24/10/2012 Politics Scotland

Said welcome to Politics Scotland. More pressure heaped on Alex

Salmond. He said he had not lied in an interview about legal advice and

whether or not it was given about Scottish EU membership. The Prime

Minister has entered the row. turns out they did not have any

legal advice and I think this shows that when we share the spotlight on

the case for separation, it falls apart. For two MSPs press the

nuclear button and quit. And the Jimmy Savile scandal widens. We

have had an announcement that there will be a review of a decision not

to prosecute him in connection with earlier sex abuse. It has been

described as the worst day for the SNP since coming to power.

Yesterday the First Minister made an emergency statement in which he

denied lying about obtaining legal advice about membership of the EU.

It came a couple of hours after MSPs resigned over the party's

changed stance on NATO. We can take a look at how events unfolded

yesterday about EU legal advice. the light of the Edinburgh

agreement by which both governments have agreed the process to achieve

independence, I can confirm the Government has commissioned a

specific legal advice from officers on the position of Scotland in the

European Union if independence is achieved. Apologies for

interrupting this debate. We have got an important matter which I

think needs to be addressed. Earlier, the Deputy First Minister

said the Scottish government had not sought legal advice on an

independent Scotland's membership of the European Union. But in an

interview with Andrew Neil the First Minister in response to a

question regarding whether he sought advice from his Scottish law

officer, the First Minister said, "we have, yes, everything that we

have said is consistent with the legal advice we have received."

these two statements cannot be correct. I did he has misled the

chamber or -- I bet he has misled the chamber or the deputy has

misled the chamber. Can any opportunity be provided to allow

the First Minister to clarify this serious matter? I would like to

read too briefly the full transcript of the interview. I

mentioned eminent authorities. I was told that we have established

it is unprecedented, although you are trying to give guarantees, had

he sought legal advice in this matter? I replied, we have, yes, in

terms of the debate and obviously... Then he interrupted and asked what

they said. I said you can read that in the documents but thought which

argues the position we would be successful. But what do they say? I

cannot give you the legal advice, all with the late. You know that,

Andrew. If -- or reveal legal advice. He said, what you can say

is that everything that has been published is consistent with the

legal advice received. In the interview, as is clear from that

transcript, I refused to depart from the Convention on specific

legal advice, despite pressure from Andrew Neil. That position that

myself and members have held to all points subsequent to earlier today,

when the Deputy First Minister made her statement with the permission

of the law officers. I am happy to place a full transcript of that

interview at the earliest opportunity and shed light on

partial accounts which have been mentioned elsewhere, which makes

the content absolutely clear. Finally, in one of the partial

transcripts, I have been described as a bare-faced liar. The quotation

that has been used as justification says, me sane in response, we have,

yes,... I cannot release the legal advice of law officers, Andrew.

That has missed out 27 words across three separate answers. This can

actually be seen in the full transcript. I would simply ask as a

Member of this chamber that we reflect on the number of things we

can put as adjectives in 27 words between these words. That is no way

to conduct a debate. The full transcript will be available as a.

They contend that has been talk about was government documents.

can speak to Raymond Buchanan, at Holyrood. It is important to recap

on yesterday's events. They are a bit complicated. But essentially

the Scottish Cup and was walking into way firestorm. -- the Scottish

government was walking into a firestorm. We have had this

referendum question and one of the important questions will be it an

independent Scotland would retain the EU membership. Ever since 2007

we have had a series of official government documents which have

plainly stated that an independent Scotland would continue membership

of the EU. And yesterday during her statement, Nicola Sturgeon revealed

that she had not yet, her government had not asked law

officers in Scotland for specific legal advice on whether an

independent Scotland would indeed continued membership. That has led

to a not a criticism and cheering in the chamber. A press release

from the Labour Party accused the First Minister of being a bare-

faced liar. That was not repeated but his colleague again on the

radio described the First Minister as having misled the public. That

has been strongly denied by the First Minister himself yesterday

and by colleagues today. A what is the talk at Holyrood today of the

strategy behind the Scottish government? Did Nicola Sturgeon

realise what was going to happen when she walked into the chamber

yesterday? They were talking about that legal advice. They must have

realised it would be controversial. We understood that the Scottish Cup

would were still fighting a legal case over -- the Scottish

government were fighting legal advice. There was not any doubt

that this would be controversial. Copies of the statement were given

in advance of her standing up. They cannot be any doubt that this would

have led to controversy. Two members have resigned. Others are

considering their position. And we had another statement in which it

was revealed that the Government had missed its first climate

emissions target. Not a good day for Alex Salmond. Not at all. We

had that headline about the legal advice and the opposition parties

are keeping up the pressure today. What has happened? They kick it is

a weakness. We have heard -- they think is a weakness. The Prime

Minister intervened and has since spoken to Nicola Sturgeon and she

said that she will not take lessons from David Cameron. She said that

they are working hard for the 2014 referendum. As the Prime Minister

was answering that question, aided my age group of MSPs were gathering

for the normal -- a group of MSPs were gathering. Positive meetings

have taken place but it has obviously been a troubled couple of

days. They are dusting themselves down and getting on with things.

