27/11/2013 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to another edition of Politics Scotland. Coming up, 24

hours on after the launch of the white paper, MSPs debated in

Parliament. Politicians have now had a chance to

digest the contents of the hefty tome. Full independence supporters

will be singing its praises, pro-unionists will be taking it

apart. Here at Westminster, David Cameron

says the white paper leaves a huge number of unanswered questions.

The international media descended on Scotland yesterday for the launch of

this. Politicians on both sides of the debate have been picking over

the paper and so have we. Joining me is Professor John Curtice from

Strathclyde University. Good afternoon.

Let us first go to Holyrood and pick-up with our political editor

Brian Taylor. A very busy afternoon for you

yesterday. What are MSPs saying about the white paper today?

Alistair Darling was holding a press conference this morning.

We will have a substantive debate this afternoon. We had a brief taste

of that yesterday. This is a full Holyrood debate. The First Minister

announced further details about the childcare offer which is at the core

of the independence of. They will be extending their eventually to

one-year-olds. He says it is worth as much as ?4600 per child to each

family. He says it is only possible under independence because it will

release people to go back to work and if they were to do that

currently, the tax take would go to the Treasury. Alistair Darling said

the white paper skimped on financial details. He said it was

overoptimistic on oil and didn't take account of transitional costs.

I expect Alex Salmond to pick up on some of those points when he makes

his statement. We will have that statement in a few

minutes. In this debate this afternoon, are we going to look at a

sustained attack from the prounion parties against the white paper?

Very much so. The arguments is that the costs are being downplayed. We

will get accusations from the Conservatives and others that's the

issue of the European Union, a shared currency and so on have not

been answered. Alex Salmond believes it will be in the interests of both

sides to keep the status quo. We will be able to absorb the details

of this issue. Quite rightly, Parliament is able to express that.

We have waited a long time for the white paper. How do you think the

debate will proceed from now? Will there be an onus on the

pro-unionists now? It goes down to lines, the line of assurances that

Alex Salmond is offering over keeping the pound and the Queen

etc, and this big offer on welfare, enhanced pensions, enhanced

childcare and a promise to scrap the bedroom tax. We will hear the

opposition try to take that apart this afternoon.

The man who needs no introduction after a very busy day yesterday,

Professor John Curtice. You were looking at the report yesterday, now

you have had the chance to digest it, what are your initial

impressions? . The first minister has been able

to come through with an iconic policy, that of childcare. Given

that one of the problems that faces Scotland's is that it is relatively

short of people of the working age population, the childcare issue is a

way of addressing that. That said, what really struck me about this

document was in fact how fiscally conservative it is. Those

childcare, says are about what might be done by 2020 or 2025. There are

only small promises regarding what can be done in 2016. There is

nothing in here in the form of a tax break for the individual ordinarily

voter and, to that extent, if indeed it is true, and my reading is that

it is, that's people want to be convinced that Scotland's economy

will be better and they want more money in their pockets, it is not

clear how the independence would put more money in people 's pockets. To

that extent, what we are discovering is that having to run this

referendum against the backdrop of Scotland's having better public

finances than the rest of the UK but still being an deficit. In other

words, to understand this document, you have to look at not only what it

says but what it doesn't talk about, such as immediate tax breaks

or increased public spending. You mentioned the individual voter.

The normal person in the street. We have seen some reaction on news

programmes yesterday. Europe erstwhile colleague Dr Jim Mitchell

was speaking about it. What impact does this document have normal

voters? The truth is that not many people

will read this. Some will have read the summary is in today's

newspapers. But the crucial thing is that it gets the message more

clearly? If people think the yes side know what they are doing, that

is what is important. There is some sense of progress on that front.

That childcare policy will get the headlines. Some will say that we now

have some detail but you can see the limitations. That comes from the

fact that on so many things such as currency, energy markets, the BBC,

what's this document envisages is a close collaboration between an

independent Scotland and the rest of the UK and you cannot be certain

about that collaboration. Let us go to the Holyrood chamber

now and watch some of the debate. The choice between taking the future

into our own hands or allowing decisions to be made by governments

that have been overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Scotland.

We address 650 questions and set out how we can build a fairer and more

prosperous and democratic country. It is the most comprehensive look

print for independence published for any country at anywhere at any time.

A lot of the response of its was sadly predictable. In that vein, I

will give way. Talking about other countries, can

the First Minister tell me whether his government has received any

feedback from any other EU country about Scotland's membership of the

European Union and whether that would be difficult?

