26/11/2013 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon. Welcome to a special edition of Politics Scotland. Well,

it all happened here this morning, at the Science Centre in Glasgow.

Scotland's future was launched. The white paper on independence was hot

off the printing press. All 670 pages of it. 650 questions were

answered. The First Minister, Alex Salmond, says Scotland's future is

now in Scotland's hands. It won't be decided by me. It won't be decided

by our opponents. It won't be decided by the media. It will be

decided by the people. Scotland's future is now in Scotland's hands.

The Scottish ministers and yes Scotland team are over to Edinburgh.

We will have full coverage of the statement in Parliament a questions

too. Glenn Campbell is in the capital. Over to you.

Here we are on a wet Tuesday afternoon, just ahead of that

statement to Parliament from the deputy First Minister, Nicola

Sturgeon, who has been in charge of preparing the white paper on

Scotland's future. Your guide to an independent Scotland is how it's

framed. Actually the online version you can search to get answers to the

questions that you may have. Alex Salmond reckons this is the most

comprehensive prospeck Tuesday for an independent -- prospectus for an

independent country. Critics for his proposals for Scotland to leave the

United Kingdom say it is full of risk and uncertainty. One man who

has scanned it cover to cover, not saying he's read every word yet,

Professor John Curtis, Professor of politics at Strathclyde University.

Much that may seem familiar, other aspects that are less familiar. For

you, what are the headlines? I think the first headline is that indeed it

is extraordinarily familiar. Perhaps in particular on that central issue

of the economy, the issue on which most voters seem are going to decide

whether to vote yes or no, this document doesn't come up with

anything very new. At the end of the day, the argument that an

independent Scotland will be a prosperous Scotland lies on the

belief that because she'll be making her own decisions, she'll be more

likely to make the right decisions for her economy and would be more

prosperous. That's the argument. What's very interesting,

economically, is that although this document says that Scotland's public

finances in 2016, the first year of independence, would be relatively

healthy, as compared with those of the rest of the UK, but at the same

time, would still be in deaf us -- deficit, it says what you will not

find in this document is virtually anything in the way of a suggestion

that an independent Scotland is going to provide much in the way of

tax cuts or public spending increases. There's a promise on

child care, but beyond that, for personal individuals, at least, it's

not obvious how the taxation and spending system would make much much

difference. What extent is this document a blueprint for an

independent country and to what extent is it a negotiating position

from the SNP? Much of this quite clearly is a negotiating position.

It begins with the currency, where again, as we've long known, the SNP

wish Scotland to use the pound as part of a monetary union with the

rest of the UK. The document repeats the argument as to why that should

happen. They think it's in England's interest. We know the UK Government

and the Labour Party in Westminster are very reluctant. We learned that

the public service broadcaster in Scotland would still have a close

relationship with the BBC. But that, again, is something that would

require agreement with the UK Government. We learn equally, for

example, on university funding, we are still going to be apparently

part of the same system of UK-wide research councils. That requires

agreement with the UK. There are other examples. The truth is, this

is a document which lays out what Scotland would like to do as an

independent country, but much rests on decisions with Europe or the UK.

The big decision to decide this is the referendum next year. The SNP

Government allows 18 months for negotiations with the rest of the UK

and international organisations, but in this document, also, another a

policy promises, if the SNP became the Government of an independent

Scotland. How should we disentangle those promises from the structure of

the new country? The first thing one has to realise is the first that

would happen is that there would be an election in 2016, May 2016, as is

currently scheduled. Maybe the SNP would win that election, maybe

they'd get an overall majority again, but maybe not. There's no

guarantee that the SNP would necessarily inherit the earth even

if they delivered it. Thank you very much. As we wait for the deputy

First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to address the Parliament, let's

reflect on some of the remarks that she and her boss, the First

Minister, Alex Salmond, made at the launch of the white paper on

independence in Glasgow this morning.

Good morning, ladies and gentleman. This white paper is the most

detailed blueprint that any people have ever been offered anywhere in

the world as a basis for becoming an independent country. It puts beyond

doubt that an independent Scotland would start from a position of

strength. In fact, we become independent in more promising

circumstances than any other nature in history. That reflects our

underlying strengths, an independent Scotland could have the eighth

highest economic output and the 10th highest per national income per head

of population in the developed world. We have contributed more in

taxes per person for the -- than the rest of the UK for the every single

one of the last 32 years. It reflects our vast Poe ten shall as a

country. We -- potential as a country. We have astounding cultural

heritage, natural resources and a skilled and exciting people. We need

to seize opportunities to build a fairer nation, but also to face our

major challenges. Because we will also have to tackle a legacy of

debt, of low growth, of social inequality, bequeathed to us by

Westminster's control of our economy. The white paper sets out in

detail how Scotland would become independent. It explains the choices

that independence gives us. It addresses 650 reasonable questions

which we've been asked, real people asking real questions, but

ultimately, at the heart of this debate, there's only one question or

one choice: Do we, the people who live and work in Scotland, believe

that we are the best people to take the big decisions about our future?

That question will be the subject for an impassion and, I hope, a

positive debate between now and next September. I want people to consider

the issues, to put forward opinions, to reach conclusions together,

because that's the most important thing about this referendum. It

won't decided by me. It won't be decided by our opponents. It won't

be decided by the media. It will be decided by the people. Scotland's

future is now in Scotland's hands. Scotland's future is a

forward-looking, ambitious, and aspirational guide to the

opportunities and benefits of independence. It is built on the

simple, but powerful belief that decisions about Scotland should be

taken in Scotland by the people who live and work here. It sets out the

economic, social and democratic case for independence. It explains how,

as a nation, we can make the journey from a yes vote in the referendum

next September to taking our place as an independent member of the

family of nations on the 24th March, 2016. Independence is not just an

end in itself. It is the means to building a wealthier and fairer

Scotland. That's why Scotland's future illustrates, through a series

of policy choices, that this Scottish Government would make, how

we can grow our economy faster and make our society fairer. At its

heart is a proposal to transform child care, to give children the

best start in life and support more women to enter the work place. This

is a policy that will have a positive impact on the life chances

of children and parents alike, create jobs and grow our economy. We

would also call a halt to damaging Westminster policies that are

pushing so many people into poverty, abollish the bedroom tax and ensure

the incomes of the lowest paid keeps track with the cost of living. We

will make sure our pensions are there with the triple lock. We will

ensure that our country has strong defences but that Trident nuclear

weapons are removed as soon as is safe live possible. Our message to

the people of Scotland is this: Take the opportunity to read Scotland's

future, compare it with the relentless negativity of the other

side of this debate and make up your own mind. As of today, Scotland's

future really is in Scotland's hands.

The deputy First Minister at the launch this morning. You probably

saw from those pictures there were plenty of journalists from home and

abroad in attendance at that event. Although some of those based at

Westminster wondered if Alex Salmond had already declared independence

when they were issued with not domestic media passes but

international media passes. Alex Salmond joked, in effect, that he

could see into the future, beyond the referendum. Of course, at this

stage, yes tends to trail no in most opinion polls. Lots are undecided in

their voting intentions. The First Minister hopes that the waverers can

be decided. It addresses border control, currency and child care

going back to this morning's event, one journalist asked the First

Minister if it was incompatible to want to have more inward migration

to Scotland and no formal border controls. No. I think if you examine

the document, we examine the difference of being, for example,

Irish immigration policy compared to UK immigration policy. We have

common travel between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. But

we argue to the green card system, similar to the system the Irish

Republic have per sued. I think there is a difference in attitude in

serms of -- terms of the importance, firstly, of providing the

opportunity for skilled young firstly, of providing the

to work -- Scots to work in our country if they choose to do so.

Freedom of movement is one of the great assets of the modern world.

