21/08/2014 Politics Scotland

Parliament. We would normally be in recess, but things are a bit

different at the minute with the event on the team dominating

everything. So, lots of questions I am sure to the First Minister. Maybe

questions about the oil deposits. Let's see. Let's cross over to the

chamber. John Swinney is on his feet at the

moment and he is taking a question about a backbench MSP on labour

market statistics. The energy minister has already been dealing

with the issue of oil and the economics of oil and weather there

are vast reserves remaining. We are moving to first ministers -- First

Minister's Question Time now. A round of applause for the First

Minister of Malawi. We now move to First Minister's Questions. Joanne

Lamont. What engagements does he have planned for the rest of the

day. Engagements to take forward the government's programme for Scotland.

The First Minister and I can agree on two things, Sir Ian Wood is the

pre-eminent expert on North Sea oil and he does not have much time for

politicians. Yesterday he reluctantly entered the referendum

debate saying he did so as a father and grandfather and saying he did

not want future generations to ask why he stayed silent. He warned that

the Scottish Government had overestimated oil and gas production

by between 45% and 60%. He warned that tax revenue -- tax revenue had

been overestimated by 2,000 million pounds a year. Is he right

question? I hope we can agree on more than two things. We agreed just

two weeks ago that Scotland had the potential to be a prosperous

independent country. Let me agree that Ian Wood is an authority on

North Sea oil and gas. He is not the only authority, of course. I think

what he has to say on matters should be considered carefully. Can I point

out that the figure that I have often quoted of up to 24 billion

barrels of oil and gas equivalent remaining in the North Sea is not

the Scottish Government figure, it was the figure that the industry

produced and has produced for a number of years. I think it is a

robust figure. It shows the extraordinary potential that remains

in the water around Scotland if the policies pursued to make sure that

these resources work with the Scottish people. There are two

things. The First Minister recognised that he is an authority

but if he says something he doesn't want to hear he simply ignores it.

That is not good enough. Secondly, I would have imagined that Sir Ian

Wood new what the First Minister said about these figures and is

offering a critique that we must address. He has rightly praised him

in the past and it is for the public to judge away the First Minister

disagrees with him now. He said, relevance to the independent debate

is how long gas and oil production will last. He said, young voters

must be fully aware that by the time they are middle aged Scotland will

have little offshore oil and gas production and this will seriously

hit our economy, jobs and public services. Can the First Minister

tell our children and grandchildren why Sir Ian Wood was wrong to give

them that warning question mark my headline message for the youth of

today, get involved. The North Sea oil industry will see you through

your lifetime. That was Sir Ian Wood in 2012. Yes, he is an authority and

he has been foremost in pointing out the future potential of the oil and

gas province. Today on the radio he said, and I think he was right to do

so, this was Sir... He said he had spoken to Alistair Kemp in the last

few days and he felt that the figure of 15 billion barrels was an

appropriate estimate. Incidentally, that compares with the estimate of

10 billion over the next 30 years by the old BR, which is 60% higher than

the one offered by the agencies of Her Majesty's government. He said he

had been speaking to Professor Kemp over the last few days. I consulted

his website, at the University of Aberdeen. Professor Alex Kemp have

modelled this. He puts forward projections and says that if targets

and tax incentives were introduced, it would last until 2050 and it

could go up to 16 billion barrels of oil equivalent. It is available on

the University of Aberdeen website that there is potential for further

developments after 2050. They find that that there would be 125 known

existing discoveries remaining undeveloped with further progress

and oil prices... It finishes, the ultimate potential of 24 billion

barrels of oil equivalent foreseen by oil and gas UK appears plausible.

We have a point of agreement. 16.5 William barrels up to 2050 and up to

24 billion barrels as the total value of oil. That is a lot of

billions of barrels and Scotland should welcome it. That will give a

lot of confidence to people who are worrying about the future. Obviously

the First Minister said he listened to Sir Ian Wood, he didn't hear or

he wilfully refused to hear what he was saying. You should reflect on

the fact that he said he felt obliged to intervene in this debate

because he was frustrated at being misrepresented and misquoted. That

is an example, a hallmark of a First Minister's approach to persuading

people to support his lifelong elliptical project, say whatever has

to be said to get out the moment but ignore the substance of the

arguments. In his warning, Sir Ian Wood envisaged far from an

independent Scotland exporting energy to the rest of the United

Kingdom, Scotland having to import from the rest of the United Kingdom.

He said, this pre-eminent expert said, unfortunately, I think

Scotland will also -- lose out on renewables. He added of the oil

industry, most operators... This is about the future of our country. Not

the future of your political project. He added, most operators

would feel more confident if Scotland was to remain part of the

UK. I ask him again, why was Ian Wood wrong to say that in the

interests of children, our grandchildren and the generations to

come question mark I have already pointed out that he is on the record

saying that the North Sea industry would see the youth of Scotland

through the lifetime, the oil reserves. She said I am misquoting

Ian Wood. I have the transcript of the dead this morning. I spoke to

Alex Kemp two or three times recently and he is clear up a few

that 16.5 billion barrels is the right sort of range. That is exactly

the point I was making. Yes, Alec Kemp said 16.5 billion up to 2050.