I will arrange for him to get a full briefing. On the question of sadly

predictable, there was some sadly predictable reaction from the Better

Together campaign. Within an hour of the publication, Alistair Darling

said it was ridiculous and not of any worth. I must congratulate that

man on speed reading. By my estimation, that is 3000 words a

minute. The reality is this for all of the Better Together parties, the

ball is now firmly in the Unionist court. They need to provide answers

to fundamental questions about Scotland. Yesterday 's debates did

bring us to something very important in terms of Scotland's future.

Aileen Campbell and I visited a site a few hundred metres up the road

that provides clear to children. It was established in 2002 when all

three and four-year-olds became entitled to two education and care.

The entitlement was 412 hours per year but increased to 475 hours and

will rise to 600 hours next year. But our ambitions are greater than

that. As outlined in the white paper, in the first budget after

independence, we will commence to extending the hours of care. By the

end of the first parliament, we will invest ?600 million. Our longer-term

ambition is to make this care available to all children from the

age of one. It would give families a total saving of 4600 hours of care

per year. -- saving them for days and ?600.

This transformational policy is a policy which is about independence

for Scotland. I give way. Given that he says the price tag for

peas one is ?100 million, why has he not done it already? -- price tag

for the one. The budget is not 100 million to do

what's I just described, it is ?700 million. Let us remember that the

Conservative Party have committed themselves to a reduction in income

tax which will blow another vast hole in the Scottish budget. I would

be delighted to hear where they are going to get that under the current

settlement. One point made yesterday was that independence gives us the

opportunity to make choices, spend less on weapons of mass destruction

and more on educating our children. There are other ways to get ?700

million. And the theme of something for nothing, you could gain ?700

million by cutting free personal care for the elderly, scrapping

prescription charges, but they are not policies that this government

would do. Sacrificing the great games of devolution. That sort of

investment can come from economic growth and expansion in the economy

by a rise in female perturbation in the workforce. A 6-point rise in

female patient, getting the rates of Scotland up to Swedish levels, would

get more than 100,000 women back into the Labour Party. That lack the

Labour market. You need to invest the money, which means you need the

money upfront, which means you need to invest immediately. You could do

that now, surely. I thought we would get an explanation of whether it was

concessionary travel or free personal care which was her target.

That is why we edify the savings from cutting the weapons of mass

destruction in Scotland. But it is the case if we can achieve that 6%

rise in e-mail participation, which is achievable, given over the last

year there has been a 3% rise in female employment in Scotland, then

we would get huge increases in revenues. That 6% gap, would

increase Scotland's economic output by 2.2 billion and raise taxation

revenues across the range of taxation by ?700 million. At present

those tax revenues, any savings from welfare payments go straight back to

Westminster. In an independent Scotland, we would retain and be

able to invest the savings in the future. A childcare revolution is a

transformation impossible under devolution but with independence we

can implement. Alistair Darling said employment in Scotland rises, and I

quote, those taxes go to the Treasury and come back to Scotland

through funding. This man was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he