committee of peers is taking evidence in Edinburgh on the

economic implications of independence. The inquiry will take

evidence from business, academics and politicians, including the

leader of the Better Together campaign, Alastair Darling, who

joins us in Edinburgh. Lord MacGregor, chairing the committee,

said he is disappointed Alex Salmond is not giving evidence. I

am sure you will be pleased to give evidence but it is just a pro union

investigation. It would have been helpful if Alex Salmond explained

unanswered questions about this debate. We had that mess yesterday

about the question of membership of the European Union which is

critical to economic prospects. We have got the question of currency

and what the arrangements would be and supervising banks. What is

becoming obvious is that despite all the preparation, they are

caught completely by surprise by this referendum. They have not done

the work that he would have expected and cannot answer basic

questions. No wonder they have run into difficulty trying to hide the

fact they did not have legal advice. But are you the best person to give

evidence? Look at the past Labour government's record. Since becoming

Chancellor, Tony Blair said in his memoirs that he wished he started

paying off the deficit area and it ballooned under your watch. But the

financial system collapsed in this country and every country. But our

country was affected and the Americans, European countries and

Japan, the entire world. Coming back to this issue, what we must

decide in relation to the referendum, is what is best for

Scotland. That is why this miserable business yesterday

completely undermines the credibility of Alex Salmond and his

case when we were led to believe that there was legal opinion. He

did not correct us about that and he has been fighting an expensive

legal case to hide what has happened. But we have not had legal

advice. We have got big issues on currency. These are issues that

people in Scotland are entitled to be told about. It is obvious that

we cannot trust what he is saying. You said it strikes at the heart of

Alex Salmond's credibility. But in that interview with Andrew Neil was

he not talking about that debate? do not think anybody outside the

SNP could possibly have believed that he was saying anything about

legal advice. He had ample opportunity in that interview to

say that he had not asked anybody about this and that it was his

opinion but he did not. For months, he has allowed people to think that

he had a legal opinion to back up his point of view. I thought that

is why he did not want to release it in case anybody look at it. But

he never got that advice in the first place. In a few months they

want to use the Government to produce a white paper to set out

there case. What credibility has this got? How can we believe this

after yesterday? It strikes at the heart of credibility and this whole

debate at the referendum and it does not do that any good. At the

committee we have heard that it was said that Scotland should prepare

to join the European currency if they got independence. But

considering the absence of legal advice he caught... What is your

opinion? Would they have to join the currency? If you look at all

the people that have joined the European currency, it has been a

condition that they have signed up and that they have signed up to

passport control. But the point is that we are not sure firstly

whether or not Scotland would be treated as being a member or if it

would have to apply. Some people have said that we would need to

apply again and Alex Salmond with his typical bombast said that was

rubbish and that he did not know what he was talking about. These

are uncertainties. That is what we must know about before 2014.

nationalists have picked up on that point of uncertainty and have said

that your campaign is uncertain. Nobody knows what the Labour Party

wants if we have further devolution in the referendum. Nobody knows

what the Conservatives want. What is the future for Scotland for the

Labour Party? First, we will remain part of the United Kingdom with the

strengths and the fact that we have got the oldest single market. We

have got cultural and emotional ties and influence in Europe that

you cannot have as a small country. These are positive arguments and

you are asking about additional powers. As you know, additional

hours are coming in 2016, started by our government and implemented

by the current government. As time continues, I am sure they will be

more devolution. But the issues that the nationalists have right be

raised because they have got the mandate it is Scotland going to

remain part of the United Kingdom? At all be put in front of the

people in two years. I know what they are trying to avoid answering

that question because they are unprepared to answer these

questions. That is why we are entitled, when it is clear what

they are doing, why they have quite deliberately deceived people, we

are entitled to press them about John Finney and Jean Urquhart made

pleas not the change policy. Yesterday, they explained why they

were quitting. I have wrestled on how remaining in the party I can

square the matter. I can't. I cannot advocate joining a nuclear

alliance like NATO is. This is the only reason I am taking this

horrendous decision, I have to say. I am not, I am not proud of it, but

I feel for my own integrity it's the only thing I can do. Let us

speak to our commentator for the afternoon, who is the editor of the

Times in Scotland. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining me.

