22/05/2013 Politics Scotland

Hello, and welcome to Politics Scotland. : : The economics of

independence. Better off in the union? There is a

warning to MSP is that reviews of access to cancer drugs may not

result in patients getting better access to life-saving treatment.

And David Cameron and Nick Clegg once again say that the Coalition is

safe in their hands. Hello. Two papers on the economy

this week. Who is right and who is from? One from the Scottish

Government details and optimistic economic outlook, and one from

Westminster was more pessimistic. On Monday, the Scottish Secretary

was in Edinburgh to talk about the banking sector. He launched a UK

Treasury report which claims that independence would add cost and risk

to the industry in Scotland. When you are looking to buy a consumer

product in a market of 60 million as opposed to a market of 5 million,

you're going to have more choice and sharper pencils when it is that big

an audit. I think people see it will be lower costs and better choice as

part of the UK and also that the British economy, as it did when the

Royal Bank collapse, is there to prop things up and keep things

going. Yesterday, the Scottish Government set out what it described

as the economic judgements for independence. At a visit to a bus

factory in Falkirk, the first minister said Scotland can more than

afford to be a successful, independent country and that

Westminster is holding it back. argument is that we have got what it

takes, that Scotland has what it takes, to be a successful and

independent country. In this factory, skilled workers need the

tools to do the job. So it is for our economy. Our message today is

give Scotland the economic tools so that we can build a successful,

independent nation. Thank you. I am join now, and for the duration of

the programme, by the political commentator David Torrance. First of

all, these two papers this week, the Scottish Government's one and the UK

Government's one, anything you can either one? Me it would be a

positive case for independence, perhaps a slightly -1 from the UK

Government. Not really anything new at all. It is just the latest stage

in what the Herald has called the document wars. I think both papers

had strengths and weaknesses. I think the British one is the least

successful of the analysis series coming out of Whitehall. I think

they were guilty of overstating certain dangers. It seemed quite

clear from discussions afterwards, technical discussions, that the

changes they were highlighting were perfectly manageable, nothing too

drastic. The Scottish Government paper was quite buoyant and upbeat,

and I've read most of it yesterday and I was quite struck that the

first 25 pages actually set out a very positive vision of Scotland

within the United Kingdom. You could almost have mistaken it for a

unionist argument. And then it suddenly changes tack and it says

that it is clear that Westminster is letting Scotland down. Only, I am

not sure it is that clear. In economic arguments, I think it is a

real danger that it is becoming a bit technical and it might put

people off. Talking of people out there, looking at the documents and

watching coverage on television, what can people get from these

documents? If you are in favour, nothing will change your mind, and

if you are against, nothing will change your mind. All we can get

from both sides is a general impression of how things might look.

It is a much harder case, almost by definition, for the Yes side to

make. What Whitehall is describing is, at the end of the day, the

status quo and all of us, because we live in the status quo, have a good

idea of what that looks like. The onus is on the Yes side on the

economic and emotional front to say that this is what it would look like

and to convince people that they are sure about that. We flee, I think

people are looking for really definitive answer is. With these

papers, it appears those definitive answers may never be found. It is

simply not possible. All of this is subject to negotiations. I think

both sides are now gradually conceding that it is at the end of

the negotiations that we will find out our answers. Let's get some

political reaction to this no from MSP is from Hollywood. We are joined

by the SNP's Kenny Gibson, the convener of the Finance Committee,

Scottish Labourers James Kelly, and Gavin Brown from the Conservatives.

We were discussing this paper on Sunday. It seems to be a running

flow of critique that Scotland has been effectively mismanaged by a

succession of UK governments. would a Scottish administration do

any better? If we were in control of Scotland's full resources and policy

instruments then we could do a lot more. It is always better to take

decisions for yourself. What we have seen in recent years is that the

British governments of both Labour and of the Conservatives have

focused more and more on London and indeed, David Cameron has called

that unstable and wasteful. We, by contrast, believe that Scotland has

tremendous potential to deliver a much better quality of life and

greater prosperity for the people of Scotland to independence. Is that

all just wishful thinking at the moment rather than hard facts?

don't think it's wishful thinking. What is clear is that revenue per

capita in terms of taxation paid per Scotland was higher for 30

consecutive years than it was in terms of the UK. We clearly have a

massive oil industry. But it is not just focus on oil. We export �15

million per year in exporting goods, �12 billion in food and

drink, �5 billion in the creative industry, so quite clearly, Scotland

has the potential to be independent. We also had 200,000 people

unemployed and a quarter of our population live in poverty so there

is a lot more to do. Briefly, on that point, is it not a little

contradictory? You are setting out how great Scotland is in key

industries, so Scotland is perhaps thriving in the union. I think what

is important is that some people in Scotland feel talked down to, like

Scotland is a poverty stricken backwater. Like we are poor and

Albania. We were quoted in a debate with a Tory ones as being unable to

watch Coronation Street. I think what is important now is that the

conversation is at a much more sophisticated level and everyone

agrees that Scotland could be more successful as an independent nation.