People should have the opportunity to deploy their skills in their own

country if that's what they wish. Secondly, we don't have this

negative view of the importance of skilled young people, many of whom

we have educated in Scotland, some of the 30,000 international students

that we educate, if they wish to come and work and contribute to the

Scottish economy. That would be an extremely positive thing. We want to

break the cycle, which other-wise awaits us of low growth, low

population growth. We want to break that and break it decisively and we

set forward policies which will enable us to do that.

REPORTER: Isn't it the case if there was a governance arrangement with

the Bank of England, Scotland still wouldn't get the interest rates that

suit it, because it would be out voted in that arrangement? Well, one

of the arguments that you probably saw in the firstical commission

paper -- fiscal commission paper, our paper is based on the work of

the commission, which put forward that the reasons why sterling area

would work in the best interests of Scotland and the UK. I've talked

about trade relationships, but one of the arguments is that Scottish

productist is -- productivity is identical to the UK anding. --

average. Our employment is higher than the UK average. Our labour

dissipation is higher than the UK average. These things haven't always

been the case in Scotland, but we've established them over the last few

years. Therefore the monetary policy, over an area where

productivity is identical is one of the arguments contained in the

fiscal commission Working Group. REPORTER: One of the eye-catching

policies is a commitment to free child care for all preschool

children, over 1100 hours virtually every child in Scotland would get

free child care, would transform Scotland you say. Do you need

independence to deliver that? Can't it just be done through the Scottish

Parliament and how much would it cost? The whole point of

transformation of child care is not just to make sure that we're giving

children the best start in life, but as I indicated in my opening remarks

to ensure that we support women into the work place. Our female

participation rate in the work place is higher than the UK as a whole,

but lower than many comparable European countries. So women

generate tax revenues and grow the economy. Welcome back to the studio.

That was Nicola Sturgeon speaking at the press conference a short while

ago. Now she's making her statement in Parliament. The independence of a

country that has ever been published. The Government promised

the people of Scotland and indeed this parliament detailed proposals

for independence, the opportunities of independence, the benefits for

individuals and communities and our nation and the practicalities of how

we move from a yes vote in September next year to becoming an independent

country in March 2016. Scotland's future provides all of this detail

and more. I realise that members will need time to read and digest

the contents of this landmark document. The Government has

therefore made time for a full debate tomorrow afternoon and I am

sure that there will be many opportunities to discuss and debate

the detail of it, both here in parliament and across the country in

the months leading up to the referendum. Today I want to set out

the key themes of Scotland's future and provide information on how the

Government intends to raise awareness of it and ensure that the

public knows how to access the guide and the detailed information that it

contains. As members will be aware, the guide is in five parts. Part one

gives an overview of the compelling case for independence and describes

what our newly independent Scotland will look like. Part two sets out

the financial strengths of our country, forecasts Scotland's fiscal

position at the point of independence and makes clear how

this Government, if elected in 2016 to be the first Government of an

independent Scotland would deliver our priorities within sound public

finances. Part three details the benefits and opportunities of

independence across the entire range of Government responsibilities that

will transfer from Westminster to the Scottish parliament in the event

of a yes vote and illustrates through a set of Scottish Government

policy choices how we can start to use the new powers of independence

to grow our economy and tackle the inequality that is so unacceptable

in a rich country. Part four describes how we will become

independent, the negotiations, agreements and preparations that

will be required in the transition period between a yes vote next year

and independence day on 24th March 2016. It also considers the

opportunity independence will give us to develop a modern written

constitution fit for the 21st century. Part five provides a

comprehensive set of answers, 650 in all, to the range of questions that

we have been asked about the benefits and practicalities of

independence. I will talk about the contents of each of these parts in

more detail. The case for independence that is set out in part

one rests on three key pillars, democracy, prosperity and social

justice. The Scottish Government wants Scotland to become an

independent country because we believe that decisions about

Scotland should be taken by the people who care most about the

future of Scotland, those of us who live and work here. It is better and

right that decisions are made here in our democratically elected

parliament and not by Westminster governments that are very often in

Government despite having lost the election in Scotland. That is the

democratic case for independence. We want Scotland to become independent

because we believe that access to our own vast resources and the

ability to take decisions that will grow our economy faster are

essential to put our economy and our public finances on a strong and

sustainable footing and ensure that our country can reach its full

potential. That is the economic case for independence. We want Scotland

to become independent because we believe that being part of one of

the most unequal countries in the developed world is simply not

acceptable. And that with independence we can choose to do

things differently. We can ensure that our children get the best

possible start in life and that we have public services to be proud of.

We can ensure that the incomes of the lowest paid keep pace with the

cost of living and we can design a system of social protection that

invests in the potential of people, one that supports people into work

but provides a decent safety net for those who can't. That is the social

justice case for independence. Part one of Scotland's Future also sets

out some of the real consequences for Scotland if there is a no vote

in the referendum. The fact is there will be no guarantee whatsoever of

any more powers for our parliament, there will be a real threat to

Scotland's budget from the review of the Barnet formula that senior

politicians in all UK parties now seem to favour and there will be a

real and present risk that Scotland could be taken out of the European

Union against our will. These are the real consequences of voting no

in the referendum next year. Part two of this document on our national

finances demonstrates that we are a wealthy and productive country, with

independence we would be the 8th richest country in the OECD in terms

of output per head of population and the 10th richest country in terms of

income per head. We more than pay our way, for every one of the last

30 years whether oil prices have been high or oil prices have been

low, estimates show that we have generated more tax per head than the

UK as a whole. Our financial foundations are solid, even with a

population share of UK debt, our debt to GDP ratio is projected to

belower than the UK's. Our starting point is a strong one. But the

starting point is just that, a starting point. The benefit, the

real benefit of independence is the ability it gives us to shape our own

future. Beyond 2016 our future prosperity will depend on the

decisions we make as a nation and that is the whole point of

independence. We will have a chance to make different and better

decisions for Scotland. We will not simply continue with the same old

Westminster policies that have failed us in the past and will fail

us again in the future. Instead we can take the action that is needed

to grow our economy and ensure that we have a growing healthy and

skilled population. Part three sets out exactly how we can start to do

this. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the benefits that

independence will bring across the entire range of policy areas and

sets out just some of the ways in which this Government would use the

new powers of independence, I will highlight here just a few. Firstly,

with control of our own resources we could embark on a transformational

expansion of child care. It is our aim that all children from age one

to when they enter school will have access... Order. To a guaranteed 30

hours of child care per week for 38 weeks of the year. The same number

of hours as children spend at primary school. By the end of the

first term we intend to have delivered this policy for all three

and four-year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds. This policy will

provide our children with the best start in life. It will enable many

more women to join the workforce to fulfil their potential, provide for

their families and contribute tax revenues to our economy.

APPLAUSE It will create 35,000 new jobs.

Independence allows us to ensure that the economic benefits from

increased growth and, therefore, increased tax revenues, will stay in

Scotland, rather than flow straight to the Westminster treasuary. That

is why we need independence to successfully deliver this

ground-breaking policy. APPLAUSE

Secondly, we would call a halt to the damaging Westminster policies

that are pushing so many people into poverty. We would abolish the

bedroom tax within a year of the first election, to the first

independent parliament. We would choose not to proceed with the

rollout of universal credit and personal independence payments.

These programmes are mired in controversy and delay and they will

cause misery to some of our most vulnerable citizens. Independence

will give us the chance informed by the ongoing work of our expert group

on welfare to build a fair and efficient social protection system

that is fit for purpose. Thirdly, because we know that a fair society

needs a strong economy, we will ensure that our business taxes are

competitive and support growth. We will do this as part of an

industrial and economic policy to grow our economy, boost jobs and

increase participation in the workforce. This paper contains many

other detailed proposals for an independent Scotland. The advantages

for farmers and fishing communities, for broadcasting, for a transport

connection and our universities. It sets out exactly how we will effect

the transition from being a member of the EU as part of the UK, to

being a fully independent member with a seat at the top table and the

ability to protect our vital national interests. It sets out how

the governance of our nation would be underpinned by a written

constitution to protect our freedom and our rights. It describes in

detail the arrangements we will put in place to secure and defend our

nation. It sets out our clear aim that during the first parliamentary

term of an independent Scotland nuclear weapons of mass destruction

will be removed from our country once and for all.