Fascinating couple of days in politics, just now. We are playing

those clips from the two MSPs who have left yesterday. When they

story broke, that was something in the morning, wasn't it? For years,

the SNP have been a united force, and in Government, one would have

to say that since 2000 67, they have presented this -- 2007,

presented a competent front, both administratively and politically,

so you know, for two backbenchers to suddenly walk out of the party

as went against everything we knew of the present day and modern day

SNP. But I mean, having walked out, one would have to conclude they

have, you know, put principle before pragmatism, and that was, if

you like, a reversal of what happened last Friday, where, at the

debate at the Conference, the SNP decided to put pragmatism before

the principle they held for years. So I think that actually, Jean

Urquhart and John Finney behaved honourably. It raises the question

of how many more? We don't know that. There are rumours of at least

one more. It raises the question on how this impact tons majority. Both

made very clear yesterday, the numbers might be down, but they

will be they will be answerable to vote with the SNP on all

conceiveable issues. Defence is not going to come up. NATO is not going

to come up, that is reserved to Westminster. A couple of hours

later, the the story about the legal advice brother, which we have

been discussing. Alistair Darling was picking up on that too. Do you

think, as I mentioned, do you think Nicola Sturgeon knew what was going

to happen when she walked into the chamber yesterday and started

speaking about it? It is baffling. Some people suggested, when the

story broke yesterday afternoon, maybe it was some kind of

diversionary tactic from the two to, get our attention grey the two MSPs

who walked out. That doesn't make sense. Why would you divert

people's aten swhun a worse story? This was a worse story. The other

explanation, it is that they thought by because the MSPs

quitting that story a couple of hours earlier, they were trying to

get this out, and that maybe it would be lost in the hoo-ha about

the MSPs, but it was simply not thought through, as far as I can

see. When you think about it, all, and I really have to say, Andrew,

that I think the language, some of the language round this issue,

people have been called liars. I don't think it does anyone any good.

You would have to say, on this issue, of the legal advice on the

EU, as on the issue of the second question in the referendum, Mr

Salmond has at the very least been bluffing frankly, and all that, all

that seems to have happened is that he doesn't realise that either

someone was going to have to call his bluff, or he was going to have

to call his own bluff. As it happened he called his own bluff

yesterday. Has been a terrible week for Mr Salmond, if someone else

goes tomorrow, for example, over NATO, I mean, it round it all,

doesn't it. It does. Yes, it has been a traumatic period, and he

looked yesterday, I mean one of the things I expected when he came back

to the chamber yesterday, to make his emergency statement, given, you

know, Alex Salmond's the ability he has as a politics. I thought he

wouldn't be coming back if he didn't have something riveting to

say. He didn't, he made an unclear statement, as an excuse, really,

and it didn't work at all. If it was meant to sort of say, for us

all to say "Oh well, perhaps we were wrong in the first judgment

here, it didn't work and we all went way saying that doesn't change

anything. Back with you in a short while. So, plenty to discuss today.

Let us hear what our MSPs have to swai. Will go back to Raymond at

Holyrood. Thank you. Yes, I have a very eminent panel of four MSPs

here, to discuss what has been a tumultuous couple of days. Angus

just suggesting what we found out yesterday, Alex Salmond has been

bluffing on the issue of legal advice, what do you say to that?.

Far from it. The Ministerial Code is explicit, the ministers cannot

comment on the existence of legal advice, far let alone what any

legal advice, if it exist, might contain, and I find it interesting,

because Alex Salmond has been referred untive der the terms of

the code by our opponents five time, five occasion, the allegations have

been found to have no substance whatsoever. Yet n this instance the

other parties were active tively willing Alex Salmond to break the

terms of the code. When you read official Government documents going

back to 2007, up to the referendum consultation earlier on, and they

say an independent Scotland will be a member of the European Union. Did

you think, tell you what, they are guessing at that, or did you think

they must have a legal opinion, otherwise they wouldn't put that in

an official document? I am sure my colleagues will say in a moment

Scotland won't be part of the European Union. Everyone accepts

that Scotland will be part of the European Union. You are so certain,

you said you know what, you have to confirm that. There is a body of

opinion, expert opinion... All people who worked at the upper

echelon of the European who have said that Scotland will inherit its

membership of the European Union, and be in the same position as the

remainder of the United Kingdom. You know what, they are reflecting

the reality of the situation. It is commonsense to dictate that is the

case. Labour made a mess of this yesterday, by the use of your

language, calling the First Minister a liar. Is that

appropriate for grown up politicians to be using that kind

of language. I don't think we made a mess of it eau at all. Finally

the Scottish people are getting the measure of the First Minister,

something perhaps most of us in the Scottish Parliament are familiar

with, he is a bluff and bluster politician, not only are they

seeing his true side but Jamie is trying to make the assertion of

course we will be members of the European Union. That is the trouble,

we keep getting the politics of assertion. Do you think one of the

largest oil producers on this continent will not be invited, at

the very least if they need to get that, into the European? I was

going to say Scotland would be a member of the European, but we need

to know on what terms. So for example, will we will forced to use

the euro? It is a important question. All new members have to

become members of the eurozone, that is an important question.

