19/02/2014 Politics Scotland

Welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up on the programme: The UK Treasury

confirms that the Scottish Government is to be given the power

to issue its own bonds to raise finance on the international

markets. Unemployment has fallen in Scotland

again while employment has increased.

And a last-ditch effort at Holyrood to prevent what critics say is an

attempt to force a so-called State Guardian on every child.

Hello. The economy is taking centre stage again. Unemployment figures

show another fall. The chief secretary to the Treasury has been

in Edinburgh announcing that the Scottish Parliament will have the

power of bonds. If Scotland refused to pay its share of the debt and

independence, he warned there could be an extra ?5,000 a year extra on

home mortgage payments. In the event of a default, refusal to accept

debt, one bank has done the only detailed estimate out there, I

think. They have suggested that under those circumstances there

would be approved euros a premium of five basis points under that default

scenario. -- there would be a premium. And moving from bond rates

to mortgage rates that would be an estimated cost of ?5,200 on the

average mortgage in Scotland. So you see that none of these things are

certain. But you can see the range of possible financial risks that

come with borrowing under independence. But the Scottish

finance secretary hit back, saying it was not possible legally for an

independent Scotland to default on its debt as it belonged to the UK.

If anything, John Swinney argued, it was the rest of the UK facing

additional costs in liabilities of up to ?130 billion, if it did not

enter into a currency union. In the debate that has been ensuing over

the last few days, if we follow to the logical conclusion the position

that the United Kingdom Government has adopted by arguing for

successive state status, and the point that the Deputy First Minister

has made has been reinforced very powerfully this week by Professor

Christian Bale from the University of Edinburgh, who I will quote.

Legally under international law, the position is clear. If the remainder

of the UK keeps the name and status of the UK under international law,

it keeps its liabilities for the debt. The UK took out the debt and

legally it owes the money. Scotland cannot therefore default. What the

UK Government is walking into is the liability that would be increased by

up to ?130 billion, translating into an annual debt servicing cost of up

to ?4.5 billion. That is in my estimation a significant factor that

the United Kingdom Government would have to bear in mind in deciding

which stands to take in relation to the question of a currency union. I

am joined by Hamish McDonald. Welcome to the programme. Let's have

a quick look at the bonds, fairly dry subject. Essentially giving the

Scottish Government more powers to borrow. Yes. We have to look at this

in the context of the Scottish Government never being able to

borrow money on the international monetary markets, which has been a

bugbear for Holyrood. Alex Salmond has wanted that power for some

time. UK Government said that he can do it. It is important. It appears

to be technical but it is a symbolic change. It will allow the Scottish

Government to borrow an international money markets as the

Scottish Government. So it does not change what they can borrow but it

changes the way they can do it, which is symbolically important.

Danny Alexander was here in Scotland to talk about the bonds but it has

become a bit of a live round about what Scotland's finances might be

under independence. He was talking about ?5,200 extra for Scottish

mortgage payers. What are those figures telling us? I think that

Danny Alexander came up here with a point to make. He knew the story

would not be the dry story about bonds if he could make it, -- if he

could help it, so he has come up with that headline figure. If an

independent Scotland defaults on the liabilities it would get from the UK

Government, then that would be passed on down the line to

homeowners in terms of increased mortgage costs. He is basically

saying that Scotland as a whole would find it much more difficult to

borrow money on the money markets and would have to pay higher

interest rates, which would be passed on to mortgage holders,

giving the average mortgage holder ?5,000 extra to find every year.

That is a great headline figure and that is where the argument now is.

It is something that the SNP Government of course object to. John

Swinney hit back. He said that Scotland would not be defaulting on

its debt because it is not Scotland's debt to default on. It is

the UK's debt. Now we are getting into the realms of international

law. If you break up a country and you have a successor state that

stays the same and part of that that breaks away, you then have to get

into the realms of which part of that state takes on which bits. John

Swinney's argument is that if the UK wants to beat that successor state,

it takes on all those liabilities and as such Scotland does not

default on anything. If Scotland does not default, it has nothing to

pay and no penalties in terms of increased interest rates. Let's move

on to the economy in general. There has been some better news. Danny

Alexander's boss is George Osborne, the Chancellor, and they will be

pleased to see jobless numbers falling by 3000. As will John

Swinney. We are seeing these figures every Wednesday in every month, and

a good fall every month. Very much so. If you go back a few years, we

had very poor figures, unemployment rising and employment going down.