APPLAUSE These are just some of the benefits

of Scotland becoming an independent country. Part four sets out how we

will make the transition from a yes vote in the referendum to becoming

that independent country in March 2016. It describes the preparations

and the legal processes that will be required and the range of

negotiations that we will have with Westminster, the European Union, and

other international partners. These negotiations will include

arrangements for the equitable division of assets and liabilities,

the delivery of public services across Scotland and the rest of the

UK and our continued membership of the EU and other international

organisations. On all of these we set out reasonable, rationale and

common sense proposals that are in the interests of Scotland and in the

interests of the rest of the UK. Finally, part five answers the range

of questions that have been asked of us in recent months. This ex-tensive

and detailed Q and A which is searchable online will be a valuable

resource for everyone in Scotland, indeed for everyone in this Scottish

parliament. This guide to independence is intended for the

public. We want as many people as possible to read it. Let me turn now

to what we will do to ensure that everyone in Scotland has the

opportunity to read it. This guide has an initial print run of 20,000

copies but it will be made available to everyone who requests a copy. It

has been designed to be as accessible and reader friendly as

possible. A summary document is also available in print and online. A

fully searchable document is available at WWW. Scotreferendum.com

and reference copies will be available in local libraries. An

e-book copy is available on website and from Itunes store and Amazon.

You can request a copy by e-mailing or they can phone 03000121809.

Copies for individuals in the UK will be free while bulk and overseas

order will attract a charge of ?10 plus posting and packaging. Public

information campaigns will be launched this week using radio,

press and outdoor advertising and an information postcode will be sent to

every household advising people how they can access the guide. The total

cost of the public information campaign will be ?450,000. A final

figure for the printing of the document will not be available until

we know what the final demand for hard copies turns out to be but I

will of course update parliament further on that in due course. In

the 1997 devolution referendum alongside publication of the White

Paper a leaflet was posted to every house and a promotional video

produced by the then Scottish Office. There is lfr a precedent.

Presiding Officer, we face a historic year in Scotland. Two key

dates are now firmly established, the 18th September 2014 when we

choose our future and the 24th March 2016 when we will, I believe, become

an independent country. I believe that with this comprehensive set of

answers about the practicalities of independence and detailed proposals

on the benefits of independence Scotland's future will now be the

document that drives this debate. It sets out the vision and the detailed

plan. There is simply no equivalent on the no side. With Scotland's

Prour providing positive case for a yes vote the absence of detail and

vision from the no side will no longer be enough. Today's

publication changes the dynamic of this debate. The challenge is now

for those who oppose independence to move beyond project fear and give us

their vision for Scotland's future and to answer the important

questions about what happens to Scotland if we don't vote yes.

Presiding Officer, our message to the people of Scotland is this, take

the opportunity to read Scotland's Future. Consider the positive

opportunities that independence offers our country. Compare and

contrast it with the relentless negativity of the other side and

make up your own mind. As of today, Scotland's Future really is in

Scotland's hands. APPLAUSE

The Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon speaking live there, laying

out her case for independence, speaking to the Scotland's Future

document. She will now take questions from the other members

just now. There were three key pillars, how to make Scotland more

democratic, a more prosperous country and how to make it a fairer

society. She said there was a whole point about different and better

decisions for Scotland. The Labour leader is now on her feet. What we

have today doesn't mark the end of the United Kingdom, but perhaps it

marks the beginning of the end of the yes campaign.

670 pages, yes, but 670 pages of assertion, uncertainty amplified the

statement from the Deputy First Minister which was a full exercise

in assertion without evidence. So still no guarantee on the currency.

The much vaunted legal opinion on our EU membership noticeable only by

its absence. And the headline offer - another promise on child care

which the Scottish Government could deliver now, but refuses to do so.

Children denied the chance of proper care until their parents vote the

way the SNP wants them to. How cynical is that? Beyond today's

events, the fundamental questions remain unanswered. Does the Deputy

First Minister not accept that she cannot guarantee Scots what currency

they would have for their wages, their mortgages, their pensions and

savings. She cannot guarantee because her plan to reply on the

goodwill of the rest of the United Kingdom, the same people... Order.

It requires her to rely on the goodwill of the rest of the United

Kingdom, the same people she claims are doing us down and it's why we

need to leave the United Kingdom in the first place. But of course, the

Deputy First Minister says if Scotland isn't allowed to keep the

pound, we shall simply default on our debts. The reality is this: The

SNP are asking for a divorce but they want to keep the joint bank

account. So, is Plan B simply to do a runner? Order.

APPLAUSE Order. It's good to know on this

important day for Scotland, Joanne Lamont is her usual, cheery self.

LAUGHTER Order. One thing that is certain...

Order. Whenever she gets the opportunity she manages to strike

entirely the wrong tone and note. It doesn't surprise me, it really

doesn't surprise me to hear Joanne Lamont's questions. I could have

written that script at any time over the past few weeks. There was an

article in the Spectator magazine a couple of weeks ago Order. Saying

they had seen the no side's rebuttal to the white paper before it was

published.. Know what the no side will say. It's hardly a surprise,

you're trying to persuade people to vote no. Let me take the two issues

she raised. On the European Union, we set out a clear, reasonable and

rational position fully consistent with the legal advice that shows how

Scotland will make the transition to being a member of the EU as part of

the UK to being an independent member of the EU, able to properly

represent our national interests. You know something, the only risk

that exists right now to Scotland's membership of the European Union is

the in-out referendum offered by David Cameron, that risks taking us

out of the European Union against our will. On currency, let me make

it clear to Joanne Lamont in case she missed it, Scotland will

continue to use the pound. That pound is as much ours as it is the

rest of the UK's. That position is not just put forward as a reasonable

and rational position in the interests of Scotland, it is put

forward because it is a reasonable and rational position in the

interests of the rest of the UK as well. For three reasons: Firstly,

our trading relationship. Scotland is the rest of the UK's second

biggest export market. They export 60 billion of goods into Scotland.

It would make no sense for a Westminster Government to force its

own businesses into a different currency. Secondly, our massive

contribution to the UK's balance of payments. If we take our 40 billion

of oil and gas exports out of the UK's balance of payments, it leaves

rather a big hole that would be extremely damaging to a sterling

currency. Thirdly, the point that she alluded to, I'm not making

threats, I leave that to the other side of this campaign, I'm simply

making the point that any sensible negotiation, we talk about assets

and liabilities. I think Scotland should take a fair share of

liabilities of the UK, but I also think we should get a fair share of

assets and you don't have one without the other.

