13/12/2012 Politics Scotland

Three it very warm welcome to the Scottish Parliament, where this

afternoon, we are expecting a statement from Nicola Sturgeon

about the Scottish links to European Union. Will we be able to

be a member, up aura, as Jose Manuel Barroso suggests, will be

have to apply as a new state? But that may not come up and the

questions to the First Minister, which is the main subject of this

programme. Nicola Sturgeon's spokesperson

accused the paper of fabricating the story. Indeed, the First

Minister said there had been injured by anti- independence

people. The paper was even forced to print a partial apology. Now, we

know the story is true. A fortnight ago, I asked the First Minister

When Did You Last complain to a newspaper about its coverage and he

answered the with an e-mail today at 11:19am. Does he now needs to

update that answer and does he now needs to apologise to the Scotsman?

I am sure the Scotsman corrected their story because it implied that

a letter had been sent when the commission said that no such letter

had been sent. That was the position. I suppose a more

interesting argument might be hired the Scotsman got sight of a letter

which had not actually been sent by the President of the European

Commission. No doubt, we will be enlightened in the columns of the

Scotsman newspaper to arrive at that conclusion. I am sorry that to

one does not appreciate me trying to answer her questions. I will try

not to. I will try not to write to her and explain to her when the

last time like a -- complained to newspaper was. I actually think it

is a good idea to publish corrections when mistakes are made.

No doubt, at some point, Joanna Lamond will apologise and publish

corrections for the many factual errors she brings to this chamber.

I have been in this job nearly one year and I have worked out that you

do not intend answering questions very often at all. Secondly, just

keeping saying something does not make it true. The problem for the

First Minister about the letter is that his defence seems to be that

it was not sent. Well we all know it has been sent a knife and he has

to deal with what that letter actually says. Nicola Sturgeon told

this Parliament in 2007, and I quote, Scotland would automatically

be a member of the European Union and upon independence. There is

legal opinion it to back that up. Not only do we now know that to be

untrue, it now transpires that she had not even asked for legal advice

which allowed her to make that assertion. Of course, this

ministerial habit of assertion is by role. On Tuesday, John Sweeney

told the house of Lords he had been having a very helpful dialogue with

the Bank of England are on keeping the pines after independence. And

what does the banks say? They say, and I quote, we have not entered a

dialogue. Order. So, what does it say about the Scottish Government

when the people of Scotland have to go to the European Commission and

to the Bank of England to hear the truth?

I think there were perhaps three points and that questions. Firstly,

the letter had not been sent last week. That much is clear. The

suggested had been sent is wrong. Secondly, she says that there is no

legal opinion which supports the SNP position on continued

membership. There is ample legal opinion from a range of sources,

which have been cited. The former Secretary-General of the European

Commission are amongst others. A range of quotes which have been

brought to this chamber. Incidentally, there is plenty of

legal opinion which supports that opinion. Order. Lastly, in terms of

the Bank of England, to one has come along to this chamber on a

number of occasions and I remember one specifically on 31st May. She

told me there had been discussions of the Bank of England. Rather

helpfully, the Bank of England and that there confidence in these

matters and I respected that and I pointed out that I had met the

Governor of the Bank of England on 16th February entitled and that in

May. The SNP Government of pointed out, and I quote exactly, as

indicated at the Scottish Government is engaged with the Bank

of England to discuss factual and technical matters for around

proposals for an economic framework. That is exactly what has happened.

The Bank of England does not really take a position on the question of

independence for Scotland. That is not its job. But it has responded

at, as it should do, as a public body, at to a request for factual

information and has engaged with the commission. I think to get a

Nobel Laureate in economics is quite an important thing which

should not be derided by the Labour Party. These preparations are made.

The SNP Government engaged with those who were willing to engage in

discussions. We have engaged in the factual information requested from

the Bank of England. We are prepared to engage with the

President of the European Commission as the Deputy First

Minister has made clear. And we would engage with the UK Government

to discuss these matters, but Parliament after Parliament have

refused to engage in such discussions. So perhaps she will

help us to disagree with our Tory allies and suggest the United

Kingdom Government now engaged in the discussions that this

Government is perfectly prepared to enter into.

I suppose in the fantasy world that the First Minister now inhabits,

that meant a stout defence of his position. Because his problem is he

claims that he wants to have dialogue with all these people, but

asserted we would be in Europe, we would be part of a sterling so

without ever asking anybody,. And when Mr Swinney goes to London,

we're having a dialogue and the Bank of England says not. I am not

sure if you're suggesting that the Bank of Scotland is actually being

misleading. Maybe you could clarify that later. We can go back to that

interview when the First Minister said he had sought legal advice

from the law officers when he had not. And we will remember - just

ask him about that. He asked them, can you clarify whether an

independent Scotland would have to reapply for membership of their

European Union? Alex Salmon said, no, we would not. We do have to

bear in mind that this was the same interview in which the First

Minister's words, yes we have, meant no we haven't, in terms of

the debate. The man in charge of the European Commission was -- Jose

Manuel Barroso has told the BBC if there is a new state, of course

that state has to apply for membership. What part of that state

funds does the First Minister not understand?

