22/02/2012 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up, why

wait? This got a Secretary sets out his timetable for independence

referendum, a four year before Alex Salmond's preferred date. Many

Scottish politicians think making Edinburgh the home of the UK

Government's Green Investment Bank has a capital idea. We find out why.

And the weather may have been mild this winter but still one third of

Scots are thought to be in fuel poverty. MSPs have been considering

what can be done to help them. My studio guest today is the political

and economic commentator Alf Young. The issue which has dominated for

weeks and will do for months to come is the issue of independence

and the referendum. We will hear from the UK government shortly, but

we've had the Prime Minister in Scotland recently. How do you think

the UK government have played their hand in this debate? There was a

feeling David Cameron had rather overplayed his hand and got

aggressive. I think that feeling changed when he did come up because

he said things which were more emollient. Although he has angered

some people on his own side because he's gone a bit further and said,

if you say no, come the actor Will vote there might be something in

the devo max option later on. But not spelling it out now. We are

still at the early stages of establishing the ground rules, when

it is going to happen, who's going to be able to vote and all of that.

There are two consultations out there, the Westminster one and the

Scottish one. One of them won't finish until May. We've got a long

hiatus. Meanwhile, there's a lot of people out there in Scotland who

want to talk about why we are doing this. What is going to be the

advantages, what are going to be the disadvantages? That debate is

getting squeezed out because we are talking about the roles still.

not only people in Scotland who want to debate this. The Commons

today have had lots of MPs based in England last thing questions about

Scottish independence. Absolutely. Some nervousness, too, because

Michael Gove made a speech to the press gallery in Westminster

yesterday in which he was saying, look, don't be too nasty to the

Scots because that would just alienate them and get them to vote

yes. There's a lot of psychology being played out in the political

arena. But a lot of people who are looking at this as an issue that

affects their lives, we are told it is the most important decision in

300 years. They want to talk about what it means and how we all change

our lives. More from you later on. Let's join that political arena.

Michael Moore is currently giving evidence to be spotted Affairs

Select Committee. -- Scottish. I think that is very important.

There's a dynamic about devolution, the discussion of it. It doesn't

need permission from a referendum to get going. In Scotland, we are

well capable of considering these two things in parallel. But the

central issue we are being asked to decide on is whether we stay as

part of the UK or go our own separate ways. I don't think you

can escape the need to deal with that in a straightforward, clear-

cut manner. That is what I want to see. As for other debates, as ever

in Scotland, we will have many. Surely there have been -- there has

been an error in suggesting the alternative to separation is some

sort of enhanced devolution. Because that then allows those who

are deliberately seeking to avoid spelling out what separation would

mean, to try and actually focus on the question of what the changes in

devolution would be. And to keep Dustin everyone's eyes in order to

avoid spelling out the details of separation. Surely that has been

little more than a diversion. think we've all been involved in

Scottish politics for a long period of time in different ways. We've

seen the debate evolve over decades. I don't think there's a problem

about us having a debate about further devolution or looking at

that while also get into the heart of this fundamental question about

Scotland's place in the United Kingdom. I don't think with regard

to what the Prime Minister said next week, I don't think it will

stop the debate over what future devolution will look like from

taking place. What I think is good is we are not now going to be

pigeon-holing this argument and singing you are stuck with this and

nothing further, or you can have independence. That would have been

an interesting place to be. That is not what is happening. We can focus

on the issue. During Scottish Questions, many people wish to

challenge the SNP and the Scottish government to set out what the

issues are about how one independent Scotland might look.

