13/03/2014 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland. Congratulations to Rangers

on winning that divisional league title. But it is the Gers of a

different kind attracting attention, expenditure and revenue for

Scotland. The annual Allens sheet and what Scotland is earning. --

balance. It caused substantial controversy and that could come up

today in FMQs. Over to the chamber. This has been the case for 17 out of

23 years, contrary to the distorted claims of the Yes campaign! What I

am absolutely delighted to confirm is that when we look at the last

five years of performance, well, when we look at the last five years,

the percentage of public expenditure in Scotland as a share of GDP in the

UK was 45.4% and in Scotland, it was 44.2%. That deflate the nonsense he

has just come out with! We now move to FMQs, question number one. Ask

the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the

day. To take forward the government's programme for Scotland.

The government's revenue and spending figures show Scotland is in

deficit by ?12 billion. The equivalent of all our health

spending. Oil revenues have gone down by more than ?4 billion in just

one year. The equivalent of all our spending on schools. If Scotland

were independent, how would First Minister cope with his revenue drop

by cutting services or raising taxes? I do not know if Johann

Lamont is aware that the UK is deficit by over ?100 billion. In the

years she has noted. The key thing is who is the stronger and Johann

Lamont knows and we have discussed this many times that over the last

five-year is that John Swinney has mentioned all the last 30 years, the

answer is that Scotland has been in the stronger fiscal position

relative to the UK. -- or. That is within the context of the UK and in

now very -- and our case for independence is that with the great

resources of Scotland, we can build a fair and just society in this

country. And since so many of the better together notary is have said

on so many occasions that they do not doubt Scotland is an economic

need viable and successful country, not noted for their optimism, they

said it two weeks ago. -- Better Together supporters. Can she not

concede this country can build that prosperous future for this country?

That was very interesting, but it was not the question I asked.

Nothing new there! The First Minister in the past has criticised

me but it appears he is saying the ?4 billion revenue drop is small,

some think we do not have to worry about. -- something. Exactly! You

should learn your lesson! The First Minister has talked of a

stabilisation fund. But he could only put money in that by cutting

services or raising taxes. Last year, he said Scotland had, a

relative surplus compared to the rest of the United Kingdom. Will he

now confirmed the rest of rest of the United Kingdom. Will he

a relative surplus compared to Scotland's relative deficit? And can

he explain how he would maintain our schools when he has lost the

equivalent of an entire budget for schools which --? For those who did

not understand the reference, that is when Johann Lamont seems to think

and employment policy, competition policy, control of oil and gas and

nuclear weapons would just be things and they did not matter. -- the wee

things. Now about lesson has been learned, hopefully society will also

disappear from the Johann Lamont lexicon. Let's take the relative

desertion of Scotland and the rest of the UK. -- position. There was a

283 per head difference last year published yesterday there was a

positive ?489 difference the year before, ?214 before that, ?75 before

that and ?1100 in 2008. That is a total loss -- a total of ?1600 per

head over the last five years, that is how Scotland would have been

relatively better off than the UK as a whole. Would it not be possible,

given that, that Johann Lamont would concede over that period, because it

amounts to 8,000 million pounds, that we could have borrowed met --

borrowed less or invested more or had the stabilisation fund to make

sure we could use that wealth to benefit the people of Scotland, or

order she still think it is a small thing that we would have been ?1

billion better off? ! The First Minister seems to be

relaxed by the fact we would have ?4 billion less to spend on jobs,

education, support for young people. And it is something... This

man lectures us about economic and gives those an answer like that.

Those numbers make no sense. I am not even asking the First Minister

something difficult like what currency he would raise taxes in!

Because whether -- because whatever it is, it in the last 12 months,

Scotland has lost more than ?4 billion of oil revenue. At the

moment, that loss is stored across the UK because we are in the United

Kingdom. -- is stood. If we were outside it, I ask again, how would

the First Minister pay for that loss in revenue, by cutting services or

raising taxes? Can I point out that Scotland loses

out on ?5.5 billion of oil revenues because they go down to the London

Treasury. And over the last 30 years, that has been several hundred

billion pounds we have lost out on. It is an indication on the set -- of

the strength of the Scottish economy that over the last five years, we

would have been eight Ilium pounds better off running our own finances

than having them run by London -- ?8 billion. I know Johann Lamont

believes oil and gas is a dreadful burden on the Scottish economy,

there are many oil and gas producers around the world. Every single one

of them regard to the hydrocarbon industry and the revenues from it is

about the ball resource benefiting everybody. -- invaluable resource.