APPLAUSE Ruth Davidson. Thank you. The people

of Scotland have been waiting a long time to get answers on what

independence might look like. I think people right across the

country will have looked at the launch of this white paper today and

have thought - is this it? Is this why we should break apart a United

Kingdom that Scotland has spent 300 years helping to build? Is this why

we should sacrifice one half of our shared nationhood, hour dual

identity? Is this why we should walk away? The truth is there was very

little new that we haven't heard before. Little except that pledge on

child care. Now for six years, the deputy First Minister has sat in a

Scottish Government with full powers over child care. For six years the

Scottish Conservatives, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have

been urging her Government to give more people with child care to

Scottish families. Now, suddenly, after six years, we get this

promise. It was illuminating that when the deputy First Minister was

asked this morning why, in six years, she had not helped families

in this way, when she had the powers to do so? She answered that she

hadn't helped, when she could, because the tax receipts of women

going back to work would have gone to the UK Treasury. Now, if the

Deputy First Minister wants to prove that this pledge isn't retail

politics, it isn't jotted down on the back of a fag packet, can she

tell us how much the policy would cost, how much per year - 1,140

hours of child care for ages one to school will cost? And why is the

costing no the in the document? Can I say firstly, I would be happy to

allow the people of Scotland to judge this document. That's why we

are taking great pains to make sure everybody has copy. -- has access to

a copy. The question for the other side of the debate is where is your

equivalent. We have the case for independence. Where is the case for

the no proposition. On the specific issue of child care, I mean, I think

it's interesting that Ruth Davidson comes to this chamber and completely

distorts a quote that I gave on the radio this morning. We will put that

to one side. The fact is this Government has been increasing child

care provision all through the time we have been in Government and we're

continuing to do it right now. But if we want to make not just

incremental increases but a transformational change in the

provision of child care we need to access the increased revenues that

flow from that policy. If we able, just as if an example, to bring --

as an example, to bring female participation in the workforce to,

say, Sweden, we would have increased tax revenue to the tune of ?700

million every year. That revenue funds that policy. That's the reason

you need independence to do this. If Ruth Davidson had been watching the

live stream of the launch this morning, she'd have heard me give

the answers to the question about costing, part two of this document

sets out how we will deliver priorities within sound public

finances. ?100 million within the first budget for phase one. ?600

million by the time we get to the end of the first Parliament. By

then, we see increased revenues from having more women able to

participate in the workforce. It's the kind of ambitious,

transformational, life-changing policy that independence gives us

the ability to do. If the opposition would raise their sights and

ambition, they might find it within themselves to support it.

APPLAUSE Order. Can I advise members that I

have 20 members who wish to ask a question. It is unlikely I'm going

to get through everybody. But if the questions are brief and the answers

are brief, then we might make considerable progress. Can I remind

members, we are having a debate tomorrow, so can you keep the

questions as questions and answers as brief as possible. Thank you. The

thing that excites me most about independence is the opportunities to

make transformational changes to our society and economy. That's why I

welcome so much the comment in regards to child care in Scotland's

future. Can the Deputy First Minister provide detail how with

independence we can transform child care for Scotland and explain to the

doom sayers how this policy will not only help Scottish families, but

help the Scottish economy and create jobs to boot.

Bruce asks an excellent question... LAUGHTER

He highlights exactly what people out there want to hear and want to

know. They want to know what the benefits of independence are to

them, to their families, to their communities. This child care

proposal is one that would benefit families the length and breadth of

this country. It would give our youngest people, our children, the

best start in life. It would give parents, in particular women, the

opportunities that many of them are priced out of just now because of

the prohibitive costs of child care, the opportunity to participate in

the workforce. It would grow the economy and increase revenues as

well, allowing us to make that policy affordable and sustainable.

Into the bargain, the fact of delivering this kind of

transformational policy would create 35,000 new jobs, the people needed

to look after the children. This is the kind of ambitious policy that I

believe will galvanise this campaign and be at the heart of the deaf bait

as we move forward -- of the debate, as we move to the referendum. Does

the Deputy First Minister accept that the people of England, Wales

and Northern Ireland have a right to say no to a eurozone-style currency

union, and is she hearing the many voices from England, Wales and

Northern Ireland who are saying it is seriously unlikely? No, I

actually hear no politicians say that because they are in a campaign

trying to persuade people to vote no, so it hardly comes as a

surprise. Can I say to Drew, we are not talking about a eurozone-style

shared currency. Scotland an the rest of the UK has been described by

a range of eminent experts as an optimal currency zone, unlike the

eurozone, where the richest parts are Germany and the poorest parts of

Greece are coexisting within a currency. The reason why I believe

it's the right policy are not just because it's in the be interests of

Scotland, but because it's in the best interests of people in the

other parts of the UK. Perhaps those on the other side of the argument

would care to take the time to explain why on earth a Westminster

Government would want to see to its own businesses that export into

Scotland, no, no, Scotland wants to stay in our currency with you, but

we're going to force you into the transaction costs and lost jobs that

would come from having a separate currency. Why would the Westminster

Government want to take out of balance of payments the ?40 billion

that flow from oil and gas exports. This is a common sense, rational,

reasonable proposition. That's perhaps why the 'No' campaign don't

recognise it. I found it difficult to hear there.

As we know, UK Civil Service jobs continue to be cut by Westminster in

contrast to Scottish Government policy of no compulsory

redundancies. This affects the east kill bride constituency, may I ask

what Scotland's future says about improving job security? Can I refer

you to two parts of the white paper, page 365 and part four of the white

paper which details some of the workforce issues in terms of the

transfer of Civil Service and public service employees from UK Government

employment into Scottish Government employment, where they would get the

benefit of the no compulsory redundancy policy that we have. She

might with her constituency responsibilities be interested in

page 49 of the document which is in part one, where it makes clear that

Scotland's military HQ would be at Faslane but with delivery functions

in east kill bride. I'm sure she will find that of interest. I like

optimism as the rest deputy First Minister, but she must be the only

person on the planet who believes that there is not one single down

side to independence worth mentioning in the white paper. And

that dozens of other countries and organisations agree to every single

demand of hers, when the currency on NATO, on the EU and so much more.

Yet, if she is wrong, this is the gamble she has taken. It's the

gamble that Scotland will pay the price for. One area in which she is

definitely wrong is on child care. The Scottish Government has the

worst child care arrangements in the British Isles. And yet, the Deputy

First Minister has said that she is delaying the introduction of early

education for two-year-olds until after the referendum. Even though it

is already -- it has already been delivered with the powers in

England, she has the powers now - why the delay? Firstly, can I say in

response to the first part of the question, we, like every other

country in the world, live in a world that is at times difficult,

challenging, and uncertain. But I happen to believe that just as this

is true for every other independent country in the world, in that

uncertain world it's always better to be in the driving seat of your

own destiny than leave decisions to be taken elsewhere. That's why I

believe that in any circumstances it is better to be independent.

Secondly, on the currency union, there were two words I forgot to use

in describing a currency union. Those two words were logical and

desirable. These aren't actually my words, these are the words of

Alistair Darling, when he was telling the truth about it before

the no campaign got hold of him and made him change his tune. In respect

of child care, you are just wrong about the Scottish Government's

child care position. I seem to recall it was his UK leader Nick

Clegg, the deputy prime minister of the UK Government, that at one point

was forced to speak out against the child care policy of his own

Government. We are making progressive changes to the provision

of child care but we want to transform the provision of child

care and if he has been listening to this session so far, as I am sure he

has, he will know why we need the powers of independence to do that so

that we can provide that policy, grow revenues and allow those

revenues to make that policy sustainable and affordable. I

believe this is the policy that will capture the imagination of people

around Scotland and given his creditable track record on this

issue, I think he will be better advised to get behind it.

Will the Deputy First Minister tell us what discussions she has had with

her opposite numbers at Westminster in relation to the delivery of

national security, the document indicates gft's first responsibility

to renekt MI5, MI6, GCHQ and national cyber threats with her

security and intelligence agency and give us confidence of her costings.

Well, I know Graham with his interest and his expertise on these

issues will be interested to read the document from page 261 onwards

which sets out the proposals around security and intelligence, including

the establishment of a new security and intelligence agency. On the

issue of discussions with Westminster counterparts, I am glad

he raised this issue, because I said repeatedly and I will say again

today, I would welcome discussions with UK counterparts about how we do

take forward negotiations in the event of a yes vote next year, now I

am not expecting we prenegotiate the settlement, but it would be in

everybody's interests to have sensible discussions. The position

of the Westminster Government is they're not prepared to have those

discussions. If Graeme Pearson wants to take the matter up with the

Westminster Government and encourage them to change their tune I would be

happy for him to do so and I, the Government our entire civil service

are at the disposal to sit down and talk about these issues any time

they like. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that at a time when

the UK Government is contemplating UK withdrawal from the EU and

Scotland's future inside the EU can only be guaranteed by independence

and under any scenario an independent Scottish Government

taking its place at EU top table is the only way of ensuring Scotland's

best interests are represented in EU legislative and policy decisions?

