12/03/2014 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up on the

programme: Weighing up the balance of accounts,

a sharp fall in oil extraction means Scotland's public spending deficit

has risen. Here at Westminster, Ed Miliband in

effect called out and -- rules out a referendum on EU membership is his

party wins the next general election.

And our live debate in the chamber, Labour criticise efforts to improve

air quality in Scotland. The balance between spending and

taxation in Scotland has shifted deeper into the red. In the last

financial year, the deficit here became larger than the UK's as a

whole. Those against independence say that makes Scotland's

whole. Those against independence staying in the union but Scottish

ministers say their report shows Scotland's one of the world's

wealthiest countries. Here's our business and economy editor Douglas

Fraser. This is a health check on

Scotland's public finances. Every year, government statisticians

estimate how much is spent in Scotland, for Scotland and how much

is raised on Tech nation -- taxation. Last financial year,

spending on Scotland and for Scotland ran to 65 billion. Tax was

at 53 billion. A deficit of ?12 billion. Translated into a share of

the nation's output of gross domestic product, that comes to a

.2%. That deficit used to be lower than the UK deficit. It is now

higher. What has made the big difference is that receipts of oil

and gas production. The Scottish air has fallen from ?10 billion to 5.6

billion in a year. The role of oil and gas in shaping Scotland's

future. This is mainly for good reasons, a surge of investment in

the North Sea disorder is tax deductible. ?2 billion was tax

deductible from that investment. I is that good? Because in a few

years' time, you get the benefit from that and greater benefit coming

on stream. Of course the reserve which remain hugely important but

they are almost twice as expensive now to extract as they used to be.

As a result, the tax which is paid on that oil is declining. That is

why we have seen a 44% drop in a single year.

I'm now joined in the studio by Douglas and by our political

commentator for the afternoon, Lyndsey Macintosh, the Scottish

political correspondent of The Times, based at Holyrood.

A good afternoon to both of you. Thank you for joining me. First of

all, Douglas, a lot of figures for mere mortals to look over. Some of

them! These figures are critical to the independent study, are they not

question they have been. One of the things which jurors has done which

has been very favourable to the case for independence is that they have

shown that Scotland can be viable as an independent nation. If we did not

have these figures, we would be arguing about whether Scotland could

be absorbed within tax. This has kneeled at issue and it is accepted

by both sides of the debate that Scotland can be viable. The case has

then been made, for the past few years in particular, I those in

favour of a yes vote, that Scotland have been in a relatively good

fiscal position compared with the UK. Remember, both have been in a

terrible fiscal position because of what happened six years ago with the

crunch. We have to see all of this in this context. These deficits,

however you can't then, are far too high and could not be stained at

that level. What has flipped this year is that the relatively strong,

relatively less weak, position for Scotland has flipped over to a

relatively weaker position for the rest of the UK. It is an argument

that has been used so much by the yes campaign, the Scottish

Government, that Scotland is in a stronger position, it cannot make

that case any more. It has to be nuanced and the way they are using

the figures today is that they wanted to argue that

the figures today is that they over five years. Percentage of GDP

per head and it gives very complex in order to find the numbers that

fit their case. To be honest, this muddies the whole argument quite a

lot. Hearing from those arguments, with some of them in the report

there, the political reaction has been quite swift coming out against

those in favour of independence. It has been. As done a highlighted, it

was the figures last year which were seized upon by the yes campaign, the

SNP, to say that we are performing less bad than the rest of the UK.

There will be a premium per head of the population if we were to move to

independence. We can see exactly the same figures this year showing very

different. Douglas, Mister Salmond was saying that in some ways they

were quite positive because it showed that there had been a lot

more exploration taking place in the future and that would come on stream

the couple of years down the line and that the tax revenues would

start to flow as well as the oil. A real positive spin. It may be down

this year but the future might not be so bad. The keyword was

investment. It is partly public-sector investment that

Scotland has pushed harder in terms of investment, which has rewards in

future years compared with current spending, which does not bring large

awards this current year. The oil and gas investment as well has been

absolute record levels in the past couple of years. It remains high

this year and will follow in to the industry. That means that that is

investment that can be written off against tax. It is good news for the

north-east and the oil and gas industry, if they are investing.