Your own report has taken that debate on. I anticipate, as you

take evidence through this inquiry and other aspects of it, we will

get many of those questions sorted. I don't think we need to worry

about Scotland's political band with coping with these two issues

simultaneously. It was important that the Prime Minister made that

clear, otherwise the debate was going to be characterised as the

Status Quo or independents, and the Prime Minister made it clear that

if proposals come forward in relation to further devolution, he

is open to them. One of the other interesting points which he was

asked about after the speech in Edinburgh is he was able to set out

his own record in relation to devolution. He took the

Conservative Party into the Calman Commission. It was in the

Conservative Party UK manifest to win 2010 that we would have

implemented the Calman Commission, whether or not there had been the

coalition. As head of the coalition government, he is implementing

those proposals. He has a very strong record on devolution. Unlike

the Scottish National Party, who as you are aware refused to take part

in the Calman Commission. Whilst at for powers were being debated in

that forum, rubbished extra powers because all they wanted was

independence. Suddenly they are interested in extra powers. That is

helpful. It may be allows me to move on slightly. I cut to the

point we made in our document. We are going to be exploring a number

of these. I was at the Defence College on Monday and Tuesday

discussing some of these things. They have indicated that if they

are going to participate in the discussions, they would need to

have the agreement of yourselves as the relevant Secretary of State in

order they are not seen to be intervening directly in partisan

politics. I'm sure you'll agree to make the appropriate arrangements

for that. In order that we can clarify what the defence

implications are of separation. said in your report how you intend

to work... I will be very co- operative with you and any of the

committee who wishes to examine any of the issues around this. I'm sure

Scottish ministers hint that nothing very much would change if

Scotland left the UK, for example the use of sterling and the

monarchy. Are the Scottish Government in a position to make

that kind of comment? They set out their aspirations, they set out

what they wished to see. It is not for me to get into any issues

around Her Majesty and the Royal Family. Separately, on currency,

that is fundamental. We've seen an interesting shift from the SNP,

saying it was committed to joining the single currency, to saying it

would stay within the sterling area. But they have not spelled out how

that is envisaged working. That is a short flavour of what is going on

there. We will bring you any significant developments. At

Westminster, the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, focused on NHS reforms in

England during Prime Minister's Question Time. Lots of Scots MPs

were also asking questions. Monday, the Prime Minister held his

emergency NHS summit. And managed to exclude the main organisations

representing the following professions. The GPs, nurses,

midwives, pathologists, psychiatrists, physiotherapists and,

just for good measure, the radiologist's. How can he possibly

think it is a good idea to hold a healthy Summit which excludes the

vast majority of people who work in the NHS? What I want to do is

safeguard our NHS. We've come on this side of the House, are putting

more money into the NHS. Money that they are specifically committed to

taking out. Let's be frank, money alone is not going to be enough.

We've got to meet the challenge of an ageing population, more

expensive treatments, more people on long-term conditions, and that

is why we've got to reform the NHS. My Summit was about those

organisations, including clinical commissioning groups up and down

the country, 8200 GP practices that want to put these reforms in place.

Given what the Prime Minister said last week in Scotland, where he

devote as much time to facing up to the grievances that the English

feel from the current proposals of devolution, as he will be given to

considering new proposals of devolution to Scotland? Would you

open a major debate in the House on the English question, so that

members from all parts of the House can advise him on what measures of

devolution England needs if we are to gain equity with other countries

in the UK? We have obviously set up the West Lothian group to look at

this issue. We want to make sure that devolution works for everyone

in the UK. I would part company slightly with the right honourable

gentleman for this reason. I believe the UK has been an

incredibly successful partnership between all its members. I think

that far from wanting to appeal to English people that in any weight

to nurture a grievance they feel, I want to appeal to my fellow

Englishman to say, this has been a great partnership. A great

partnership for Scotland and a great partnership for England, too.

Of course Scotland should make its choice. But we hope that Scotland

will choose to remain in this partnership. Last week in Edinburgh

the Prime Minister said there were more powers on the table for

Scotland but could name any of them. A few months ago he mocked the idea

of Scotland controlling its own oil well. Can the Prime Minister now

name one power that he has on his mind from this latest U-turn?

didn't think that the Scottish National Party favoured devolution.

I thought they favoured separation. Yet as soon as you are offered a

referendum that gives you the chance to put that in front of the

Scottish people, you start running away. Would he agree with me that

it is inappropriate and unsatisfactory or perhaps even

arrogant that when constituents who serve in the Marine forces in

Dundee, my constituency, expressed concerns about the possible

closures of that detachment, I write to the Ministry of Defence

and they refused to give me a definitive answer? I thank the

honourable gentleman for raising again the case of the brave men

from the RAF Regiment, all of those who serve in Afghanistan as well.