Well, two points in response to that question which I think is an

absolutely vital question in terms of Scotland's representation within

the European Union. Our interest would be much better served by

independent membership of the European Union and anybody who

doubts that would only need to speak to Richard Lockhead about the

disgraceful situation around agriculture payments over the last

few weeks when Scotland's interests were not served by the UK

Government. The second point is absolutely the correct one, the risk

to Scotland's membership of the European Union is not independence,

the risk is the in-out referendum being proposed by David Cameron and

the Conservatives and the UK Government. That is the risk. If

Scotland doesn't become independent there is a very real risk that in

that referendum the UK as a whole votes to come out, Scotland votes to

stay in and we get taken out of the European Union against our will with

all of the serious implications for our economy. That's the risk to

Scotland and that's one of the many reasons we should vote yes in the

referendum. The Deputy First Minister will know that pensions

make up about 40% of the social security budget but not one word

about pensions in the statement. Is it because she has no answers, no

answers on how cross-border pension schemes will be funded? No answer to

the fact that pensions will cost more in Scotland due to the

population ageing faster? And no answer to the cost of pensions

overall? Isn't it the case that the office for national statistics, the

Institute of Fiscal Studies, the Scottish Government's own fiscal

commission and even John Swinney acknowledged maintaining pensions

would present a huge problem. Isn't it true that the pensioners in

Scotland do face a stark choice, either believe the facts from

experts or believe the assertions from the SNP Well, it's only been a

few hours since the document was published and she may not have had

time to read it yet but Wye recommend to her pages 138 onwards

which sets out in detail the position around pensions. Let me

give her highlights. Pensioners receive pensions as now on time and

in full, accrued rights will be honoured. Planned reforms will be

rolled out. Triple lock will be guaranteed for the first term of an

independent. Let me make a couple of other points about pensions. Right

now we pay a smaller proportion of our GDP on social protection,

including things like pensions we start from a stronger more

affordable position. We have an ageing population. We are not unique

in that. Actually, it's a good thing, it's something we should

celebrate, not moan about. You can argue about whether our population,

our ageing population is a more acute problem for Scotland than in

other countries, actually the proportion of our population over

pension age is increasing slightly lower than the UK, if you take the

whole depencency ratio, it's better, if you look at the ratio just for

pensioners it's slightly worse. But the key point is this, what do we do

about it? The way you deal with an ageing population, the way you

support an ageing population is to grow your working age population.

How do you do that? You attract immigration, rather than the UK

Government's policies to try to, for example, get rid of the post-study

visa. You take measures to grow your economy, to create jobs, to grow tax

revenues. That's how you deal with and support an ageing population and

we are far better able to do it with independence than we will be as part

of the Union. Does the Deputy First Minister agree

that one of the biggest gains of independence is a social security

system that is in line with the wishes of the people of Scotland?

Can the Deputy First Minister outline what measures are set out in

the White Paper to achieve this fair and prosperous future? Can I thank

the member for that question. And refer him to part three, chapter

four, where our proposals on welfare and social protection are set out. I

do agree that the Westminster assault on our welfare state is one

of the many reasons for supporting independence. Our welfare state

cherished by all of us is being dismantled by the Westminster

Government before our very eyes. If we want to protect it the best way

to protect it is to vote yes. We set out clear policies in this White

Paper. We will abolish the bedroom tax within the first year of being

elected as the first Government of an independent Scotland. We will

take the decision not to proceed with universal credit and personal

independence payments. These are programmes mired in controversy,

delayed and seriously damaging to some of the most vulnerable in our

society. We will build on the work being done by the expert group on

welfare to make sure we can design a social protection system that is fit

for Scotland's purposes, that helps people into work but provides the

decent safety net for those who can't that I believe we all want to

see. On page 305 of the White Paper it says that the Scottish Government

would look to establish an oil fund immediately on independence to

stabilise the economy. What it doesn't say is where the money for

that fund will come from. Will it come from... Order. Order. Let us

hear the member. I think you will find it doesn't say where the money

for that fund will come from. The question is, will it come from

increased taxation? Will it come from cuts in public spending? Or, do

they seriously propose, as is rather implied, do they propose to borrow

the money to save in an oil fund in the world's biggest payday loan?

Surely that is not the common sense so beloved of the Deputy First

Minister? Well, I would point out to Iain Gray, in case he has forgotten

this fact, Norway now has an oil fund of 450 billion. That's one of

the very big benefits of being independent. Now, in relation to the

questions, the thing is Ian Grey knows the answer because I am sure

being the careful, prepared person that he is, that he has read the

fiscal commission's work on the oil fund. It proposes a fund with two

purposes, one to smooth the volatility of oil revenues, we would

make a cautious forecast of revenues and when the actual revenues exceed

that we will put the excess into an oil fund. Secondly, we would have an

oil fund with the purpose of saving for future generations, something

that Westminster governments over generations have failed to do and we

would start paying into that when the deficit reached a point below

3%. That's very, very clear. The key thing here is this, if we leave

Westminster in charge then the next, however many years of our oil

revenues will be squandered in the same way as the last 40 years have

been, if we are independent we can steward them for the future. Yet

another reason to vote yes and become independent. Whatever Alex

Salmond says, an independent Scotland using the pound is not

under his control. It will be under the control of a foreign country.

The White Paper at page 111 concedes a possibility of, and I quote, a

different arrangement. If the currency negotiations to use the

pound fail, can the Deputy First Minister clarify what is the

different arrangement? If the euro, the Aberdeen dollar, what is plan B?

The point drawn attention to about arrangements acknowledges the fact

in future - I see Patrick here, different parties might take a

different view. Willie Rennie's party as recently had entry theure

still as -- euro still as their preferred option. Clearly there are

differences of opinion on what the best currency option is. Our view,

our firm view is that a shared currency is in the best interests of

Scotland and in the best interests of the UK. Wye have thought -- I

would have doubt and bel Goldie whose party gave Alistair Darling

such a warm standing occasion at their conference, that it's logical

and desirable. Can the Deputy First Minister advise

the chamber of what discussions have taken place with EU member states is

to back up the statement that in order to ensure the current UK

obligations and provisions apply to an independent Scotland they, I

quote, necessary treaty amendments will be taken forward with the

agreement of member states? In the event that the consent of EU member

states has not already been obtained, does she agree that it

would be more honest for the document to explore what concessions

might have to be made in order to secure EU membership and can she

indicate to the chamber which of the UK opt-outs she would be prepared to

concede in order to ensure Scotland's membership? Well, can I

say we have discussions with different EU members on a range of

issues on a range of different occasions. She will be as aware as I

am that no other European member state would want to be seen to say

anything that could be deemed to be interfering in the domestic debate

Scotland is having. This goes back to an answer earlier, we would be

happy to discuss these matters with the European Commission, the

commission has made clear those discussions would have to be

initiated by the member state which is the UK and the UK for reasons

best known to itself doesn't want to discuss these. But the question that

the no campaign has to answer is why would any member of the European

Union not want Scotland to continue in membership? Scotland is a

contributor to the European Union in many, many different ways and it

would be in the interests of Scotland and other EU members that

that continued. In terms of her question about opt-outs, and I am

sure she will if she hasn't already, read the detail of this in the White

Paper. We are arguing for a transition on the basis of

continuity of effect. We are in the asking for special arrangements to

apply to Scotland. We are arguing for the same arrangements that apply

to us now as part of the UK to continue when we are an independent

country. Again that is a reasonable and sensible position as are all the

positions laid out in this document published today. Can I ask the

Deputy First Minister what analysis is carried out in the white paper as

to the opportunities of independence to reverse the trend of widening

inequality which has been presided over by successive Westminster

governments of whatever hue, decade in and out. ? The inequality gap is

again one of the reasons why we need power over the levers of social and

economic policy to deal with that. I have spoken about the child care

proposal, which I think we'd have -- would have a huge effect, over time,

on raising attainment and dealing with the inequality. We set out

proposals to ensure that the minimum wage rises at least in line with

inflation. Tax credits and benefits rise in line with inflation. That's

important because it stops the lowest paid in our society falling

further and deeper into poverty. There's a range of measures in here,

but not overnight, but over time will address that gap in Scotland

and help to make our country not just wealthier but fairer as well.

