27/06/2012 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon. Plenty going on in both parliaments north and south of

the border. Here at Westminster, the coalition government publishes

its plans for reform of the House of Lords but some Tories do not

like it one little bit. The whole thing is part of a rather grubby

political deal between the Conservatives and Liberals. The

liberals say if you give us House of Lords reform we will vote for a

reduction in the size of the House of Commons which the Conservatives

believe will give them more seats. This is not the basis on which to

make major constitutional change. At Holy Rood, politicians are

debating plans to create a single police and fire services. And

Better Together is the message from the Unionist parties as they joined

forces to oppose the yes campaign's plans for independence.

Big UK government is unfailing get long awaited plans for a mostly

elected House of Lords in the face of a possible rebellion by

Conservative MPs. Many Tory MPs believe constitutional change

should not be a priority and up to 100 are expected to oppose the bill.

Our Westminster reporter, David Porter, joined me and also with me

throughout the programme is Professor John Curtice of

Strathclyde University. David, what other key concessions at this

stage? The nuts and bolts of this plan, which has been published in

its first reading today, are that you would be virtually half the

size of the House of Lords, it down to 450. 80% of that would be

elected and they will be there for a 15 year term. The government says

they want to get it through by the time of the next UK election, so in

2015 they would be planning to have an election not just for the House

of Commons but for the House of Lords as well. On the face of the

bill they have written that the Parliament Act will prevail which

means that the House of Commons would have supremacy over this new

body. This will be hugely controversial. What is be find it

all? He in some senses, everybody has been pushing for it. All three

political parties had something in the 2010 manifestos. The Labour

Party promised a referendum on reform along with a vote on the

Commons electoral system. The Liberals have long been in form of

an elected House of Lords and the Conservatives said they would try

to seek consensus. The debate is essentially about what is the

legitimate basis for have been a second house. We have almost got

rid of the hereditary peers, which is where the Lords originally came

from. We have ended up with the House of Lords that is primarily

appointed by the Crown, but clearly questions can be raised about

whether or not in a modern democracy people becoming well

makers after being appointed on recommendation by the Prime

Minister and Queen is correct. The issue that has exercised MPs is

that if we have unelected House of Lords of full-time politicians will

this body collectively begin to challenge the Commons? That is why

they are trying to put onto the face of the Bill the Parliament Act,

which limits the power of the House of Lords. They will also make

changes to ensure that these do not look like alternative MPs. They

will be part time collected from nothing that resembles a

constituency. These are all measures designed to try and make

the Lords look like less competition to the Commons. David,

what is the strength of feeling among some of the Tories? They do

feel strongly about this. Some of them feel that with everything that

is going on at the moment in the economy and the government trying

to bear down on the government debt, that this is something that they do

not need to be approaching at the moment. They have the sense that it

is not broken, why do you want to fix it? Some feel that it is making

too many concessions to the Liberal Democrats. They were annoyed last

year when there was the referendum on the alternative voting system

and pleased with the result when it was beaten. They feel but David

Cameron has perhaps given too much to Nick Clegg combos. They say he

should remember that the Conservatives are by far the

greater party. You have those on the bottom of the ministerial

ladder who have indicated that they may not be able to support the

Government and the government is talking tough. At Prime Minister's

Questions, David Cameron indicated that he wanted this to go through.

The government are saying that they would expect everyone on the so-

called government payroll to support the government. You could

find you would have resignations over the West and the rebellion on

the Conservative benches was more than the rebellion bustier and

there are talking about wanting a referendum. What will the Nick

Clegg have to concede here? What the government have not conceded is

the idea of holding a referendum on Lords reform. One suspects Nick

Clegg may have to concede that. The peak political development of

the week is the launch of the Better Together campaign to keep

Scotland in the UK. Our political editor, Brian Taylor, it joins us

with some guests in the Garden Lobby.