There are two stories however emerging from the oil and gas

industry. One is a lot of investment to try to get more out of all feel,

develop some big new fields west of Shetland. The other part of the

story is that production has fallen far faster than anybody expected

stock that is where the tax codes. If the industry did not see how fast

it was going to follow way. There are two speeds, forward and reverse,

in terms of the oil and gas industry. This issue of investment

going into good production going up again after some very steep falls,

it is not clear that tax is going to pick up because there will always be

big write-offs to come. It has become more expensive to get out of

UK waters. Finally, there has been a big focus by ours and the parties on

oil and gas. What other taxes have you been looking at? It is quite

hefty! They make estimates and assumptions about your spending

takes boys. Two thirds of that spending, roughly, goes into welfare

and the and about 16 goes into hell. No surprises there. It is always

interesting to see how they estimate how Scots raise taxes. Bought take

on inheritance tax and stamp duty. The things that Scots spend more art

of Apple, in a big way, alcohol and gambling. -- about 16 goes into

hell. We'll be back with you later.

Claims that TV reporting of the independence referendum have not

been fair and balanced have been examined by MSPs. An academic from

the University of the West of Scotland told Holyrood's Culture

committee about his research, which suggested that coverage on BBC and

STV news programmes featured more anti-independence statements. BBC

bosses refuted the claims, saying news coverage was balanced and the

research was flawed. Much has happened in the month or so

since I released the research paper. Much of it has been quite

upsetting for me. I want to begin by saying is overly strong things about

my experience in the last month. I would like to condemn the behaviour

of BBC Scotland's Department of policy and corporate affairs. It is

the president the dissemination of my research and is circulating an

insulting and informed letter of my research, directly to my principle,

bypassing the team, and circulating that to all e-mail complaints they

had about their coverage of the referendum. I would like to condemn

the violence and collusion of almost all of Scotland's mainstream media

the violence and collusion of almost in disappearing my research, despite

its online presence, which has been ignored. Can you lay out some of the

findings Mister Mark well, it shows a crude quantitative imbalance

between the number of statements reported which you could see as

supportive of the yes campaign than those you could see as supportive of

the no campaign. There is a high degree of subject of -- subjectivity

in this. All of this research is subjective. That seemed to grab

everybody's attention. Yes campaign people on the web immediately threw

threw up into if you need evidence at last, 3-2 ratio! My feeling was

that this was not very important cause a lot of it was down to just

saying, well, let's see what the Liberal Democrat says, the

conservative says. That led to an imbalance of a quantitative nature.

This happened twice in the original report, that Willie Rennie was

confused in the space of three lines with Ruth Davidson. In the draft...

Does that change... Question I if you would forgive me, in the draft

second report, one of those errors has been corrected and one of them

has not, despite the fact that we pointed this out to the offer in

January. Well, I would have thought most people would know the

difference between Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie. If we have pointed it

out and it is very easy simply to go and check, there also was a... In

what way does that affect the figures? If, as I have said, each

and every example reported from Reporting Scotland has an error of

fact, an error of inclusion, and error of omission or an error in

terms of how the author describes who was in it or an error in the

payoff to the report and that is in each and every example, it makes it

difficult and it is of some concern to us that the numbers that make the

in the report can be entirely correct. It is also fair to say, if

the professor says, as he did this morning, that he did not just to

samples of programmes, he surveyed the whole domain, yet in the space

of a month, that domain changes from two hours every night to two hours

every night both a low-dose bulletins in four programmes into

channels over the weekend, the numbers of hours you survey the

strangely seems to have dropped as a result of that and not gone up, it

makes it quite difficult and concerning foreigners when we are

looking at it. At the end of the day, it would be remiss of us when

reports like this come out, not to respond to them. -- difficult and

concerning for us. Our audience might have a perspective on it.

There is no malice in that were attacking author on that. That is

not something we would do. Despite what may have been said. At the end

of the day, we wanted to deal substantially with the issues and

the report and I think we have done that in as fair and is reasonable

and as promptly as possible. That was the culture committee

yesterday at Holyrood. Now to our live debate in

yesterday at Holyrood. chamber today. First, let's pick up

with another issue. Interesting intervention in the European debate

from Ed Miliband today. He was saying his approach to the EU will

be slightly different. He was promising a referendum but only if

more powers were going to be taken from the UK to the EU, wasn't it?