-- a valuable. Why is it a curse to them? And if we would have been ?8

billion better off over five years, can we think of some small things we

would like to invest in in the economy, like jobs for the people, a

fairer society? That is why her campaign to tell people in Scotland

they are to board to be Independent is going to get the same giant

raspberry as it did in the daily record poll was morning. -- too

poor. -- Daily Record. That is a record number of straw men the First

Minister has put up! I have never said oil is a burden to Scotland

because without oil, the Scottish deficit would be ?16 billion! And

what we have got from the First Minister is what they call on quiz

shows a pointless and set! But it is charitable to call it that at all.

-- answer. Because we know what he would not do, he could not borrow

his way out of trouble because he would lend to a country that had

just walked away from its debts? Order! And that is not

scaremongering, that is quoting the First Minister himself. We also note

that he would not raise taxes on the rich because he ruled that out last

week. -- know. He would not raise taxes on banks and big business

because he is committing to cutting taxes on them lower than George --

lower than George Osborne. He has lost the equivalent of the entire

schools budget, how would he pay for schools, by cutting services

elsewhere or raising taxes on every family in Scotland?

First Minister! Order! Johann Lamont asked a question, you would lend

money to an independent Scotland? A rating agency noted two weeks ago,

it even without North Sea oil and calculating GDP, Scotland would

qualify for the highest economic assessment. If an international

rating agency can say that, can the reader of the Labour Party in

Scotland is not bring herself to say that? -- leader. Before the Better

Together party told us we could not be independent because we could you

-- we would lose a triple a rating. I have the leaflet here. But the UK

lost the triple a rating from two agencies. There is confidence in

Scotland's economic prospects is looking at the figures that Johann

Lamont has been given. Over five years, our relative -- a relative

surplus of ?8 billion. ?8 billion stronger than the UK as a whole,

only ?1600 per head for every man, woman and child in Scotland! Johann

Lamont did not seem to appreciate the reference to the poll this

morning. It showed the highest support for independence recorded

this year, it showed the SNP were the most Popular Party by some

considerable distance. But most of all, it showed a quarter of the

remaining Labour supporters in Scotland intends to vote for

independence. -- intend. One of the reasons is that miserable running

down of our country that Johann Lamont has been doing!

Order! When will the First Minister next meet the Prime Minister? No

plans for the future. This time last year, the Finance Secretary John

Swinney said there was little doubt that Scotland was moving into a

second oil boom. Yesterday, we found out annual revenues dropped by 44%,

leaving a ?4.5 billion black hole. That is a price for every school in

Scotland. At that black coal did not affect Scotland's public spending

cuts as part of the United Kingdom, we can absorb the shocks. -- hole.

We want the North Sea to produce more and the UK

We want the North Sea to produce tracking recommendations from an

industry expert to squeeze out every last drop. We have the support from

the UK government to keep the North Sea going and we have the support of

a nation with broad shoulders to absorb the shocks. Does the First

Minister not accept the last thing we need now is to end both of these

advantages? I love that! We have the support of

the UK government to sustain the North Sea industry. The North Sea

industry has been supporting the UK government for the last 30 years!

This unbridled optimism of John Swinney in terms of prospects for

the North Sea, let me read out what David Cameron said, there were many

years left of this great resource, David Cameron said, there were many

it is of a huge national advantage having such a brilliant oil and gas

industry! I should not associate you with the Prime Minister in anyway!

Why is it such a huge advantage for the United Kingdom but a huge burden

for an independent Scotland? Ruth Davidson criticises the comment by

John Swinney, it is she not aware it is because of the ?14 billion of

investment that has lowered revenues in the short term that will increase

more reduction and revenues in the long term? That is why they are

investing. Can I say to her to get more oil and gas out of the North

Sea, rockets and revenues for the Scottish people, assuming we have

the common sense to make sure it is a Scottish exchequer receiving these

revenues rather than burdening. -- profits. And I would not want to

impose such a burden on future Tory chancellors in London!

Let's talk about those revenues. The first minister says he wants control

of North Sea oil revenue to fund transformational policies. His

flagship pledge is extending childcare. We all want that. This

weekend we find out his White Paper plans were locked out of thin air

without any sums being done. The first minister might think that is

credible but I do not and Scott Snowden a chance when they see one.

This first minister would have us believe in an oil boom that does not

exist, and oil fund with no money to the four policies which he has not

even costed. He pretends he is holding a full House but isn't it

the case that after yesterday, his plans are a busted flush. After

yesterday we know over the past five years Scotland would have been

relatively better off ?600 better per head per person in the country.