It's that ambition that drives everything in this white paper and

our support for that independence that we seek. I would love to fund a

child care revolution by scrapping the weapons of war instead of

cutting other public services... Order. Even if the Better Together

parties don't share the desire for the freedom to make that choice,

doesn't it show the depths to which they have sunk that they describe

that proposal as a child care bribe. Since when did any politician with

any integrity describe public services in such a demeaning term?

Can I agree 100% with Patrick Harvey on that. It is a sign of where

things have come to when we don't just have Conservative politicians

describing public service policies like child care, universal care, in

these terms, which perhaps doesn't come as a huge surprise. But we have

Labour politicians queueing up to join them in doing so. The Better

Together Labour/Tory alliance which wants to hold Scotland back. I'm

proud to be part of a cross-party yes campaign to wants to take

Scotland forward to a better future. I'm sure the Deputy First Minister,

like me, believes that Democrats across this chimer and around --

chamber and around Scotland will be excited that the opportunity an

independent Scotland gives for a written constitution. Given the

historic and social significance of this, can I ask the deputy First

Minister what thoughts have been given to make this a truly

participative process with innovative forms of engagement

techniques so that everyone can feel and be part of the process of

writing this constitution? She raises one of the genuinely exciting

opportunities of being independent, the chance to have the opportunity

to design a written constitution. We are one of the only countries,

certainly in Europe and the world, that doesn't have a written

constitution, setting out clearly the relationship between the citizen

and the state, protecting our freedoms and our rights. We've been

clear as a Government the kind of things we would want to see in that

written constitution - social and economic rights, a ban on nuclear

weapons, for example, but this is not a written constitution that

should be written by the Scottish Government. It should be one that is

written from a collaborative way in part four of the white paper sets

out that process. That process should be determined by the

independent Scottish Parliament, elected in 2016. If we get that yes

vote and become independent, I look forward to being part of, but only

part of, that exciting process. Only 12 days ago, Deputy First Minister,

you said ship building was dear to your heart. It was vital to the

Scottish economy. 178,000 words later, can the 35 words that refer

to ship building in any way at all match up to a new future or even a

sustainable future? Where are the assurances, the guarantees for my

constituents who work in the industry that it will have a secure

future in an independent Scotland? Well, ship building is very dear to

my heart, which is why I always try to avoid taking any opportunity to

use it as a political football. I think ship building... Order. Is

more important than that. What this white paper does is two things: It

sets out in some detail, when you go through the defence part of it, it

sets out what the procurement requirements will be for independent

Scottish Defence Forces. It talks about something that has been talked

about far too little within the Westminster system - diversification

in terms of defence and the ship building industry. Of course, I will

repeat what I've said previously, post independence, the Clyde will

remain as it is today, the best place to build the type 26 frigates.

Alistair Carmichael, I think said, article 346 of the European Union

treaty somehow prevented the UK Government placing these contracts

in the Clyde. He sat next to a Defence Minister at a House of

Commons committee a couple of weeks ago, where the Defence Minister

contradicted him and said there was nothing that provented these

contracts being placed on the Clyde. They will come because it's the best

place with the best people and the best facilities to build them. It

would make sense, given the detail set out in here, for that in future,

post independence, to be a joint procurement, joint procurement in

the interests of cost effectiveness is what the UK Government goes on

about all the time time . Following a yes vote, what further steps will

the Scottish Government take to realise Scotland's ambition to be an

active and good global citizen? In the section of the document that

deals with international relations and defence it sets out in detail

our commitments around international aid, just as I believe we have a

responsibility to the poorest in our own country, so too as a relatively

rich country do we have a responsibility to the poorest around

the world. We set out here our commitment to secure and ensure the

0. 7% of GNI in terms of international aid and a range of

ways in which we would work with international part iners to be that

good, global citizen, to help to tackle global poverty, climate

change, build on the world leading work this Parliament has already

done around climate change and the opportunities of independence in

that are many and varied. Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary's

aspirations on child care, though I would give more emphasis to

two-year-olds and do it now. But how could she deliver that...

APPLAUSE How could she deliver that or any of

her spending wishes with a neo-liberal economic policy, higher

interest rates and a hope for the best relationship with the rest of

the UK? Does she not realise how absurd the Government looks when the

white paper says the Bank of England will be a lender of last resort? And

does she not understand that even if there was a currency union, there

would be no fiscal independence, contrary to what she said on the

radio this morning? Is she not leading project wish against project

reality as will become increasingly clear over the months ahead? Order.

APPLAUSE I understand the vehemence with

which Malcom makes his argument. Somebody who has the greatest eof --

of respect for Malcom, I believe he doesn't believe it in his heart of

hearts. Actually he will be inspired by this as I am. I don't know where

the higher interest rates that were chucked into that question came

from. I think he's perhaps been... chucked into that question came

little too much. Independence ors the opportunity in Scotland to take

the steps to get our economy going, that create jobs, that creates the

wealth for us to share that wealth with equally and deal with the

inequality that I know Malcom loathes as much as I do. I will not

give up hope before 18th September next year in getting Malcom onto the

yes side of this debate, where his heart lies. Can I first of all

congratulate the Government on producing what I think is a very

workman like document. It's going to start many of the debates, I hope,

that we should be having in Scotland. Can I gently say that she

shouldn't dismiss what Malcom Chisholm has just said because it's

what a lot of us feel - it looks too easy. I know it's going to be

difficult. That's when you get to negotiations when we talk about

negotiations, shouldn't we think of tapping into all of the talent, all

of the experience that there will be in Scotland after the yes vote?

There are people who have been on the front benches of Cabinets, there

are people who have done international negotiations, they're

called Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, but leave out one or two

others. I was quite seriously, think of the whole country, not just of

the Scottish National Party. I made a speech, I think, round about a

year ago just now where I set out clearly that while if we get a yes

vote this Government as a Democratically elected Government of

Scotland would lead the negotiations, we would do so as part

of a team Scotland approach. I would very much want to see people like

darling Darling -- Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, in those negotiations

with us making sure that all of us on Scotland's side get the best deal

for Scotland that we possibly can. I think that's a key point. We will

have the yes/no debate and have it passionately over these next few

months. We will be on opposite sides, those of us in this chamber.

The minute Scotland votes yes, we stop being on sop sit sides. We --

on opposite sides. We have the opportunity to take our country

forward. I agree with the proposition just put forward. Given

that women in Scotland need to worry just as much about the sticky floor

than the glass ceiling, can I ask what proposals are set out in the

white paper to increase female participation in the workforce and

what impact these proposals would have on the economy of an

independent Scotland? I've spoken at some length today about the child

care proposal, which would do great things to help women participate in

the workforce. We have talked about what we would try to do to increase

women's representation on company and public boards and legislate for

that, if necessary. Because one of the practical things that transfers

from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament with independence is

legal responsibility for equality issues and that is one of the,

perhaps, little things that won't get the headlines in the white

paper, that I think is absolutely worth supporting. That ends the

statement from the Deputy First Minister.

STUDIO: That was the presiding officer wrapping up the business in

Parliament there. Questions and answers to the Deputy First

Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. Let's stay in Edinburgh now. Our business

and economy editor joins me from just outside the Parliament. Good

afternoon, Douglas. Thanks very much for joining me. You've been

digesting the weighty tomorrow that we have -- tomb that we have here.