Our view is that, quite clearly, this document shows that Scotland

can do much better for its people with independence. James Kelly, I am

sure you agree that Scotland could be successful as an independent

country. It sounds like Scotland has a lot going for it, as he points

out, but if there were more powers in Scotland, those industries could

be unleashed and a lot more could be done. I think if you look at the

paper that was published yesterday, believe the SNP are all over the

place and it is time for Captain Salmond to send for the lifeboats. I

think the serious questions that have got to be answer from this are,

if the SNP are going to cut corporation tax and there is going

to be a black hole in the Scottish budget because of the �2 billion

pension shortfall, how many teachers and nurses less are going to

employ? How few houses? These are the questions that people on the

ground are seriously asking and I think people are waking up to the

fact that there are real risks to the Scottish economy if Scotland

separates from the rest of the UK. People recognise that we are better

working together and taking the benefits of combined resources that

we get in the United Kingdom. Kenny Gibson points out, what is the

point of working together if it seems that the UK Government is so

focused on the south-east of England? There has been a big story

running in the newspapers this week. A former Labour Chancellor, one of

those British administrations, he says the underplayed the value of

oil because the so-called threat of nationalism threatened it. It seemed

that these British governments were not operating in Scotland's

interests. If you take energy, for example, and you look at the

benefits of renewables in Scotland, we pay 10% into the renewables take,

but we take a third from that, so there are clear benefits are. In

terms of science and innovation, we get double from the UK than what we

put in. In terms of per capita money, people in Scotland get �1700

more than the rest of the United Kingdom. So, there are real benefits

to Scotland being in the United Kingdom and we see those benefits

within the Scottish economy at the moment. So, Gavin Brown of the

Conservatives, Mr Salmond was setting out his vision for an

independent Scotland. What does Alistair Darling's -- as Alistair

Darling said, the rest of the UK might block a corporation tax cut if

Scotland was in the pound will stop I think the SNP position was that

--. I think the SNP position was that the SNP case has been blown out

of the water, really. If you go for a currency union, which is the

Scottish Government's preferred option, it is inevitable that the

Bank of England will want to look at the fiscal policies and have a say

over the fiscal policies of any Scottish Government. So, whether a

currency union would happen is up for debate, but if it did, there

would almost certainly be terms and conditions attached. Of course, we

saw the clip from the Secretary for Scotland a minute ago. Are there

more than just scare stories contained in these UK Government

warning papers? I would say it is a very serious piece of analysis. It

poses the questions that need to be answered. For example, if Scotland

were to be separated, the size of its banking sector would be enormous

compared to our GDP, more in line with Iceland, for example, than

other countries in Europe. If that were to be the case, how do you deal

with that? How do you protect against the risks? Or do banks, and

other companies, move their headquarters? These are very

important questions. Also, if you have a separate Scotland and a

separate financial regulator, how do you ensure that consumers in

Scotland are protected and how do you ensure that financial services

can operate seamlessly across the UK? Really serious questions and I

was disappointed that the Scottish Government paper dodged them almost

entirely. Kenny Gibson, from the SNP, just a brief point on

corporation tax. This is now almost a race to the bottom. The British

Government wants to get corporation tax ten to 20% is, and Alex Salmond

says he will have it at 3% below what ever the UK Government has. It

seems strange to have this when you also want to find other services

such as nursery care. If you look at the document, what you see is that

the 3% cut in corporation tax will lead to an extra 27,000 jobs. We

want Scotland to remain competitive. All that we have heard from the

others is gloom and doom. James Kelly talked about Scotland being a

begging society and of course the Treasury scare stories from Gavin

Brown. Quite clearly, that has already been described as

scaremongering by other senior commentators. The Treasury, just as

was in the 1970s, is still working for the British Government against

the interests of Scotland and in favour of the status quo. They are

not a neutral organisation trying to look at things in a balanced way.

They are totally against the Yes campaign and people should take that

into account when they look at some of these documents. I just want to

briefly touch with all of you on one other point today. From the

Association Of Scottish Police that the justice system should be

reconfigured. Do you think it is a good idea to cut down on the number

of councils? We have the intention of looking at the boundaries, but we

will not change the number of local authorities as regards policing. Of

course, they are trying to prove they still exist as a party. Last

week their policy of giving votes to prisoners did not go down too well.

James Kelly, from Labour, your reaction? I think we have 32 local

authorities across Scotland and what you must remember is that these are

local authorities that are well rooted in communities and people

interact with them through community partnerships. They are used to the

structures and the set-up, and I do not think we want to be ripping up a

model that is stable and successful. And Gavin Brown from the

Conservatives, I think John Major last we organise Scotland's councils

in 1995. Hats once again? It is not conservative policy to reorganise.