Important question, quick answer. Well, I go back to the point I have

made already. Scotland will not be a new member of the European, and I

think the point you have made is that the Labour Party should very

much regret the type of terminology they used yesterday. Willie Rennie,

the reason Alex Salmond has to go back into the chamber is because

you accused him of potentially miss leading people with what he had

said in that interview, compared to what was said in the chamber. Were

you satisfied with his performance? I don't think it was, it was a

mealy mouthed mud hell got involved in yesterday, we are not clearer as

to whether he had advice or didn't. What aren't you clear about?

said clearly we have, yes, in response to the question we have

legal advice from our Scottish law officer, he said that in the

interview, and then he is saying I didn't say that. I think the most

important thing is we get down to the substance of what this really

means. I think the Scottish Government have been pursuing the

currency with the pound. They want to keep the pound. That is the

assertion from the SNP that will be the logical extension from their

position. I think now that the case the SNP have been making about

continuing membership of the European Union has been undermined

significantly from yesterday. They now need to look seriously at the

euro. Just a moment. There may not be precedence which about which an

independent Scotland becoming an automatic member of the EU, there

is precedence to say a new member need not take up the euro any time

soon. There is a possibility that Scotland, an independent Scotland

would have to take up the euro. What is a possibility? Isn't that

scaremongers. All they are looking at is the pound. We need to know

the consequences of what the euro would mean for Scotland, and for

instance if we had to get our deficit under control, that could

mean a �5 billion cut in public spending. That is not scaring. All

I am suggesting is they should get, they should do the research, the

planning, the preparation, because if we don't, we will be walking in

the dark in this referendum. What damage do you think this has done

to Alex Salmond as a First Minister. You talk about a shambles yesterday.

Angus said he was caught bluffing and Jamie is trying to continue the

bluff today. The fact sb for the last year, every time we have asked

this question, the Government's response has been yes, we can't

share the legal advice, but everything in the documents is

consistent with the legal advice we have received. Yesterday we were

told there is no legal advice, they haven't sought it. I don't know

what is worse, that they have been trying to pull the wool over

people's eyes for the last year, that they had legal advice and were

giving the impression it meant we could be part of the European Union

in current term, or what is worse they haven't sought the add sthrie,

is a man who is asking the people of Scotland to trust him with

creating a new nation state. The people of Scotland can see he can't

be straight with them on the facts. You are coming in from criticism

Jamie. No surprise they believe in the union. This is somewhat par for

the course. Why did we find out yesterday you hadn't asked for

legal advice? I go back to the point I made earlier, under the

terms of the code ministers cannot comment on the compis tans...

can ask for permission. There is a way it could happen. This comes out

of the context of a specific interview, again, we are getting

the selective quotation from the interview, which is what happened

in that disgraceful press release we saw yesterday, from Labour. It

is clear from the terms of that interview, yes, Alex Salmond did

confirm that legal advice has been sought, in terms of the documents

that have been published at the time, such at Your Scotland, Your

Voice. It's the case that every single document publishs by the

Scottish Government was under pinned by legal advice. Why didn't

you say, look, we aregateering this informs Lord advocate check that to

make sure independent Scotland, would be because we would like to

put that snens the document? What did we see in the last week? We saw

the culmination of two Governments culminating in the agreement. I

think that is the appropriate Jung churn because we know what the

terms of that referendum are ra going to be. That is the time to

seek that advice. Briefly, do you think this is over in terms of the

Parliament? I think that, I hope there is a lesson to be learned.

One for the First Minister to be straight us with, secondly, to have

an honest debate about the terms of separation. We need to know... It

is accept race we are going to leave the UK and we need to know

the ground on which we are going to join the EU.. Do you think it is

over in Parliamentary terms? He explained himself yesterday, not

very well was he has and what has become clear is that the public now

see, he said one thing then, saying another thing. Nicola Sturgeon said

fair minded people will come to their own view. I think fair minded

people will, and I think they will feel they have been duped. Is this,

do you think a weak point in the "yes" campaign, when it comes to

the independence referendum in 2014, the whole European question?

disagree. If you look tt latest opinion poll, support for

independence is growing, particularly if when the question

is posed in terms of either the Tories or the Labour Party form the

next UK Government. Positive argument that gvings. Thank you for

joining us. First Minister's questions tomorrow. Never quite

sure what is going to come up there, but the issue of Europe won't be

going away any time soon. A fair bet. Thank you for that just now.

