mail. One was that this lady was a member of

Labour's shadow cabinet, which I believe is the case, and the other

point was that she was related to a former Labour Lord Provost of

Glasgow, which is incorrect. Since that point, Campbell gone has

apologised unreservedly. -- Campbell Gunn has apologised unreservedly for

getting that last point wrong and as far as I can see, in terms of

Campbell Gunn, that is the end of it. He passed on a piece of

information in good faith. It wasn't correct. In terms of the information

itself, it was that she was related to a former Labour Lord Provost of

Glasgow. That isn't correct. He apologised and that's the story as

far as I understand it. You talk about "in good faith", but the woman

was not a member of the Shadow Cabinet but was an adviser to them.

So what if she was related to any member of the Labour Party, which

she wasn't? It does look like a smear, doesn't it? Not at all.

Whether she is a member or adviser to the Labour shadow cabinet, I

think that is a matter that is relevant in the public domain on the

issue. I don't know if the Labour Party are trying to suggest that

being related might somehow not be a sought-after position but the fact

is, there was one element of the short e-mail that was incorrect and

Campbell Gunn has unreservedly apologised for getting that element

incorrect, ie that she was related to a former Labour Lord Prost of

Glasgow. I can see why the other parties might wish to try to push

this at the line a bit but I don't actually see that the facts support

such assertions from the Labour Party and others. I suppose the

trouble is, there was that orchestrated smear campaign against

her on Twitter and it's perhaps looked like Campbell Gunn was adding

to that. Are you saying on the BBC, accusing him of orchestrating any

event on social media? You know I didn't say that. I think that shows

the importance of language. I think it is quite clear that Campbell Gunn

had absolutely nothing to do with individuals' comments on social

media. I think we all deprecate unwarranted personal attacks on

social media. And sure Sarah does, I do, any right-thinking person does.

But that's a completely different issue and the fundamentals in terms

of the facts of this issue, as they relate to Campbell Gunn, are that

the bit of the sentence he got wrong was that she was related to a former

Labour Lord Provost. She isn't, he apologised, end of story. Sarah

Boyack, Annabelle Ewing has clearly set out the reasons why Campbell

Gunn contacted the Telegraph. Is it really a resigning issue? It seems

he's got nothing to do with an orchestrated smear campaign, as some

have tried to point out. I think it's deeply unpleasant. It's another

example of people trying to denigrate those who speak out in

favour of the Better Together campaign. I think it's unacceptable

that politics is dragged in like this. I think we need to know

exactly what happened. You heard the apologies from Annabelle Ewing there

but apparently Clare Lally has had a phone call to apologise for any

inconvenience. I think we're talking way beyond inconvenience. This is a

new low in Scottish politics. It is unacceptable, we need an inquiry and

Johann laminate has called for Campbell Gunn to go. -- Joanne

Lamont. It isn't just about the cyber abuse but to what extent was

the first ministers office involved and to what extent was the special

adviser to the First Minister in vault CROWD GROANS

Clare Lally is clearly not related to Pat Lally and it wouldn't have

taken long to find that out on Google.

She's lobbied all the opposition parties and is sincere. I think

she's had Alex Salmond in her house so he at least we'll know she is a

normal person fighting for her rights and those across Scotland.

This issue is clearly important and we should not accept this level of

abuse in Scottish politics. I think it was said that she was not an old

merry mum and had connections to the Labour Party. Was that not fair?