He goes on to say it would be up to 24 billion if you take the reserve.

This poor benighted country of Scotland with only 16.5 billion of

oil up to 2015, worth ?1 trillion in wholesale value over that period, or

if we go only 1.5 trillion, this poor benighted country visited with

a great curse of 15 barrels -- 15 billion barrels of oil. Every other

country in the world would give their teeth first such as

substantial resource. Bass for such a substantial remorse. Incidentally,

having 25% of the offshore renewable energy potential of the continent of

Europe, that is also an asset, not a disadvantage for an independent

Scotland. This is not a benighted country. It is a wonderful country

that deserves not to have its intelligence insulted by that kind

of response. It is not a debating point between me and the First

Minister, it is what the senior person in the oil industry is saying

about the future of our country. Let's review the record over the

last two years. The First Minister said he would get legal advice. That

wasn't true. Order. It has been established that that was not true.

John Swinney said he was in discussions with the Bank of England

on a currency union. That wasn't true. Nicola Sturgeon told the SNP

conference in April that under devolution the NHS in Scotland could

not be privatised. That is true, but now Alex Salmond says it isn't.

Border! We will get through this a lot quicker if the applauding and

jeering.. This at your last question, will you just get to it.

Let me hope and optimism you will get an answer to the question.

Scotland's greatest oil expert says that independence would be bad for

Scotland and he is derided why his First Minister. Alex Salmond doesn't

have a plan B on currency, on Europe or oil. It is the case that Scotland

is not trust Alex Salmond because he is the mild without a plan. Can I

just put on the record that Sir Ian Wood as I said in the answer is at

respected authority, as is Alex Kemp and the range of experts like Sir

Donald Mackay who have analysed the figures and produce their own

estimates which are very similar indeed the predictions --

projections of the Scottish Government. They say that the

Treasury is missing out a fortune in black gold. It is an industry

estimate. It has been used by many, many people. It was pointed out that

the 16 billion barrels is up to 2,000 and eight and Alex Kemp says

there is more to come and the 24 billion looks entirely plausible. On

the question of the health service, if she can't bring herself to agree

with me what about agreeing with Unison the union question mark

revolution means they can't run down and privatise our NHS directly from

London the way they are doing in England. What they can do is starved

of resources. They are cutting back on the money provided to the

Scottish Government and putting the Scottish budget under credit. That

is the union. Then there is the question about who is to blame for

what. I was cited by Ian Davidson's comments of this week. He identified

that Labour's failure was the reason for the SNP success and spoke out.

The reason why the SNP has done so well is more to do with the failures

of the Labour Party, the lack of modernisation, the SNP have become

what the Labour Party should have been. His argument was that Scottish

voters moved from Glasgow to the new towns of Scotland, many of them

became SNP supporters. They didn't want the politics of Labour.

Davidson against Johann Lamont then the reality is that the Labour Party

in Scotland do not have a first plan, never mind a second plan.

Order, order. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the

prime minister. No plans in the near future. Sir Ian Wood is is the most

respected as must figure in the North Sea oil industry. For nearly

three years in this debate he has kept his own counsel and has stayed

studiously neutral. He said yesterday he had no wish to get

involved. I have just heard everything that the First Minister

has teamed trying to deflect. But I am asking him why does he think Sir

Ian Wood now feels compelled to speak out? He wanted to clarify that

his opinion was that while reserves... Were between 16 and 17

billion. That was his estimate and I think that is based on the forecasts

of Professor Alan Kemp. He points out today that that applies up to

2050. There are all wheels on the West Coast that will produce beyond

2050. The professor has identified over 100 oil discoveries that are

not in the calculations. Industry figures believe that the overall

value in terms of reserves of oil, is up to 24 billion, the industry

estimate. UK oil and gas individual companies, here a briefing from BP.

41 billion barrels produced to the end of 2012. Potentially 27th bingo

barrels -- potentially 27 billion barrels more. If major companies are

saying 27, can she not ring herself to realise that whether it is 27

billion beyond 2050, that is many billions of barrels of oil and in

wholesale terms, that is worth trillions of pounds. Every country

in the world would believe that is an enormous asset. Why do she

believe it is an extraordinary liability? With all due respect,

that is not why Sir Ian Wood says he felt the need to speak out. He has

no world is left to conquer, he is not trying to win votes. He simply

wants the Scottish people to know the facts before they make and

irreversible decision. Throughout this debate, the First Minister has

twisted facts and ducked hard truths. He has closed his ears to

anything that does not fit his lifelong obsession of independence.

But not everyone out there is like that. People want to know what is

best for their children and their grandchildren. Can he not just have

the decency, even at this late stage, to concede the points made

that young voters must be fully aware that by the time they are

middle aged, Scotland will have little offshore oil and gas

production and this will seriously hit the economy, jobs and public

services? Will he not concede that point? I think if she checks the

record she will know that the Prime Minister has not said that. I

already read out the call by Sir Ian Wood who said that someone could

enter the oil industry and the North Sea would last them their lifetime.