Both the Scottish Government and the UK Government were blaming the other

for what was going wrong. Now you have the reverse, good news, and

each Government is trying to claim the credit. We will be back with you

later. Thank you. The Children and Young People Bill

is reaching the final stage at Holyrood and we will go to the

chamber live to listen to that debate later. Glen Campbell spoke to

MSPs about the issue. They are trying to derail plans for a

so-called guardian for every Scottish child. This is a

wide-ranging bill that perhaps helps to explain why MSPs are going to be

talking about it up until eight tonight when they take the final

vote. It extends the access to free childcare in Scotland for three and

four -year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds. It brings in free

school meals for the earliest years of primary school. It will also mean

that children in care can have access to care right up until the

age of 21. One of the more controversial aspects of the

legislation is that it will create a named Guardian system. A single,

named individual, looking out for each and every child in the country.

That is controversial and we will come to it in more detail in a

moment. Let's discuss the bill more generally with a panel of

politicians on the four main political parties. Stewart Maxwell,

this package, what is it intended to do? The bottom line is that we are

trying to create a system where in Scotland we have children who have

the opportunity to grow up into confident adults so that Scotland is

the best place in the world for children to grow up and provide

support for families to make sure there is a support mechanism in

place or families even in the most difficult circumstances that they

may find themselves in. Expanding childcare so that mothers can go

back to work if they wish. Basically making a rounded situation where

their rights for children, responsibilities for families, but

also at the bottom line putting children and families at the heart

of what we do. By and large, Labour is on site. Where do you have

problems? We will be voting for this tonight. We have tried to make it

better around areas including childcare and care leavers. We have

had some success including delivering around two-year-olds. The

criticism is that the bill does not go far enough. It is a missed

opportunity and it misses out on ambition. There is nothing about out

of school care for kids. Families need childcare that reflects the

realities of their lives and many parents will wonder what this does

for them. In terms of extending childcare as far as you might like,

among the Liberal Democrats, the SNP need the powers of independence to

go that far. This bill shows that we can do an awful lot with the powers

that we already have. I really welcome this bill and the expansion

of childcare. We are catching up with the rest of the United Kingdom

for two-year-olds and four-year-olds as well. As a liberal, I am

enthusiastic about young children getting a great education from very

early years to get the best out of life. Catching up on the rest of the

UK, and not going as far as you could with the powers and resources

that you do have access to. That is not what directly guys this bill is

doing. We are looking at expanding childcare. Parents can then get the

childcare they need. We are also expanding it up to 27% of all

two-year-olds which is a major change for people in Scotland and I

think it should be welcomed. Let's deal with the issue of the named

guardian. You are concerned about this proposal, Liz Smith. I do not

accept that all youngsters want or need a named person. Secondly, by

making its universal, we are diluting resources away from our

most vulnerable children. That is the part of the bill that we have

reservations about. We do support other aspects of the bill, from the

point of view of childcare improvements and changes to school

closures and kinship carers and care leavers. That is good news in this

bill but I'm asking the Government to have a major rethink when it

comes to the named person. Could this have unintended consequences,

not least in terms of the financial implications of this system? We took

a cautious approach to this. We had to be convinced at the beginning

that it was the right thing to do. From our experience in the Highland

region, they found it was a pragmatic step to take, having a

person named as responsible within the state system, and it worked well

and made it much more simple. It needs to be financed properly. We

were courses at the beginning and now we are convinced. Isn't it worth

trying it if it protects vulnerable children that have fallen between

two stalls. -- two stools? I agree that we need better integration of

the Government proposals. That is why they have been successful. But I

certainly don't accept that we need a named person for every child.

Could this be open to legal challenge? You can have legal

opinions for and against many situations. The problem here is the

Scottish Government's failure to make the case for its own policy. We

don't have the minister here with us. There is a lot of misconception

and misunderstanding about what the named person means. Campbell could

have helped herself by coming out earlier to define that. This is

interfering in family life. I don't believe that is the case but it is

up to the Scottish Government to argue why this is a good thing and

they have made life hard for themselves by not doing so. Why

don't we -- do we need a named individual? Isn't it the job of

parents? Of course but some parents need additional support. In some

cases there are vulnerable families where the state has to intervene and

asked to help. Then children have to be protected or they may

unfortunately be abused. So we need support in place. The reason it have

to be universal, of course, if we take this analogy, if you have an

insurance policy on your house it is not because you expect something

terrible but just in case. It will be there when it is needed as

additional support, for when children are in vulnerable

situations. Vast majority of families will never come across this

person. That says it all. We have had this from several SNP members at

various debates that it is not necessary. So why are we having it

for a universal system when we could be devoting our scarce resources

towards vulnerable children? If you are not using the system, no

resources are required. This Parliament unanimously rubbished it.