We have to look at services and where we can merge them. We need to

get the servings savings that are required. Thank you. Gavin Brown,

Kenny Gibson, and James Kelly, thank you for joining me.

Now, all politics is local, said Tip O'Neill, the Speaker of the US House

of Representatives and you cannot get much more local than this. MSP

is local, said Tip O'Neill, the Speaker of the US House of

Representatives and you cannot get much more local than this. MSP's are

today debating in Aberdeen. It is a labour debate the Aberdeen Donside

constituency, which has a by-election due in June. Richard

Baker is speaking now. When the SNP came to power in their

first infrastructure investment plan, the Haudagain was notable by

its absence, this is despite the fact in the previous Parliament SNP

members tabled a number of motions calling for immediate action, and

this is as long ago as 2005 and 2006. Motions with notable

signatories including Mr Swinney and Mr Neil who in his ten years failed

to lift a finger to get on with work at the Haudagain. Despite the SNP

calling for immediate action, nearly ten years ago, when I tabled a

question asking for the latest timescale I would be informed work

would not begin and would take nine months to complete. At the most

ambitious end of the Scottish Government's timetable it will be

2019 before work at the Haudagain is completed. Now we foe SNP members

call for immediate action what they mean action some time in the next 20

years, at the heart of the appallingly sluggish approach of the

SNP ministers to this transport priority, has been the refusal to

begin work at the round about before the completion of the AWPR. By

refusing to start work on the Haudagain before the bypass is

completed, this means court process on the APR has led to years more.

This was avoidable. Before they came to Government it was SNP members who

called for the work on Haudagain to take place before the completion of

the AWPR, not least because when the project is completed, the Haudagain

is on roads which are detrunk and not the responsibility of Scottish

ministers but the local council, and local council taxpayers. I think Mr

Stewart may want to come back in later on. There have been assurances

the Scottish Government will pay for the Haudagain after the new trunk

road is completed, they understanding is they have not

entered into a legally binding obligation to do so. It would be far

better that they take the action this motion calls for and move

forward with the planned improvements. Sub Sanative work can

be achieved now and Kevin Stewart's comments display what a believe is a

wilful misrepresentation for the plan put forward and the plan he

voted for when he was on the council, unless he didn't understand

what he was voting for. We can't rule that. It falls some way short

of the fly overs proposed by the SNP when they were in opposition,

because we believe time was of the enessence we believe it must

proceed. No-one is suggesting the round about needs to be closed

during the duration of this work. The solution he endorsed mean itn't

isn't taking place at the round about itself. The main features of

option five; the plan agreed to, are the tren should have been the

existing round about and a new dual carriageway connecting north

Anderson drive with the road. This is work taking place away from the

round about. A plan for improvements chose been I the SNP will involve

rehousing some residents and other plans for regeneration in that area,

and Aberdeen City Council move forward with this work now and to

unage work to commence on the improvement well in advance of the

current plans. Listening to what Mr Baker says, Mr Baker confirm whether

or not Labour are committed to a third crossing to to be in place any

time in the near few future? member is aware city Cowen ill is

proposing a third crossing the council stand to move forward this

work and for it to commence on the improvement well in advance of the

Scottish Government's current plan, with the right cooperation from

ministers on issues like compensation orders the relocation

of residents which the plan requires can take place at an appropriate and

seventive place and the pre-council said work could be done within three

years and that was in 2008. For the SNP to suggest we can be a separate

nation is nonsense. Last week, the Labour leader of the Aberdeen

council announced they were move fog war with plans to link the drive to

the trunk road, with these improvements to be completed in

2015. This project will significantly improve surface access

to the airport and to areas in the north of the city where we see

significant new office developments for business in Aberdeen. We are

calling on the Scottish Government to show the same kind of initiative

with Haudagain round about and not subject businesses to years more of

traffic, congestion, many misery. We ask ministers to think again and

work with the council to give the green light to this project and take

the actions required to get it underway. If they fail to do so this

will not only mean years more of traffic jams, it will mean years

more of tens of millions pounds worth of cost to local business and

this is avoidable. Not acting now would mean ministers have failed to

listen to councils, local businesses and local people. It is time for

ministers and the SNP to listen and think again, on their refusal to

give this work at the Haudagain the priority it needs, otherwise the

charge will be justly levelled at the SNP that Aberdeen is their

forgotten city. They deserve better than that. We all agree the city,

Aberdeen deserves better. We agree the city is vital to the whole of

the Scottish economy. That is why I ask the chamber to support our call

for immediate action at Haudagain and I move the hoeings in my name.