The Reserve forces and our country are a huge asset. We want to see

them expanded. We have put up a �1 billion into that of expansion

between now and 2015 to make sure we can do that. In terms of the

Dundee Royal Marine Reserve headquarters, no decision has been

taken on its future. There's no intention to cut the number of

Royal Marine reservists in Scotland. Across Scotland, the whole issue of

our armed forces and reservists, we need more people to join the

reserves. Our Westminster correspondent, David Porter, is on

the grass of College Green outside Westminster. Tell us more about

this idea Michael Moore seems to have suggested about his own

timetable rather than Alex Salmond's for the referendum?

Michael Moore is giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee,

which is conducting its own inquiry into the independence referendum or,

as they put it, the referendum on separation. Those are the words

they are choosing to use. Michael Moore said that he had yet to see a

knockout blow for the argument that the referendum ought to be in 2014.

What the Scotland Office has done, they believe all the pre-

referendum scrutiny can take place far sooner than the Scottish

government are indicating. They believe that a referendum could be

held in September 2013. A full year ahead of what the Scottish

Government is proposing. It builds on an argument we heard at Scottish

Questions this morning, when Michael Moore was saying he wants

that referendum sooner rather than later. As far as Scottish politics

is concerned with all that has been going on in the last few weeks, no

shortage of issues to discuss. I'm joined by three MPs with a

knowledge and love of Scotland. Angus MacNeil, from the SNP, Ian

Stewart, although he represents an English seat, when he speaks you

will realise he is a Scot, and Willie Bain, as part of Labour's

Scottish team. What do you make of this idea that Michael Moore is now

floating, that we don't have to wait until 2014, we could

conceivably have a referendum a Indeed, that is why we have called

for cross-party talks to decide when the referendum should be held.

It is clear the uncertain seek is causing damage to Scotland's

economic prospects at a time when a one in four macro Scottish

youngsters are out of work and we have desperately low consumer

confidence. We need to get this decided as soon as possible so we

can get on with building a better economic future for Scotland.

of it be sooner rather than later? Do we need this lengthy process?

What Alex Salmond is scared of, why the delay of five years to bring

this forward? As Williams said, it is causing economic uncertainty and

it is damaging to Scotland's position. It happened in Canada

when Quebec went through the uncertainty of its position. Just

get on with it. Why couldn't it be earlier than 2014? And unimpressed

for the enthusiasm for the referendum. With this rate of

progress, should we want independence in 2014? It will

happen in 2014 because that is when the decision will be made. They

have been 75 independence referendum worldwide. These

gentlemen are need to get their heads round about what is happening.

