26/01/2012 Politics Scotland

Welcome to Question Time For the First Minister. Any questions can

be asked to but my guess is that they will be focused on at this.

The referendum consultation launched yesterday. Leads course --

cross to the chamber and my colleague, Glen Campbell.

He is giving details of his engagements for the rest of the day.

We always welcome a sinner who repents and pays attention to

others within the chamber. I am absolutely delighted with that news

and believe it is in the interests of the people of Scotland that we

set up to that task together. The question was unveiled there will be

asked in the forthcoming referendum. Do you agree that Scotland will be

an -- should be an independent country? Will he tell the chamber

today... We know what do you think! Willie tell the chamber, what does

he mean by an independent country? A country which is free to make its

own decisions. Standing on its own feet financially. Operating in co-

operation with other countries and the world. On major issues of

policy which is not directed to, for example the current attacks on

people of disabilities, not supported by the Scottish

population. Independence is the normal status of some 200 nations

across the planet. Of course, on the attacks on the

disabled, these are Conservatives who are doing that. Not because

they are English. You must understand that it is not a choice

in this country between the Conservatives and separation. There

is another approach. In his version of independence the First Minister

conceded significantly that the Bank of England would be the lender

of last resort. Will that mean that John Swinney will not only bring

his budget to this chamber but he must go to the Bank of England to

ask permission on how much she can borrow, what his fiscal policies

will be, and how much she can spend? The First Minister told us

this week that he is an avowed Anglophile. Is he not taking that a

bit too far? Can I take these points in time?

The idea that you can separate the fact that under the current

constitution, Scotland, not just sometimes but much of the time,

ends up with governments we do not vote for - I think that is a great

mistake. The rate of Independence, one of the great advantages is that

people will get their government they vote for, and not the

Government that somebody else voted for. I am not quite certain this is

her best subject. We're talking about monetary policy. I held her

deputy leader on the radio this morning say that if Scotland has a

monetary union and the Bank of England is the lender of last

resort then we would lose the ability to set interest rates. I

have news for the Labour Party. Politicians lost the ability to set

interest rates on the 6th May 1997 when Gordon Brown declared the Bank

of England independent. That separation between monetary policy,

controlled by the MPC and the Bank of England, and fiscal policy

controlled by the Chancellor, that perhaps you want to catch up on at

the present moment. It would mean that the Scottish finance secretary

would have the ability to set our own taxes. For example, at the

present moment, to invest in capital investment which would have

revived the Scottish economy. I must say that I am delighted that

these questions because they are the nub of the debate which will

persuade people to vote for independence in the referendum.

I bow to their expertise of the former economist who of course is

so wise and sensible that he encouraged Fred Goodwin to buy the

bank. Perhaps some humility about the economy might be in order. The

reality is that the First Minister is telling us he is content that

the key decisions which will impact on people's mortgages, savings, and

pensions, will be made by a foreign bank with no remit to look at

Scotland's conditions and circumstances. Does he agree with

his own chief economic adviser, Crawford Beveridge, that this is

not ideal? I am not sure about for read a good

win. After all, I did not make for red could win staff fled good win.

-- Sir Fred Godwin. Nor did high have him on my council economic

advisers, that was Gordon Brown. The Chancellor no longer sets

interest rates. That has not happened since 1997 when the Bank

of England was declared independent. Interestingly the Labour Party were

keener on independence for the Bank of England than be where for the

country of Scotland. But we will leave that to the one side. There

are some 167 countries with formal or informal monetary unions. That

does not make them any less independent. It has been suggested

by some ex Labour ministers that perhaps the currency arrangement

would not be wished by people in England. Let's get that right. You

cannot stop people using a tradable currency. That was a myth by the

Chancellor's advisers. But there are good reasons any Chancellor of

the Exchequer would accept their idea of a currency union. Oil and

gas. We would get the revenues from our geographical share. But Orwell

and gas also provides a 30,000 billion pounds support to the

balance of payments and therefore to a Stirling a year. Secondly, �24

billion of Scottish international exports, that is why given the huge

support supplied by Scotland to the stealing a rare that any Chancellor

of the Exchequer would bite our hands off for such a sensible

arrangement. This is the nub of it. You hope and

believe. But that does not necessarily make it so. The people

in this country one confidence in their pensions, mortgages, future.