I will try to remember the style of that question, but I think it

started on of the question of the Bank of England. The Bank of

England has agreed to engage with the Scottish Government for

technical advice with the Fiscal Commission. That is a perfectly

proper thing for the Bank of England to do. It does not take a

public position on the debate of Scottish independence. It has no

reason to. You would not expect it to. The Governor of the Bank of

England has been perfectly proper in providing the resource for the

technical advice which has been requested by the Fiscal Commission

and engage with the Fiscal Commission wants it is established.

That seems to be a perfectly reasonable position for the Bank of

England to take and I hope that will now extend to the UK

Government departments, so as they take a similarly wise position. The

Scottish National Party the Government have never argued that

we don't have to negotiate our position in terms of the European

Union. I remember a question on 25th January, which says on the

publication of consultation documents in January that we had

changed our position to say that there would be negotiations. I

pointed out to her on 25th January that it was never a position that

there would not be negotiations. The point is that negotiations

would be held from within the context of the European Union. If

it was with some surprise that the stop press release last Friday

which repeated the suggestion that saying that negotiations was a

change and the Government's position. We have retained that

there would be negotiations on the question of Scotland's position

within the European Union. We have said unambiguously that these

negotiations will take place from within the context of the European

Union. Order. And I could quote a variety of Labour MPs who except

that Scotland would not be excluded from the European Union. No serious

person actually believes that to be the case. And it is not the case,

of course, because not just is that in the interest of Scotland's to be

a member of the European Union, it is overwhelmingly in the interests

of the European Union to have Scotland as a member.

The First Minister has to reflect that the President of the European

Commission may have some of authority on this matter. On

balance. Order a. And he has said a new state would have to apply and I

had thought that this SNP backbenchers and the frontbenchers,

their aspiration was for Scotland to be a new state. Otherwise, what

is the point of what we will be debating for the next two years? I

don't want to dwell on private grief, but I would say to the First

Minister, does he not realise he has a bit of a credibility problem

when he comes this Parliament and gives an answer he describes as

exact an answer as anybody has given in any Parliament and a few

yards later, he Hasted met he was entirely wrong. Does he not see

that when he says he has sought legal advice when he has not,

people doubt the next words which, of his mouth. When his Finance

Secretary says he is in dialogue with the Bank of England and the

bank says they're not, what does that say about his Government?

Isn't that the truth that John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, the First

Minister, all of them, are not leading Scotland. There are

misleading Scotland. Order.

As explained at our meeting, the bank is committed to impartiality

in that debate. We will respond to requests of the UK and Scottish

governments for technical device -- advice, on the condition that it is

provided in strict confidence. Order. The bank will have no public

position in the debate. Consistent with that, the bank will engage

with the Fiscal Commission that you have established. That is the

letter from the Governor of the Bank of England on 19th March this

year. That is exactly consistent with the position that the Scottish

Government opted for word. Without breaching the confidentiality

request that was given by the Governor, but I had met the

Governor in February of this year, she might have come to the

conclusion that that engagement that the Governor speaks about was

going on, that was the purpose of it. It is entirely reasonable for

the Scottish Government to seek to engage with important a parties in

terms of preparing the ground for the independence referendum and a

particular, the white paper of next bottom. It is not unreasonable for

the Labour Party, which to distally had the occasional difference what

the Conservative Party, to say it would be a good idea for the UK

Government departments to make preparations. Why it is not an

unreasonable position? Because the Scottish Select Committee, which is

Labour Party dominated, suggested that the Ministry of Defence should

do exactly that. The point is that we are perfectly prepared to engage,

perfectly prepared to prepare the ground for the white paper,

perfectly prepared to rebut the scaremongering of the Labour Party

on each and every occasion and we stand on the ground that the

country, where 90% of the oil reserves of the European Union, of

25% of the potential renewable energy reserves, the second largest

gas provider in the European Union, with 60% of the territorial waters

of these islands is something that no serious person across this

Continent would try to exclude from To ask the First Minister when he

will next meet the Prime Minister. No plans in the near future. Thank

you for that answer. I also listened with interest to the

Cabinet Secretary's performance. In particular when he said the

Scottish Government had held dialogue with the European

Commission about Scotland's entry into the EU. Stefan Chela and

President Barroso confirmed in writing that there had been no

discussions on this subject. Can the First Minister tell the people

of Scotland what talks John Swinney was referring to, who conducted

them, at what level and what ground was covered? If we were to contact

Europe, would we get the same answer as he is about to give?

meet European commissioners on a regular basis and informal dialogue

takes place across a range of subjects as we meet at official

level. Can I say that there have been few, if any, people who I have

met across the world over the last few months who have not asked me

about the question of Scottish Independence. Scotland is

attracting a huge amount of interest in international terms.