-- move the motion in my name. Thank you. The Scottish Government

of course recognises the important contribution that Aberdeen and the

North East makes to the wider economy, and that an effective

transport network is vital to economic growth. It's a shame we

didn't have that decades ago when we should have had. The the project

improves to the round about and a new bridge form a core part of a

commitment to improving transport in the North East along with proposals

to dual the A96 by 2030. We have stated on a number of occasions our

commitment to funding the design and the construction of the road

improvements and this will include associated land and compensation

costs. The resolution of the legal issues has allowed us to progress

without reday -- delay. Work has commenced on the design with the

appointment of Jacobs UK limited. The design work is necessary and

that will ensure construction of this much-needed project can begin

immediately after the project is completed in 2018, worth reminding I

think at this point that the council have said that benefits of the

Haudagain project will only be realised after the AWPR and the

crossing are complete. I think Richard bake seems to have forgotten

there has been a protected challenge. But the similar fact is

he didn't answer it in his point, the council that he has listen laud

today have said on a number of occasions Haudagain will only

produce benefit whence the AWPR and the crossing are complete. Labour

have had a conversion. You are watching Politics Scotland from the

BBC. Still to come in the programme. The coalition will go on, David

Cameron and Nick Clegg launch a defence of their Government and

leadership amid backbench revolts. Now, medical experts an --... They

were giving evidence to Holyrood's health committee in reports into the

Scottish Medicines Consortium, which approves medicines and on individual

patient treatment requests. They are a system used by patients trying to

access unapproved drugs. We have two reports and they are the

recommendation about transparency and process and don't deal with the

issue how you improve access to medicine, I have had nothing that

suggest the IPTR process is going to improve to let more people in, I

come back to the fundamental question of no withstanding the SMC,

you know, saying yes more often and that will take time and a different,

I think set of recommendation, I come back to the issue the issue

which is we have pay patients who are considering moving to England,

to get access to medicines you can't guilt here, I am wondering where in

the set of recommendations, is that issue going to be resolved. Or, I

think somebody pension -- mentioned earlier, there is the potential of

saving �300 million on our drugs bun. Could some of that be pressed

into play? I just wonder if somebody was to offer a solution on how we

resolve the issue of the unfairness in the system, what would that be?

We are in a situation here where there is a big disparity,

particularly with regard to cancer medicine, but, you know, I don't

think the creation of a Cancer Drugs Fund is necessarily the best

solution, I think this whole idea of finding a Scottish specific solution

that is fair for all conditions, you know, but it needs flexibility, and

SMC or, if it is an organisation that sits outside of SMC, that there

is going to do this negotiation, with, try and get the best possible

value, then, you know, the other thing is that we need nor

flexibility, you know -- more flexibility. They are to a certain

extent hamstrung by rules and theres after a good example when we had a

drug for ovarian cancer, where we wanted the coalition in Scotland had

done a big clinical trial using half the licensed dose and it may have

made the drug cost effective but SMC could not assess that dose because

it is only allowed to assess licensed medications I would like to

see them given the remit to speak to the clinicians in Scotland and be --

allowed to have that flexibility. Rather than a sort of a fund that

sits outside of everything, like the Cancer Drugs Fund, which patients

with non-cancer conditions could consider to be very unfair, then we

should have a sort of more global solution, but we need to start

working for it now, and right at this point in time, there is a big

disparity and patients who have got diseases now, that they want to get

drugs for, are talking about moving south of the border.

It is important to remember some of the things they have said yes to. We

said yes to the drug for hepatitis C it is a major public healthish --

issue, the drugs were very expensive but incredibly beneficial, so the

cost, the estimated cost to NHS Scotland for the drugs is �50

million at year five. We said yes to all of the new anti-coagulant

medicines which will prevent stroke in patient, three new drug, we said

yes to all, and the cost are estimated about �20 million at year

five. That is �70 for two sets of drugs, so we do say yes and we are

prepared to pay a high price where there is great benefit. It seems to

be that people think all of the medicine it is because of the cost.

Even though we might cause an affordability... I think the SMC

reports was fair, I think that you know all the consultants that are

work with understand the complexity of the situation and sensitive to

the fact that all these drugs are expensive, and, we have to look at

cost effectiveness, so I think that was fair, I think transparency is a

good thing, I think that the IPTR report was really very

disappointing, and basically does not change my practise at all, and I

think that we are still in the same situation as we were in before the

report was published in that we have a very difficult situation, or

system to navigate, and I don't think it is going to bring grater

access to medicines that have been turned down or not been through SMC.