We have the launch of Better Together and a couple of weeks ago

we had the launch of the Yes campaign. What we do not yet have

is a date for the referendum or details on the question. Let us

talk with contenders from each of the signs. Are you going to stick

to a positive campaign on the union? It sounded as though there

was a fair dose of the politics of fear in there as well. I do not

think it is the politics of fear. I think this is an interesting

campaign where parties of different views have an interest. It is a

lesson that Scotland needs to learn, that people working together is the

future for Scotland. You are standing close to your close chum

on the subject! The Labour Party and the Conservative Party have

been at their throats for ever and a day, haven't they? And I am sure

we will continue to be on many of the issues that we discuss but the

important thing is that Labour was happy to work with other parties to

establish devolution and the Scottish Parliament. Not with the

Tories on that occasion. Although I think they have seen better cent

since then and been converted to the cause. It is only on this very

precise issue. You're not agreeing on a common programme as to what

further powers might be transferred. I think there will have to be

further discussion on that and all parties have to be involved.

Kenneth Gibson, what did you make of the launch of Better Together?

It was summed up as catatonic, so I do not think he was exactly setting

of the heather alight! Leaflets were handed out on that day which

talk about not getting a pension in an independent Scotland, thousands

of people work for English companies. People work for many

companies. And Alastair Darling saying that children will be

leaving for an unknown and uncertain destination, it is all

about fear mongering. Quite clearly, scaring the Scottish electorate

rather than presenting a clear, positive agenda. I think it is

quite interesting because the campaign for independence, if we

are allowed to use that word... I'll be allowed to use that word?

Independent is what we are aiming for. Even though you're

psychologist tells you not to do that. I have not spoken to any

psychologists! I think it is a shame that Kenny chooses to talk in

the way that he has about the launch on Monday because we had

people who live and work in Scotland giving us the advantage of

their cues, their experiences, there are genuine fears about what

the future might look like. It is not about fear, it is about the

views and aspirations of the Scottish people. But you said a

second ago was about their fears. If they have fears, they have to

express them. We are not going to get for at least another year at

the White Paper which will tell us closely what an independent

Scotland would look like so people are concerned about that. But at

least they are publishing a White Paper, you are not setting out in

any detail what your campaign would lead to. Ever since devolution was

established, the Scottish Parliament has accrued more powers

from Westminster on a gradual basis. Only recently we had the powers of

the new Scotland Bill and we have not begun to use those powers yet.

We have to see how much those powers give us in terms of an

advantage. There will be detail from Labour. We will have a

commission that will discuss it across Scotland. I think we need to

refute the idea that being Better Together campaign is some hope fear

mongering. We are raising legitimate questions and asking for

answers. We are not raising fears. Our concern is that there are

general problems associated with the idea of separation that need to

be addressed. For example, the air is the issue of whether taxes will

be higher in an independent Scotland. Every time we go to the

chamber we hear the SNP government tell us that in an independent

Scotland spending will be much higher and you can only achieve

that with higher taxes. referendum will be in two years and

the independence, if it happened, his four years away, so can you

tell me what the tax would be then? What we can talk about is whether

that tax rate would be higher or lower in an independent Scotland.

My concern is that it will be higher. A former Tory MP said they

were touched upon Scottish airports to stop them being taken over by

terrace. And those are the kind of ridiculous argument we are getting.

All we want is a country like Sweden and Norway that can control

its own destiny. It is legitimate, is it not, to say and to assert

that taxation would be higher and it is legitimate to assert that

there would be a loss of connection with UK markets? Where is the

positive vision to go with this endless neck a devotee. The CBI a

statement was based on their assertion that Scotland would not

get its Geographic share, which we quite clearly would get. How about

members of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England

guaranteeing membership of the European Union without joining the

euro? If you think about what happened in reverse when East

Germany joined Germany after the collapse of communism, they went

into Europe straightaway. I think there is an irony when Kenneth

Gibson berates others for negativity. We want to discussion

about what the future of Scotland will be like. We have a clearer

idea and we want to discuss that with other people. But she will not

tell us what it is. Your white paper next year will say that is

what independent is, where is the equivalent St what the alternative

will be? Because we want to have a discussion with the people Scott

and before we come with our final abuse. I'm afraid that the SNP have

decided that the referendum is not going to happen at all until 2014,

it then if they are not going to bring the White Paper until next

year, and then the group will bring policies to meet it. We are giving

people the opportunity to make this decision based on the facts.

invite all three of key to harm your campaign theme music and see

if we can tell the difference. Altogether now! That will clear the

Perhaps any to rehearse! Is it sustainable for the pro union

campaign to go into the referendum without telling what the additional

powers will be until after you have voted Yes or No?