They say, you think you have the prescription for our ills, but it

is the same when you have had for 40 years. The world has changed. We

have the euro. The rise of China. Technological -- technological

revolution. But in good times or bad you always have the same answer

and that his independence. The SNP push is not about people's savings,

mortgages, pensions, it is about the blind faith that it will be

better because he says so. Why is he prepared to take unnecessary

risks with people's money? In the midst of the worst economic global

crisis since the 1930s, for no good reason? It will create political

separation and with less economic control.

I am glad that Labour are living up to the boast that they will argue a

positive case! Can I just arrived at the nub? Over the last few

decades the it number of independent countries has gone from

50 to 200. I would have thought if we're talking about the tide of

history, it is moving towards the status of independence. 50 country

since the Second World War have become independent from London. And

not a single one has applied to get back! Scotland would emerge as an

independent country with the six highest wealth per head in the

Organisation of economic co- operation and Development. That in

itself is not the argument for independence. The argument is self

determination. But given we would be sacked most prosperous country

in the developed world, most people in Scotland will have some degree

of confidence in our ability to survive and prosper as a socially

just, economic we progressive society.

Ruth Davidson. When will the First Minister next

meet the Secretary of State for Scotland?

I wish him a speedy recovery from his current ailments and I hope to

meet him next week to discuss the consultation on the referendum.

Talks were postponed because the Secretary of State has chicken pox.

Today we need more clarity than we have just been given on some

substantive principles. The First Minister repeatedly asserts that he

wants independence in order to have economic levers at the disposal of

the Scottish Government. He now maintains that he wants to keep the

pound. He wants to leave the United Kingdom but remain part of the

currency union. Which means an independent Scotland will have its

interest rates set by the Bank of England. Does he accept that the

banks set interest rates now considering the whole United

Kingdom but would be unlikely to give Scotland a second thought

after independence, leaving Scotland with less control?

F the Bank of England are so concerned for economic conditions

then perhaps the Conservative Party at some point will turn their

attention towards it. There is not a single Scot sitting on the

Monetary Policy Committee. There are two Bank of England employees

in the whole of Scotland, as far as I know, at the present moment. And,

yes, we would have influence in the same way that other monetary unions

allow. We have no influence at the present moment. But can I bring her

back to the nub? When the Labour Party and government subsequently

agreed with the Conservatives on a policy of independent monetary

policy they gave away any ability for politicians to control interest

rates. Across the developed world that has been a continuing trend

since that period. Therefore the idea that politicians and London

control interest rates now is completely fallacious. There are

many advantages in a current -- currency union for both Scotland

and England. Nor is this idea new, it has been in SNP documents for a

considerable time. I am not sure if he Astle --

answered the question I asked. He has been telling the media in this

country and elsewhere that the pound could be a transition

currency. Just like in Australia when it became independent. If that

is the transition plan, what is the ultimate choice? Is it the you

know? Or perhaps he is planning his own currency? The First Minister of

Celtic's -- the First Minister Astaire's that an independent

Scotland would not be forced to join the euro when the weight of

independent opinion says otherwise. He acknowledges the Bank of England

as a lender of last resort. On this vital issue he is twisting and

turning. For almost 40 years he has campaigned for independence. But he

leaves dangerous uncertainty on the issues that matter. Is it not the

truth that he has no plans to assume that the full levers of

financial power because either of the options that he has flirted at

between would leave significant control with London or Europe and

us with less control than we have The better vote transition is what

Ruth Davidson is in her own mind, but ETA is perfectly correct for me

to say in the world of 200 nations 67 -- 67 of them are either in a

67 -- 67 of them are either in a currency unions or formal currency

arrangements. That does not mean they are not independent currencies.

It means in terms of economic policy they have decided to enter

monetary union or currency arrangement. I look forward to the

Conservative Party to increase 67 countries and telling them they are

not really independent because it is -- they have decided it is the

best economic policy to have a currency union. This gives us good

all-over our fiscal policy and set our spending and taxation

priorities. For example, we might not wish to pursue the

Conservative's misguided attack on people with disabilities in

Scotland at the moment. We might decide to make the Scottish economy

more competitive to attract more international did -- investment.