-- greater. I II would agree with everything that has been said

before, this report, while welcome and does bring forward good

recommendations, particularly with regard to the S manufacture C

policy, there is some glaring admissions within this and the IPT

issue is one we would like to make sure is addressed going forward,

from this review there will be no change, patients will not be able to

access medicines enthough there is a fund in place. This is something the

committee will need to take forward. From information I have had given to

me, there is going to be a long-term from IPTR and SMC getting

information to the health boards, and for the process. Of IPTR. I feel

it is difficult for a person with a long-term condition, to go through

that process, and have a long time to wait to get the "yes" or the no

answer. You have to also demonstrate they are going to do better than the

trial population. So this is asking the clinicians to come out of the

evidence, gas is already there, and try and put forward scraps of

evidence that might make them different, or on a clinical ground

only. That is the only way they want it is on a clinical ground. There is

a section patients are supposed to put forward a statement. I think

that is cruel, what does that add? It is on clinical ground. With a

drug for 12 patients, in the, in Scotland, it is going to be

impossible to try and tease out both of these point, trying to tease out

somebody who is different to the trial population. Even when you do,

my experience has been that the drug is still turned down, so I don't

know with where you go from here but the IPTR process is not Six

Nationsing as it should do. I think that you have -- is not functioning,

it comes down to cost, but when of the comments in the report was that

you know, a lot of the doctors didn't understand the process, which

I agree is probably true, and that we should be able to seek advice

from the specialists, with all due respect we are the specialist, we

know the patient, we know the condition, we know the literature,

yet we are able to put forward the data but not involved in the

decision making process, the edecision making process is taken

out our hands and taken over by management, and I think that is

wrong. It should be, we should be sitting at the table, helping make

the decision. We need to be looking a back at the

approval system and saying is there something we can be doing there,

that will improve the situation, so that people are not having to go

through IPTRs so we are not seeing that Azerbaijan the answer, because

it is never going to be the answer. And so that wider debate round the

idea of value, SMC level and looking at those process, in terms of

improving the system for the vast majority of patients is where we

should be focussing efforts. So David Torrance our political men

Tay for is with me now, David, these cancer drug, it is a huge political

issue and was the feature of the exchange at First Minister's

questions last week. Yes, and health, you know, in all the polling

showings that health is one of the main concern, so it its prominence

is understandable. What it height light what is that evidence session

highlights is how difficult it is to strike a balance between what

patients want and what the M&S is willing to pay for providing. You

can't have a system where whatever treatment a patient wants they get

and equally, the NHS won't offer any and so it is about the balance. I

think politically it is tricky for the Scottish Government, because

they have sort of set up the Scottish NHS, which they almost

depict as being an independent separate organisation which of

course it is not, as one of the great success story, completely

public sector, very little private involvement, but this is beginning

to sort of, you know, expose some tensions and problems within the

system and that could undermine one of their political arguments.

Now, there are no Prime Minister's Questions today as Westminster is in

recess but we oin joined by David porter on College Green. David, some

news this afternoon that Eric Joyce has been arrested at Edinburgh

airport? Yes, in follows an incident on Sunday night when we understand

there was an altercation after Mr Joyce got off a plane and mislaid

his phone and tried to get it back. It seems ass though there was an

altercation and he wanted to get his phone and he wasn't allowed to get

it. He was arrested. This news has only broken this lunchtime, the

indications from the police in Scotland is that it is what they

call an active case and there maybe charges to follow, though it is

worth saying that as we stand, at the moment, no challenges have been

preferred. You said in your introduction there is no Prime

Minister's Questions, that is because the Commons has gone on a

recess, the House of Lords are still doing their bit, but I think there

will be many Conservative whips whob will be very happy to get their MPs

back to their constituency at the moment. It has been a febrile ten

days here, to discuss that and the latest, I am pleased to say I am

joined by two journalist who know the Scottish political scene and the

UK political scene very well. If you are a Tory whip you would be

glad to get that lot away. Let us see, they have split on Europe, more

after that half the backbenchers voted against Europe. They split on

gay marriage, with over 115 Tories and some ministers voting against

Government legislation, and we have had Cameron's xhums calling the

grass roots of the Tory party swivel-eyed loon, it couldn't get

much worse, no wonder they are going on holiday. But they can't be

placated. It doesn't matter how much Cameron concedes to the right-wing,

they don't like him. They don't like the coalition and they don't like

the fact that UKIP is breathing down their neck. A bit of Sun, which

would be good for us all, we'll do them some good. Maybe they will come

down by the time we come back. Every time David Cameron has given

something to the Euro-sceptics, a bit like Oliver, they have said

please can we have some more. classic tactic. His backbenchers are

bloodthirsty at the moment. They're certainly not satisfied. UKIP are

breathing down their necks in lots of constituencies and a lot of them

don't actually accept the Cameron agenda, they are not pro-European in

any respect. They want the UK out of Europe. They are certainly not

pro-gay marriage. This has been described by activists as core

values. It was more than just a dislike of Cameron, there is a real

sense of betrayal felt by some backbenchers. Sticking with Europe

for a moment, do you say Conservative backbenchers that you

speak to have got the idea that you can have a Private Members Bill to

bring legislation in for a referendum or IV suspicious that

this is David Cameron just trying to do something that he couldn't do

because the Liberal Democrats would let him? Most are quite sceptical.