I'm glad you've summed that up because if you look at the coverage,

the two papers briefed overnight, they took a completely different

headlines. One seeing it promises and in a referendum, the other thing

he does not. The issue here as perhaps the negation and getting to

the bottom of what he is promising. I think Nick Robinson was saying

earlier it took about the pages of his beach to get to what he was

saying. -- took about seven pages. David Cameron describe it as a

decision made by David Cameron describe it as a

get the point here, it is saying that as you have outlined, it is

only going to be a referendum if we were going to give more powers to

Brussels. I think that has been welcomed by a lot in his party and

also the CBI, is within supportive of staying in Europe.

Particles have been recorded over 50 micrograms 30 the meter. If that

average stays above 50 for the rest of today, it would be a breach of

the average limit and we should only have seven beaches

the average limit and we should only allowed in nature. While we are

discussing this, poor El quality is -- poor air quality is affecting

people's less. There is evidence it reduces people's life expectancy.

That affect people particularly with respect to recondition and

cardiovascular conditions. Pollutants can see into your car if

you're sitting bumper-to-bumper making it more polluted than ever.

Many of us are concerned about the issue. I would like to be known as

the work that Friends Of The Earth are doing to raise awareness of the

damage that are bloody and urban areas are doing to help push it up

the political agenda. -- are doing in urban areas. The

the political agenda. -- are doing urban air quality is caused by road

traffic. Addressing this needs logical will, commitment and

resources, not just financial but in terms of capacity within government

to drive us forward. I am not suggesting that meeting standards as

easy but it is difficult to find the target the government is meeting but

the European commission has launched action against the UK for levels of

nitrogen dioxide with Glasgow cited particularly as a city of concern.

There a lack a convincing strategy for the UK. For their more, the

tougher Scottish standards enabled by the 1995 environment act have

never been met, missing targets on nitrogen and small particles. Of

course what we need to see is greater investment and a focus on

rules shift making walking and public transport more attractive to

people. The government have a target of increasing journeys by 2020 and

increasing equality is a part of making that attractive. They are

ongoing concerns the travel budget is not at a level that would make

this claim is achievable. Our bus network has huge potential to

deliver more than this area. Passenger cars produced nearly 60%

of all CO2 emissions across the UK and in a city centre on a journey by

bus can result and a half the emissions per passenger compared to

the card. Buses are seen as a problem but should be seen as part

of the solution. They need to be reliable and pleasant so more needs

to be done to avoid congestion. Measures such as the Green bus fund

and bus investment fund are welcome but cuts to the bus operator's Grant

makes progress more difficult as it is resulting in less routes. I would

just highlight the change in focus of the grant to avoid bus operators

having an incentive to burn fuel. It is something I hope she would

welcome because it would contribute to better the quality and reduce

opportunities for buses to set and burn fuel. The experiences this

leads to less routes and higher fares and that works against the

policy. Buses are still the pool of neighbours of trains in terms of

public subsidy. The original target for reduced car use or journeys. We

need to engage the public and that is a reason why friends of the

Thistle welcome. Some of the options might not be popular. Tackling urban

air pollution needs to be done in partnership with local authorities.

There are currently 35 the quality action plans in Scotland but they

are failing to deliver. I know the government are reviewing the quality

action plan so I am pleased one of the Commons is expected to be

increased monitoring of fine particles. We also need to consider

whether we have the appropriate obligations on local authorities but

we need to be honest on the difficulties local authorities face.

While they have statutory obligations, local authorities are

often working in environments not designed for modern travel or

population numbers. They are working on short electoral cycles which can

make some of the more unpopular option is difficult to deliver.

Let's get some political reaction from Holyrood on our main story. The

news that Scotland's public spending deficit has risen. Our political

editor is standing by. Before we turn to your guests, what kind of

reaction are you hearing in Holyrood? It is not simply a

statistical exercise. It has always been a contest of interpretation.