Now, it is reasonably mild today but forecasters say the cold

weather is on its way this weekend. As you look out your scarves and

gloves the Scottish Government is preparing for cold setting out

their winter resilience plans. Labour claimed local councils are

being forced to cut back on money I have got partial experience

because my daughter was stuck again snow and I had difficulty finding

out what was happening and getting information to her. Since then,

improvements have been made. And as the minister said, we have got more

information for mobile devices. Resilience involves keeping public

services functioning and keeping the public informed. Schools might

be closed at short notice because it is not safe for people to travel

to school or because heating systems are failing. But closures

to create difficulties for working parents and people for whom they

work. Especially people in occupations which come under

pressure in these matters such as the NHS. So to insure people get

information quickly, parents should be encouraged to make plans with

relatives and friends and other parents about how they would put up

with closures. And who might be able to take time off work to look

after children perhaps on a rotation basis. We are encouraging

work places to allow home working where possible. We are looking at

transport issues and child care problems as well. Periods of

prolonged low temperatures present problems for other services. I can

think of Christmas and the new year last year when in my constituency

we got less snowfall but because the crowd was not insulated by snow,

we had a lot of problems with frozen pipes and they had not been

put deep enough under the road. A lot of people ended up without

water for several days. I had a situation with an elderly gentleman

taking snow out of the garden and putting it in his cattle for

something to drink. One of the problems was the call centre could

not cope with the volume of calls. Some of these things need to be

looked at. In terms of Scottish Water, senior management did a

Stirling job. They received telephone calls right into the

night and it was an excellent service and I have not criticised

them at that time. But people that are able to contribute to community

resilience should be encouraged to do that. During the last severe

winter, we had a lot of disinformation, such as if somebody

cleared a footpath outside their home and somebody said, at person

might be held responsible. That was a load of nonsense but people must

be confident that if they make efforts to help themselves and

their community, that will not lead to prosecution. More salting and

gritting can increase resilience as long as the content is stored in a

way that it does not solidified. Sometimes that can be difficult. It

does appear lessons have been learnt from recent harsh winters

and equipment has been purchased. I saw a nice picture in the Daily

Mail, showing at the minister with a good set of gloves and scarves

and an umbrella. But the concerns are not about the sartorial

elegance of the minister but the article next door. That indicates

that a number of local authorities because of financial pressure are

looking at cutting back on winter resilience. Scottish Borders are

hoping to save �170,000 by reducing gritting parities for hundreds of

miles of road. Time intervals have been reduced during which gritting

can take place by four hours per day had councils have been cutting

back on programmes and three have reduced salt reserves. That has

been done because councils think that they can access more material

more quickly if required. It is worth looking behind some of these

figures which have been quoted. Many authorities would have had

high levels of salt not used because of how the winter turned

out. It is in their interests to be conscious that they have got more

than enough in place. We had that very bad winter two years ago.

thank the Minister for that clarification of these issues. One

of the things that is worrying is that I do not think councils are

implementing these cuts because they did not take it seriously. I

realise that actually they do but councils are under extreme

financial pressure. Alex Thomson will mention issues about potholes.

We have still got miles of them in Galloway which have not been

Speaking in the Parliament about winter resilience. The Scottish

pledged to reduce carbon emissions was praised as world-leading but

yesterday, they had to explain why the Scottish Government had failed

to meet the first legally binding climate change target. Apparently

it was because of that harsh winter back in 2010. This report identify

his greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 and there are a number of

things to consider. After a very cold weather at the start and end

of 2010, that had an impact on the emissions. It is worth recalling

that the average temperature between January and March and

October and December was the coldest in almost 100 years. As a

consequence, the consumption of heating increased. People heated

their homes to keep warm and safe. The figures indicate that people in

the residential sector increased usage by 15 %, 1.1 megatons of

emissions. We support these targets and we recognise that they are

world leading but it must be time to lead by example. The first

annual target is a failure. And in this statement we have got every

excuse being offered including the lack of sunshine. But we must

accept responsibility -- responsibility for this failure.

Commissions are actually higher in 2010 than they were in 1990. --

greenhouse gas emissions. Chaos in response to budgets have indicated

that today's budget makes it clear that the Government is not taking

seriously the need for urgent action and meet legally binding

Joining me from Edinburgh is the chair of Stop Climate Chaos, Tom

Ballantine. Hearing the bad weather of 2010 was to blame for missing

these targets, do you start to think what is the point of having

these targets? Indeed. I think we must accept that we did not need to

be defeated by the weather conditions. The Government could

have taken more ambitious plans on transport and energy efficiency and

we could have met targets. Many emissions come from homes and from

transport and there was an obvious route to that to meeting targets.