Scotland in a small country, we all have connections, and on both sides

of the campaign there are connections. The suggestion that

Clare Lally wasn't an ordinary person standing up for the community

and particularly carers is unacceptable and not true. I want to

ask Annabelle Ewing briefly, about the Common Agricultural Policy. It

is a complicated issue which Richard Lochhead is spelling out as we

speak. If you are able to, can you tell us what has been said? Is it a

good deal? The Cabinet secretary has certainly used all the available

resources at his disposal to put forward the best deal possible in

the circumstances but I did catch a bit of the end of his clip when he

referred to budgetary constraints and of course it is the case, sadly,

but because Scotland does not sit on the top table in Europe as yet, we

have seen the UK government negotiate the worst deal. We are at

the bottom of both funding streams in the entire 28 EU member states so

we have seen Scottish farmers lose out on the Somme of some 1 billion

euros by 2020, a very good argument in deed for people to vote yes on

the 18th of December. -- September. I haven't had a chance to hear all

of the announcement but he has certainly striven to do the very

best for our hugely important agricultural sector with the

budgetary constraints. Indeed, we even saw a reference from the EU to

the fact that Scotland sits at the bottom of both funding streams in

terms of what's called the convergence uplift. But Scotland

only got a small share of that because the rest was taken by the

Westminster government. It really is time we took these decisions into

our own hands. Let's put that point Sarah Boyack. The general point on

the see a peak that of Scotland have a seat at the top table, it could

get a better deal for the farmers. -- on the Common Agricultural

Policy. It seems the UK have not negotiated a decent deal for

Scottish farmers. Listening to Richard Lochhead, he did talk about

the detail of this proposal for our farmers and as I understand it, he

has been in negotiations with the UK and the EU and there are difficult

decisions being taken across Europe. I think we are part of the system in

the UK. We do get to sit at the top table when it's appropriate for us

on farming issues. Ross Finnie was no slouch at getting to the top

table in Europe. We need to network with other European countries but I

think we also want to know about the environment. Yesterday we had the

report that we failed to meet our targets on climate emissions for the

third year in a row. It's hugely important that we support our

farming industry and we support reductions in carbon across the

board. There are other sectors that are impacted on so I is Claire Baker

said, we need more detail and a bit more time to absorb the detail.

Sarah Boyack from the Scottish Liberal party and Annabelle Ewing

from the SNP, we'll have to leave it there.

So Professor John Curtice is still with me here. We didn't have time to

pick up on the JK Rowling donation that Glen Campbell was pointing out

at the top of the programme. That's an interesting new contribution to

Better Together, isn't it? I'm sure they'll be welcoming that into the

cough is. Of course because there has been a concern on the no side

that they would be outgunned as far as resources were concerned. I think

the total given to the yes side by the weirs is the order of ?5

million. The better together campaign now have at least ?1

million from JK Rowling. We are in the period cheering which campaign

expenses are regulated so there is a maximum of ?1.5 million that can be

spent on direct campaigning with the public. I suspect JK Rowling has

done a substantial job in enabling them to spend up to that limit. They

will welcome that and I think that's the more important part of her

statement than the fact that JK Rowling, well-known celebrity, backs

the no side. I think we knew that. But in this referendum, endorsements

of celebrities are probably not particularly important. They can

matter on occasions when we're talking about things that the public

don't know a lot about and are looking for people to give them

guidance. But we discovered this morning 60% people in Scotland have

talked to each other about this and to that extent at least, its

conversations going on out there between the people in Scotland that

matter, not necessarily messages from well-known celebrities. As you

are here and we are talking about the referendum, perhaps you could

give us an update on where we stand in the polls. Today we are seeing

accusations of intemperate language from both sides. We've got this

Campbell Gunn row. Also today the First Minister is calling for

Alistair Darling to apologise once again for the comments he allegedly

made in an interview with a journalist. We have rows on both

sides, Gordon Brown's comments about David Cameron and that he should

debate about Alex Salmond... How are we looking? Those are all arguments

about personalities - who should do what all has done what. I come back

to the point I made earlier, which is that we should remember that this

is a referendum about ideas and features, not personalities. Most of

the personalities involved in this referendum will not be responsible

for Scotland, whether it votes yes or no, in ten or 15 years. That

said, we seem to be in a position where the referendum race has come

to arrest again. That is, on average during the last couple of months,

the polls have pointed to a 43% "yes" vote, 53% for no. That is the

same as at the end of March. The poll out today says 41% four yes,

the same as the month before and the month before that. The yes side

seems to have hold on to the games they made in the winter but they

don't seem to have made any further progress in the spring. There are

now less than 100 days to go and they will have to make progress at a

much faster rate to reach the 50% mark. Thank you.