The contest of interpretation on the oil figures, you have the argument

for those in favour of the union saying there would be a ?4.4

for those in favour of the union drop within a single year. The

response to that from independence advocates say the reduction is based

on the fact greater investment is set off against tax thus the

revenues decline, but the revenue will be ultimately productive. Two

perspectives put forward. The choice right now is to go to the guests

here and see what they make of it. Kenny Gibson from the SNP and Iain

Gray from Labour. What is important is that over the last five years we

have seen Scotland have a surplus compared to the rest of the UK and

we have seen Scottish and, on average ?1600 a head more than the

rest of the UK. Over the expenditure there is also higher

than the UK and in the year we are talking about, revenue is also

higher as a percentage than for the UK as a whole? Only a 1% difference

between Scotland and the UK. What is important is what you mentioned

earlier on. We saw a doubling over five years of investment in the

North Sea. Revenues will increase in future years with an estimated

increase over the next five years. The reason we want to bring in an

oil stability fund is to ensure we have stability in terms of finances

going forward. Ian Gray. You summed it up. What this demonstrates is how

foolish it is to try to base an economy substantially on a single

volatile commodity. It is true there is investment in the North Sea but

that is because the remaining reserves, important as they are,

cost far more to get out of the ground. Even if production does

recover, revenues will not recover because profits will be lower. The

decline in oil revenues is a long-term trend. Over five years the

argument from the SNP in Scotland is doing better and over 30 years have

contributed more per head than the rest of the UK. It is a fact we have

also spent more. The truth is there's not much point looking back

five or 30 or 50 years. The independence referendum in September

is about looking forward than the fact of the matter is that Scotland

was Independent today, the Chancellor would have ?4.5 billion

less in the budget this year than last year. That is a whole schools

budget and that would require serious cuts or massive tax

increases. Completely ludicrous. There is a ?3 billion surplus from

last year so that has to be taken into account. The stability fund is

so that in years of prosperity we put money away so we can balance

budgets. I know Labour are not good at balancing budgets but we could do

a much better job. Faced with the 4.5 billion is cut you would not

have a fund? Scotland is the second rest just part of the UK it said of

London and the north-east. What allows us to stabilise these very

quick shifts in oil revenues, and we are not new but a long-term trend,

what allows us as being part of that big an economic union. That is why

it is so important. What about the point that was then that wider union

Scotland is the second richest after London? This is one of two oil funds

which the Scottish government have said they will introduce but the

problem is the there's no spare oil revenue. The White paper

specifically says that stabilisation will be set up by increasing

Scottish borrowing. That doesn't seem to me to be the most sensible

way to manage volatility. You do not have the slack? Let's look at other

countries. Norway have built up over ?5 billion. He was arguing against

independence 30 years ago and we have seen 30 years of relative

surplus. One year may not have been very good. Quite clearly we have a

strong and robust economy and we are much less dependent on oil than many

other countries and we believe we can afford this. I hear your

arguments are that the longer term but as you say the figures this year

are not good. Does this mean these are difficult figures this year to

take it into a referendum? We are talking about a 1% difference and I

know the Unionists jump on any financial bad news but to be honest

we are talking about a very limited amount in terms of a GDP of 144

billion. It is not vulnerable if you put measures in place to ensure you

actually deal with this. Shocks can mean oil prices go up quite

dramatically and that means a major windfall for Scotland. This has

previously just gone to London. The Scottish government have been no

better at predicting prices than oil revenue, but for the last year Alex

Salmond has based the economic argument for independence on saying

Scotland has a relative surplus, a lower deficit than the rest of the

UK. These figures show that all the time they were telling us this it

was the other way around. What about that point about the 1% gap? Even

with this 1% reduction, the overall gap is only around 1%. As Alex

Salmond was arguing, the stability and resilience of the onshore

economy is good enough to be less? -- BR this? The way we manage this

is as part of a larger UK economy which allows us to deal with drops

of ?4.5 billion. A drop of 44% in a single year, the security of being

part of that big an economy is what allows us to get the best from what

is a very important resource. Why is the standard of living higher then

Norway, Switzerland and the host of other countries than it is in the

UK? Quite clearly we are short-changed by this resource going

to the Treasury. It is much better to have an asset we can control for

the long-term benefit of the Scottish people. We have been an

surplus for 30 years of relative to the US and UK saw one year where we

are talking about 1% of GDP, it is a pretty feeble argument. I think if

you go back you will find that simply not true. Repeatedly we have

told that Scotland has what Alex Salmond has called a relative

surplus. A smaller deficit than the rest of the UK. That is not the case

and they have been talking about oil for the last year. We are talking

about 1% of GDP. The UK's deficit is 1.5 billion in debt! -- trillion.