That is not true. Of course they have got concerns. They were quite

right to express those concerns about their minimum amount required

to make sure individuals were properly trained. The minister has

dealt with that. I am confident that we are now in the right place. OK,

but briefly, why are carers demonstrating outside the

Parliament? They are angry and they have every right to be because SNP

Government has let them down. They were given money to fix the postcode

lottery in Scotland for carers. They had the chance to fix it and they

didn't. These people have tremendous value in society and I don't know

why the Scottish Government wouldn't make sure everyone in Scotland has

the same amount of money to reflect the advantages of them.

A postcode lottery? No, additional support and a review going on. Now,

parents get more support than they ever did under the previous

administration. Let us go live to the chamber at

Holyrood to hear some of that debate.

I think we are just... Amendment 128. Yes, 56. No, 55. The amendment

is not agreed. Move or not move? Not move. That is the presiding officer

that they're just taking some of the amendments to the bill. I am still

joined here by a Hamish Macdonell. No, we will hear to the Minister.

consistent with the legislation. The text in part three of the bill was

drafted on the basis that local authority and health board

boundaries are currently not aligned. To assure they would cover

each local authority area, they were required to join each area. However,

in the light of the recent decision to bring forward left -- secondary

legislation, amendments are now required to part three of the bill.

The National Health Service variation of areas health board will

make the changes with effect from the 1st of April. Amendment 50 fine

- defined amends the definition of relevant health board to reflect the

changes associated. References in part three... That is the effect of

amendments 56 to 58. I asked the chamber supports the amendments in

my name. Many thanks. The question is that Amendment 55 B agreed to.

Are we agreed? We are. Move or not move? Move. The question is that the

amendment be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not so there will therefore

be a division. Please cast your -- cast your votes now.

They are voting on one of the amendments. I'm joined here by the

-- in the studio by Hamish Macdonell, the political

commentator. Let us look at some of the issues we were looking at. The

so-called named Guardian that each child in Scotland will have. It is a

fairly controversial measure and the Conservatives are picking up on

this, aren't they? They are because of the so-called nanny state nanny.

Every young individual would have someone named to look after them.

There is no one around who thinks that is not a good thing for

vulnerable children, but the point the Conservatives are making, and I

think they have a point here, is that it is a bit like a sledgehammer

and a nut. Why is every single individual going to get a named

person to look after them when the people you want targeted are small.

Why don't the resources, if they are there to be spent, be focused on

those who are really most vulnerable rather than having a huge universal

system which cuts across the job that parents feel they should be

doing? Well, let us return to the chamber and see some of the debate

now. Minister to move. Moved. Thank you.

The question is that the Amendment 56 B agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. We

are. Move or not move the next Amendment? Move. Thank you.

Amendment 57 in the name of the Minister. Minister? Moved. Thank

you. The question is that Amendment 57 B agreed. Are we agreed? Yes.

Thank you. He is just marshalling some of the

amendments. One more point, Hamish, to pick up on. The childcare issue

we were speaking about. It is promising extra childcare provision

in the bill, but it was interesting to hear what Willie Rennie was

saying with it being such an important issue in the referendum

debate so far. He was saying we could do a lot more. But childcare

is a fundamental provision and a fundamental part of the bill? As

with everything in Scottish politics, you haven't got to look

far before you come to the independence debate. Back in

November, there was a big part of the White Paper where Alex Salmond

and Nicola Sturgeon said that if independents come -- comes, there

will be a big change in childcare. The opposition said, why not do it

now? This is the sort of bill which would allow them to bring forward

that revolution in childcare which they promised under independence. So

there is an independent side to this and the Scottish Government could go

further. They argue they haven't got the money or resources to do so but

independents, as usual, underlies pretty much everything.

Benefit applicants with long-term health conditions have been

complaining to MSPs about the problems they face when trying to

qualify for welfare payments. One said the process made her feel like

a "scrounger". They were speaking to the Welfare Reform Committee.