not know that concerns spending, not revenue? If revenue rises in

Scotland, it disappears into the London Treasury. Just in case there

is any dispute about this, the IPPR, not a think tank associated with

independence, in fact they don't support independence, but their blog

said the SNP was right that many fiscal benefits with low in the form

of increased benefits to Her Majesty's Treasury. That is the

difference between controlling the balance sheet of an independent

Scotland and being caught in the straight jacket of Westminster where

we are at the present moment, a straitjacket which will get a lot

tighter under the Conservative Party. AM interested he mentions the

IPPR, who also said last night the Scottish Government's white paper is

a piece of fantasy economics. Other than a contentious assertion the tax

base north of the border is stronger than the rest of the UK, it is

unclear how any of this can be paid for. The point I made in terms of

the IPPR not supporting independence, that was my point, but

on the question revenue, they say the SNP is right. There has been an

assumption of Unionist parties, this is at the heart of this debate, we

have demonstrated through an expansion of childcare, a

transformation in opportunities for Scottish children, an increase in

production by -- participation rates of women in the workforce, the

revenues would flow into the Scottish Treasury which would enable

that plan to be funded. We want to know from unionists how it happens

under devolution without dramatic cuts from Joanne Lamont's cuts

commission on things like free personal care, things like

concessionary travel and student fees which would also be in the

target line. He is option has been that if we don't have independence

everything will continue as it is. What I want to say now is that what

not the case. In the last general election campaign, a quote, we want

to see are not scrapped. Last weekend he went even further, there

will be no action taken on by not until the economy has stabilised

again. Given that George Osborne tells us the economy is stabilising,

that must be soon. Ruth Davidson told the Sun not to quote on BBC but

the quote on Barnett was only supposed to be temporary. On 2014,

the ground has shifted since devolution, and just two days ago, a

report was published by the Westminster All-Party Parliamentary

Group on taxation recommending in the case of a no vote, the Barnett

formula must be we placed with a needs -based formula. The best

alternative using the seven indicators of need a vilified by the

commission. -- identified by the commission. We know what is in mind

from the Westminster parties because we know exactly what the commission

recommendations would mean for Scottish spending. They published an

article in evidential times in 2010. It would mean a cut in

Scottish spending of up to 4000 million pounds per year. We could

say that is just one proposal. The SDC estimate the cut might be 2000

million pounds a year. The UK Government will give any indication

about what might happen to the Barnett formula if we remain in the

UK but that stance of keeping it quiet until after the referendum is

unsustainable. The Government has set out our case for independence.

What we want to hear from the Better Together parties is how we'll do

Better Together rate be in the Scottish budget Scotland votes no?

Certain things we agree on. We agree and we know that over the last 30

years, Scotland has contributed far more in relative terms to the UK

budget then we received. We know in the last five years that amounts to

12,000 million pounds, over ?2000 a head for every man woman and child.

We know Scotland contributes 9.9% of the UK's taxation and gets back 9.3%

of spending, but that 9.3% will be targeted by the Better Together

campaign. They will cut Scotland's budget with no reflection or

understanding of the massive contribution Scotland has made to UK

finances and will continue to make, so where we have the debate about

the vision of Scottish society laid out in the white paper, no longer

will it be contrasted against the silence of the Better Together

campaign. It will be contrasted against a future where we see low

growth in the population and economy and Scotland subjected to the

severest cuts in political history, over and above the retrenchment of

the last few years. Or we can go forward to a growing economy, a

growing society, we can help our children and benefit from the

strength of our natural resources. We can combine these resources with

our intelligence and ingenuity and create a new society. Politics are

about choices and the choice next year will be between that new

society with a future offered by Better Together, which for many

Scots will be no future at all. The First Minister live in Parliament.