Let's head back to the chamber now and listen in on the debate about

air quality. The environment minister Paul Wheelhouse is speaking

now. We are hoping to have that by the

end of the calendar year. We are also in the process of developing a

national law emissions strategy which will draw together a wide

range of policies being taken forward. It will highlight and

strengthen the links between air-quality and other elements of

the government's work. It will set out the contribution that reduced

air pollution can lead to economic growth and improved quality-of-life.

We also have national responsibilities, the UK along with

other member states of the EU has to comply with air-quality limits.

Failure to achieve this could lead to heavy fines and the European

commission has the few weeks written to the UK government saying it

intends to commence action. 15 zones and England plus the Glasgow urban

area. We are also working to prepare a response saying how we intend to

demonstrate full compliance as soon as possible. They are still many air

pollution issues to address. Work must continue to ensure it is not

just maintained but improved upon. We hope

just maintained but improved upon. greener Scotland for us all. Thank

you. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate on air

quality. I believe it is useful that Labour is using its debating time to

highlight this important issue. The Scottish Government's failures were

set out specific EU air quality standards. We recognise that overall

there have significant reductions in air pollution since the 1990

baseline, it is a matter of real concern to all of us in this chamber

that unacceptable high levels of air-pollution, especially from

nitrogen dioxide, which causes increased ground level also and

particulate matter, have been shown in 2013 in some of the busiest

shopping streets in Scotland in 2013 in some of the busiest

Hope Street, buyers road -- Byres Road and some Street in Edinburgh.

The brick -- the break from regulations set out in the 1990s.

All of us know that nitrogen oxides in our environment also cause acid

rain. This damages plant and animal life in Forest, lakes and rivers as

well as harming building and historical sites. High levels of

nitrogen oxides can also threatens biodiversity through the excessive

growth of plants and trees. Planting more trees in urban areas can help

to mitigate levels of some air pollutants and we are very

supportive of that. As the Labour motion makes clear today, the

potential impact on human health of poor are quality can be severe. It

has been suggested that over 5000 deaths in Scotland each year have

air-pollution as a contribute in fact and this must be major concern.

1500 deaths. In high concentrations, nitrogen dioxide and particulates

can cause inflammation of the airwaves and affect lung capacity.

Some studies suggest long-term exposure may be associated with

associated risks -- increased bronchitis. As a sufferer myself, I

am very conscious of the effect. For many Scots, it can be much harder to

breathe in congested city streets. The presence and concentration of

religion in our air is very affected by the climatic conditions. I would

commend the efforts of the Met office in Scotland, working with

partnerships and local doctors, to support people self managing some

conditions known to be impacted by weather conditions. The healthy

outlook service specifically helps those with COPD as well as having an

impact on those who suffer from rest the jury promises like asthma and

COPD. Recent research published in the British Medical Journal

suggested that exposure to find practical, particles in the air

increased the risk of heart attacks...

Now, the UK does not have politicians representing ex-pats

abroad. But France does. I'm delighted to say I'm joined in the

studio by Axelle LeMaire, the First French member of the National

Assembly to represent more than 140,000 French citizens in northern

Europe. Axelle, thank you very much for coming in to the studio... Thank

you. Can you explain your post to us? How does that work? To be an MP

representing constituents abroad? I know that it looks odd. I live in

London and I work in Paris. That is where I sit in the National

Assembly. So I spent three days a week in Paris and the list of the

time in my constituency, that is ten countries, including the UK,

including Scotland. Either present they probably 500,000 French people

who live in the north of Europe, try to meet with them or online, and

address their problems. Also, I represent their views and their

international approach in the National Assembly. And you are going

round Scotland today National Assembly. And you are going

the French citizens? Exactly. I was in Edinburgh yesterday, Glasgow

today, it Aberdeen tomorrow. As I usually do, I am holding surgeries

and organising public meetings. Would you recommend a system for the

Westminster Parliament, do you think, to have MPs representing

British expats who live abroad? It is very funny because I received

e-mails from British people who live in Spain and Australia or South

Africa and they say, could you please write to the Prime Minister

and asking to have the same system? ! I think it is a new form of

political representation. It also shows a new reality, which is the

fact that millions of citizens live outside of their country but they

still have the language, they still have the culture, they still the

country. It is a way to keep their citizenship alive. You are here in

Scotland as an exciting time politically, with the independence

referendum. Of course, there is the old alliance between France and

Scotland, long historical connections. What is the feeling in

front of its Scottish independence? The way we see it is probably...