They blamed the use of heating in 2010 at the start and finish. Have

we got funding issues here? It was pointed out in the chamber that

some people were wondering if the budget was sufficient. I think it

is not sufficient. People were talking about homes. It should be

at least �100 billion for energy- efficiency measures. It is a no-

brainer. Home energy efficiencies would create more jobs and deal

with fuel poverty and provide health benefits. This is a range of

reasons why it makes sense to put money into that. Will these figures

have given the Government a fright? Mite more funding be put into

climate change? I hope the Government will consider the fact

that when legislation was passed it was passed unanimously at had

support across the public. The Scottish First Minister has been

talking about climate justice and the need for everybody to meet

targets. I hope that he will make sure that the budget is more

generous when it comes to things like home energy and transport,

where again what we are looking for is more money going into active

travel, to provide benefits for Health, cut pollution and have

other benefits. More money on that and energy efficiency.

mentioned these targets being world leading. The climate change summit

is in December. Will the Minister think that future targets will be

met? Is he being too confident or is it possible? It is certainly

possible but it requires the Government to move a cross from

world leading words and targets to world leading actions. That is what

we are lobbying for. We will lobby the Scottish Parliament

specifically to press for the Government to do the things that

will make it possible to beat targets. Tom Ballantine from

Edinburgh, thank you for joining us. We can speak to a Angus Macleod

from the Times. It does seem strange that the Scottish weather

conditions have defeated targets. A lot of use of heating at the end of

2010. A surprise, surprise, a country in the North West of Europe

getting cold. The minister might have cause to be grateful to his

colleagues. Because after all the other stories emanating from the

Scottish Government, the climate change story got lost in the detail.

Perhaps insufficient attention has been paid. The Scottish Government

has talked a lot about being a world leader. This plays into the

failing a rusty Scottish Government of claiming being a world leader --

falling into the Scottish Government about claiming about

being a world leader and these are legally binding targets. When they

are seen to fail, then they must ask why these targets were set in

the first place. Down to Westminster and Prime Minister's

Questions, where David Cameron was asked about events of the past week

by Ed Miliband. He also responded to questions about the director

general of the BBC's appearance before the Select Committee

yesterday and the row about Scottish EU legal advice. He is

living in a parallel universe. It has been another disastrous week

for his government. Last week he defended the chief whip and now he

has gone. The energy policy has gone as well. He has lost millions

on the railways. There is nobody left to blame for the shambles of

his government and it goes right to the top. It is only a bad week if

you think it is bad that unemployment is coming down. It is

a bad if you regret inflation is coming down. It is only bad if you

do not think it is good that one million more people are working.

That is what is happening. Every bit of good news is sending that

team into a complete decline. But it will keep coming. After the

appearance of the director general, I hope the House will agree that it

is essential that these inquiries get to the truth. Details are still

sketchy, despite letters asking for disclosure. Will the Prime Minister

join me in calling for full details to be published so that both

inquiries can have full confidence of the public and Jimmy Savile's

victims can hear the true? commend my friend for the good and

valuable work that he has done. He has tried to make sure that these

institutions get to the truth. To be fair to the BBC, they inquiries

at they have set up, I think qualify as independent. The inquiry

into Newsnight is being carried out by the former head of Sky News,

Nick Pollard. The second review into the culture and practices of

the BBC going back many years is being led by a former Appeal Court

judge, Dame Janet Smith. It is important to BBC makes clear that

the inquiries can go where the evidence takes them and that they

will have access to paperwork and the Independent and get to the

truth. Will he promised that unlike leaders in other parliaments in the

UK, that he will not spend �100,000 fighting the release of legal

advice that he does not hold and did not ask for? He asks a baffling

question about a baffling situation, which is that we were told, I think

by the First Minister in Scotland that he had legal advice about

Scotland's place in the EU. But it turns out they did not have legal

advice. I think that this shows that when you shine the spotlight

on the case for separation, it Good afternoon David. Thank you

very much. As we saw there, a flavour of Prime Minister's

Question Time. And pretty mixed bag of issues to discuss. I am pleased

to say I have three Scottish MPs to Gentlemen, I will start with an

issue which I think is probably going to be a large amount of

agreement on, the whole Jimmy Savile scandal/saga. I think to

people at home, they will be incredulous how this could have

gone on for so long, and no-one seemed to realise or lead a

prosecution. I think it is unbelievable that it did carry on

for so long, that there wasn't any coming into the public domain, in

the sense of the authorities being involved. What we have to do now is

ensure that the police are properly resourceed in the inquiries they

are carrying out. Obviously the BBC have two enquiries ongoing and

there is a separate NHS inquiry. We have to get to the facts of what

actually happened, and the fact of how it didn't emerge within the

public demain in his lifetime. we need now a separate overarching

inquiry, into the aspects of this man's life, and what he did?