What are your key points, the key highlights in this document? I think

overall, there are two things I'd take out of this document. One is

the new stuff, discussion there about child care, clearly an

important economic issue in terms of getting more people into the

workforce and supporting family budgets, that's part of what is a

document which shows us what the SNP wants to offer in 2016. This is a

party manifesto in many ways. The will acknowledge, while they're

offering this, that there will be other brands available. It's up to

the Scottish voters if there's a yes vote, if they get the powers of

independence, then to decide which parties they're going to trust.

Maybe one party, maybe several. The other thing that really leaps out at

me about this, which is partly economic, but across the range of

things they're talking about, is that it's very safe, reassuring.

There's no Big Sur prizes. They had -- there's no big surprises. This is

a steady progress towards the goal they set themselves. It is safe and

quite small "c" conservative in that the offers in terms of independence

are not to change things that people like, often to protect things that

have been achieved through Britain and which may be getting changed by

more radical action at Westminster. No change in what kind of currency

we might be using, but criticism from opposition MSPs that there's no

Plan B if the UK Government says an independent Scotland can't use

sterling. Indeed. You had to sympathise with the ministers

putting forward this argument, because if they conceded to a Plan

B, if they said well, here's another option that they've got, immediately

people would be paying attention to that, if it got the to the stage

where the markets were particularly interested in this at the stage of

achieving ind that level of uncertainty and weakness would be

seized upon. It would be a dangerous thing to do. While we're debating

whether it's the right road to go down, this is the issue, whether in

the chamber or press conference, it's the issue that dominates. It's

probably the most difficult issue that the SNP ministers face. It's an

issue on which others within the yes Scotland campaign are uncomfortable.

You heard from Margo McDonald. She's no fan of sticking with sterling. It

speaks to the issue of negotiating, that the SNP have set out things

that will happen or should happen because it's telling the UK what

interests it should be. The response coming back from the UK is that you

can't be so sure. The interests of the rest of the UK may be very

different. There will be push back, even if you get pefrg you want, EU

membership and the currency union and so many deals they want to

strike, if you get that, there may be conditions attached which you may

not like. Let's pick up on some of those points with our two

commentators here for the afternoon, Lucy Adams from The Herald and Dr

Nicola McEwen from Edinburgh University. This is the most hotly

anticipated document, he said, since the tablets of stone came down from

Mount Sinai, not sure if it's quite that exciting but people have been

waiting for this for a long time. We already knew a lot of the content

but the presentation this morning was obviously very slick. We had

journalists from around the UK putting very poignant questions to

Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. What came across strongly is she

knows this document back-to-back and she really, really believes in it. I

think she's, across very, very well and consistently across the day.

Obviously we have the headline-grabbing features which is

that the child care and the fact they're talking about giving people,

I think it's 38 hours a week - sorry 30 hours a week for 38 weeks of the

year and initially that will be for three-year-olds and four-year-olds,

but also saying that will be for every child from the age of one

upwards. It's obviously a fairly strident and interesting view. We

don't know the detail of that and we have not had the costings. The

question was put to her in the chamber, how much will this cost? We

don't know. She didn't lay that out. Now, we have been looking at one of

the key points there. Let's look at the graphic now with some of the

other key points being highlighted. Lucy mentioned that, 30 hours of

childcare per week. The housing benefit reform to be

abolished and a halt to the rollout of universal credit. That's another

kind of key point. It is. Similar to child care, it's

another one that's the Deputy First Minister's stamp all over it, in a

sense. This is not just about the economy. It's not just about

defence, we may talk about that in a moment, it's also about society, the

future of Scotland. There is a strong social element running

throughout the document. I think linked to that is the idea of a

different kind of welfare state, both in terms of child care and also

in terms of a system of social protection. Now the welfare reform

agenda of the UK Government has been extremely unpopular in a variety of

quarters, affecting lots of vulnerable groups. I think the

deputy firs Minister is -- First Minister is trying to capitalise on

that. Let's look at the other point on the graphic.

Triedent nuclear weapons removed within the first parliament. Lucy,

you were checking out some of the detail on that. That gives us a

time-scale of 2016-2021 probably. Which is a much shorter time-scale

than we actually anticipated. The recent discussions talked about it

being ten years, whereas obviously this brings it forward quite

considerably. Whether it is presented in this way as a

bargaining tool, obviously the document itself makes a lot of very

bold assertions which some will see as assumptions. It says yes, the

Bank of England will be the bank, yes, sterling will be the currency.

Whereas obviously the UK as a whole is saying, and we have already

comments from Alistair Darling and others saying this is not the case.

If triedent is going to be a bargaining tool perhaps that's why

they've brought that date forward, I am not sure. The anticipation was

there would be a longer lead-up for that movement of it. Nicola, bold

assertions. Douglas was teasing that point out too, in the document

things will happen or should happen. It does seem definite, doesn't it?

Most people might see it as the first stage in negotiations. Yes, it

can be quite difficult to know which tone to strike I guess, if there was

doubt in here then that would be picked up on and used, as well.

There's a lot in here about the shared arrangements, not just on big

ticket items like a currency, but a host of things where there's

envisaged to be joint ventures with the BBC, for example. Or continuity

of the Civil Aviation Authority or the National Lottery, all these

things would require an agreement to be put in place, not just for a

transition, but for long term arrangements, too. That's all

subject to negotiation and agreement. What do you think about

that? I think that the whole document as we have said is based on

those assertions and I think that is going to be what is argued about

over the next ten months. UK has to enter into these negotiations but it

doesn't necessarily have to agree to everything put forward in this

document. The currency is the biggest - one of the biggest issues

which is going to go on and on. We know that this document there is no

plan B. That's quite right, otherwise everyone would have leapt

on that. It's up for negotiation. It's a bold statement. One of the

things picked up on that was interesting, is that it doesn't

necessarily point to the fact that this is going to be very difficult.

It's going to be a struggle. It's not just about the fact that it's a

decision which happens on September 18th, it's what happens after that.

From overseas embassies, to the BBC and different things We don't know

how negotiations will go at this stage. That will be the interesting

next stage. OK. What do you think ordinary voters might make of this?

It's very weighty. And it's very long. But I find it quite accessible

It has downsides in some detail is perhaps lacking in some proposals

around costings, for example. I am not sure how many people will invest

in reading the entire document but I am sure there will be summaries

available. How will ordinary voters deal with this? Does it change the

terms of the debate now that we have a lot of these answers laid out for

us? It lays out the answers but there are already a huge number of

people who have very strongly entrenched opinions on these

different things. Many of these areas have already been laid out in

the media and the public domain. Already today we have seen on

Twitter there is a sort of flurry of excitement about the paper and some

of the different aspects and details of it. But there is again a lot of

disagreement because people are saying this is from the SNP, how do

I know that I can actually trust this? People are asking for agreed

evidence, rather than a paper from one side or the other side.

Something in the middle that you can take home and say I know that is a

fact. But obviously as we know this is about things that will happen in

future, there will always be a level of uncertainty. That's what the

public are crying out for, they want impartial facts presented to them.

The academic community are doing their best to provide that and so

there's a lot of evidence out there, there's a lot of comparative

examples out there. Sometimes that's our best guide, we can't predict the

future, but we can look elsewhere to see how things work in practice. One

of the things I wanted to mention was around the child care emphasis,

Nicola Sturgeon says it's a transformational expansion of child

care, one of the interesting things to see is whether it has a

transformational impact on how female voters intend to vote. There

is a huge gender imbalance in how people will say they will vote in

the referendum, men are far more likely to vote yes than are women at

the moment. One suspects there's a little bit of an appeal to the

female voter in this document. That's a key point, trying to

attract these female voters to the yes cause. Absolutely. We knew they

were going to try to do that. Obviously, Nicola Sturgeon is a

female minister, that is the first part of the presentation. The

question is what will independence deliver for me? That's one of the

questions in the paper. The first part of that is free child care.