Do not misquote. This an important argument. Order, order. When we get

to the position that the professor is sided as the person relied upon

in terms of forecasting, and in his forecast today, he points out there

is 125 known existing discoveries which in his estimate will still be

underdeveloped in 2050. The fields will produce beyond 2050, can she

not admit this is a long-term business? She will know that in the

past, major figures in Westminster have now admitted they rather

underestimated the significance of oil and gas. Denis Healey, we

underplayed the value of the resource. It was part of the normal

pattern to question the value of the resource. Given the track record of

Westminster, isn't it was above that her government with their 10 billion

barrel estimate over the next 30 years are doing exactly the same

thing. Given the evidence of the last 40 years, I think most people

in Scotland will say let's get the turn of using natural resources for

the benefit of the Scottish people! Question number three. Duncan

McNeil. I ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will ensure

that the future of ship holding on the Clyde? I met with shop stewards

and I have spoken to them again this morning. I will visit the shipyards

to speak to employees and I will reiterate our commit them to the

future of the yard and employment. As Duncan McNeill knows, a

multi-agency task force has been convened and is due to have its next

meeting on Monday. I assure everyone in this chamber the government is

doing and will do everything within its power to ensure continuation of

ship holding on the Clyde. -- shipbuilding. I thank him for his

response and I am sure he is encouraged by the number of letters

that have already declared an interest. That demonstrates, quite

clearly, confidence in the yard and its workforce and that will be good

news for the people of Glasgow and the Inverclyde community. We all

express a serious regret that a yard with such potential was allowed to

close. That was brought about by the failure of an asset management

company to place orders for ferries. Can we get a question, please? It is

the stated position of the government that they wish to

continue ship building. Is the First Minister confident that his view is

shared by various companies and how will he ensure the requirement for a

dozen new vessels and a multi-million pound investment, will

be used effectively? When John Swinney made his statement I thought

Duncan McNeil struck the wrong note in terms of how to analyse the

situation. There have been substantial orders placed with this

yard and substantial opportunities to get the new generation of

environmentally sensitive ferries. We have great hopes that we will

arrive at a situation for that can continue under new owners. Two

things encourage me greatly. The first is the spirit and

determination of the workforce. One thing has been unanimous from every

commentator around this issue. No one has questioned the skill and

dedication and application as well as the resilience of that workforce

and every person in this chamber should get them maximum support.

That encourages me greatly. The second thing is that I was

encouraged why a statement yesterday. The state and made it

quite clear that they were moving to an early deadline in terms of offers

to be analysed is 5pm this evening. The statement said that deadline was

to be enacted to make sure there was a chance of continuing ship holding

on the Clyde. They were whole -- looking at holding the workforce and

making sure there were prospects for the future. Although we are not

there yet, there will still be more anxious hours and days ahead for the

workforce, we have reason for substantial encouragement and that

encouragement is founded on the determination of this government and

the support of everyone here, at the resolve and resilience of that

workforce. Question number four. Thank you. What is the government's

response to the final report by the commission for a local democracy? We

welcome it. Independence provides the opportunity to empower

communities and authorities. We have set out our prospectus for the

island community. Local government will be an integral element of an

independent Scotland. It can only be guaranteed by a written constitution

after independence. I thank him for his response. He is aware that this

report follows a previous report in 2012 saying... Does he agree with me

that the only way we can get a democratic society in Scotland is by

voting yes on the 18th of September, ensuring Westminster

governments do not interfere in the democratic structure that we want to

see in the future? I agree with that. But the point of his question

is this. There are are a range of vital institutions which could, with

a written constitution, have protection which is part of the

vital fabric of Scotland. That is a benefit of a written constitution.

Room recently had the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. That was a

fantastic success. -- we recently. New Zealand has a basic law, very

important aspect, every single one of these independent countries has a

written constitution which protects the rights of their citizens as well

as enunciating free rights. I agree with him. The position of local

government would in a written constitution in an independent

Scotland. To ask the First Minister how the economic strategy of an

independent Scotland would achieve growth and opportunity? As I set out

previously, an independent Scotland would set out the benchmark for

growth and opportunity. We have published a jobs plan and it shows

how through independence we could have more and better job

opportunities and help realise young -- help young people to realise

their opportunities. He and his colleagues in the Conservative Party

have nothing whatsoever to declare. We now know that his forecast of 60%

and his corporate tax get to big business would rip ?350 million a

year from public services. Will he now except that his economic policy

would see a separate Scotland with a ?9 million black hole in its

finances and will he apologise to the eminent opt to said

privatisation in the event of a no vote would be a lie? I know it is

extremely difficult for him, given his alliance with the Conservative

Party, to try and reflect on the position that lots of people in

Scotland agreed with the surge of support for protecting the national

health service through independence. And there we have it. We come to the

close of questions. We ended with discussions over it the impact of

the economy on independence. Alex Salmond saying there were resources

beyond estimates produced by the oil industry. His opponents took a

different perspective. Firmly, good afternoon. -- from me.

The stars of the summer are back on UK soil

Who will produce their golden moment?