Scene from the larger debate on the referendum on possible EU exit that

has been announced by the Prime Minister. I had to come here to

realise that it is more complex than that, that the timings are

different, that the expectations, realities are different. So it is

actually two completely different issues. But we don't get much

information about what is going on in Scotland at the moment. It is

interesting to hear the kind of rolled together. We heard recently

from the President of the European commission, Jose Manuel Barroso,

that Spain may not want an independent Scotland to join the EU

because of course it has problems with its own secessionist movements.

Of course perhaps France might not want an independent Scotland because

it might encourage perhaps Corsican nationalism? Do you think France

with one and independent Scotland to join the European Union? More than

anything else, I think it is important to remain neutral in this

event. It is up to the Scottish people and the people who live in

Scotland to express their views. There is a very heated but

Democratic debate going on and I don't think it was up to Jose Manuel

Barroso to say what he thinks about it. We all know he is the current

president of the European commission but his mandate is coming to a term

soon, with the new commission that will be nominated after the European

elections taking place at the end of May. So he has a personal agenda. He

apparently wants to be the next general secretary of NATO. In order

to become that, he needs the support of the United Kingdom and David

Cameron. So clearly, he did that for reasons that probably are not as

legitimate as they appear. So I would not like to do the same. I

think it is important for foreign countries or foreign politicians to

remain neutral and respect the will of the Scottish people. So that was

quite a big geopolitical western. Let's look at another issue in the

referendum debate, the one about childcare. The SNP are promising

increased childcare if there is an independent Scotland. You live in

the UK and work in France, can you compare and contrast the offer of

child care that is available in France and the United Kingdom? Yes,

I do not know about the differences between Scotland and the rest of the

UK but what I can talk about is the French system and certainly we are

trying to do a lot at the moment to create new places in nurseries so

that women can get back to work after they have a child. It is very

problematic if it is more costly to stay at home... Because you cannot

afford childcare. By pursuing equality but also for economic

reasons, to put women back into the job market, to encourage them to

consume, to buy goods, to increase the GDP, I think it is a very

reasonable measure the GDP, I think it is a very

childcare offered. I must say, as the London resident, I think at the

moment it is not developed enough. OK. We will have to leave it there.

Thank you very much for speaking to us and for coming in.

To Prime Minister's Questions now. And it was all change, as the PM is

away on official business in Israel. Instead, the Deputy PM Nick Clegg

faced Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman across the despatch box. She

claimed the Coalition parties are bound together not by the national

interest but by a collective fear of the electorate. The issue of the

radioactive leak at Dounreay also came up. At their spring conference

last week, Lib Dem ministers were falling over themselves to denounce

government policies and even their own departmental colleagues. They

describe them variously as unfair, absurd and heated. Yet they keep

supporting them. Take the bedroom tax. His own party president says

the bedroom tax is wrong, unnecessary and causing misery. But

they voted for it. Now they say they want to abolish it. Are they for the

bedroom tax or against it was to mark which is it? Mister Speaker,

there are 1.7 million people on the housing waiting list in the country

-- in our country and 1.5 million spare bedrooms. That is a problem we

inherited, like so many problems, from them. On the side of the House,

we are trying to sort out the mess that they created.

CHEERING If they are incapable of taking any

responsibility or expressing any apologies for the mess they have

created, why should we take any other questions seriously at all.