I worked for the Department for Work and Pensions until 2007 when it

became impossible for me to continue. My health had become too

bad and I had to take long-term sick leave. In 2012I received forms to

change in capacity barely forms to change incapacity benefit to aim --

unemployment support allowance. Filling in the forms was quite

difficult. I struggled even with my working background and it must be

even more horrendous for people with little experience of the system. The

forms are only suitable for illnesses which are straightforward

and consistent. They are not designed to deal with fluctuating

conditions such as multiple sclerosis which I suffer from. Being

made to feel like a stranger by having to virtually begged for

benefits from a system I paid into for many years is horrid. I

certainly never chose to have health problems but the way people are

dealt with now, you have to justify being ill. Service users are angry

they are subjected to distressing and stressful process when they are

cleanly -- clearly unfit to work. The process causes deterioration in

mental health. I am a polio survivor and I am 54. Unfortunately, I know

suffer from... Sorry. Suffering the effects of another syndrome. While

you're working you were thinking that you paid into the system. Just

in case anything did happen and the safety net would be there. What you

think of the situation now, having paid into a system and finding it is

not there for you at the moment? Angry. It reflects back again. The

Department for Work and Pensions was happy to go along with the diagnosis

until my contributions ran out. Then, all of a sudden, it is, let us

get this one back to work now. It felt like that was the attitude. I

feel really let down. I felt years working for the DWP and now I need

them, I am having to fight for everything. I feel let down and I

feel like they are treating me like a stranger. I promise I didn't

choose to have all these health conditions, but I feel like they

think I did. I am seeing more people now, as the

employment situation tightens, they are the ones they seem to get rid of

first, the Deadwood, as they might be described. The ones who are now

suddenly cast addressed. Maybe one day they were talking about

following the media 's reputations -- representations of these

"scroungers" than they are now finding themselves been treated in

that way. On top of the problems they have withheld, the stigma of

losing your job and thrown into this causes huge problems. I don't know

if there is any follow-up done, but I know there have been several

deaths of people who have committed suicide or who have just given up,

overdosed - maybe not deliberately dashed but trying to escape stigma

and the hardship they are going through. I would love to see if

anyone was actually following that up to see how many people have died

following, specifically following their experience of the benefit

system. That was some of the welfare reform

committee yesterday. I am still joined by Hamish Macdonell. Hamish,

we were watching the committee there and we heard the permit -- the

people speak. Welfare reform has been a very controversial aspect of

the UK coalition governments work over the past four years, hasn't it?

It has perhaps been the one issue which has given the biggest fault

line there is between the Scottish Government and the UK Government and

pretty much between Scottish political opinion and Westminster.

Labour and the Lib Dems are pretty much on board with the SNP in

opposition to the bedroom detached -- tax and the austerity measures

which have really squeezed the welfare budget. That has led to a

big divide between Scotland and England and the respective

governments and I cannot see that changing.

We are just hearing about the Children and Young People's Bill.

They are just voting on some of those amendments. We will bring some

of the debate. In some ways, when you look at the so-called bedroom

tax, is there some way that the UK Government could have tried to

introduce these reforms without attracting that kind of opprobrium

from their opponents? It is possible, but you get the

suspicion it was politically driven. As far as the conservative end of

the UK Government was concerned, they wanted to be seen to be doing

something. That is towards what some people describe as, scroungers. If

they wanted the political edge, there was nothing else they could

have done but having the edge means you get political opposition which

is what they have run into. MSPs been voting on the amendments

so let us get back into the chamber and try to hear some of the debate.

I now call amendment 145. Not move. Thank you. Amendment 60 in the name

of the Minister. Thank you. The question is Amendment 60 be greeted?

Yes. We are. Amendment 146. Not moved. Thank you. Amendment 147. Not

moved. Thank you. Amendment 61 in the name of the Minister. Moved. I

we agree to Amendment 61? We are. Thank you. Amendment 148. Not moved.

Amendment 149. Moved not? Not moved. Thank you. Amendment 60 two, 63 and

64. In the name of the Minister and previously debated. En bloc, please.

Moved on bloc. Does any member object? As no one does, the question

is that amendments 62 to 64 are agreed. Yes. Thank you. Amendment

151. Move or not? Not move. Thank you. Amendment 152. Moved or not?

Not moved. Amendment 153? Not moved. 154? Not moved. 155?