Certainly the Labour Party and Ed Miliband have been keen that such

an inquiries, and it is pretty shocking, when you think of the

people are coming forward, and explaining what happened, when they

met Jimmy Savile. We have to get to the bottom of this. These inquiries,

understandably, different institutions are having their own

inquiries, I think the public will demand there is an answer at the

bottom of this. There doesn't appear to be a Scottish dimension

in that thankfully. There are profound questions which need to be

answered. There are indeed, and you know, this is an issue of Scotland

or UK, this is an issue of huge dysfunction in the BBC many, many

years ago. I agree with everything David said there, and he is right,

you know, we have to get to the bottom of how it could go on,

unnoticed or unreported. With people in authority, perhaps not

taking decision they ought to have taken, even in the context of that

time, because the scale of this, if it is all to be believed, it is

breathtaking. At the risk of a very sharp gear change, moving from

Jimmy Savile, to matters European, the EU. Clarify for us what your

party and your Government in Scotland did and did not seek, as

far as legal advice, about and independent Scotland's future in

the European Union. What the Scottish Government had sought and

the First Minister has been clear about this, and it came out in the

full transcript of the interview with Andrew Neil. Is legal advice

which underpin documents that are already published. Your Scotland,

Your Voice. That is clear, that is the advice that was sought. In

terms of more general add dries, that is being sought now and it

makes sense to do it now, we have the Edinburgh agreement, so we have

the legal basis upon which the referendum will be fought, an

independence will be achieved. It is on that basis it is right now to

ask for this more specific advice. The First Minister was asked

directly "Have you sought legal advice on the add miss built of an

independent Scotland to EU?" and he said yes. The First Minister said

many things in that interview. You will be aware that the version

which was circulating was heavily edited and it was a heavily edited

interview. The point he has made is that which underpins existing

published documents. He suggested to Andrew Neil he might like to

read some of these in the interview. The First Minister has been

consistent in what he said. Does that satisfy you? The bottom line

and the question he has to answer is why did the Scottish Government

spend tax payers' money on hiding legal advice that doesn't exist?

That is the way we need an answer to from Alex Salmond and the SNP,

straightforward and simple. As far as the British Government is

concerned what is the situation, what do you belief the legal

situation is? We believe it is not straightforward for Scotland to

become a separate member of the EU, and there are all sorts of issues

in relation to the currency. What surprises us, is that Mr Salmond,

when advocating independence, doesn't have any substantive legal

advice, to base all the assertions he makes it will just be a

straightforward matter of Scotland becoming part of the EU. Clearly,

it is not. It is absolutely unbelievable, in any view -- in my

view to suggest that you were only in the interview talking about

general advice, which was in the public domain, why, as Greg say,

would you spend thousands of tax payers' money trying to hydrogen

advice, that people already knew? Is this an issue that has to be

settled now or is it something that can be sorted out before we have

the referendum? I mean it seems to me the SNP resemble a flat earth

society. Everyone knows that Scotland, if it leaves the United

Kingdom will have to apply to the join the EU. At that stage there

won't be any opt out in terms o the euro. To maintain that Scotland

should leave the United Kingdom, and automatically imaginically

become a member of the EU is not serious, and the Scottish people

know that. These assertions are ridiculous, Scotland is part toe. U

now when we become independent we won't be an accession country

having to join, we will be a successor country, that is clear.

So the scare stories being put about are really silly, in terms of

not issues legal advice, no Government publishing legal advice,

indeed this Government didn't publish the risk assessment for the

privatisation of the NHS. Tooth and nail, opposed doing that. It is

normal practise not to publish legal advice. It is normal practise

to have the legal advice and what has been revealed you didn't vit.