They are happy to go with it for the moment, but what they want is

Government time to do this. They see this as just another example of the

Liberal Democrats stopping and doing them what they -- stopping them from

doing them what they want to do. Let's be honest. We all know that we

all know that we're being fobbed off. No referendum passed in this

Parliament can be effective in the Tories are really scared. All of the

more senior journalists here in Westminster say that they have seen

this all before, in John Major 's day, for example, when Tory party

was split over Europe. But this is not like John Major's day. Back

then, he had people backing him in Cabinet. It is hard to find a

pro-European voice on the Tory benches now. The other factor which

is affecting all parties is the UKIP factor. We have austerity in

Britain, people worried about their jobs and immigration, worried about

jobs for the kids, and all of this is being viewed through the prism of

an anti-politics ceiling which is expressing itself to UKIP just now.

I know that Tories look at their supporters going to UKIP, that

Labourer, who have been watching the Tories tear themselves apart for the

past ten days, should not be complacent. Their leadership is very

soft. Ed Miliband is very soft. He has not sold his deal to the

electorate yet. His support has melted away either to the Liberal

Democrats or two UKIP. There is also another agenda going on in the

Conservative party. Most MPs have now accepted they will not get the

referendum they want before the election. They wanted before the

election, not in 2017. What they are doing is tied to move the party to a

position where it is not just promising a referendum, but is

promising out of Europe. They are saying we want a referendum and to

push for out. That is what Cameron has said he does not want.

doesn't want that, but there is no counterweight within the party

itself, or even within the other party. They are not spelling out the

benefits of being in Europe. There are echoes of where we were in

Scotland at couple of years ago when the assertions of the SNP and the

agenda of the SNP and the vision of the SNP was virtually unchallenged

by its opponents. Nowadays there is more scrutiny. We will see things

swing backwards and forwards, mostly back the other way, but that is not

happening at a European level. Scotland, we are used to foreign

party politics. Will the same be true of Westminster in the future?

think there is a chance. You have not yet made the breakthrough that

they need to have won a Westminster seat. -- UKIP have not yet made the

breakthrough. There has been talk of a possible by-election in Portsmouth

South. As a former journalist from Portman said, it is pretty exciting,

and UKIP would stand a good chance of winning it. There is some concern

that, come the European elections next year, UKIP could drop the poll.

They could. You could end up with a British national was party winning

in England and a Scottish Nationalist party winning in

Scotland. They might blow up on the starting line, or they may become a

force in British or English politics. The first real test is in

Scotland, in Donside, with the SNP are defending a by-election seat

will stop I think it was a mistake by Alex Salmond to sneer at UKIP.

What happens if they get more than 2%? What happens if they get 10% of

this anti-politics feeling? People might stop following the SNP because

they are antiestablishment, they are the Government now. What if they get

10%? What it UKIP have one in ten Scots in their pocket? Nigel Farage

is very positive about Scotland. He thinks that UKIP has not tried hard

enough in Scotland. He thinks that they can get a European seat next

year in Scotland, and he thinks that they can get MSP's. His view is that

there is the centre right foot in Scotland which the Tories have given

up on, essentially, and they are there for him to take. It is quite

possible. Thank you very much. So, Andrew, perhaps one to watch. It is

not just all about UKIP. There could be repercussions in Scotland as

well. Thank you. David Torrance is still

with me here. David, it was interesting to hear David Cameron

take to the airwaves on Radio 4 trying to reassert his authority.

Yes, he has a real job on his hands to reassert his position as leader

of the Conservative party, and I say that quite specifically. Curiously,

as Prime Minister, I think he is protected by a fixed term Parliament

and to an extent by the Coalition. He is also protected by the fact

that there is no obvious successor. But as leader of the Conservative

party, he is certainly in a much weaker position now. And of course,

Nick Clegg has been trying to hold things together as well. He is not

keen on seeing the Coalition break-up before that fixed election

date in May 2015. It certainly looks that way. Clegg is going out of his

way to safeguard the Coalition. But he must balance that out against the

views of his party, and it could be that they are getting extremely

itchy feet at this point in the game. I have always thought, and

there were thoughts to this effect recently, that the Liberal Democrats

might formally disengage from the Coalition after next year's Budget.