If they are impatient, the question asked to David Cameron today was,

name one more power. We will deal with that in a moment, but if you

are so confident you are on to a winner and everyone will know the

arguments, that it has to wait until 2014? What is the argument

again saying we can hold one before them? We said it would be in the

second half of the Parliament and that is exactly what the SNP are

going to do. David Cameron went to Edinburgh last week and said, don't

vote for independence. If you vote no, we will give the Scottish

Parliament more powers, but I won't take you what they are. It is not

convincing is it? The Scotland Bill is a massive transfer of power from

here to the Scottish Parliament from the Government. Devolution we

have always said is an evolutionary process. I don't regard the

Scotland Bill as the be all and end all, but we should take time to

consider the implications of further transfers of powers at the

right time. The process is already happening. But the politics of it

is, the argument David Cameron put forward cannot hold until a

referendum, whether it be 2013, 24 team, you will have to flesh out

your proposals before that? -- 2014. Whether Scotland should split from

the United Kingdom is a clear choice, and by one Scotland to

remain part of the Union. It has been a successful partnership for

three centuries. I want that to continue. Whether we look for them

at a what other arrangements we could have within the United

Kingdom, is a separate matter. need to resolve the issue as to

whether Scotland is going to leave Britain or stay within Britain and

then look at what further powers can be devolved. But the tragic is

the biggest robot to Scotland's getting more powers now is Alex

Salmond. In January he said it was a lack of demand and a lack of

borrowing capacity, there was �1.7 billion in borrowing powers just

waiting to come to Scotland if the Scotland Bill was passed. Alex

Salmond should show his support for the Scotland Bill and get those

powers to get the Scottish economy moving again. We make use of these

powers in the Scotland Bill? people talk about constitutional

uncertainty but then want to talk about the on 2014. Whatever they

have got on the minds, do with it now. We must be honest with the

people of Scotland. Then let's go to the independence referendum

knowing what is on the table. you worried if this goes on for two

years, people in Scotland and your constituents in England will be fed

up with this? I think there is a risk of the uncertainty harming

both Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom, economic The Eagles

stock if overseas companies looking to invest in Europe are face with

his Constanze uncertainty, it is not good. The evidence was in

Canada. It is it a distraction? It is important, but will it be a

distraction that will affect Scotland and England badly if it

does not get settled sooner rather than later? There is a plethora of

unanswered questions the SNP will have to answer. Noel regulate the

banks that are separated from the UK? -- who will. One of the

advantages is being part of a fiscal union. We know anything that

happens in the eurozone, any successful currency needs fiscal

unity. Raymond, more questions than answers at the moment probably, as

they say this one will run and run. Let's get Alfie's thoughts on those

questions we have just heard debated. David Cameron's

intervention, how crucial is it that he does put some meat on the

bones? He suggested talks on Scottish people were voting no on

the referendum but we don't know what is on the agenda? He was

trying to stick with a straight question, yes or No to independence

or where we are at the moment. He did not want to close the door

entirely on what many people were suggesting, and what Alex Salmond

was encouraging people to think was the case, that there was a

groundswell of opinion in favour of another option that it was more

powers for the Scottish Parliament. Getting on to that, it is still

bogged down and the whole question when this is happening, and what

timescale. Angus MacNeil says it is because they say it before the last

Scottish election it would be in the second half of the Parliament.

In fact, because of when matter was, September 2013 almost take you into

the second half of the Parliament anyway. Why wait another year? We

have been through difficult economic times, and every

politician knows you don't get people to opt for big, new changes

unless you are reasonably good, and if they are feeling good about

themselves and their family and their future. Leading off until

later buys the possibility that things will have got back towards

normal and people think and -- thinks their living standards are

growing. There is an opportunity then to think about voting Yes to a

big change. One thing that struck me about that discussion, is people

seem to be wanting to transfer of powers discussion between the UK

and the Scottish Parliament. It is the flushing out a fixed, firm date

from the Scottish Government's as to when the referendum should take

place. But it is an ugly duckling in the corner. A lot of people

promoted it at first point, are less happy about what has emerged

in terms of some of the tax change powers. Opposite, the borrowing

bits, because that is something that does have the potential to get

the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government together. Alex

Salmond says he wants more borrowing powers. But there is a

lot of people who think the Scotland Bill currently going

through Westminster has got in the road of the bigger debate of

Scotland's constitutional future. Lot of the debate has been about

the process, how much do you think ordinary voters are paying

attention to this debate so far? think not in terms of the process.

That is simply the means to the end of getting a decision out of the

Scottish people. I think what people are interested in, is what

kind of Scotland we would have. What would an independent Scotland

be able to bring to the lives of people in Scotland, that being part

of the current union does not make possible? That is a debate people

want to have. But it is getting pushed out of the arena at the

moment by this constant reiteration of the debate about tactics and

mechanism. It is not what strikes a chord in the vast majority of

people, who are not members of any political party. They are viewing

this in terms of their own lines and the lives of their family.

do you think the referendum will take place? Given the Westminster

Government have said from the start, seeded the power of the Scottish

Parliament, now it is a majority SNP Government, to have its

referendum. Although there is hardball going on, I cannot see you

can stop it happening in that latter part of 2014. He mentioned

about the economic circumstances, we notice the coalition's plan to

reduce the deficit, that is no longer going to plan, the cuts will

continue past the next UK General Election. Do you think the fact

that there will be cuts facing the UK governments will have a big

thing in packs on the independence referendum? Who knows how it will

play. If we are still in austerity, to use a phrase of the moment, if

we are still in austerity in October of 2014, people will be

concerned about making any big change that creates even more

economic uncertainty, in terms of what currency we will be using. Or

you can argue that we will have it so long of this austerity programme

we will be feeling like the Greek people and be sick of all

politicians and might just say, let's at least have politicians in

our own Parliament in Edinburgh that we can control. Who knows.