Above all, we would have the advantage of having access to

Scotland's natural resources, which were the last 30 years has been

denied to us by successive Labour and Conservative governments, who

have used the cash to bankroll successive Tory and Labour

Chancellors of the Exchequer. I think control of our taxation,

spending and natural resources looks to me like an attractive

independent proposition for the people of Scotland.

Further to the question from work my door knob last week, I wonder if

the First Minister has any updated -- Mark McDonald last week, I

wonder if the First Minister has any of dated information on my

constituency in bear's Den? The Minister for energy, enterprise

and tourism, Fergus Ewing, spoke with the IB, UK L P -- UK plc last

Thursday. He has also discussed the situation with administrators to

ensure every avenue is explored to keep the businesses operating. And

all of this, our chief abiding concern with constituency members

is to keep jobs and businesses in these challenging economic times.

What issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet?

They next meeting will discuss issues of importance to the people

of Scotland. The First Minister published his

Budget in September. Since then, the UK Government has changed its

plans and added extra money to Scotland. Since September when he

published his budget, how much energy -- extra money has his

Government received? The original plans were to reduce

Scotland's capital direct budget over the next four ideas by 36 %.

Under the revised plans, VAT reduction becomes 42 %. -- that the

reduction. I know that will he Rennie has pointed to the 4% and

said, what are you doing with this great funding boost? Can I suggest,

most people would regard a quote of 36 % to 32 % as better than 36 %,

but it is still one-third of our capital budget cut, which we would

like the power to reserve -- reverse. For the second week

running I have asked him a basic question about financial control in

his Government, and he has not known the answer. He does not need

to look across at Mr Swinney. He is looking into Mr Swinney's eyes for

the answer. I can tell him that the Scottish Parliament's financial

scrutiny unit has provided a note which said Saud he has an extra

�400 million this year available and next. Given there have been

63,000 e-mails from college students and the National Union of

students have told him this week that his college coxed Het the

poorest people in some of the poorest communities, I can't

understand why he is being so stubborn. We have discussed this

before many times. Has cut its �40 million, he has ten times that

available. Will he agreed to look again at this Budget and see if he

can do the right thing for a Scottish colleges?

He refers to �400 million. The figure of which the �400 million as

a replacement is �300 million, still leaving a shortfall of �2.6

billion. If you look at capital injection into colleges, it is

extremely good. By have figures in college student funding support.

When we took office it was �69.6 million. Planned spending in the

next two years is �84.2 million. That seems to me a very strong

result in these difficult times. Will he Rennie criticises before

having colleagues take the key specialist device the finance

sector offers me on many occasions. I am sure he would love to be in a

position where he could look round and get advice from lots of

colleagues. They only have five MSPs in this

department for -- in this Parliament.

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's responses to

the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions statement that benefit

reforms will not lead to an increase in child poverty in

Scotland. The Department of Work and Pensions

warm assessment and to the impact suggest that 70,000 children and

Scotland will be adversely affected by this proposal alone. The most

current figures place the number of children in poverty in Scotland at

20 %, far too high. Although it is the lowest level since devolution.

However, the number is very high, at the Health Secretary is seeking

a meeting with Iain Duncan Smith as soon as possible to seek assurances

that, as a result of these proposals, this trend in declining

percentages of child poverty is not now going to be put into reverse.

Can I thank him for a very full response. The Scotland Office

Minister was unable to answer that question when asked on several

occasions in an interview earlier this week. Even though it is his

Government imposing the cuts. Does the First Minister agreed that if a

UK Government cannot ask -- answer these questions, then the power to

make decisions on such an important issue should rest with this

Scottish Parliament? In particular, does he agree that child benefit,

with an update of 96 %, should remain a universal benefit?

As Mac with an uptake. The there are few things and that

question. -- with an uptake.

There are a few things with him that question. A have a transcript

here. I will put it on the records so that every member of this

Parliament has the opportunity to read the junior minister being

asked seven times the question that Christine Graham has just asked me.

I make the point that if the people proposing the pop -- policy are not

aware of the impact on the children affected, that may be a good reason

for them to not propose the policy. In terms of the question, I was

looking at the comments of the chief executive of the Scottish

Council of Orange Organisation's when he gave evidence, and again in

the press this very morning. The United Kingdom's Government's

welfare reform programme will have a dramatic impact on the poorest

people in Scotland. Cutting money for the poor in a time of rising

demand is simply wrong. It reflects river the values are nor needs of

Scotland. We could and should be doing things very differently. I

agree with that, and I have -- think that Parliament should have

the ability to legislate on these matters.