They will find it very difficult to sustain that line for two years.

They're trying to say that they had was the bridge in but they will not

lay out the constitutional position. -- that they have a positive vision.

You have seen Johanne La Mont struggle in interviews with these

questions. The danger is that the eagerness to avoid a second

question on devolution Max means that tactics have not been thought

through. Even if the question is on the ballot paper it will have to be

answered. The typical the his way up or not the parties together in

the campaign can come together to an agreement. -- the difficulty is

whether or not. They could be honest and admit that they do not

necessarily agree. One possible position is to say, we all agree

what we will Siena or 20 at the manifestos but we will tell you in

advance of the referendum boat what will go in those 2050 manifestos.

You but they need some body to break ranks?

They certainly have to indicate a pat way towards that decision.

The arguments about the endless make it a pity - at what point does

endless nip up the become a legitimate concern. -- endless

negativity. The SNP will certainly have to do

for a seat between code of the top skier mongering and genuine

questions. -- that the ANC aid between over the top skier

mongering. The argument about a monetary union with another country

whilst at the same time retaining fiscal autonomy, where did that

position really is incredible given the lesson of the euro-zone, you

have to at least have a degree of co-ordination of a fiscal policy.

The SNP's will have to work out their argument and that position.

The former are Lord Advocate has attacked what she describes as a

vacuum of leadership regards the treatment of female prisoners. Her

Commission banned it Cornton Vale prison unfit for a purpose. --

bandit. The government says that this will require changes to the

criminal justice system and it is beginning a consultation process.

He has a flavour of the evidence given to the Holy Book Trust this

committee. -- Holyrood Justice community.

Does it do tear, does it exist -- sister community? What we know was

that imprisonment is extremely expensive. It is like a revolving

door for many offenders. It does not cause them to desist. We need a

robust, evidence base. The current structure militate against that. A

a leadership vacuum. It is not enough to her cabinet secretary

Lord Justice dealing with every issue that comes up, it needs an

hour chief executive to drive the dynamic forward. Part of that is

because of the structure. We have a population of less than 5 million

people. But any 32 separate social work departments providing services

in relation to quotes. -- quotes. I do not believe that by creating a

national civil justice of state would be at this connect with a

social work department. The Government propose reducing

reoffending fund. I took it as read that the system �0.5 million would

be used towards that. -- �7.5 million. I wonder what you general

view is on the sums allocated. In the prison their captive audience

Most of them will receive benefits because it is very typical to get a

job when you are convicted and come out of prison. -- very typical.

Many of them do not get past the past do not belong or off-licence.

What do you survive on? Logic would tell you that if you expedience is

get money from prostitution or by stealing then you will that they

looked to that. So we have set women up to fail. The difference

made by a mentor who engages with him couple of weeks before they

leave the prison and accompanying him on that date, getting him into

supported accommodation, staying with them over the next few weeks,

it is extremely impressive. For Mark as nasty as evidence to that

effect. Do we must attract early on in

terms of school exclusions or even before that? Are we not hear up in

this country enough to detect what may be the early signs of ending?

What community justice symptoms look to try to detect those things?

Many women in the criminal justice system are substantially damaged.