We will dip back in later. A joint again by Professor John Curtice. A

lot about childcare at the beginning of the speech and then it went on to

an attack on the Better Together partners, accusing the Coalition

Government of wanting to cut the Barnett formula, the mechanism used

for public expenditure here in Scotland. Maybe a surprising

attack. I don't think so. The SNP have been saying by is going to go

but following the provisions of the 2012 Scotland at that eventually the

revenues from the basic rate of income tax will come directly to the

Scottish Parliament rather than going through the UK Treasury, so by

that is already being you wrote it. The big message of what Mr Salmond

is trying to do, many of us have been saying the yes vote have been

on the defensive, constantly having to defend their position. There we

saw Mr Salmond trying to say, to put the no side on the defensive, saying

what answer to you have two insure Scotland could get women back into

employment what answer do you have two the chance Scotland will do

badly? That begins to take the no side into sorting out what will be

their stance in terms of what Scotland might get, because part of

the answer to the speech is, the more you'd evolve tax revenues to

the Scottish Parliament, relying less on the Barnett formula, even if

you do that within the framework of the UK, then Scotland begins to

benefit if you get more women into employment, so that debate on the no

side becomes more important. Thank you. Let's step back into the

chamber at Holyrood and the Labour Leader Johann Lamont. The First

Minister claims his white paper is full of detail. There is an enormous

difference between a lot of detail and a lot of words. Far from being

tampered with reality, this white paper is assertion rich. Let's look

at what it says about the pound. Page 85. Scotland will continue to

use the pound. Let's imagine that is true. LAUGHTER. I didn't realise he

would be quite so true to form. Let's imagine that is true. We would

have an independent Scotland relying on a foreign bank and taxpayers for

our currency, a foreign Parliament from which we had withdrawn Scottish

representation would draw up the rules. This independent Scotland, I

don't know if you realised this, this independent Scotland would have

it interest rates, its tax and spending policy its borrowing

rates, by another country. It would be the greatest loss of sovereignty

for Scotland since Edward invaded in 1296. But that is if we could cut a

deal to keep the pound. Yesterday, David Cameron says such a deal was

unlikely. In saying that, he is entitled to his opinion in these

negotiations, in saying that, he echoed the words of George as born

and Ed Balls and Carwyn Jones, the First Minister of Wales, who also

has an interest in these matters. Even if they agree, it is likely the

rest of the UK would require a referendum to join a currency union

just as if joining the EU. Imagine Scotland's future currency depending

on a referendum in which no Scot would have a vote. How would a

politician persuade the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland

that the Scots who have left them would keep the pound, especially if

the Scottish Government's case to leave is because the rest of the UK

has held its back ever since the union was created? If they needed

evidence, they only had to listen to the First Minister's speech. The

idea you would abuse the rest of the UK for doing us down and then go

back to ask them for our favour to share their currency simply beggars

belief. You would need them to agree to a lender of last resort, so if a

Scottish bank needed a bail-out, English, Wales and Northern Ireland

taxpayers would fit the bill. The Bank of England is funded by

taxpayers that Scotland wouldn't pay any tax to the rest of the UK. How

can the First Minister think anyone north or south of the border

believes that deal could be done? Even the First Minister's own former

economic adviser says a deal for a separate Scotland to keep the pound

would be very difficult. He says the pound would be with the rest of the

UK. The adviser says the conditions the rest of the UK would impose

would be too restrictive to be desirable. Alex Salmond's economic

adviser says there would need to be a plan B, a separate Scottish

currency, but in this white paper we have a plan a which is not tampered

with reality and no plan B at all. Can I thank her for taking the

intervention. We are six minutes through the speech and we haven't

heard a single thing Johann Lamont leaves on. Do you really agree

that... That is completely ludicrous. For

all its 670 pages and its words this white paper cannot say what currency

a separate Scotland would have. The fundamental argument which runs

through the whole white paper was said of by Professor K, people need

to get beyond vague aspirations like an independent Scotland would have

the powers to tackle poverty. He added, nor can we say that Scotland

would have lots more money from an unknown source and would have be

able to avoid eating choices about spending and taxation and debt which

have two be made in the framework of the United Kingdom or indeed any

framework which characterises cloud cuckoo land.

If he wants to follow that debate live, go to the BBC democracy live

website. At Prime Minister's Questions today, on the payday

lending markets, David Cameron said he was proud to have intervened and

that Labour did nothing about it for 13 years. The subject of the

Scottish independence white paper was also raised.

Following his U-turn on payday lending, why has he gone from the

siding that's interfering is Marxist to interfering recently.

There are some very disturbing cases and for 13 years they did nothing

about it. I am proud of the fact that we have intervened to regulate

this market properly and we will also be putting in place a cap. Let

me be very clear to him, I followed very carefully his interview on

Desert Island Discs and I live is he is now following Engels.

They repeatedly voted against capping payday loan there is. We

were for it and they were against it. Clearly he wants to claim this

is a principled decision so can the Prime Minister explain why the

government intervening to cap the cost of credit is right but the

government capping energy bills is communism?

I feel like one of those radio hosts because I want to say, and your

complaint is exactly? We are doing the right thing. He should be

standing up and congratulating us. He wants to turn to energy so let's

do that. The point is that we do not have control of the international

price of gas so what we need to do is have more competition to get

profits down and roll back the cost of regulation to get prices down.

That is a proper energy policy. We know his version of intervention.

That is taking money off the Co-op and don't as any questions.

For two years, the people of Scotland were promised they would

get a detailed paper and selling all the questions. Instead they got it

the document full of false promises. It wasn't a blueprint for

independence but a wish list. Even that independence is based on the

assumption that Scotland would keep the pounds with no plan B, can the

Prime Minister tell us whether the lack of it plan B would call into

question the credibility of the white paper.

I very much agree. We were told this white paper would answer every

question but there is no answer on currency, an EU membership, on

Natal. -- on NATO. The Prime Minister needs some guts. We now

have the blueprint for independence. Well he stop being pathetic and get

out and debate the issues? I'm enjoying the debate now. This is

a debate between people in Scotland, not between the leader of

the Conservative Party or even the UK Prime Minister and the First

Minister. It is a debate between the leader of the yes campaign and the

leader of the no campaign. I know you want is find every sort of

distraction possible because when it comes to the economy, jobs, Europe,

all the arguments are for staying together.