This week, surely it is also ready to extend condolences to the family

and friends of Bob Crow. The Secretary of State for defence has

issued a ministerial correction, where he correct faulted that there

was no measurable change in the radiation discharged at HMS Vulcan.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Ministry of Defence should

be fully answerable to the Scottish environment protection agency? I

would also like to join express my condolences to the family of friends

of Bob Crow. Whether you agreed with them or not, he always worked

tirelessly for what he believed in and the people he represented. On

the issue of the radioactivity, I think the Ministry of Defence had

has thought to be as open as possible. It is very important that

all those work together in order to ensure that the nuclear deterrent is

managed and maintained safely and that is exactly what everyone is

seeking to do. CHEERING

Mister Speaker, we now know that the Leader of the Opposition is opposed

to an EU referendum and will not deliver one. The Deputy Prime

Minister is opposed to an EU referendum and will not deliver one.

The leader of the UKIP party wants a referendum but cannot deliver one.

The Prime Minister wants an EU referendum and will deliver it by

2017. CHEERING

Would be standing Prime Minister -- would they stand in Prime Minister

tell the House which of the party leaders trust the British public and

is a real democrat? As ever a pleasure. I'm glad to see he has

fans of the other side of the House now as well. And he mentions the

pro-minister, let me quote what he said at the dispatch box when we go

to deliver on this issue. He said, my clear it is when this Parliament

proposes to give up power is that there should be a referendum. That

is the guarantee we have written into law. It is important that we

establish your loss for the use of referendums. Rule one, line one is

that if you're giving up hours belonging to the British people, you

should ask them first. I entirely agree. That is the government's

position and that remains my view. Let's stay down at Wetsminster now

and speak to our correspondent David Porter, who's standing by as ever on

College Green. David, over to you. Thank you very much, Andrew. Prime

Minister's questioned and without the pro-minister today because he is

on an official visit to Israel and Ed Miliband never does Question Time

when the prime ministers away. Instead, he used the time to make a

speech on his party's attitude to the EU and a possible referendum and

to discuss that, I am pleased to be joined by three parliamentarians

with Scottish connections, Ian Murray for Labour, Lord Jeremy

Purvis for the Liberal Democrats and Angus MacNeil for the SMB. Ian

Marlee, it was a leader essentially try to broker a compromise on the

EU, saying there may be a referendum but only in the next parliament if

there was a significant transfer of powers. -- for the SNP. Ian, it was

your leader is essentially trying to broker a compromise. Essentially,

the Conservatives are all over the place on Europe. They're promising a

referendum in 2017 and say that we will have it if we do not have a

significant repatriation of powers. They have not told us what powers

they want to repatriate or they are making progress. It is difficult to

do that when they are standing outside the room. What Ed Miliband

made out was that the EU should be at the heart of Europe and fighting

the arguments within Europe and saying that it should be

contributing to jobs and growth. If there is any fundamental transfer of

powers as part of that, Labour are committing to a referendum if that

is the case. That seems to be the sensible approach for the public,

the country and businesses, who are telling of that we know what

referendums do in terms of a Scottish context, uncertain for

business. There would be ?3000 benefit to every person in this

country from being an EU. We should listen to that and stop messing

around with the constitution and get on with and growth. Would be wrong

to give the impression that your party is that one on this? I did

like the Conservatives, you have people with a different range of

views. We are a broad party but it has laid out a way forward to seeing

that we will have a referendum if there is repatriate powers. Until

then, we wanted to be in the room at Angela Merkel and the French

president and the major players in Europe since that we want to reform

Europe to make sure it is completing the single market, creating jobs and

wealth for Europe. If it does not, and Powers transfer, we will have a

referendum. They are gradually clarifying the confusion and that is

broadly welcome. Somebody said it was not a broad tent but a marquee

with open sides and the way it was presented and briefed shows the

clarity but I do not know why Labour has abstained when this was

legislated for. It now seems as if the Conservatives are wanting to

move away from it and Labour are finally realising that position they

are moving towards has a fundamental degree of sense about it. It seems I

should not be churlish and welcome Labour on board. It is not NSU if

Europe are going to be the big issue we think it should be, is it not the

right to say we should let the people decide on its? It is a huge

issue and is fundamental. We are fighting very hard to maintain that

seat in the European parliament for Scotland for the Liberal Democrats

because we are now unashamedly the party that is aligned with positive

benefits for Scotland in the EU and for Scotland and the British

Parliament. We are the party both for Britain and for Europe and

because it is so significant that is probably the first time in a long

time that this will be fought on European issues. You want to full

journal negotiations with Europe for an independent Scotland? It was

amazing to see the great agreement and the finest relationships ever

between the UK and Ireland with common visas and green energy

proposals and a multitude of things. It has been referred to as the Vicky

pollard policy. Yes but no. Those of us with a longer Westminster

pedigree can remember the times the Liberal Democrats were demanding and

in a referendum. -- in-out referendum. It is UKIP that is

pushing them and the policy with Labour is we will give you one when

we do not need one. Scotland should be independent and this will be

academic and we will be at the top table fighting Scotland's corner.

