16/01/2014 Politics Scotland

Welcome to the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, a lot of happy on the

independence referendum campaign, -- a lot of and in. Alistair Campbell

making a pitch for the youth vote, Nicola Sturgeon setting up the case

for independence, the back drop of Scottish politics at the moment and

presumably for FMQs, the main substance of this programme. Let's

cross to the chamber to see what is happening.

Question Time is just about to get underway, missing -- ministers

taking general questions and talking about the exams had of the first

monster -- the First Minister being put to the test. One topic will be

the issue of what would happen with tuition fees in the event of

independence. Opponents say he would no longer be able to charge students

from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to attend Scottish

universities. The government says it would be possible by securing an

exemption from the European Union. But we'll come up because a Labour

backbencher has asked about it -- that will come up. It has been a big

issue this week. The independence referendum campaign is dominating

more and more the debate in Scottish politics. That is reflected on the

airwaves and in newspapers. This is to run Lamont.

-- JoAnn. What engagements has he planned for the rest of the day?

Presiding officer, both the First Minister and John Swinney has said

Scotland pays 9.9% of tax revenues in the UK and receives only 9.3% of

public spending. That suggests Scotland pays in more to the UK and

we get out, could he please tell me how much money is 9.9% of tax

revenue? -- than we get out. And how much is 9.3% of spending?

Surplus of revenue overspending that year was ?4 billion and that

contributes to a surplus of five years, a relative surplus compared

to Scotland and the UK, of ?8 billion. That is the point of doing

the statistics because the unionist parties, Labour and Tory, have

always wanted to say Scotland has higher public spending and that is

true and for good reasons. Scotland also contributes more in terms of

revenue and that is why taking the 9.9% of revenue compared to 9.3% of

spending, that shows Scotland is in a stronger fiscal position on the

rest of the UK. -- than. Classic First Minister, if you do

not like the figures they give you, I have another set prepared! He did

not answer the question I asked. About the way he misrepresents those

figures. According to his own figures, 9.9% of revenue is 56.9

billion pounds. At 9.3% of spending amounts to ?64.5 billion. So

actually, Scotland gets ?7.6 billion more out of the UK than we put in.

Is it not the case that if the Scottish government's own figures

show that we get more money out of the UK than we put in it, it is

deeply misleading to try to give the opposite impression?

Order, First Minister. The vast majority of countries in the world

have been running deficits. There have been exceptions, Norway is

eight grand example -- a grand example. We have exactly the figures

of deficit between Scotland and the UK. 2008, Scottish government --

deficit was 2.6%, the UK was 6.9%. 2009, the UK deficit was 11.2%.

2010, deficits down to 8.1% in Scotland, 9.5% in the UK. The last

figures, a deficit of 5% in Scotland compared to 7.9% in the UK. So for

each of the last four years, the Scottish deficit is my web than the

UK deficit. -- lower. That is why we are in a stronger fiscal position.

We do not get the benefit cuts the money is sucked into the London

Treasury. I welcome this line of questioning because we can put the

difference forward, the money that would be available in these years.