Not moved. They are still looking at some of the amendments there. We are

trying to bring you some of that debate but it is the rather

procedural stuff at the moment on the amendments. We will try to see

if we can bring you that later. Westminster is in recess, so no

PMQs, but our correspondent is with two guests to discuss how the

independence debate has played out over the last week. Thank you. This

place behind me is emptier than usual because MPs and peers are way

that I can assure you that Her Majesty's press is still

representing itself at Westminster, manfully manning the posts. Or

perhaps I should say womanly. Let me explain. Joining me from the Herald

newspaper, Kate Devlin. We operate down here at Westminster. We think

there is a feeling among our colleagues that do not always deal

with Scotland, that Scotland has suddenly become very interesting. It

is suddenly on everybody's radar and there are a couple of reasons for

it. Number 10 and the Treasury have stepped up their campaign against

Scottish independence in the last couple of weeks. Interestingly, one

of the reasons for that is actually to do with the new governor of the

Bank of England, Mark Carney. I understand that they had to wait

until he was in the job for long enough to do an analysis about

currency, so they could come up with what they said last week. Is

intervention was very important. Last week, something that most

people did not expect to come in the way. The Chancellor saying to

Scotland, if you vote for independence, you lose the pound.

And lop and behold Ed Balls, who does not even agree with the

Chancellor on the time of day, and Danny Alexander coming out, both

saying the same thing. This shows how much this is a cross-party

attack. The parties have realised that this is high risk and there can

be a backlash. I understand that number ten are preparing for the

backlash. They understand that there might be a bit of an increase for

the yes campaign in opinion polls that we see this weekend. They are

prepared for that and they say it is fine. The messages of an increase

for the yes campaign in opinion polls that we see this weekend. They

are prepared for that and they say it is fine. The message is they

think those messages will take some time to get through to people and in

a few weeks time they will see benefits in the opinion polls. The

Scottish Government equally resolute saying it is our pound as well. If

we want to use it, we will. Can you see wriggle room for either side?

The Scottish Government seems to be opening up a number of different

flanks on this. Yes, they are saying there is no plan B, but they are

suggesting that the Council of economic advisers goes back to look

at things. It seems that they want their message of reassurance that

they will be able to get through to Scottish voters in some way. On

another flank, Nicola Sturgeon gave a speech last week. Alex Salmond

will be giving a speech in London in a couple of weeks. There seems to be

an effort to appeal to UK public opinion, in some ways to save

perhaps, why are your politicians being so mean and bullying Scotland?

-- to say. The one thing politicians listen to as public opinion. Nicola

Sturgeon and Alex Salmond both said that if you say we cannot be part of

a currency union, we will go ahead and meet the debts that we might

have. In terms of financial markets, that is all a risky strategy. It is

quite risky. One thing that Number 10 on some of the prounion

campaigners would quite like to see is what the market reaction to this

is. If MSPs come out and say it will affect their ratings that an

independent Scotland will get... Whether that happens or not remains

to be seen. And another thing is banks starting to come out and being

a bit more open about what they see their future as in an independent

Scotland. They have traditionally been reluctant about that so whether

they do so remains to be seen. UK Treasury has said to the Scottish

Government, yes, you can go ahead in the future to pursue your own bonds

to raise money on international markets, but we think it will cost

you more in interest rates. Yes. That is something that the Scottish

Government insists quite the opposite on. They think they can get

a cheaper rate. It is a bit more of a squeeze, basically. A continuing

ratcheting up of this issue. In some ways it is one way to keep the

currency and economy issues in the news and in the minds of voters.

Kate Devlin, thank you for joining us this afternoon. The MPs and the

peers may be a way, Andrew, but all things Scottish, the currency,

borrowing, and the whole situation about whether an independent

Scotland can get into the EU or not, it is all very much exercising the

politicians at Westminster and will do so, I think it is fair to say, up

until referendum day. Thank you. Nicola Sturgeon has said it would be

an absolute affront to democracy for Scotland to be denied independent

membership of the European Union if there is a yes vote in the

referendum. She was responding yesterday to the

referendum. She was responding yesterday to a topical question

raised at Holyrood on the recent comments about an independent

Scotland's EU member ship. The decision on Scottish independence is

for the Scottish people on the decision about continuing membership

of the European Union will be for the member states. These are not

decisions for the European Commission. Of course no member

state has said that it would seek to veto Scotland's continuing

membership. It would be against the interests not just of Scotland but

the entire European Union for Scotland to be outside of that

union. It would also be contrary to the founding principles of the

European Union for Scotland to be excluded just because Scots had

exercised the democratic right to self-determination. What is now

clear to everyone is that Scotland can only join the EU as an

independent member state by negotiation and by agreement of the

other member states. We know that the process of negotiation may be

difficult and even if the Scottish Government does not always get its

own weight when it negotiates, up for... Can we get a question? Can I

ask the Deputy First Minister one very direct and simple question?