Scotland is not making the progress on tackling child poverty either

the First Minister or I would want to see, but I do look forward to

the Government's report on the child poverty strategy in March. On

the broader issue of child poverty strategy, achieving our potential

was published in 2008. Since then we have had budget cuts and a lot

has changed. Will the First Minister connect to looking again

at that approach, not necessarily a root and branch review, but some

consultation, to ensure that the tackling poverty board and the

Government's priorities are still right, that policies are still

achievable and on track? I committed to bringing forward

further consultation and papers on these matters. I hope that Bruce

Smith will understand when I tell him very seriously that the ability

of this Government to continue the welcome improvements we have seen

on the percentage of people in child poverty in Scotland is at

best severely constrained by the current changes in welfare benefits,

and at worst come across these islands, will be put into reverse.

Is that not an argument, if Bruce Smith asserts that proposition, of

why that should be under the control of this Parliament, where

the views of the Scottish people will prevail, as opposed to leaving

it in the hands of ministers who do not even know the effect of their

own policies? The Scottish Government has a

strategy for Scotland with a particular focus on that young

carers. Can the First Minister assure me that the detrimental

impact of the Welfare Reform Bill will be monitored to ensure this

vulnerable group of young people in Scotland are properly supported?

Yes, I can, and the impact of the vast majority of this Parliament

the United before Christmas to express concern about the welfare

reform process requires that we have reports and consultations

brought to this Parliament so that we have the ability to understand

the full effects of the legislation. I also repeat the argument that it

would be a good idea not just to be able to monitor the effect but to

have the ability to stop them happening.

To ask the First Minister whether the for Scottish Government

considers any local authority to be not fit for purpose?

Local authorities deliver vital and valued services for the people of

Scotland. I reckon that -- recognised the commitment of their

employees working hard to provide services in our communities.

Yesterday a Bill was passed in this chamber which, despite the UK

funding cuts, confirms local Government's revenue funding budget

is being maintained. Their share of the overall budget will be higher

in each year of the three-year settlement than it was in 2007, and

2008, when this Government took office. I was going to thank the

First Minister for his answer, but I don't think it reflected the

question I asked. I will ask a supplementary - does

the First Minister agree that North Warwickshire council is not fit for

purpose? That it is overstaffed? That social workers have refused to

help people, and that staff badger people on low incomes? Does he

agree with Reporting Scotland, who reported that North Lanarkshire

council is a high-performing council with good strategic

direction, with good leadership and clear vision? Does he agree with

the trade unions in North Lanarkshire, that the Minister's

comments do 1,000 -- little for the morale of thousands of low-paid,

dedicated public servants? Will he therefore ask his Cabinet Secretary

to apologise for insulting those employees? And will he or for his

own apology to those North Warwickshire council staff who are

rightly offended by Alex Neil's gratuitous attack on them?

I read in the Herald on 21st January, and I quote directly, Alec

Neill is actually liaising with some of our friends in the North of

England to try and do something about a fast rail project which

does not seem to get beyond the Midlands of England for the next 20

years from the net -- from the Westminster Government. What I read

was, any sensible person knows my comments were directed at the

Labour leadership, not the workers, for whom I have the highest regard.

Clearly when he is referring to sensible people, that did not

include Michael Mick man. -- Michael Meg Munn. -- McMann.

To ask the First Minister and what steps he is doing to secure

protection for Scottish whisky the stop having secured protection for

Scottish whisky in China over a year ago, I personally lost --

launched the Scottish food and drink strategy for a judge in China.

China is a market with massive growth potential. Exports soared to

�62.3 million in the 12 months up until November 2011. Whisky exports

reached a record high off �3.4 billion in 2010.

I welcome the response and the success of Scotland's thriving

whisky industry. Does this -- First Minister find it pathetic that

reports are that William Hague was briefing against the use of

Scottish exports of whisky against Scottish independence. I thought,

second only to stealing pandas, that was the most ludicrous scare

story given by Westminster. We come to the close of our

coverage of questions to the First Minister. We had planned us and

whisky, but earlier we had a substantive series of exchanges