As the inaugural oil and gas UK conference gets under way in

Aberdeen, the attention of Hollywood's economy committee

focused on the impact independence could have on the industry. The

convener, Murdo Fraser, began by asking Danny Alexander, the Chief

Secretary to the Treasury, about the significance of oil and gas revenues

for the country's public finances in the future. On the forecast, the

Scottish Government's forecasts, the figures they have how they see the

public finances in an independent Scotland, they rely on North Sea

revenues being consistently more than double the forecasts made by

the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, and that is despite

the independent Office for Budget Responsibility's forecasts since

2010 themselves having overestimated UK oil revenues by 20% on average.

So it was interesting that when the Scottish Government published their

new oil and gas bulletin on the same day I launched our paper on fiscal

policy, they excluded any reference to what had actually happened in

2012-13 and 2013-14. They looked back on what that Chile happened but

didn't reveal how overlooked a mistake their previous forecasts had

been. -- what actually happened. The most cautious Scottish Government

forecasts from March 2013 were actually around ?5 billion to hike

for those two years and what that means is, any of the Scottish

Government's protections -- projections for independence are

wrong because they are based on overoptimistic projections and they

are overoptimistic because they are based on forecasts that have

themselves been shown to be on the optimistic side. There are three

factors that essentially influenced the calculation of North Sea oil and

gas revenues. One will be an assessment of price and the OBR has

an assessment of $99 in 2016-17, and then remaining flat. We take a view

based on the fact that the average price between March 2012 and 2014

was $110 that $110 is a more reliable and cautious assumption.

But it does also include a reduction in the cash value because of

retaining that in nominal terms. Secondly, a different production

assessment - and as I said a moment ago, I think it's unimaginable that

the industry will be making the scale of investment that it is

making if there isn't confidence in the estimates the industry makes of

the likely proceeds of that, with a 14% increase in production over the

period to 2018 - and there is an issue about the scale of the range

of investment and we think that the investment levels are likely to

return to long-term trend levels - and, of course, the issue about that

is that that then removes the ability to offset as much investment

against tax. That is one of the reasons why revenues are deflated at

present, because of the scale of capital investment that is under

way. So I think there's a very clear set of reasons why the estimates are

different but, obviously, the OBR - it is up to them to defend their own

estimates. Let's head back to the chamber at Holyrood now and dip into

the debate on the Common Agricultural Policy. Cuts to the

budget in Brussels means a cut to the amount of money paid to Scottish

farmers. The Cabinet secretary is taking questions from MSP is. Let's

listen in. In terms of the importance of Dumfries and to the

beef and dairy sector, it is extremely important and that is why

we have put so much into the package. Many of the big beef areas

of Scotland will benefit significantly. The rock bottom

payment of only ?10, 10 euros per hectare for category a land is

simply not enough. It is going to be met with disappointment by those who

saw this as an opportunity to regenerate sheep farming. It is

simply too low. Question, please. Will the Minister make sure he deals

with the National Sheep Association to make sure things are minimised

given a flood of measures? I will work closely with them and

stakeholders to make sure we can do all we can to minimise bureaucracy.