Childcare is a very important issue. We have argued unsubstantiated in

terms of the calculation is that in order to have a sustainable

transformation of childcare, this can be supported by using the

mobilisation of women back into the workforce to increase employment and

participation to generate ?600 million of revenues. The difficulty

we have at the present moment is that there is only a small fraction

of the additional revenues accrued to the Scottish finance minister,

the vast majority got to George Osborne in London. If Ruth Davidson

can tell me he pledged that the first priority of George Osborne is

to affect the increased participation of women into the

workforce and the transformation of childcare, he would see that ?600

million he is leaving he must give to the Scottish parliament but we

know from all the evidence, including the last 30 years of ?300

billion of oil revenues, that successive chancellors have said

here are the massive natural resources of Scotland, let's spend

it on nuclear submarines. To ask the first minister, in the light of an

inaccurate report in the House of Commons on the discharge of alpha

emitting particulate two years ago, can the first minister since your my

constituents that we can trust the Ministry of defence and the UK

Government with our environmental safety? Can I see firstly that the

path have informed stakeholders that they will be reporting today on an

incident on the civil aspects of Dounreay. -- SEPA. They are not

expecting this to have environmental affects. It has been contained. What

a contrast between the ability to report on a civil incident and the

inability caused by the secrecy of the MOD to report on something

covered by Crown immunity. It was put extremely well in a statement

the other day then we have had two developments. Hansard has been

connected in terms of the information given to MPs last week.

Now that the Defence Secretary has connected the record, hats

conservative MSPs, with no acknowledged there was a mistake

conservative MSPs, with no given to the House of Commons last

week. However, in his connection, the Defence Secretary says there was

no immeasurable change in the alpha emitting particle discharge. This

has caused great consternation in SEPA. Even in this connection there

still seems to be a dedication to conceal information and that is why

the process which Richard Lochhead outlined in removing that last

vestige of Crown immunity would seem to be a more satisfactory way

forward so that community, parliament and government in

Scotland can be secure we are getting proper information so that

Scotland can be secure we are we understand and can contain any

risk to our natural environment. What issues will be discussed at the

next issue of Cabinet? Issues of importance to the people of

Scotland. There are 130,000 more people in work, that is inside the

UK, yesterday figures showed the stability of the broad-based UK

economy compared to the volatility of Scottish finances. One year's

problem on oil means ?4 billion would need to be found from

somewhere. Instead of searching for a crumb of comfort why would-be

Minister and survey questions he has been dodging, which taxes would go

up and which would not? I pointed out that over the last five years we

would eat eat billion pounds better off, ?1600 per head for every man,

woman and child. I welcome, and we have said on so many occasions, the

positive increases on the Scottish economy. The record business

confidence reported last week. I wonder if Willie Rennie did notice

in the figures published yesterday that even with 4 billion fall in oil

revenues, the Budget balance for Scotland and the UK was virtually

identical. What made the difference was an almost 1% greater increase in

capital investment in Scotland. That is 1% greater than the UK, dumb

thing to do with the finance secretary, John Swinney, he has

managed to sustain capital investment despite UK cutbacks and

maybe that is part of the explanation why the Scottish

recession was less deep than the UK and we are now enjoying a

substantial recovery according to all the indicators. They had not

answered the question. The first minister will say absolutely

anything. The fiscal deficit has to go down to create an oil fund but

yesterday his party celebrated when it went up. In January he said

ignored the economic figures for the last five years, today he says they

are the only ones that count will stop last year they paraded the

numbers for a single isolated beaut. Today he says only an idiot would do

such a thing. He used to say look at the facts, now all he has got his

excuses. The first minister likes to quote the Bible. He usually casts

himself as Moses but isn't it the book of Daniel on this occasion? He

has been measured and he has been found wanting. I have to say, I

think Willie Rennie must be confusing me with somebody else. I

have quoted from many sources but I do not think I have ever been a

great biblical quarter, have CS confusing me with one of his

colleagues. I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Can I

say to Willie Rennie, this argument that we have just invented first

time to talk about the five years of figures. I said at first minister

was my questions, this January, less than two months ago, a range of

references I can supply them with over the last few years. It is

obvious, why do we know we think looking at figures across the

termism oughtn't? He figures are published for five years. Does that

not give Willie Rennie a clue that the five-year figure is actually

quite important? Willie Rennie says he does not like hearing about the 8

billion over the last five years. Can I say that is pertinent to the

answer to his question. Instead of saying what we would have had to

have cut more than the UK over the last five years, we would have had

either 8 billion less of borrowing or 8 billion more of investment,

or, more likely, a combination of the two. If we had access to that 8

billion then even some of JoAnn laminate's wee things could have

been done in Scottish society to generate more employment, or get

more participation and have more progress towards that prosperous and

just decidedly which might or might not be in the Bible but I am sure

Willie Rennie is inspiring to as well as me. To ask the first

minister what the Scottish Government responses to the Child

poverty action group finding that many children could be pushed into

poverty action group finding that poverty by 2020 as a result of the

UK Government's austerity measures? It is unacceptable that any child

should be living in poverty any country as prosperous as Scotland.