The point made about the two unions and the very different unions. One

is a governmental union. Assuming Scotland was to gain independence

and gain entry into the EU, none of which are certain, would not be a

logic once you had negotiated the deal for an independent Scotland get

into the EU to say to the people of Scotland, we will put that to a

referendum to see if you agree with what we have negotiated for you?

There's a logic but it is not the at the moment. The point you're driving

at is that this situation should arise it is a matter for the people

of Scotland. The people of Scotland could vote to stay in the EU and get

taken out of Europe against their will. The only way the people of

Scotland can have the boys respected as to become independent. -- the

voice. Is this as to become independent. -- the

policy now because that is significant? I am agreeing with the

logic of the question but it is not policy. In 2017 we could be taken

out of Europe if we stay in the United Kingdom against their will.

Put Scotland's destiny in Scotland's hands. The destiny is

kept with independence. It is quite clear if you follow the logic that

the only way to stay in the UK is to vote no and vote Labour. I was

agreeing with you on logic. The logical position is they are quite

happy to have the Tories, and driven by UKIP and take Scotland bout of

Europe because we would be the tail of the vote. This is what turns

people off about politics, when you have a grown-up discussion and you

make a logical point and then somebody runs away and says that the

policy. People at home should know that politicians can discuss in a

grown-up manner without confusing logic and policy. It is a shame that

people do that than I am disappointed. I am taking the logic

to its natural conclusion. Shame. We will have a referendum on whether we

shall continue this discussion later on. Thank you very much. Did we get

a policy change or not, I will let you decide that one! Back to you.

I think the debate continues. Let's speak to our commentator Lyndsey

Macintosh for a final time this afternoon. Let's pick up on a big

story through the rest of the week, more powers for the Scottish

parliament with offers from Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Gordon

Brown speaking about a partnership of nations. The offer from Labour

was actually from Gordon Brown talking under the Labour banner but

under half of himself and he laid his proposal for more powers which

he has committed to the devolution commission. We know they are interim

report called for school devolution of income tax to Holyrood which was

hugely controversial within the Labour Party and split it radically.

What Gordon Brown has said is that we should increase the power of

income tax but not school devolution. My sense is that maybe

what he is proposing is something that will be picked up by the

devolution commission. That is coming up at the Spring conference.

We are into conference season and the Conservatives are having the

Conservatives are having layers in Edinburgh this weekend. They are not

reporting back and tell me, what do you think she will be telling the

party faithful? She will be in pretty good fettle on Sunday. The

independence debate has been good for the Tories, galvanising them,

and they pretty much know where they stand on the union and are united by

and they pretty much know where they it. It adds impetus to the party

which in Scotland in recent years has been somewhat lacking. This will

really boy up the party faithful. -- buoy. Some conservatives are opposed

to more powers coming to Scotland. The Strathclyde commission will be

fascinating when it comes back particularly when we have had them

seeing it as a line in the sand with no more powers, and in more recent

speeches Ruth Davidson has edged towards not endorsing a federal

system but seeing it as an interesting prospect. You were

saying that perhaps this debate has galvanised the Conservative party in

Scotland. Do you think they might reap the fruits of that in the

future, could the vote glop? The signs are good for them at the

moment in that if you look at the council by-elections, they have

increased the votes she so they are certainly making games. From what I

understand, they are getting a lot of donations as well. We will have

to leave it there. You can follow all that is happening

at the Conservative conference on the BBC, online and on radio and we

will have Ruth Davidson's speech live here on BBC Two on Sunday

afternoon. That's all we have time for this afternoon. We're back at

the same time next week, half past two here on BBC Two. Thanks

the same time next week, half past company this afternoon. Bye for now.