They talk about it being transformational, but will it

deliver. Thank you both. Let's go straight back to Holyrood now and

speak to the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. She has made her

way from the chamber to our position outside Holyrood. Thank you very

much for joining me so quickly from the Parliament. Now, we have this

weighty tomb here. It's an important document, landmark document, as you

say. Is it really just an aspirational wish list? No, I

believe it sets out clearly the benefits of independence, the

opportunities for individuals, families, communities around

Scotland. It sets out some very hard practical detail about the

transition from a yes vote to becoming an independent country and

it answers a range of very detailed questions, 650 in all. Yes, there

are issues that will require negotiation. On these we set out the

common sense, reasonable, rational positions that are in the best

interests of Scotland and also in the best interests of the UK. This

is undoubtedly the most detailed blueprint for the independence of a

country that has ever been published. We're the best prepared

and equipped country to become independent and I think this will

change the dynamic of the debate. The challenge now to the no side is

where is your equivalent? The key new fact is the provision of child

care under independence. How much will that cost? I don't think you

can have answered that in Parliament. How much will it cost

and are you doing this to attract female voters? Well, I did answer it

in Parliament. I answered it at the press conference this morning. We

estimate, we have set out a staged George Bush yip towards the end --

staged journey towards the end point of this policy, by the end of the

first independent Scottish Parliament that cost would rise to

?600 million a year. But the key point of this policy is yes, it will

make sure our children get the best start in life, but it's also and

crucially, it's about increasing female participation in the

workforce. If we increase our female participation in the labour market

to bring it to the same level of Sweden, for example, we would

increase tax revenues by p ?00 million a year -- ?700 million a

year. We need to make sure we have access to the revenue benefits of

this policy to make it sustainable in the long-term. That's why we need

independence to deliver it. It's the kind of issue that people out there

want to hear. What will independence mean for me? What are the benefits

of independence? I think this one, I know this one has massive benefits

for people, particularly mothers. We keep hearing about Sweden and the

Nordic model and so on, if you saw Alan Little's excellent documentary

last night about Sweden, two thirds tax rate there to pay for the child

care, and you seem to have laid out some aspirational, low-tax,

high-spend kind of Scotland. Well, first, we aspire in many ways to be

like other small comparable European countries. Scotland is not any of

these other countries. We have to chart our own course. We learn

lessons where we think it's best to learn them from. The

characterisation of the white paper is plainly wrong. In part two of the

document it sets out in great detail the fiscal position that we would

inherit at the point of independence. It sets out clearly

some of the savings we would seek to make, ?500 million on defence

spending, for example. It sets out what our early priorities would be

and how we will deliver those priorities within sound public

finances. We are a Government, after all, a devolves Government,

admittedly, that has delivered its commitments within balanced budgets.

Now we have to deliver balanced budgets, but nevertheless, we have

exercised the fiscal dis-Palestinian. It's that --

discipline. It's that we would exercise in an independent

Government. These are policies that are important for their own sake and

also vital to get our economy growing faster, because we've got

big challenges that will be inherited from the Westminster

system of Government, debt, low growth and we need to get our

economy growing in order to tackle these as well as deal with some of

the other issues and get our economy to a point where it's fairer and

wealthier. If we stay on the economy and finances, let's look at

currency. No Plan B laid out if an independent Scotland cannot use the

pound. We were hearing from the Scottish Secretary at the weekend

that your plan was unworkable. What's the plan if an independent

Scotland is not allowed to use the pound? I've answered this question

several times today. I've answered it several times in the previous

weeks and months. We are arguing a proposition on currency that we

believe to be the right one. It's in the best interests of Scotland and

for the reasons I set out in Parliament, it's the in the best

interests of the rest of the UK because of our trading relationship,

because of the substantial contribution Scotland makes to the

UK's balance of payments. Of course, we would have a negotiation around

assets and liabilities. The pound is every bit as much ours as the rest

of the UK's. I understand that Alistair Carmichael and Alistair

Darling are going to say at this stage, no, that's impossible. We

can't do that. Although, interestingly, neither of them rule

it out, because I think they faux how sensible -- they know how

sensible it is. After we vote yes, the situation changes. We have two

governments negotiating in the best interests of the people of Scotland

and the rest of the UK. Alistair Darling described the currency union

as logical and desirable. These are the words he used before he got into

the heat of the no campaign and decided to change his tune. A very

busy d for you. Thank you very much for joining us.

Let's go back to our commentators here. A difintive statement on how

much child care would cost. Yeah, I think it's great to get that answer

and know that they, obviously England, Wales knew they would have

priced that. The question is where is that money going to come from?

She's talking about the fact that it will be 500 million less spent on

defence. We know that they're wanting to scrap Trident and the

costs of astronomical. She's pin pointing savings and they've said

that once they can get that female workforce in place then there will

be tax revenue from that and they're talking about an extra 35,000 people

employed in order to be the child care professionals, to look after

those children. I think that helps to clear up those different areas.

Also, she makes a good point that this is now the SNP, the Scottish

Government, this is them laying out their tall stall -- stall. What do

we have from the other side? Staying with child care, alluded to the

Nordic model, what we're seeing from Sweden, but it's a very high tax

rate there to pay for that. I was putting that point to Nicola

Sturgeon. Ambitions or aspirations to have a Nordic-type Welfare State,

but we have seen plans to cut taxes. Good rates of corporation tax and so

on. Yeah, I think the Deputy First Minister made a Valid Point that you

can be inspired by other countries, you can learn and transfer some

policies from there, but you have to adapt it to circumstances in the

context here in Scotland. One of the things that is interesting about the

Nordic and perhaps, particularly the Swedish system of child care, is

that it is founded on an assumption that women will be in the work

place. There's an implicit assumption in the document that you

need the tax revenues from women in the work place in order to fund

child care. That raise issues about how soft an obligation there would

be on women to enter the work place. Would they be encouraged or given

the opportunity or helped, or would they be expected to take part in the

labour market. That's a slightly different policy. How Lucy, we were

hoping to hear from Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish

Conservatives, representing Better Together. She's not been able to

make it to our live point outside Holyrood. How are they going to deal

with the campaign now? What's their strategy for the Better Together

side now that we've got this document? We know that in the longer

term, in terms of the next ten months, we know that they are

looking at a September 19th strategy. So if Scotland votes no,

this is what we will do in terms of enhanced powers. I think we had Lord

Purvis talking about that last week in terms of here are going to be the

inducements - if you vote no, we will still give you additional

tax-raising powers. We will give you more respect as your own country, as

your own people without going the whole hog in terms of independence.

Certainly, we know that's going on behind-the-scenes. We've had a

number of papers week by week in terms of science, in terms of the

economy, of why Scotland should not vote for independence and why it

should remain part of the UK. There will be more of that. Just briefly,

Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish Secretary, that point was put to

him, saying you've been too negative. He said no, we've put out

positive case -- some positive case for staying in the union. How does

he take the debate on? It will be interesting to see. One of the

things that we ought to see a little bit more of is a bit more scrutiny

of the other side, in a sense. Because we've talked a lot about so

much of this would be negotiated and agreed and we don't know whether or

not it would be in the interests of the rest of the UK or the UK

Government to agree. The Scottish Government cannot say what would be

in the UK estate agency interest really, but they can, and we ought

to be asking them a little bit more. There's doubts raised about currency

unions and so on. But nothing really definite. I think we need a little

bit more definite for the voters. Well, thank you both very much for

joining me here. Thanks for your company this afternoon. That's all

from us this afternoon. We're back tomorrow at 2. 30pm, with our

regular Politics Scotland programme. For more on today's events, be sure

to catch a special one-hour edition of Reporting Scotland on BBC One

this evening at 6. 30pm. There will be full coverage on the white paper

on independence, the latest reaction from the political spectrum and

expert analysis for what it means for us. That's it. See you tomorrow.

Bye-bye.