What will be Alex Salmond's Red Line? Is the Scottish Government

ruling out signing any access entreaty that contains any clause

committing Scotland to European membership at any time in the

future? Scotland has been in the European Union for 40 years. We have

complied with EU law for 40 years. We have contributed to the EU for 40

years. The suggestion is that simply as a result of exercising our

democratic right to self-determination, we would find

ourselves outside. Not only is there no basis for that in the European

treaties or in common-sense or in the interests of the wider EU or

indeed in any thing a member state has actually said, it would in fact

be an absolute affront to democracy and against the founding principles

of the European Union. I would have thought that any Democrat, any

Democrat, yes or no, would have found that to be completely and

utterly unacceptable. That was Nicola Sturgeon speaking in the

chamber yesterday. I am joined once again here in the studio by Hamish

Macdonnell. Barroso said the cat among the pigeons on Sunday morning

on the Andrew Marr Show. He has been criticised by supporters of

independence. When he speaks, on whose authority is he speaking, do

you think? He is speaking on behalf of the European Commission. People

would say that is not necessarily the best democratic body there is.

But he is one of the people, one of the very few people within the

European structures, who you really feel should know what they are

talking about. He is right at the top. Not the top bureaucrat, but

right at the top of the European pyramid. Though as such, what he

says carries weight. I think Herman Van Rompuy backed him up again today

to a certain extent, supporting what Barroso was talking about. Whatever

Barroso says about Scotland and the EU have to be taken seriously

because there are very few other people with more authority and

weight than him. We were watching Alistair Darling on Sunday saying

that it would not be plain sailing, I think were his words, for Scotland

to gain European membership. Of course people like Nicola Sturgeon

are arguing against that, saying Scotland has been a member of the

European Union for 40 years and it is only perhaps right that it does

regain its place very quickly, if it does become independent. She has a

point because Scotland has been inside the European Union for the

past 40 years but Scotland has not been a member, a member state, the

European Union for 40 years. Scotland has been part of another

member state, the UK. She is right to say that all Scottish laws are

compliant with the EU and we have been putting money in and taking it

out and we are within the system, but Scotland has never been a member

state. While that is all correct, Barroso is absolutely right to say

that it have to be ratified, the membership application have to be

ratified by the other 28 members. That is where you might come into

problems. Each one of those member states will have their own views,

political manoeuvrings that they want to do to try and get

advantage. Any one of them, up to half a dozen even, could veto

Scottish membership to extract something else from the EU. The

problem is that our fate would rest in the hands of so many others. That

was his key point, essentially. He brought up the example of Spain

which has its independence movements in Catalonia and the Basque

country. He said that Spain had not wanted Kosovo to join the European

Union. Of course that meant that supporters of independence were

upset. They said Scotland was being prepared to Kosovo. Was he doing

that, do you think? Was it an example of Spain's problem? I think

some nationalists were deliberately seizing on that, saying Scotland is

not like Kosovo, but that was not what he was saying. He was not

comparing Spain to Scotland. He was saying it is an example of one

country having its own agenda and stopping another country's cause. He

did not say Scotland was like Kosovo in the first place. The comments

came out on Sunday and on Monday Alex Salmond made a keynote speech

which led all the headlines on Monday evening about the plans for a

sterling zone postindependence. He is clear that he will press on with

the pound. We are in a strange situation where the UK Government

has said that if you vote yes, you cannot join the sterling zone. And

they have said if you vote yes, they will change their mind and we will

give you no plan B. Voters have been crying out for certainty all over

Scotland for years and I can't see that the UK Government can be more

definite than it has been. It has said that he will not be able to get

into a sterling zone and you need a plan B. Nobody has come up with plan

B just yet. It is a difficult situation and we do have certainty

up to a point but we still do not have answers. Answers will probably

come after the referendum. It will be interesting to see how people

feel. We will see that in the opinion polls in the next few weeks.

Do people feel bullied by what Alex Salmond was saying? Do they have

concerns about the pound in their pocket? One of the things George

Osborne was trying to do was to polarise debate. There is a group of

undecided people in the middle and both sides want them to make up

their minds. So George Osborne was definite uncertain and some will not

like that approach and they will go towards the yes camp. But there will

be others frightened off by the thought of not having the pound

after independence, and they will go to no camp. The breakdown of where

those people go, we don't know and we will not know until we get

polling figures in the next month. Do you think the opinion polls will

reflect that in the next month? Yes, some will go towards no and some

towards yes. Thank you for joining us on the programme. That is all we

have time for. We are back at our usual time next week, 2:30pm, on BBC

Two. Thank you for your company. Goodbye for now.