More from you later on. Politics does not get much more personal

than a debate over in issue which - - which has cost your child alike.

Dennis Robertson is leading a motion today at the Scottish

Parliament on the issue of eating disorders. His daughter, Caroline,

died from a serious eating disorder and that is why he is so passionate

about the subject. I am now joined by Dennis Robertson, MSP at the

Scottish Parliament. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Politics does not

get much more personal than this, can you outline to us why you have

decided to debate is very serious issue? Principally, I was asked by

one of the charity's a couple of weeks ago, if I could highlight and

awareness of eating disorders because of personal circumstances.

I was pleased to do so. I said I would and put forward at a motion

and it was chosen for members to debate. What can you tell us about

what happened to your family and what lessons you have learned as a

result of that? My daughter, Caroline, became anorexic when she

was 13. We became aware of its fairly quickly and a GP did as well.

She was referred to the appropriate services. But unfortunately,

Caroline died as a result of her anorexia five years after that

initial diagnosis. It's has been a dramatic and difficult time.

Difficult for my family going through that whole period. Probably

difficult for her mum and certainly her sister, the owner, because

Fiona is a twin. He talked about the fact your daughter had been

referred to services and one of the things as a policy-maker, you can

have an impact on what services are available. What did you learn about

the help that is out there? One of the things I first learnt his third

is very few services and it will two's -- support to some extent.

Although they are available, did they meet the need of Caroline Hill

and out their illness and the family? The answer to that has to

be known. Everyone did what they could in terms of providing what

resources they could and in terms of appointments, but the actual

need for Caroline was far greater than the resources could probably

facilitate. And the need of the family was some think I think, is

not ignored, but I don't think it is uppermost in the treatment of

anorexia. And because Caroline was a twin, more focus should have been

given to her sister also. What do you think you will achieve by

having this debate? More awareness. GPs should be more work that when

young girls present themselves it is not a pubescent problem in terms

of their body and shape. It could be something more serious. One in

250 goals were predisposed to anorexia tendencies. -- girls. We

need to get medical professionals to be more aware of what needs to

be done at a much earlier stage. Thanks for joining us. Next week we

expect to learn a weather Edinburgh will be the new home for the Green

Investment Bank. Politicians of all callers backed the idea and this is

what the Prime Minister had to say earlier today when he was asked if

the bank would be located in the It is being considered, but other

bids have been made from other regions of the country's that all

want to host this great innovation. Sir how well MSPs convincing? They

are debating the issue in the main chamber of Hollywood now. --

It has been said this location of this institution would help prevent

a cluster of expertise. He is talking about the Edinburgh bid.

Here in Edinburgh and around Edinburgh in all of these matters.

Indeed, Edinburgh is unique as the only location in the UK bringing

together both finance and the clean energy industry in a single place.

It has an unrivalled concentration of industry, skills and experience

supporting effective commercialisation. As part of the

UK's Reading region involved in green if -- Green infrastructure,

locating the bank in Edinburgh would ensure the best possible

chance for the UK to develop as the European centre of excellence in

this sector. And people wish to come to Edinburgh. Edinburgh is

recognised as having a world-class quality of life, with a global

profile which has been proven to attract and retain the best in

professional talent. In addition to that, property and transaction

costs in Edinburgh are high the competitive with other cities, and

Edinburgh is one of the UK's best connected cities, with a strong

domestic and international transport links and world-class ICT

links. I would therefore ask this parliament to join me in agreeing

that as set out in a bid, I quote, given the quality of Edinburgh's

ecosystem, the Green Investment Bank will have a greater economic

impact at a UK let all that if the band were cited in other locations.