The ability to deal problems can be limited by the extent of what has

gone on before. Many of them will be at Acton's of mental or physical

abuse. -- will be the victims. As a prosecutor and I started off with

the messianic view that I was there to help victims of crime. And to

put all the bad evil people away. With an two days at the script is

not mutually exclusive. Many of the victims and the accused and of a

common profile. There are not many people from affluent middle-class

backgrounds in prison. Poverty is an astute. Physical abuse. Low

self-esteem. All these things can create barriers. There are much

wider issues than we can deal with as a commission. We reflect that

and say that early intervention is absolutely critical and my people

come into the system could be prevented if there are ways of

tackling the manifestation of ease problems and early -- manifestation

of these problems at an early stage. Holy book is expected to get

approval later today to a government bill. -- Holyrood. It

will create single fire and police services in Scotland and see the

eight regional police and can services much into single units by

April next year. The government claimed that efficiency savings of

�1.7 billion will be made up at the news. Opponents are sceptical. At

the moment they're discussing amendments to the bill. Let's go

back element and get three of the debate.

The authority's ability to hold a police constable to account is

wide-ranging. It allows the authority to scrutinise and

challenge the chief constable in all of the functions and aspects of

policing. These amendments make the role more proactive. Another

amendment gives a specific function to promote a policing principles

set out elsewhere. A mint 6 keep under review the authority to

review policy and Scotland. -- amendments six. Amendment eat

relates to the airport at the's obligation to maintain that your

property is obliged to provide the Chief Constable details of how the

authority tens to allocate financial resources it expects to

have available to it. In respect of that financial year, as it will be

important for the chief constable to know what financial resources he

or she can expect to have for the year in order to be able to plan

effectively. Amendment 13 and 14 strength and the accountability of

the chief constable to the authority. The chief constable must

endure, up and seek to endure, that the policing of Scotland is done

with due regard to any recommendation of cadence is good

idea Thorpe. An amendment 73 there is a proposition that a authorities

should not be able to authorise any commissions to call a senior

officer to resign or where appropriate retire from office in

the interests of efficiency or effectiveness of police service. I

cannot support this. It is for the authority to decide who will

organise its functions. If it has, for example, a sub-committee, it

may be entirely appropriate up at sub-committee to have the role of

calling on the senior officer to resign or retire. I have made clear

in my letter that I would expect the authority to respect the

process it will follow in taking decisions. I fully expect at any

representations made will be considered by all the authority's

He I now call Lewis Macdonald. It is appropriate that

consideration should begin with at the among other things of the new

powers which this will have to the new national police force. Namely,

the protocol on a senior officer to resign, or retire from office in

the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. That immediately

places: it in real terms on the operational autonomy of the chief

constable. -- places a limit. Ministers Haynes 0 will appoint the

members of the board of Scottish Police Authority. -- hints for.

Cable up a parrot to reappoint him on not four years later. Added

powers to veto the appointment of the chief constable. Although, of

course they will have to consult ministers for its. These poems

which have to be abused only wants to bring the whole system into

disrepute. -- these parrots. The result could well be the removal

the chief officer who holds Paras have a wide array admit any

previous chief officer in Scotland. There must be we are safeguards

Parliament can supply to protect chief of staff from undue into

fields. I will table a similar men did stage to win the Government

requires the protocol retirement in the interests of efficiency. Amends

at the Three choirs simply that the power to require timing and

resignation should not be delegated to a small group with members of

the authority. It should be the responsibility of all members

acting together. That is a modest change which recognises that there

are no skier. -- there are risks here. We welcome the government

amendment to opt Secretary will think again.

These matters, I understand the concerns raised. I have met with

the member myself. But we have made it quite clear that these are

matters body of poverty which is recognised ultimately by Mr

McDonald. His position is will be dealt with by a full tour at the

altar and to be the ability to delegate it to a sub-committee.

They will be charged with a good governance, representation will be

made, organisations that all one from him, then that basis it seems

to me that we take into account the services are used sparingly by the

authority. Where it us and it has to be used then it should be a

matter for a pop at authority to decide how it handles it. As was

referred to an initial instances, doubtless have the authority member

It will ensure local authorities are not out of pocket from the

creation of a single force and help protect scrutiny of local policing

and enhance accountability. Turning to a man and 47 A. -- amendment.