I'd should say that Jamie McGregor is missing the point. We want to

reward activity and that is why the basic payment is there. The outcome

being 35 euros per hectare with their sheepskin added to the 10

euros payment, that would be the same as better land. Region two and

three. The only people who will lose out from what I'm proposing are

large landowners who are inactive. I don't know what side he is on but

most people would support we are doing the right thing with this

policy. Can the Cabinet Secretary of further

policy. Can the Cabinet Secretary information on how the Government

will ensure new entrants and prospective new entrants will be

made aware of the support on offer and what impact does the Government

think these measures will have? I care very deeply about getting new

agriculture into Scotland. I genuinely believe that there are new

entrants who understand that for very proper reasons we are looking

for an overnight transition. Under the new regime outlined today, when

they see what is offered, hopefully they will see -- take comfort. We

need lifeblood and a new generation to produce food for our tables and

have the skills in this country to make sure we do that. I note that

Dumfries and Galloway will lose ?18 million rather than the 22 million

anticipated. Can the Cabinet Secretary expand on the arrangements

for the transition period? Will be reductions be equally spaced over

the period of transition or will they have different sort of

profile? mitigate the impact on large

historic payments moving to area payments. As the figures outlined,

we have outlined the funds. A formula which manages going from the

historical areas in five years it is difficult to predict payments

because every single farm business in Scotland is so diverse and

different and clearly each farmer will be looking at today's

announcement and what it means for them. We are trained to make it as

clear as possible so people can understand how it will impact them.

I welcomed the statement and I am pleased that the capital grants

scheme is being maintained. I wonder if he can indicate whether the

budget for that scheme will be maintained at previous levels or

possibly increased? I will have all the figures in relation to that

programme available to MSPs this afternoon if you have not received

them already. We have protected the budget for the capital grant schemes

for crofters and listened closely to the representations we have had

about ensuring we have a separate fund. It is a good deal for

Scotland's crofters and our crofting communities play a vital role in

maintaining the environment and producing food. This will help

towards active crofters and Ireland crofters.

Green targets, red faces - that was the headline in one

of the newspapers today after the Scottish Government announced

yesterday they'd missed their own targets for cutting greenhouse gases

The environment minister said meeting the targets have been a lot

harder than Parliament and society realised and gave some reasons why

they had been missed. It was a colder than normal winter and there

was a higher amount of energy being used by households. Residential

emissions went up. Also because burning coal has become cheaper,

But the Greens said a radical shift in policy was needed

if the government wanted to achieve these tagets.

The 15 million tonnes a year we put into the atmosphere needs to come

down by 1 million per year or thereabouts of the next few years

and that won't happen unless the Scottish Government recognises that

current policies will not achieve it. We must go further on cutting

fuel bills, transport congestion and other areas where climate change

policy can be good for people, the economy and the planet.

Let's speak to Professor Curtice again.

So what will happen next year? The brutal headline is that the Scottish

Government has set Scotland more ambitious climate change targets

than exist south of the border. They have suggested that Scotland is

going to be able to know and example to the rest of the world. -- aid

Beacon and example. It is a bit of an embarrassment in political terms.

A lot of the recent argument is about energy has not been about

lowering emissions but prices. There is clearly a problem at the moment

about pursuing policies for reducing carbon emissions which rely on

raising prices, which is behind the current level of energy prices.

Politicians are desperate to get them down. We have seen this week

arguments that given that the wholesale price of gas and a trustee

has gone down maybe the prices should go down. That may be true but

it may also mean that getting carbon emissions down will not be easier.

You mentioned that these targets are world beating. Is the consensus

breaking down? We heard from Patrick Harvie and we heard from Labour

yesterday about what radical policies must be pursued. It is not

surprising that the Green Party would be critical on this area. It

is their key area of interest to save us from what they say is

extreme environmental damage. We should not be surprised at that. The

question for the Labour Party is that it is fine to talk about more

measures but then if Ed Miliband gets to power he would have a freeze

on energy prices which does not discourage people from emitting more

climate damaging emissions. The environment minister said yesterday

that Labour had not come forward with proposals.

Now to Prime Minister's Questions and the Labour leader, Ed Miliband,

pressed David Cameron on accountability in Birmingham's

schools after the Education Secretary/Home Secretary

Questions too on the backlog of passport applications.