The Conservative Party would like to be in a position where nobody is

interested and would like to put forward a position that nobody

should be interested in Scotland. Scottish Government ministers will

clock Inn in formal terms with European Commissioners and with

anyone else in terms of explaining why Scotland should be an

independent country. Can I gently remind the First Minister that he

is here to give straight answers to straight questions. Dead people of

Scotland deserve honest answers. The First Minister seems unwilling

to give us something straightforward as which

discussions have been going on, if, indeed, any have been at all. This

seems like the First Minister was spanked and sent to bed for not

doing homework properly. Now in a panic Nicola Sturgeon is being

dispatched to Brussels to sort this mess out. Can I ask the First

Minister, it does Brussels share his sense of urgency? Who has

agreed to meet the Deputy First Minister, when will these meetings

take place and what questions will be asked? It has not been unknown

for politicians in these islands do have disagreements with the

European Commission. David Cameron said yesterday that he did not

agree with President Prossor at First Minister's questions. That

seemed to be quite a reasonable statement. -- President Barroso.

Does she understand that Conservative politicians have been

disagreeing with them for most of the last two years and the reason

is that the Conservative Party you're a substantial section of it

want to leave the European Union now. We are told the Prime Minister

will be announcing an end/Out referendum after these negotiations

next month. He said he would do that last January if I remember

correctly. Don't become to the conclusion that the almost

substantial threat to Scotland's position as a European Union nation

is from the Conservative Party with its undying reaction to anything

European? If that is the feeling within her party I can tell Ruth

Davidson that the amount of influence she has over the London

direction of the Conservative Party is next to 0. War betide any member

of our Euro-sceptical party to come to this chamber and ask questions

of Scotland's position to come to Europe as an independent nation.

Can I as the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the

next meeting of cabinet? Issues important to the people of Scotland.

As has finally been admitted that they will need to be negotiations

of Scotland's membership of the European Union, can he tell me

before the referendum what voters will know about what we could lose?

What voters in Scotland lose his having liberals propping up a

Conservative Party in Government. That was a rather comprehensive

answer that I was not expecting. The First Minister does not seem to

understand that this is not about membership. It is about the terms.

I am surprised that the First Minister does not seem to

understand that very simple point. It is about the politics of other

countries and he seems to think that all 27 members of the European

Union will just signed up to whatever he wants. As people doubt

what he says, the doubt what he says weather at the First Minister

likes it or not. They want to know before the referendum what they

might lose. Can he tell me when he plans to meet with the members of

the European Union to discuss Scotland's membership and to

establish what they will want in return? In contrast to the previous

two party leaders, Willie Rennie has put his finger on something

important. He is not questioning whether Scotland will be a member

of the European Union but taking the debate on to the negotiations.

The answer I gave earlier to Patricia Ferguson is what I refer

him to. When Willie Rennie has told about the terms in the past he has

actually stated that Scotland could be forced to adopt the euro. That

is one of the key aspects. You are not disagreeing. You were shaking

your head but not disagreeing? I see! I pointed out you were a

Liberal Democrat. It was the Liberal Party! I tried to point out

that under circumstances that we envisaged for Scotland's continuing

membership, of course there is the opt out position, even if that were

the case it is not the point at all that it would be forced into the

euro. The article today in the Scotsman newspaper goes through a

whole range of European debate. Except there is one. Virtually

beyond argument, just one opt out must be discussed here briefly and

that is the euro opt-out. It is a genuine example of scaremongering

with in this debate. The notion that Scotland could be forced or

compelled to adopt the euro is simply untrue. It ill behoves the

politician in this chamber who was most in favour of the euro just at

few years ago in the terms of the best -- indeed terms of deaths... -

- in terms of this... When Willie Rennie took his position a few

years ago he said Scotland would be leading the yes campaign for the

euro. It will be the yes campaign for an independent Scotland. For a

Liberal Democrat to scaremonger over the euro defies not just the

past record of that party but is the reducing the debate to eye-

level worthy of a party which has five members. -- to a level. As he

suggests Scotland will be forced into the euro, when he admits that

is not the case, we can get the debate on a level that we know the

Liberal Democrats would really like to have. Do as the First Minister

what impact the Scottish Government expects the additional resources

will have on Scottish employment? Finally the calls of the Scottish

Government have been heeded to boost capital spending. That comes

after four years of pressure, 15 colles, eight Letters to the

Chancellor and two joint declarations with devolved

administrations in this year alone. A substantial degree of engagement.