The Bill states that a local police plan is to be prepared and

submitted to the authority for approval. The plan can be amended

on the agreement of the commander and the local authority. The Bill

provides no more detail of what happens when the local commander

and the local authority cannot agree. Section 48 is not clear what

happens if the local for two does not approve a plan. Our amendment

places an obligation on the therapy to draw up a mechanism for what

happens when local commanders disagree on a plan. It will provide

clarity when there is no disagreement. It is also designed

to avoid local commanders avoiding the wishes of local authorities. It

does a disservice to the professionalism of both local

councils and commanders. The alternative is that the Bill is

totally silent on what happened when there is a disagreement. The

amendment would place an additional protection on local accountability

by requiring the authority to submit a dispute procedure. I fully

support all the amendments in this group. The Bill as it stands is

woefully short on troop local accountability. They lack any real

authority -- role for Michael authorities in certain policing

priorities. The measures are vital if local authorities are to have

any realistic hope of Monetary home services are working in their area

-- monitoring. Local authorities would effectively be operating in

the dark. Prime Minister's Questions was

dominated by House of Lords reform. And there was also something about

various Duke turned. -- U-turns. it not stupid to vote for House of

Lords reform but against the motion? We have been discussing

this issue for 100 years and it really is time to make progress.

There are our opponents of Lords reform in every party. But there is

a majority in this house for an elected House of Lords and I

believe there is a majority for that in the country. But if those

who support Lord reform do not get out there and back it will not

happen. That is the crucial point. It is hopeless in life and in

politics to do what the right honourable Gentleman is doing,

which is to say he is in favour of it and also against it. It is

hopeless. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister said on 11th April, I will

defend every part of that budget, I've worked on it very closely with

the Chancellor of the Exchequer, line by line. Mr Speaker, what went

wrong? The fuel duty increase was a Labour tax rise. It cannot be eight

U-turn to get rid of a Labour tax increase. They put in place 12

increases in fuel duty in government, they left behind six

increases, and I'm proud of the fact we are dealing with them.

Would he take the opportunity to remind the House that there is a

crucial EU summit at the end of this week? Which is more important

for UK growth and jobs, the implications of these massive

changes being proposed in the EU, or House of Lords reform? In terms

of growth in the UK economy, what is happening in the eurozone and in

Europe is extremely important and it is a vital summit taking place

on Thursday and Friday. The UK government has a clear view which

is the eurozone come -- countries need to do more in the short term

to settle the markets but they also need to take my gym and longer term

steps to make sense of the eurozone. That will involve them sharing

greater powers but that is not something the UK is involved in. We

put forward an argument with great vigour and we will protect and

defend the UK economy and political system at the same time. Will the

Prime Minister finally answer the question why his government has

borrowed �3.9 billion more than they did this time last year?

deficit is down by a quarter. And the policy that he supports is to

spend four, to borrow more and to put the debt up even further.