In recent years child poverty has fallen as we have taken charge of

improving children's life chances. Up to 100,000 children in Scotland

could be pushed into poverty by 2020 according to this news report, it

should give every member of this Parliament grave concern. They must

look positively at the better indications we are seeing in our

economy which I debated whether Willie Rennie a few seconds ago, we

should salute very carefully at the social aspects of the welfare

changes that are being predicted by social aspects of the welfare

the Child poverty action group and others. Is it not a scandal that two

years on from the born to feel report that so many of our children

are still living with diminished job prospects and shortened life

expectancy? Isn't it time we took the powers of taxation and welfare

into our own hands so that no more children are born to feel? It is

important to remind the chamber of the progress made. -- fail. In 2001

there were 27% of children born into poverty. 280,000 children. Over the

years and particularly over the last few years, that number has been

reduced to 15%. 150,000. All of ours would say that number should go to

zero, that is where we would want it, but it is financial progress

that has been made over the life of this Parliament, substantial

progress. The difficulty is that the forecast from the Child action group

is, the greater part of that progress, is under risk of being

lost by 2020. That is the point. Regardless of people's politics or

abuse, are we actually going to tolerate a situation where,

according to the forecast of the Child poverty action group, but says

-- progress will be reversed? We have to take control of the welfare

system to ensure that whatever else happens, children are not made to

suffer the brunt of the economic recession we have endured. The first

minister and I attended the launch this morning though why is it that

over things we have control of no like discretionary housing payments

that can make a difference to households with children, you cannot

get money out of the door and into the pockets of people who need it

most? The substantial volume of people in the voluntary sector

appreciate and support the Scottish Government effort to mitigate the

impact of the changes from Westminster. This government is

doing everything it can to try to take the edge of the welfare changes

but the ultimate reason that Jackie Baillie is in no position to deliver

any strictures on this matter whatsoever is that she is the one

who said Scotland could control social security but should not

control Social Security. If she is prepared to maintain this position

in the face of this forecast it shows that someone who is prepared

to put our constitutional obsession with the mess Minster government in

front of the Scottish people. -- Westminster government. To ask what

steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that anti-social

behaviour orders are not reached. There has been a real shift to the

policy towards solutions. The number of crimes reached by social

behaviour orders has fallen by 30% from 2007 until 2012. I thank the

first minister for that response. In 2005 it -- ASBO were described as

being a positive short-term fix. Many beaches have been repeated

breaches and government ignorance of the number of ASBO

breaches and government ignorance of Scotland. Can the first minister

confirm whether tackling anti-social behaviour is still a priority for

his government today? Does he plan to implement any changes to deal

with these beaches? Isn't it a good thing we have had the fall of 30% in

beaches from 2007 two 2012? If that level is unacceptable and could be

improved, I will agree and let others see if we can improve it

further? The way it was earlier was even worse. People like his leader

were in government office. There is great knowledge of these things.

Recorded crime in Scotland is that it slows level in several years.

Above all, in terms of the statistics, fear of crime is geeky

sing. In his professional experience he knows that feed of crime, people

being worried about their safety, is a hugely debilitating factor,

particularly for older people. People in Scotland were positive

about local areas. It is something he will be highly encouraged by. To

ask the first minister whether the Scottish Government will take

account of the findings of the Lloyds bank affordable city review?

We have a formula for allocating housing resources on the basis of

need. Affordability is one of the factors that should be taken into

account. House prices in Aberdeen have almost doubled over the past

ten years. Can more be done to boost mid-market rental opportunities? The

new formula means the share of affordable housing funding will

increase by almost 25% between last year and 2017. That will be welcome

news for people in Aberdeen. And year and 2017. That will be welcome

Aberdeen benefit from schemes that is helped by and an innovative

national housing trust, and 85 homes have been delivered through that

trust initiative. I am sure the local member will welcome back news

on the 25% increase in terms of the affordable housing programme.

They ran over today on FMQs but we thought you would want to hear it.

They had that argument, who would? -- you on it. I will hand you over

to daily politics.