That would give them 12 months to reassert themselves as an

independent force, perhaps with a different leader. David Cameron has

also been e-mailing party members. This was after the swivel-eyed loons

comment, which his MPs the night had been made. It is a difficult

situation. What is the top in the corridors of power? It has come to

something when the leader of the party has to e-mail his trips and

say that he loves and respects them. It is factionalism likely have never

seen before in the Tory party. There has always been a right wing and a

Euro-sceptic wing, pretty much the same thing, but now you have seven

or eight different factions on Europe and it is very difficult to

keep track of what they all want. It is all bundled up in different

things. Genuine opposition to the UK's place in Europe, some just do

not like David Cameron, some do not maintain but do not think he is a

proper conservative, and all of these things overlap and conflict

with one another and it is a very complicated picture. How he manages

any of that just is not clear. course, he had to manage the

same-sex legislation vote on Monday. Some people in the UK Government and

Labour had to do a grubby compromise to get that too. I think attention

is no turning to Scotland and legislation here. Yes. Of course, we

still do not have it. The Scottish Labour Party protect a message today

saying -- put out a message today saying that the SNP is dragging its

heels. I think that is to do with certain tensions within the Scottish

Government, not just tensions in Westminster, but also in the

Scottish Government, where there is a clear split between when this was

last discussed between the Nicola Sturgeon wing, who see this as a

clear priority and they want to press ahead with it, and other more

cautious people. Not perhaps socially conservative, but they

think it is politically risky and they want to move at a much slower

pace. And of course, the Scottish Government has seen the reaction

down south and seen the reaction from the Tory MPs on same-sex

marriage. They will be worried about that kind of reaction up here. Do

you think it might come in before the referendum will be wait longer?

I have always thought they will do whatever necessary to delay it until

after the referendum. It is not just -- it is just not a fight Alex

Salmond considers worth having where there is so much more at stake. I

think it will be kicked into the long grass.

Eric McQueen said feasibility studies will consider locating court

and other justice services in regional hubs in the border, high

land Fife and Strathclydement of what we are trying to do in

setting outeded ares is not all the bad news about cuts and reduction,

part is trying to think more creatively of how the justice system

should look in the future. We have been quite open and clearly

identified our response document, that we see justice centres as being

an integral part to support the court, we have looked a the border,

Highlands, Fife andary area of VAT collide as being areas we would like

toe so a justice centre we mean or more nan a court bidding we see it

being the type of service that is provided alongside the Scottish

Court Service, alongside the police with a custody unit, with the Crown

office, with social work, with Victim Support, with the support

services we need, where there is a volume of business it makes that

worthwhile having. We have committed to undertaking feasibility studies

in those areas and we have funds set aside for do that this year, in the

borders, the meeting will be the week after next where we will have a

meeting to get agreement on having a justice centre, there is already a

suggestion that in terms of location, Galashiels would make a

good central hub, to us it would be a good model of try to keep the

borders cases and maintaining borders identities within the

border, so we are committed to it as a way of trying to improve the

justice. System, improve delivery. We will sit down with partners and

the council, justice colleagues in a week after next, to start scoping

out the feasibility and the practicality of trying to achieve

them. If you forgive me, because we have moved on to my patch. I will

come in with a supplementary. We have a justice centre in

Peeblesshire court which was threatened with closure under the

previous executive and moved into Rosetta Road. Has the police there

through the door, it has social work. Child welfare. As far as I

know has very very small running costs because it is not even owned

by the Scottish Court Service, so do we not already have one, and you

know what are the advantages from somebody moving just as, we have

some in Broughton says it has to get, I welcome it would be Selkirk,

somebody has to get from brow on the to Selkirk instead of Broughton to

Peebles. To be blunt Peebles could be a good model. It doesn't have a

business. So there is not the sufficiency of business in peepables

to justify operating that as a full-time border centre. Bear with

me, if you are talking about justice centre in Gala, which is taking the

business from peepables, why is the business not just staying in Peebles

and developing that site. It has Great Parking round about it, it is

easy access, it is pretty good area to travel to, so we already have the

place, what is wrong with using it? Making that the justice centre?

that was the view of people in the borders that was an easy access

journey and accessible across the whole of the borders, that will come

out as part of the study. Sorry the whole of the borders so what is the

plan? The plan is to do a feasibility study. You said the

whole of the borders The plan is to do a feasibility study of whether a

justice centre could serve the whole of the boarer, we will look with

partners. So all the other courts will close That is something we will

consider. I have to ask you that that is where you are taking us

is why we will have a study. We will look at the feasibility centredy of

having a court in the borders. Although people seem surprised, I

don't think anybody would imagine this is a justice centre plus, this

is looking at how do we best deliver justice in the borders in terms of

having one central hub where you deliver business, so yes, we will

look wide across the borders in terms of what is the ideal model.