The steps that have been taken are welcome but only take us have way.

There is still a lack of cohesion plant in London to return the

economy to grow. The additional MP it is expected to boost jobs in

Scotland. I am sure it is well understood that this is only a

partial return to the capital spending levels that were expected

historically. Does he agree that de Treasury decision to heat Scottish

calls for capital spending cuts could and should have come much

sooner. Can he advised the chamber how many more people currently

unemployed in Scotland could be in work were the UK Government to

restore the cut to our capital budget? It is true that we tried to

anticipate what questions might be asked at First Minister's Questions.

One iron law is that if unemployment in Scotland is falling

it will not be mentioned by any opposition party in this chamber.

He is right, the savage cuts in the capital budget have been a major

reason for weakness in the economy. We are delighted and pleased that

there has been up partial resumption of at capital spending

profile. It is only half of what we believe is needed over the next

year and only returns us to a position of some 25% reduction in

real terms. However, if the Lib Dems and Conservatives now agree

that direct capital investment is essential for direct economic

growth then perhaps they will realise that having taken the first

faltering steps, more should follow so that economic growth in this

country can resume. To ask the First Minister, in light of

reported comments from the Fiscal Commission, what the Scottish

Government position is on fiscal control and financial regulation in

the event of Scotland separating from the rest of the UK? The system

takes logical precautions. We want to avoid fiscal decisions that the

universal economy has been feted with, the boom and bust, the

greatest recession since the 1930s. Fiscal matters will be brought home

to Scotland providing opportunities to boost growth and tackle

inequality. We are now in a stronger relative fiscal position

in the UK according to the latest official statistics. A working

group to which I referred earlier has published findings -- will

publish findings in the new year and I look forward to seeing those.

Can I ask him to clarify one point, that is whether or not Scotland's

future will be supported by at fiscal stability pact? I'm just

asking him to clarify two quotes. One is from an interview with

Andrew Neil in 2012 in which he said a prerequisite for functioning

stability would be a stability pact. He followed that up in 2012 in

Chicago when he said there would be no need for a fiscal stability pact.

Can I ask the First Minister to clarify which option is his

preferred? I said no such thing in Chicago. I pointed out there that

looking at the figures, if you had a borrowing limited arrangement

with the Bank of England and the Treasury in that here then we would

be �2.7 billion relatively better off than the UK fiscal position.

That point has been confirmed by the Institute of Fiscal Studies in

recent weeks. Do �0.7 billion seems to me to give you a degree of

flexibility which means you could borrow less, spend more and save

for the future. Just to bring it down to every ad levels for the

benefit of everyone. Do 0.7 billion is about �500 per head for every

man, woman and child in Scotland. Lot of people looking at the

economic disaster visited on this country by the Labour Party and

then taken for by the Conservatives, looking at the levels of poverty

and deprivation in Scotland, the lack of growth in this economy,

would say that some part of that should be invested in the economy

and people would be wondering why Ken Mackintosh does not think that

this country uniquely does not have the benefit of its own resources.

Do as the First Minister the Scottish Government position on the

legalisation of drugs given the potential impact on justice and

health policies? In terms of the drugs debate I think two things are

really important, one is to recognise the huge serious problem

Scotland has and still faces to an extraordinary degree. It is also

important we recognise within recent statistics there is some

sign of improvement. The drug use has fallen since 2006 from 12.6% to

9.1% among 16 to 19 year-olds. The drug used report published shows

that drug-taking among young people is at its lowest level since 20 --

2002. That is from the Scottish Schools adolescent and lifestyle

youth survey. The drug strategy focuses on prevention, enforcement,

treatment and recovery. I would commend us to pursue that across

this chamber and see these early signs of success, not for a reason

of complacency, but something we should continue to do. Thank you

very much. While welcoming default in a diction, nevertheless there is

a substantial source of social problems. Does he see merit among

other existing measures of commissioning research into the

potential impact of decriminalising drug usage? We share information

analysis and evidence, we should always do so and look at that

evidence to see what is justified. The position that we have taken I

think is the right thing and one we should pursue. Of course we should

look at evidence and that is what we will do but what we are

currently doing command cross-party support across this chamber and I

believe that is the course that we should continue to pursue. We

concentrate on the points made out in the road to recovery programme

recognising the indications of some success while accepting the nature

of the drugs problem in Scotland. If we consider Scotland's

relationship with alcohol and the measures we have taken and have

duty to pursue and address that imbalance, it is the case that

alcohol as an illegal substance does not mean that you remove

yourself from the extraordinary problems of abuse of that substance.

I think she should be aware of seeing a change in the law as as