This in turn will help the UK government to deliver its low carb

and objectives. Let me turn to the support the government can offer it

to ensuring the success of the Green Investment Bank located in

Edinburgh. I believe the government must be able to demonstrate its

credentials and commitment to the aims of the Investment Bank. Mainly

to provide the financial solutions to accelerate private sector

investment in the transition to a Green economy. Or it is that which

will create the certainty that must exist in order to persuade major

investment decisions to be made in Scotland's favour. The Scottish

Government must put a low carbon economy at the centre of its

economic agenda. Growth in the low carbon energy sector, particularly

renewables, will be a significant contributor to that agenda. The

Green Investment Bank has the potential to deliver significant

benefit to the green economy in Scotland. We have committed to

achieving ambitious low carbon headline target by 2020 and 2050,

and interim ones as we move towards 2024 carbon emission reductions,

particularly in the electricity generation sector, for a major

increase in renewables and for improving energy efficiency. We

have been crystal-clear about our commitments. We have published our

renewables would map in June last year, which outlines the actions

required to achieve the 100 % equivalent Cross annual electricity

consumption target. We will soon publish the updated electricity

generation statement that will give the latest position on renewable

electricity and fossil Bjork firm bought generation in Scotland's

future energy mix. And we will publish the second report on

proposals and policies in the first half of 2012 or thereabouts, which

will report progress on emissions reductions. We have been clear that

we have plans on how to achieve our objectives for low carbon. So we

can point at all the strategic facts which demonstrate our

commitment to the green economy and thus contribute an important and

vital weight to investor confidence. This Parliament has previously

recognised the considerable benefits that the Green Investment

Bank would bring to Scotland and Edinburgh. When I last spoke to

Parliament on this matter, I stated that the task before us was not to

be seen as Vince Cable described it as, a front runner, but to be seen

as the front-runner. And ultimately, the choice. I commend that approach

to this Parliament. I look forward very much to hearing contributions

from my colleagues. That was Fergus Ewing, the Energy Minister. That

debate is due to go on for the afternoon. For some reaction now,

we have Labour's Sarah Boyack and Jimmy E.T., from the SNP. Sarah

Boyack, the case was made for the Scottish capital to be the home of

the new UK Green Investment Bank. Is that something you approve of?

The very much so. Edinburgh has a fantastic case to put for being the

best location for the home of the UK to host the Green Investment

Bank. We have fantastic expertise in financial services and

Investment Management, fund management. The legal background,

the academic links and we have a huge number of renewables being

developed on our doorstep. I would say unrivalled experience in

Edinburgh. We in the Labour Party are 110 % behind this bank coming

to Edinburgh. How much of an issue do think that this is an investment

from the UK government and of course, the Scottish government are

proposing an independence referendum which would see the

union between Scotland and England ended. Do you think that will have

an impact on the decision-making process? I don't think so. I think

the Scottish Government is right. The Green Investment Bank should

come to Scotland because the business case for it coming to

Scotland is a very strong. As Sarah Boyack said, we have very strong,

highly skilled work force within financial services in Edinburgh.

Edinburgh is a global centre for financial services. Scotland is

Europe's renewable energy and green energy powerhouse. So what right we

should have the Green Investment Bank located in Edinburgh, for the

benefit of Scotland and the UK. if you are the UK Business

Secretary, wouldn't you look at areas such as the north-east of

England, which have much more economic disadvantage than Scotland

and think this is an opportunity to send much-needed investment and

jobs to a part of the UK which is currently suffering? I don't think

this is a regional policy or economic decision that is being

made. It's a decision about which is the best location for the Green

Investment Bank, based on the workforce that is available and its

proximity to the renewable energy sector, where Scotland has

considerable strength. I think the business case is strong. The case

for the Green Investment Bank being located in Edinburgh is very strong.