The Prime Minister insisted the backlog was being tackled and extra

There is certainly a degree of common ground in what are children

are taught in schools and common values. In certain cases, the

headteacher was removed under the governing body was part of the

problem. The truth is it is a very hard question to answer as to who

parents could go to because we have an incredibly fragmented school

system where nobody is properly responsible. Some of those schools

where local authority schools and some war academies. -- some of them

were academies. On a day-to-day basis you can intervene quickly when

things go wrong. There needs to be one system of accountability for all

schools to safeguard the education of our children. The first port of

call is the headteacher and the chair of governors. If people

believe there is a real problem there is one organisation which has

responsibility for checking standards in all schools and that is

offset. That is why it is so important what the Education

Secretary has said about no notice inspections. What the opposition

leader asks is how it can happen quickly. It will if we have these no

notice inspections. He has no answer on the question of accountability.

Doing it sensually is not realistic and Ofsted inspections will not do

the job. I want to move to the failures in the Home Office. Can the

Prime Minister update the House on his latest estimate of the backlog

of people waiting for passport applications to be processed. We

have 300,000 extra applications than normal at this time of year. We have

increased the staff massively. The level of applications outside the

normal three-week limit is less than 10% of that 300,000. Less than a

quarter of people who have applied for the new personal independence

payment have received a decision and if we continue at this rate it will

take more than 40 years to get to the point where everyone gets

assessed. Does the Prime Minister think that is acceptable and what

will he do about it? It is extremely important when we introduce these

new benefits that we make sure it is done in a way that works well so I

would say it is very important not to have an artificial deadline of

replacing one benefit with another. The whole point about the personal

independence payment is it is more accurate and targeted by an -- than

disability allowance. It will mean more help for those with the

greatest disabilities and I am determined we will get it right. At

's are taking longer. They are reluctant to send assessors to

Argyll and Bute. Will he tell at a loss -- Atos they are

discriminating? There are challenges in far-flung rural constituencies

like as with so many islands with a in far-flung rural constituencies

like as with so many islands with -- within it and I accept we must have

these assessments carried out but they are important.

these assessments carried out but The whole point is that we don't

want to leave people on unemployment or benefit year after year. We want

the tests and assessments properly carried out to see whether they are

applicable for benefits and what help they need to get work.

Let's stay at Westminster now and speak to

our correspondent David Porter who's standing by on College Green.

It is a lovely day year so it is not hard for MPs to come and join me. I

am joined by David Mandel from the Scotland Office and representatives

from Labour and the SNP. Unemployment is down, and in

Scotland. Is the economy and issue that has been addressed? 17,000 less

people unemployed. Employment of women at the highest levels ever.