MSPs have voted in favour of a Scottish Government motion

supporting Scotland as a science nation. They debated the important

contribution of science centres and Science Festival, which aim to make

since accessible to people of all ages. Science, engineering and

technology are of course shaping the world in ways we would reck wouldn't

recognise ten or 15 years ago. It gives us an opportunity to celebrate

the work of those organisations that help the wider public make sense of

science in their every day lives and therefore contribute to the

positioning of Scotland as a science nation. Admittedly must much of this

will rely on the strength of our education system and the economic

development levers that nurture business, innovation and industry,

but there is a wider issue that is at the heart of this debate and that

is how do we Iing nigh -- ignite that initial spark of science in the

first place? How do we encourage adults who may have been let down by

science at school, to reengage with science issues affecting them, as

diverse as climate change, healthy eating or even vaccinations. How can

we encourage debate and discussion round new and often contention

science development that will shape Scotland in the future, from stem

cells to energy use. And this is where science engagement comes in, I

believe, presiding officer. From science centres and Science

Festivals to outreach tours taking Scottish research to schools and

communities across the country. I believe presiding officer there is a

great deal to celebrate about our science engagement community. But

there will always be challenge, particularly round funding, and how

to increase audiences and this is especially the case in communities

that are less able, or less willing to engage with science. There is

clearly a role for science communicators, industry and academia

to play their part and I know there are many in initiatives out there

that involve collaborations between these three main areas. But there is

also a role for colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. We can help

raise awareness of the opportunities available, many of which are free of

charge, for our local schools and communities to find out more about

science. The Minstermen shunned The Big Bang festival, I suspect the two

hours and 50 minutes we are devoting to this debate this afternoon will

be slightly less educational and slightly less entertaining than

spending two hours 50 minutes watching reruns of The Big Bang

theory, which might be commended to people, because I think that we have

missed an opportunity here today. Just a few months after a debate in

science, we had the opportunity to actually do something thatted that a

focus and intent -- that had a focus and intent. There is nothing in the

minister cease motion that I would disagree with, indeed, there is

nothing what the minister said that I would disagree with. The problem

is, I am not sure that it takes this Parliament or indeed anyone else

that much further forward, other than is all standing up today,

saying how much which agree with each other about the significance

and the importance of science. One of the things that with might want

to reflect on is can we look at different and better ways of doing a

business in different and better ways of engaging with the public,

because given the significance that the minister clearly attaches to

science and the Scottish Government he says attaches to science, then we

could have had some of our committees, find maybe doing joint

committee investigation into different aspects of science.

Scotland's exports come froms science, engineering and technology

related sectors yet the oil and gas industries have expressed their

consend about school's shortages and a recontribute survey of companies

in Aberdeen identifying finding talent and skill shortages as the

number one challenge to their future competitiveness. That is an

important warning. Scotland science centres and

festivals play a crucial role in making it more accessible to all age

group, we are happy to support the Government's motion. Nonetheless we

believe we need to enhance that attraction, and to do more to ensure

there is a stronger and more diverse science qualification network that

will meet the academic needs of pupils across Scotland.

Conservatives Liz Smith there. Let us get Fiat final thoughts from our

commentator David Torrance, it was just about a year ago the "yes"

campaign launched in Edinburgh. Hard to believe that time has gone by.

How have things progressed in that year, now we are getting all this

information from both sides, looking at the papers? Time flies when you

are having referendum fun! The striking thing is, after almost a

full year's campaigning from both sides and the onslaught of

information, some might said propaganda, there is no discernible

movement in the opinion polls. A recent one showed a slight dip.

Another showed a slight rides, but there has been no movement in either

the "no" or "yes" vote in a full year. What that says to me ITVer

people have made up their mind, which is possible, or yes Scotland

are better together are preaching to the converted. They are not getting

beyond the Holyrood and Westminster bubble and people like us who are

fascinated by it. They are not reaching real voters and it is

possible real voters haven't begun thinking seriously about the

question at hand. Sometimes you wonder normal people, away from the

bubble are not maybe quite engaging in this debate yet. Once they do

start, we could see maybe a radical movement in the polls from either

side. Yes, and vat gists from yes Scotland will tell you and it is a

God point we saw this in the May, April May 2011 election campaign,

when Labour had an apparently unassailable poll lead and half way

through the campaign when voters got into a Holyrood mind set and thought

about who they wanted as First Minister, there was a radical shift

in the opinion polls. This isn't quite the same thing. Independence

has been discussed for decades, it is not a new debate, and a

referendum isn't really the same thing as a Holyrood election, it is

a much different order of decision. Next summer and this is another year

away, before the formal 16 week long campaign start, that is when you

will see movement if at all. Briefly, it is a head and heart

debate. We have heard a lot from the head side when it comes to the

economic stuff. Yes, think there might be a case to be made there has

not been enough emotion so far. As I said earlier the economic stuff can

get arid and might turn people off, but in order to get voters fired up,

we need to see more motion over the next year from better together and

yes Scotland. Thank you for joining us David

Torrance. And that is all we have time for this afternoon. Join me