You precede on the basis of assertion. That is Mr Salmond's

modus operandi and you have nothing to back it up. You have been found

out and you one better to admit that than try and pretend there is

wordsmithing that can let you off the Hook.. The difficulty is the

unionist parties thought they had a smoking e-mail that said we

couldn't join the EU, that is why they are angry. We will be a

successor state that. Much is clear. We remain in the EU. It is right

and proper to ask the specific questions now, that the Edinburgh

agreement is signed sh and we know the legal basis on which the friend

referendum will be held. We will have to leave it there. Thank you

very much for joining us this afternoon. Somehow, Andrew, I think

we will hear a lot more about this in the days and weeks and possibly

months to come. Thank you. Let us diskiz it a bit further in the

studio can Angus from the Times. I have the transcript here, Andrew

Neil says "Have you sought advice from your own law officers. Alex

Salmond: In terms of the debate and Andrew Neil interrupts hip. When he

said debate he glided over the word, it was interesting to hear the

interview. Think that you know, one thing, if anything has become clear

in this, and I think Greg put his finger on it, if you are going to

go to a Court of Session, and mount a legal action, then you are to

assume that everyone is on a level playing field. In other words, the

legal action was, it wasn't to say what the advice was, it was to say

whether you held advice. Now, if you are spreeding on that basis

then I think it is only -- spreeding on that basis it is only

right to aseem -- assume that people think you have, you have

something that you don't want to say, and I think, in this case, the

First Minister has to answer the question, why he went to the Court

of Session, why he spent that money when he was trying to keep a secret

that actually didn't exist. It is bizarre. OK. Thank you. Another law

related issue now, the head of Scotland's new single police force

said there is no plan to use police officers to back fill civilian

staff. Chief Constable Steven Howe was speaking at the justice

committee in his first appearance before MSPs since his appointment.

Here is a taste of the exchange yesterday. There is a bit of

confusion about what is happening between the balance of police

officers and civilian posts, because the First Minister denies

that police officers are increasingly doing civilian jobs

but the Cabinet secretary's police reform sub group plans make it

clear that cuts to police staff will be delivered by police

officers performing basic administrative duty themselves. Can

I ask you whose view your share? answer your question directly

because Mr Pearson commented earlier, the answer to that would

be that it would be the First Minister's. But let me expand on

that by saying that there is no there is no plan there is no

strategy, which, that I am in charge of, in terms of reform,

which is predicated on back filling. I think we cleared up in the early

session, I don't know regards back- filling as a good thing or

desirable thing. It is a bad thing and should be avoided. The first bg

session I think it was concluded it was happening. Well, it may be

happening in individual cases, and isolated cases, but I am not aware

of it happening as a set strategy, anywhere in Scotland. It is not

something I would support at this moment in time. You are reported in

the press as saying you believe there could be up to 3,000

redundancy bus you thought that was a worse case scenario. Is there

anything else that you can say about that that you could share

with the committee? I think the way the 3,000 has come about is a very

simple method, which is somebody has looked at the gap between the

budget and cost, the gap I have referred to in the past, but I

think they have looked at it over a number of year, as big as it can be,

divied that by 26,000 which is your average cost of a member of support

staff and come up with a figure of 3,000. It's a quantity, it is a way

of quantifying and understandably, making very stark budget gap. But I

have said already this morning, to this group, that we are

prioritising all non-staff costs first. To identify where we can

make savings that won't affect people's jobs. After that, we are

looking at a voluntary redundancy poll six which is effectively

saying to somebody who wants to go, we will leave you go here. Then,

you are left with what else can we do to make these savings? So, I

think the 3,000 is a figure that I didn't put out there it was

suggested by someone else, and I was asked to comment, is this the

absolute upper limit? Well, technically speaking, yes. Do I

think it is a realistic figure? Not really. Chief Constable Steven

House. Angus, as the new police force is formed, it's a bit of a

political headache for the Government to look at such a big

funding gap as the chief was pointing out. Steve House was

talking about a �70 million gap. I think he has had a bit of an

uncomfortable fist few weeks in the post. He didn't talk about 3,000

back room jobs having to go in the police in Scotland, but the problem

was he was asked a question. He has learn add very valuable lesson, you

are asked a question, there that is rather loaded. Do you think it will

be up to 3,000 or whatever? He should have seen the dangers there,

he should have seen whatever answer, unless he nailed that and knocked

that figure down, then it was going to appear as if he was saying that

up to 3,000 jobs were about to go, so he has learned a valuable lesson.

He will have to be more careful when he deals with the Scottish

media. Talking about that, the Scottish Government have had a

difficult time over the past couple of day, it has been the main eschew

focusing on the programme, do you think it goes to the fabg that

Europe is at the heart of the independence debate, do you think

that is one of the reasons the parties react to it in a crucial

way? I have long thought whatever the prose and cons on independence

and the various arguments that go on, if the feeling began to grow in

Scotland, that an independent Scotland, even if might have to use

the single currency the euro that would be toxic for the SNP and

Scotland. I cannot see any way that the people of Scotland would vote

for that, and I think that is why Alex Salmond was perhaps quite keen

to avoid answering the question about what his legal advice maigt

sigh. If this had been ten years ago joining the euro would seem

like an easy option. In the heady days when independence in Europe

was the battle cry absolutely, but the world has moved on and changed

and suddenly the pound sterling seems a sensible option. Thank you

for that and your company here as well. And you can keep up-to-date

with all the developments on that story on Newsnight Scotland at 11

here on BBC Two, with Gordon Brewer. That is all we have time for this

week. We are back at the same time next week. 2.30 here on BBC Two and

you can keep up-to-date with all the political developments at