?6 billion in 2008, 679 million in 2010, 1 billion in 2010, making a

total of over 12 early in pounds. To put it in terms she will appreciate,

?2000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland, they would be

relatively out much better off if Scotland had been running its own

finances. -- that much. In all of that, he did not respond to the

question I asked! Which is, by his own figures... The First Minister

should also recall that his own Finance Secretary in his private

paper to his Cabinet confirmed that Scotland will have a larger deficit

than the rest of the UK by 2016. But of course, that was for private

consumption and not for the rest of us. Because if the First Minister

could put down his statistical Tommy gun and randomly spray out figures

for a question he was not asked, we might get somewhere. I have asked

him about two specific figures, quite simple, what Scotland pays

into the UK and what the UK pays out to Scotland. Can he confirm that

Scotland puts ?56.9 billion into the UK in tax as it states on page 598

of his own white paper? And can he confirm we get ?64.5 billion back,

as on page 68? These are his own figures! Can he confirm his own

figures are correct? And can he show that Scotland gets more back from

the UK than we put in. --? I am glad she has cited the white paper, is --

pages 72 to 76 shows Scotland 's fiscal position up to 2016, the

first year of independence will be stronger than that of the UK. I have

explained in the last four years, Scotland has run a deficit and that

is much lower than the deficit being run either UK as a whole. That means

we are in a stronger fiscal position -- by the UK. Our position has been

stronger over four years and we did not get the benefit of that as we

run from London. Some of the many remarkable statistics, Alistair

Darling combined with George Osborne, a combination that is quite

normal, between them, they borrowed more than every other UK Chancellor

in history! The UK borrowing has more than doubled in the period of

office of Alistair Darling and George Osborne, that is the extent

of UK borrowing. We would have been ?12 billion better off and I do not

say we could have spent all that money, although some of that would

have been very useful in the capital infrastructure of Scotland, it would

have been sensible to borrow less than the UK has done over four

years. It would have been a combination of borrowing less and

spending more, using that better position to power Scotland forward.

We have a smaller deficit over four years than the UK, that is beyond

doubt. Can she not see that translates to being in a stronger

fiscal position? And for the people of Scotland, they would have been

able to use Scotland 's massive resources to benefit the people and

economy of this country. That is an interesting sideline the

First Minister has now denied what John Swinney said in his own private

paper than -- that we would have a greater deficit by 2016. We should

not take lectures on economic is from a First Minister, -- economic

so. Even a Royal Bank of Scotland economist who said in this chamber

on November 20th, we get 9.3% of the spending but we raised 9.9% of the

revenue, 9.9% is greater than 9.3%! Even a primary school child could

tell you it depend on -- it depends on the percentage. Since the First

Minister embarked on his referendum campaign, he has been making

promises he claims he will deliver if Scotland votes yes. But his own

figures show there would be even less money to spend if Scotland

votes to go independent. In the real world, when we look at the figures,

when we talk in private as we do in public, that is a fact. Is it not

the truth that not only will the First Minister be unable to make

good on those promises, he will not even be able to deliver on what we

have right now? When she started this questioning, I

thought she understood but was making a political point. Now I

think she actually does not understand this point. 9.9%, as

every school child and perhaps former English teacher should know,

is greater than 9.3% and if you have 9.9% of the revenue... Order! If you

have 9.9% of the revenue and 9.3 for the spending, you are better off. If

it was the other way round, you would be worse off locally for

Scotland, we have generated 9.9% of revenue for 9.3% of spending, that

means we would have been running a smaller fiscal deficit than the rest

of the UK or we would have been in a stronger fiscal position. Being in a

stronger fiscal position than London is perhaps not too much, just about

every country in the world is in a stronger fiscal position, but it

does illustrate how we could have maintained spending as well as

borrowing glass over these critical years. But we cannot do anything

about the last four years. -- Aravind Glass. We can take the

lesson for the future because in every single one of these years when

we were in a better position than the UK and would have had freedom to

invest in the economy or to borrow less, the Tory and Labour parties

were telling people in Scotland have poorly. The figures demonstrate we

are relatively better off. -- how poor we are. Is it not time we

mobilised these resources to benefit the people of Scotland? Rita

Davidson. When will the First Minister next

meet the Secretary of State for Scotland?