These are good things but we must continue to consolidate their

situation. We are not out of the woods. We must stick with the

long-term economic plan and we cannot tear it up now and start to

borrow and spend more and stop we must keep going and ensure it is a

job led recovery. We can't be satisfied until we see as full

employment as possible in Scotland. You would welcome any falling on

implement but from an opposition point of view, the better the

economy does, it is a harder political stick to beat the opponent

with. What matters is what is actually happening on the ground and

there is a huge gap between the rhetoric of the Government and

people's experiences. People will still be worse off at the end of

this Parliament than the beginning. People are facing an absolute crisis

in terms of making ends meet. The Government have missed an

opportunity with this Queen's Speech to do some thing about that. Your

party is in government in Scotland, do you take the credit for it or do

you say it is because the wider UK economy is doing better? We should

celebrate the fact that we have got lower unemployment rate in Scotland

than the rest of the UK. We do what we can. We've got some economic

levers we can apply to the economy in Scotland but we're dependent on

the performance of the UK economy and it's something which I'm not

particularly satisfied with. I'd like to be in control of the levers

to ensure we get more people back into work but we are stuck with

where we are with that. The same question to each of you - is it

going to be the key issue in the independence referendum? It's an

important issue in the sense that people want to know how they will be

personally affected by independence. My argument is, whether the economy

is doing well or badly at a particular point in Scotland, we are

still better off as part of the UK with the best of both worlds and our

very important market for Scotland in England. I think there are number

of issues that are important but just take one, we still don't know

which currency we would be using in an independent Scotland and if we

don't know that, how on earth do we know how the economy would be

performing and the impact it would have on people's mortgages? That's

what people say to me on the doorsteps. The economy is going to

be incredibly important and that's why it's fought over with such

passion and a flurry of figures. We are in a better position than the

rest of the UK because we can do that little bit more. I want to do a

lot more and it's only with the powers of independence we would be

able to achieve that. Let's move onto another issue raised a Prime

Minister's Questions the issue of passports and the backlog of

applications. It is potentially a no-win situation for the Government,

isn't it? If you don't get it cracked, you will get the blame and

if you do, you will get the people saying that that is what Government

is all about. The Prime Minister takes the situation very seriously

and we've put a lot of extra resources, 300,000 additional

applications have been made and the Home are aware of that. They are

seeking to do everything possible to alleviate the situation. If there

are individuals that have no passport and are going on holiday in

Medley, they should contact their MP or the passport office to try to get

it sorted out and get them further at the Q but it is clearly an issue

that needs to be addressed and we are addressing it. -- further up the

line. Those with long memories will remember that when Labour were in

government there were lines around the street and around the corners

for people queueing up for passports. This is about what's

happening now and I've got at least one or two constituents contacting

my office every day waiting for passports they applied for months

ago and other colleagues have got higher numbers of cases than that.

David Cameron said today that he's moved to 200 people onto that

apartment but has already cut staff from the department that is dealing

with this. The Government have got to get this right. Is it the case

that you are getting constituents who are worried because the holidays

start slightly earlier in Scotland, and are starting to panic? This is a

particular Scottish issue when it comes to this, the fact that we

break up earlier for holidays. The real difficulty about this is that

I've got constituents who are supposed to be going to Belgium for

a youth again next weekend, who have got their passport. This is a

difficulty for us. We have a few short weeks until the start of the

Scottish day, when we practically closed down in Scotland, so it is

imperative. We are counting on the UK Government to this fixed. They

told us yesterday that there was no problem. I was in the home affairs

debate and I heard the Home Secretary asked what problem. Thank

goodness we can get it sorted out now. Talking about diaries and

things that are coming up now, the independence referendum is coming

down the track, 16 weeks to go, we have the 100th day to the referendum

this week. Are you starting to notice a change to the campaign? Is

it stepping up on the ground? There's no doubt that there is more

activity from both sides. I think the public are very engaged. You

knock on peoples doors and they know it's happening. They've got views.

There are a lot of people still looking for information about why I

think it's incumbent on both sides to provide that information. As

Gemma said earlier, there are big questions still to be answered about

what currency we'll use. I'm not convinced that we'll get through the

next 100 days and know the answer to that question, and that's why I

certainly say on the doorstep, "if you don't know, you should vote no".

Gemma, are you noticing that people are starting to engage more with it

now? Absolutely. I think people have been engaged with this from the

beginning but people are really making up their minds now and what

I'm hearing on the doorsteps in my constituency is that people are not

convinced that this is the right thing to do and that pushes them to

vote no. But can I also say, we have particularly unpleasant attacks on

people who have come out and giving their opinion on what is happening.

We've seen it yesterday with Clare Lally, I am from my constituency

who's been attacked by Alex Salmond's spin doctor. -- a mother

from my constituency. Today we've seen a charity in Edinburgh using

the most appalling language, which I won't subject your viewers to,

towards JK Rowling for what she said. We don't want to see this

debate going down that path and I think there needs to be an appeal

for calm. The official from the Scottish Government has issued an

apology to Clare Lally about that. Most people think he should be

resigning. How do all the parties ensure that this debate does not

descend to a level that I think all of you would agree you don't want?

They've just got to stop it, calm down and stop the abusive nonsense.

It doesn't benefit anybody. It isn't in our interests or their interests.