years ago, the steel works in my constituency was forced to close

and thousands of steelmaking jobs were lost. Sadly, many of my

colleagues never found work again. 20 years on, will the Prime

Minister apologise for his party's shameful role in the demise of the

Scottish steel industry? I am sorry for every job that has been lost in

manufacturing industry over a long period of time. But while

manufacturing as a share almost halved under the last government,

that share is now increasing. Under this government the steel industry

has started again on Teesside. can cross back to David Porter and

his desk there. As we saw from that excerpt, there

was no shortage of topics to discuss. I am joined by three MPs

who know the Scottish political system pretty intimately, Russell

Brown for Labour, David Mundell, the Scottish Office minister, and

Lord John Thurso for the Liberal Democrat. You were hereditary

member of the laws on the New Left in 1999, so it is probably best to

start with you. Your view on plans to reform the Lords? Broadly,

excellent. It is high time we reformed this anachronism and had a

Judy elected House of Lords and I'm delighted that Nick Clegg has stuck

to his guns, has got the support of the Cabinet, and is now going to do

what we have been waiting for for 150 years. Why embark on something

that is could be so fraught politically? Labour, the Liberal

Democrats and Daz Celts went into the last election with manifesto

commitments to reform the House of Claude. -- ourselves. -- of the

House of Lords. Letters seized his opportunity and fitted done. That

does not take months someone's talking about it. I find it bizarre

that the same people who say it is taking valuable parliamentary time

in 10 to vote for a motion to give it even more time. Everyone who

supports small proportion rally round the proposals. A bit of a dig

at your party there, saying that he won this reform but that you want

more time to discuss it. We are determined, along with the two

other main political parties, to see that change take place. We have

waited over 100 years for this. We do not want a rushed, botched job

here. That is why we are prepared to support the bill at second

reading but a programme motion that would guillotine this is not

appropriate. We will want to spend more time, and even if it does take

six months, then so be it, but we have to get it right so that when

it leaves the Commons it is in some kind of shape that a lot can take

on board and deal with it in an appropriate manner. When you speak

to your constituents and you hold your surgery, does anyone say to

you that they are really concerned about Lords reform? No one has ever

come into my surgery and said I am against Lords reform. Every single

piece of legislation that affects people's lives, from health and

social security, education, all of it, goes through the Lords. Because

it is currently not democratically legitimate it is not able to give

proper scrutiny. Therefore I find nobody in the street who is opposed

to putting democracy in the Lords. This is not a botched job. This is

a piece of work that builds on work that Jack Straw did and which have

been discussed for decades. It is buried considered and all of the

Labour colleagues Bob one on the joint committee that I served on

were happy to support it. If you give the Lord more power, there

will be people saying that if they are elected they can be a real

counterweight to the House of Commons. The Lords has the role

already to be a counterweight to the House of Commons in terms of

the scrutiny that they are able to do. Might you what the Lords has

changed enormously since being a member of this Parliament because I

know the level of work and they do -- at my view. I think we have all

seen through the recent years that the appointments system is simply

not satisfactory and the only way to get people who are accountable,

whose appointment cannot be challenged, is to have them

directly elected, and that is why I favour a directly elected system.

If you end up voting against this and say you want more time, you may

not get the legislation you have wanted. I think we will get the

legislation but the problem is that the appropriate time. I think over

the last couple of years, did not have done a terror -- a tremendous

job of holding this coalition government to account. I agree

there is a role there. It is how that is configured going forward.

We now have over 800 Peers in that place. We need to get it down to

300. Let us move to another subject, and fuel duty and the decision not

to increase it. I am sure you will welcome that are not the confused

way it was announced. I do welcome the reduction. In the far north,

fuel is an amazingly large component of people's budget. I

applaud the way the government have done it because I always have the

we could not cut fuel duty or stop the increase until we had found the

money to pay for it. The way the government had done it, by using

surplus administrative funds not used earlier in the year is an

extremely responsible way to have gone about it. I am content that we

are both looking after hard-pressed families in this coalition and at

the same time being responsible about maintaining the work on the

deficit. It seemed an odd way to go about it, briefing one day that it

cannot happen, and the next day it happens. What we have to be pleased

about is that this is the right decision. I have been lobbying for

this decision because it is the right one for particularly the

rural motorists in Scotland. Petrol is 10 pence a litre cheaper than it

would have been under the Labour Government's proposals. It is

absolutely the right decision. And I have lobbied long and hard, as I

did under a Labour government. But it is the manner in which it has

been done. Only seven days ago, the government said it was not possible.

When the Secretary of State for Transport did not know this was

coming, cabinet ministers did not know it was coming, it was a rush

job not one I am pleased to see has happened. A note of agreement are

on fuel tax. But perhaps not the Let go back to Holyer it. The

better to get our campaign. -- holy writ. I am joined pilot will

Denmark and the Greens leaders. Can we get some clarity on when the

either the better to go there campaign as acute, of will that

will Democrats as a section with an acute, will make it clear to the

Scottish public what the extra Paras will be if they say no to

That will come forward and the autumn. The question is what we

stay in the UK. That will come first.