That is why there is cross-party support and a united front across

the Parliament in favour of the Green Investment Bank coming to

Scotland. The Prime Minister today, obviously knowledgeable that

Edinburgh is pitching for this particular investment, but saying

lots of parts of the UK would love to see this bank located in their

areas. Why do you think Edinburgh will be successful? I hope the

strength of our case will win out at the end of the day. It would be

good news for all the renewables projects across the UK it Edinburgh

were to be able to lead with his bank. Getting the investment is

going to be important for the home of the UK. It is not just

renewables, it is some of the other low carbon investments that we need

to be powering ahead with in the UK. We are in a time of recession, and

this is the next generation of exciting manufacturing

opportunities. We are well placed in every. We would be the best

location. I hope the UK government will be looking at it in terms of

what is best for the whole of the UK to make sure this money is spent

properly and gets maximum bang for For Alf Young is still with me. You

are an economic commentator. Give us your perspective on just how

well placed Edinburgh is for this kind of investment. As someone said

earlier, it's one of 32 locations. There's another one in Scotland

which seems to have been sidelined. Where is that? Renfrewshire, I

think. Every other city in England, from Newcastle down to London

itself is in for it. Cardiff is in for it. There's a lot of

competition. A lot of these other places have the financial expertise.

They are provincial English cities that have quite big financial

sectors. They may not have as much expertise in the renewable

technologies. But I think it's still an open question. How much of

a comparative advantage does Scotland have in terms of that

renewable technology? We hear a lot about the potential to generate

energy in Scotland, but how far ahead we in terms of developing

that technology and having the expertise in terms of the industry?

We are doing OK. In terms of in- store capacity in some of the

sectors, we are a bit behind parts of England where it is actually

happening on a large scale. We've got a lot of the frontier stuff.

The thing about this bank is, the evidence as to how it's going to

operate has begun to emerge. It's going to be much more mainstream

than a lot of people had hoped. It is not going to be pumping money

into Frontier technologies. It's going to be lending much in the way

that other banks would lend. Looking for a return and sending

that we turn back to the UK Treasury. Your union. Is critical

to all of this. -- your union point is critical. If they give it to

Scotland it's a vote in the union, if they don't, does it look like a

slap in the face? It's going to be politics at the end of the day.

It's been a mild winter, but with fuel bills having reason sharply in

recent years, more than a third of Scots support to be in fuel poverty.

MSPs have taken an interest in how this problem can be addressed.

Murdo Fraser is with us now. A report has just been published on

the issue. How are MSPs going to solve Scotland's fuel poverty

problem? As you say, it's a growing problem. In 2010, there was an

estimated 28 % of Scottish households in fuel poverty. We

think that's gone up to 25 % -- 35 % this year. What are we going to

do about it? We made two recommendations in the report.

Pressure needs to be brought on the Big Six energy companies to bring

down costs. And to rationalise the tariff structure to provide better

transparency, making it easier for people to switch. Secondly, we need

a one-stop-shop for the current congested picture that there is in

terms of energy support packages. There are lots of pots of money

available from UK government, Scottish Government and other

agencies to help people with things like home insulation. But it's

difficult to access information about these. That's why we think we

need to simplify the landscape. that first issue, you need co-

operation from the Big Six energy companies. One of the things often

raised is the fact that those tariffs and charges are so

confusing. What did you learn about why the system is so confusing?

Every different energy producer has a whole range of tariffs. The other

night I was looking at my own energy provider, they have more

than six or seven different electricity tariffs. It is pretty

confusing within your own provider, trying to find out which is the

cheapest tariff, never mind the possibility of switching elsewhere.

There are apparently over 400 different energy tariffs across the

spectrum. We've said to the energy producers that they need to

rationalise this, make it simpler for people to understand how they

can get cheaper electricity than they are currently getting. I also

know that of Jim and the UK government had been sending similar

messages to the energy providers, so I'm hoping they will listen to

this combined pressure. Will they listen, because at the end of the

day they are responsible not to MSPs, MPs or customers, it is to

shareholders? There has been some movement already. We have learned

this morning from one of the Scottish power companies that they

have substantially rationalised their tariff structure. Steps are

already being taken, but we do need to make sure we are not looking at

a landscape of more than 400 different tariffs, which makes it

extremely difficult for ordinary consumers to work out whether they

On that last point, is the confusion all about making bigger

profits? Historically it has been. The move by SS he and others to

simplify the number of tariffs is a That is all from Politics Scotland

for this afternoon. We have given you the news that the Scottish

Secretary, Michael Moore, is trying to have his own referendum on