No plans. On 26th of November, the white paper revealed the plans of

the SNP to jump the queue into Europe, it claims they can go

primarily through Article 48. A route no other state has used. On

December 12th, Nicola Sturgeon appeared before the European

external affairs committee and said on five separate occasions that

nobody had questions whether this was a valid legal route. Does the

First Minister stand by that? I am delighted she is on to this

point because it does allow me to cite what can only be described as

an impeccable source. That is the Guru of the better together

campaign. Their favourite academic Professor, Jim Gallagher. Looking in

particular at this question of whether Scotland would have an

accelerated position into the EU, maintaining its position, here is

what he says. It seems pretty likely that Scotland would be an EU member

state probably after an accelerated session of negotiations. Precisely

what the conditions of membership would beat is not quite so clear

though immediate requirements to join the euro can certainly be

avoided. If the professor is saying that, the Guru of the campaign, can

we not just accept that the burden of opinion favours the position

adopted by the government, as opposed to the position adopted by

the better together a Lions? I am glad he brings up European

writings, I would like to enter some of my own. Nicola Sturgeon also

said, if you want to quote people saying this is not a legal route, I

am happy to engage in this debate. I have a copy of a new submission by

the former director-general of the legal service of the UK Council tell

-- telling the committee, it would not be legally correct to use

Article 48 for the admission of Scotland as a member of the EU. I am

happy to put the submission into the public domain today so everyone can

see in black and white a leading European expert saying the SNP 's

plan is not lawful. The First Minister misled the Scottish public

on EU legal advice. Do That had been previously ruled on

before Christmas. I will correct the record by saying their First

Minister was an adjacent to the truth of what he said an EU legal

advice and in what he said in a written to Europe. So I must ask,

why should we believe anything he says on this subject? Well, let's

just say that Ruth Davidson will cite other authorities and I will

cite my authorities and we can have that argument. The significance of

Jim Gallagher's comments is not that he has had an opinion about is that

he is actually the star academic of the Better Together campaign. Just

as the significance of Professor James Crofton's comments that it

would be realistic that an 18 month timetable for Scotland to negotiate

its position within the EU is appropriate. That is what he says.

That has a particular significance not just because he is reported

academic because he was paid by the UK Government. What I say to Ruth

Davidson is the opinions I cite, and I know it is embarrassing for Jim

Gallagher now and Professor James Clough Road, these are significant

and important because I'm citing people in the Better Together

campaign and who are paid by the UK Government. I know it is difficult

for Jim Gallagher to be cots telling the truth because of his current

position, but if you can they say that, the reasonable position people

will adopt is that this is a profound and important contribution

to the debate. What is use will be discussed at the next meeting of the

Cabinet? Matters of importance to the people of Scotland. I want to

praise the Justice Secretary for acknowledging arguments made for the

abolition of corroboration and removing his position. The solution

he proposes is crackers. Can he think of another occasion when the

Government has said, pass this law and we will decide what to do later?

It is safe to vote for this because people fix it afterwards. Is he

expecting this Parliament to vote for this Bill now, a Bill that

abolishes the great legal safeguard, a Bill that is incomplete

and so bad that it will need fixed later? In the first half of that

question, Willie Rennie was continuing his theme of sweetness

and light and seeing the sense and accepting concessions when they are

offered. I thought the Justice Secretary had made some very

important points. Corroboration, we believe, and I think their support

from other parts of the chamber as well, should not be a general

principle. Why shouldn't it be? Because it prevents some cases

getting to court. It prevents people getting the day in court because of

the general rule of corroboration. That is an important thing to put

forward. But then to say that many people are concerned about

safeguards and the security of that change and therefore there could be

a study of that, it seems to me a genuine attempt to bring everyone

together. Perhaps Willie Rennie will get back to the first bit of his

question and accept that the Justice Secretary was doing his best by

putting forward the importance of not having that for the prosecution

authorities of Scotland. Therefore, the people of Scotland will not

getting justice from a general rule. It is a gesture to consider

safeguards that will satisfy an even wider canvas. The First Minister

knows I like to be reasonable when we agree. But for something so

fundamental to be dealt with in such a cack-handed fashion is something I

could never agree to. This has happened before. This Government

force through the centralisation of the police only for the Chief

Constable to recommend fresh legislation within months. The

Government tried to rush through its sectarianism Bill only to backtrack

within 20 minutes. Have we got to go through this again? A Justice

Minister dancing in circles, begging for ways to fix as Bill in the full

glare of the committee. Isn't that enough evidence to show the First

Minister that he has got it wrong on corroboration? What else does he

need? Let me make to serious points. Willie Rennie asks me if there were

previous examples. He has now cited what he thinks are two previous

examples. I am not sure how the first and second questions tie

together. Let's get to the substance of the issue. I want to bring this

chamber's attention to the case where some people, in this chamber,

some members not sitting far from Willie crane -- Willie Rennie Adam

on, wanted to know why an individual could not be prosecuted. That was

because of the rule of corroboration. That person demanded

to know why that was not possible and got an answer. That is the

difficulty of a general rule of corroboration. It means cases do not

get into court. That is the difficulty. It denies justice

potentially for many, many people in Scotland. The girly sex crimes,

women who cannot get access to justice. -- particularly sex crimes.