If people do not know what a additional powers are what you make

it known for the general election or for the subsequent Scottish

election? At what point do you cross the electorate to make an

informed decision? People will get the information

from local Democrat perspective as to how much for there we would like

to go. By what timescale?

The results of the commission will be launched by the autumn. But you

can trust the Liberal Democrats. We have cracked record. We'd love and

the Scotland Act. We have a track record of delivering more per was

At Catterick are they? Do you except at summon the his campaign

say that if you challenge these ideas or if you ask questions in

your scaremongering? Should Labour must be some questions that are

perfectly legitimate? I agree. I have been making that

case with the in the debate amongst supporters of the best boat. I

think that both the US and the No side, the independence and her to

to get a sight, a responsibility to make sure that people as well as

formal as possible. Both sides are going to need the whole of the two

years that we have to go to thrash out some of those answers. Those

who want Scotland to both know do need to be clear. They're going to

happen up a consensus between themselves. It is the parties that

dominate Westminster and not Scotland would be able to put at

off-fore and make it real. The pro independence side, we need to be

very clear about what kind of independent Scotland B are trying

to create. I do not think that people who are as yet unconvinced

but not hostile will be convinced to change their minds unless they

see how a radical transformation or an agenda of change in an

independent Scotland will benefit all society.

Let's talk about something else debated today - the single police

force and the single fire falls. Do you have concerns about the chief

constable in the police force being a politicised role? How independent

will be be? Patrick and I agree on this. We are

at one that a single Paul Scholes will centralise and politicised her

or too much and will not have the central power of safeguards. -- a

single police force. Patrick and I probably agree on this even though

we do not agree and independence. People want to know what the

politicisation of the police means, what does it mean in practice? How

important could it be? Story, that question is for Patrick Harvey.

It potentially create a national chief constable could come to rival

a justice minister in terms of political cloud. That could become

a source of tension. He was a need for accountability at national and

local level. It makes the job of accountability within the police

more, not less complex. I fear that it will not even see the money that

the Government has protecting. -- is predicting.

Is the local police commissioner suggestion of the Conservatives a

good idea? You must have clear lines of

accountability. You cannot have accountability at a local level and

the national level. The commissioners idea from our

perspective is not the way for up. We would rather keep all these

local and accountability to the local community. -- the way for all.

Day today, things could be OK, but it is in times of crisis that

problems could emerge. Centralising power in two of the people is when

things go wrong, it is why you need safeguards.

If we look at the referendum issue, I want to ask about the idea of

talking to people, attempting to formulate something, BA be up this

second question. It seems at the moment that people can attach what

a for the want to devolution Acts. It means desperate things to do

spigots. Well this the farm up in any way? Will then be a democratic

mandate but for? There are a number of organisations

attempting to come up with some alternative view as to what the

future of Scotland to be. As you help, Willie Rennie's party, the

Liberal Democrats, they have a proposal that Ming Campbell

suggesting. Chauhan on what his APPLAUSE mission inside the

Scottish Labour Party. Reform Scotland has been very

active. There is a Labour group that

emerged earlier this week that is looking at these things. The

Institute for Public Policy Research are looking at things.

People in favour of more devolution will have to work out how these

ideas are going to be brought together. Some consensus will have

to be created and that a more that it is not by any means clear how

that will happen. Of course, following the original proposals in

1997, and to the Scottish Convention, and the extension to

the Scotland Act, was the resort of a joint party commission. -- was

the result. So the process is on clear. To that extent it least, the

answers we do not know. The suggestion of Willie Rennie is that

if the parties put something India 2050 manifestoes then something

might emerge at of that. So we have to take it on trust.

Exactly. Looking for what if there is an independent Scotland will

there be disowned revising chamber will that be a Scottish roots of

Lords? At the moment we do have a

unicameral legislator. Scotland is responsible for taxation and

welfare benefits. There are clearly questions about whether Scotland

would need to write it on new constitution. One of the issues

then will be should it be a second chamber?

Has and he would be in it? Or yes, I sit tight set up. -- etc

etc. It is not entirely clear that existing purposes will be

appropriate for an independent country.