Why people feel the need to indulge in this nonsense, I just don't

understand or appreciate. But we've always got to remember, this is at

the fringe of the debate, we've had an incredible debate. This is a

fantastic civic, peaceful process that has re-energised and engaged

the people of Scotland like no other. We're looking at the prospect

of 80% of the people of Scotland voting. Let's celebrate what a

fantastic debate. Let's criticise, obviously, but there's no room for

the abusive comments we've had. But let's celebrate the fantastic

achievement. A sharp gear change now. A certain event happens in

Brazil tomorrow. Who are you supporting and who will win? I drew

Algeria in the office suite so I'll have an eye on them. My son tells me

that France or the dark horses -- France are the door causes. -- dark

horses for top Scotland isn't there. I would much rather Scotland was in

the World Cup. Like the glory days of the 1970s and stop I will be too

busy out campaigning to watch much of it. I'm interested in the

Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, so that's what I'll be focusing on. Who

is going to win and he will you be supporting? I think Brazil will win.

I think the hosts will win. I support Belgium. I saw them turn

things over dramatically when they were playing Scotland. They are one

of the best teams. Thank you all very much for joining us this

afternoon. You see, Andrew, you don't just get political debate on

this programme but sports predictions as well.

Thank you for that. Let's have a final chat with our commentator,

Professor John Curtice. An interesting chat on the passport

problem, a big problem Theresa May's door but she has not had to

seek problems, with the problem with Michael Gove about the

radicalisation of schools in Birmingham. Yes, one of the

interesting lessons as far as Theresa May is concerned is that the

dangers are emerging as an unexpected Trojan horse. There was a

poll conducted that suggested Theresa May was now the most popular

candidate to be the next leader of the Conservative party, even ahead

of Boris Johnson. It's well-known that Michael Gove is close to David

Cameron and that he would prefer George Osborne to be David

Cameron's successor so overlaying this argument about whether or not

the Home Office have been doing enough about extremism or whether

the education department had done enough was this argument about, was

what was going on that Michael Gove was trying to undermine Theresa

May's position as a front runner? The home office is usually a place

where politicians get tripped up. Theresa May has been successful so

far in avoiding the pitfalls of office but we'll wait and see

whether or not she manages to avoid passports becoming a ministry of

horror which might take her down a peg or two in the leadership stakes

for the Conservative party. Talking about strained relations between the

senior figures, we touched on the Gordon Brown comments are bit

earlier. It has not helped Alistair Darling, what he says, in the

debate, David Cameron. It's been no secret that Gordon Brown has felt

that perhaps the Better Together campaign needs to become more

positive and needed more ballast. He's got rather more involved,

particularly about this argument that pensions would be safer in the

UK. It was interesting this week that he was somewhat unhelpful to

two people. He was unhelpful to Alistair Darling, with whom we know

his relationship became rather strained in the last days of the

last Labour government when Alistair Darling was Chancellor and Gordon

Brown was Prime Minister, and it's thought that those strains have not

been entirely resolved and so Gordon Brown saying that Mr Darling was not

doing enough... He is not Mr Cameron's biggest fan either. Mr

Cameron has said he shouldn't take part in the debate and I think most

people in the Labour Party agree he isn't their best advocate but

perhaps Mr Brown could not resist the temptation of perhaps implying,

this man is afraid of challenging Alex Salmond. The implication may be

that Mr Brown thinks he would be able to stand up to Alex Salmond.

Let's just close on the passport issue because it's an interesting

story, and the fact that more people are using the system could be a sign

that they're up more confident in the coming. Yes, the fact there are

300,000 people more desperate get out of the country this summer to go

on holiday abroad may mean they feel that things have been so bad in the

UK and the weather has been so wet that they are desperate to get away

but maybe they now have a bit more money in their pocket and haven't

been able to go abroad for the last few years and haven't needed to

renew their passport. The price of success. That's all we have time for

just now. We're back at the same time next week, 2:30pm. From all of

us, thanks for your company. See you next week. Goodbye for now.

You're constantly trying to build the elusive trust.

It's like a big old question mark in your heart.

I just try and do the best I can for them while they're with me.