The Justice Secretary is doing exactly the right thing. What I

cannot take is people who demand to Nowak is cannot get to court and

then refuse to support proposals being put forward to sort out that

injustice. Being denied justice, as people are the present moment, is as

much, I say as much, and important issue as the miscarriage of justice.

If the Justice Secretary can bring forward proposals making sure people

have access to justice and satisfy people the danger of miscarriage of

justice can be alleviated and stopped, then surely that would be

something any reasonable person particularly the victims of crime

would want to this Parliament support. To ask the First Minister

what the Scottish Government's responses to the Treasury

announcement that it will honour all UK Government debt after the

independents represent -- independence referendum. The dead

parrot up by Alistair Darling and George Osborne, the legal

responsibility about it. There has finally been responsible approach to

this. Perhaps we have a trend here. We have this common-sense acceptance

of the points we have been putting forward for the last year by the

Treasury. Who knows, maybe that will spread to other areas of current

dispute, like the EU or other matters. Let's see this outbreak of

common sense and carry it forward. I thank you for his response and

reiterating Scotland is willing to take it she of UK debt and

liabilities. Will the First Minister join me in calling for the No

campaign to focus more on this common-sense approach specifically

regarding an optimal sterling currency area? Yes, I would. There

are substantial reasons. The point we put forward in the white paper

and reporters not to believe it is in the interest of Scotland, but it

is in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. I saw an opinion

poll in between Christmas and New Year which asked the people of the

UK the opinion, and there was an overwhelming majority of the rest of

the United Kingdom who believe that after Scotland was independent, it

would be common-sense to she as telling as a currency. To Government

debt. A new definition of pounds telling and Scottish Government

contracts with business now reassures contractors they will be

paid instilling in Scotland ends up with a different currency. The First

Minister is prepared to be a show business that they will be paid in a

stable currency, but will he give this same assurance to pensions

instilling being paid in the event of independence? Why should people

who have paid instilling into pensions over many years have their

pension devalued by Alex Salmond's new currency. The answer is yes,

because we're going to retain sterling as a currency. I would like

to ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's responses to

advice given by academics on tuition fees for students from EU countries.

I'm aware of course by claims being put forward. It should be noted they

are campaigning for a no vote, so perhaps these views are of no great

surprise. I am also aware crucially of the legal opinion provided to

university Scotland, our body, let's agree, of impeccable neutrality on

the concept of independence. It makes it clear that EU law makes

room for justification with exceptional circumstances. That is a

position we outline. Rather than side to side of the debate, if

you're citing one side of the debate like Jim Gallagher, only site

positions taken by neutral bodies, that must have some weight. I'm sure

he will want to deflect the man. Can I thank the first master for his

answer. I would ask him to clarify a more immediate and pressing

question. For more than three years now, his Cabinet Secretary for

Justice and has been trying to secure an arrangement whereby he can

try EU students studying at Scottish universities and recoup some of the

tens of millions of pounds this is cost the Scottish Government. Is he

still actively pursuing such a policy? We are looking at the

policy. The important aspect we recognise is that the policy we are

outlining in the white paper and of course was supported by the legal

advice given to University Scotland asks to set out a route whereby we

can retain free education in Scotland. You see, our objectives is

to maintain free education in Scotland. I know that is not the

objective of the Tory party, the Liberals went along with it in

England, and the Labour Party I think I'm now against free

cherishing for Scottish students. I think Johann Lamont wants to

introduce back door tuition fees. If Ken Mackintosh will accept, our

overwhelming priority, success noted by the wreck of the world Scottish

youngsters at Scottish universities last year, -- record number of

Scottish youngsters at universities in Scotland last year, we want to

make sure access to education is based on talent, not sure

cheque-book. It will the three under the SNP. If legal experts tied to be

correct and the Scottish Government would not be permitted to charge the

rest of the UK for student fees, could the First Minister say what

the annual Bill would be to Scottish taxpayers in light of the commitment

made in paragraph 236 of the white paper, saying there will be no cost

for tuition fees. They would continue with the present policy in

Scotland. Interestingly enough, I have been copied into a letter from

University Scotland to a newspaper saying they do not disagree with the

Scottish Government. They welcome the information in the white paper.

I would ask the member to cast her mind back to a couple of years ago

when the Conservative Party were telling us that the policy we were

pursuing of free education in Scotland would run into problems. I

see the member nodding. Does she not recognise that the Conservative

Party claimed universities in Scotland would be bankrupt and they

have been proved wrong? We are now in a fundamentally better position

than those south of the border. That policy that we pursued was said to

be untenable and is now shown to be wrong. Free education in Scotland is

what has taken place right now. If the Tory party were in control of

the Scottish Parliament, well, that'll be so not happen, but if

they were in power in Scotland, no doubt they would want to put an

imposition of ?9,000 or more on every Scottish student. Thankfully,

the SNP is in power in this Parliament, urges why tuition will

remain free under the SNP. -- which is why. To ask why the Scottish

Government will use the planning process for unconventional gas

production. As with all energy pro set -- energy projects, they will be

considered on merit is and in accordance with the jeans and

planning registration. That is the proper and you process. As a country

with enough oil to meet demand, many, many times over, it is

reasonable to proceed carefully on the undoubted opportunities that

there are four shale gas in Scotland. I thank him for his

answer. However, he does have form in using the planning policy in

controlling energy. He used it to prevent investment in new nuclear in

Scotland by threatening to use planning policy. And he has used it

to cover talks with wind turbines. As he mobilises resources, is he

going to avoid a spectacular hat-trick of own goals? Two things.

Firstly, as he should know, if he established an expert group last

September in terms of looking at the science and evidence -based approach

of fracking and unconventional gas, and October, we announced important

guidelines. We are making preparations to get security and

confidence to the people of Scotland about such resources will be

environment is safe and and a satisfactory manner. I kill the

contrast what is happening elsewhere. -- ie can only contrast.

George Osborne's father-in-law claimed last year that fracking was

OK for the desolate north-east of England. He then connected it by

saying it was OK for the desolate north-west of England. If the member

could manage on what that message conveyed to communities in the North

West and north-east of England. That is why I believe there is a lack of

confidence south of the border. If they are not careful, they will

spend more time in planning enquiries that they will actually

extracting gas. Far better to proceed on the scientific basis that

the Scottish Government is proving with planning legislation try not to

make sure any such development can be done in a responsible and safe

manner. Given that there is no direct link between the sight of

these developments and geological structures which give environmental

risk, surely there can be no safe offers on for such developments? The

only way to achieve environmental protection is for the first Minister

to say fracking has no place in Scotland. He will have noted the

comments of Friends of the Earth Scotland and WWF Scotland who give a

welcome to the Scottish Government's announcement. It seems

to me seldom that Patrick Harvie departs from these particular

important pressure groups. The point we put forward is reasonable.

Scientific analysis is important. I think that is an essential step. The

guidelines make sure it is fit for purpose and another source of

reassurance to people. It is a much, much better way to proceed. Or for

that case did... To say there is no chances being developed in a safe

and satisfactory way. Surely the approach taken by the Government is

a profoundly good way to proceed? That ends First Minister 's

questions. That is the close of boss Mister's questions. Substantial

exchanges there. It was enlivened by a very, very gutsy attack from

Willie Rennie of the Liberal Democrats on the subject of the

abolition of automatic corroboration requirements. A gutsy response from

the First Minister. It is time for me to say goodbye and to hand you

over to the Daily Politics. marriage was the big mistake of this

government, which I completely reject. Other people who do not seem

to understand the importance of engaging in a civilised dialogue on

immigration. I do not agree, I do not think it is possible for

Conservatives to go back on modernisation. I don't think those

Conservatives to go back on people committed to it have

retreated. Let the welcome our viewers from Scotland. We've been

joined by viewers in Scotland who have been watching First Minister's

Questions from Holyrood. Not only is it over, that none of these issues

are part of the modernisation agenda, partly the reason is it

failed. It failed to get an overall Tory majority. Your modernisation

agenda was essentially about appealing to the chattering classes

within three square miles of here, and came up