Let us speak to our reporter at College Green at Westminster. It was

a fairly lacklustre Prime Minister's Questions. The most energising got

was during Pete Wishart's question. One MP was wrecked remanded --

reprimanded. Tempers often get a little bit

frayed and people get excitable and that happened today. The speaker had

to tell the SMP's -- the Scottish National Party's Angus Neill to stop

yapping like a puppy. Lots of talk about the white paper

up in Scotland. What's other significant reaction has there been

an Westminster? Yesterday Westminster collectively

said that they thought they should leave it to Scotland to discuss the

white paper. Today we are seeing that people in Westminster are

treating this white paper a bit like a budgets beach. You get the

headlines on day one followed by the reaction over the following days

when baby is parties will try to pick out things they do and do not

like about it. I am joined by two Scottish

politicians. Pete Wishart and Jeremy Purvis, who we now call Lord

Purvis. The white paper, what do you think of it?

I've read it and the only thing I think there are so many big

questions remaining. There's one question missing and that is what if

they are wrong? What if they cannot get everything they want? What if

all other nations in the United Kingdom say that you cannot get what

you want? That is of fundamental importance when it comes to our

currency, our mortgages and what we will pass over to future

generations. I think this is of considerable concern.

You are guilty of the politics of assertion. Just because you say it

is going to happen doesn't mean it well.

We have been asked for detail and yesterday we presented it. We are so

everything it is possible to answer about an independence referendum. We

are going into this debate as the best informed country ever in an

independence debate. If people have a look at this, they will see the

answers to the questions. This is an exciting and transformative process.

Some would argue it is an SNP manifesto. It is a government paper.

Anybody can put forward a prospectus about a future Scotland's. You might

even see one from the Liberals. What if they are right about the

pounds and the head of state and you're not?

No we have presented a past doctors -- prospectus about what we would

take forward if we were the first government elected in an independent

Scotland. I do not think that is a sufficient

answer. A few years ago, Alex Salmond was saying that the pound

was the millstone around the Scottish neck. There isn't a plan B.

There isn't the case that we can change minds after the referendum. I

think it is important that these questions are properly addressed and

in this paper they are not. We've had lots of very clever people

look at the options for us. The fiscal commission determined that

the best way forward for Scotland's future was for us to keep the pound.

Some are arguing that you are keeping the parts that you like so

to some extent your opponents will say this isn't real independence.

What's wrong with keeping things that work? Why would we want to get

rid of the Queen. The pound will work for Scotland's as it works for

the rest of the country. If things don't work out then we can change

them. That is the key to independence. It is the Scottish

people that decide. I was in the Scottish Parliament for

eight years and they were indicating, your colleagues, that

the pound and the British state was not working for the people of

Scotland. Now they are suggesting that they will keep these things.

The British state is working. Why create harriers when we are already

contributing? -- create barriers. You are well known as the bring

devolution max. From the way you see the arguments progressing, do you

think that's devo max is an idea whose time will come?

We have established a home rule amity and want to see further

progression. -- home rule commission. We want the Scottish

Parliament to be stronger. Why create all the different barriers

and uncertainty and risks? It the referendum doesn't go your

way, could you live with devo max? What ever they talk about, it is up

to whoever decides in that place. If we vote no, that means no. They are

talking about the Barnett Formula, the West Lothian question. They will

be looking at the settlement again and turning it on its head.

Hull I'm sure we will return to this issue. Thank you. You won't be

surprised that we will be talking about this piece of paper. We only

have an abridged version on here so if anybody has any copies, there are

some people here who would like to read it. For a final time, let's dip

act into the chamber for the debate on the white paper and Scotland's

future. According to Johann Lamont, that is all right. She cannot make

the logical step from having health protected by this Parliament to

having other forms of social protection controlled by this

Parliament. I believe we can do better by our vulnerable. The white

paper acknowledges that welfare is to be viewed as a social investment

designed to promote equality, fairness and social cohesion, not

just a safety net but also as a positive investment in people. It

sets out policy goals the Government would pursue worthy SNP elected,

whether to abolish bedroom tax, cancel universal credit and

independence payments, these are real tangible choices we can make

with the powers of independents to ensure the same protection afforded

to our vulnerable to a Scottish controlled health service is

afforded by a Scottish controlled welfare system. If the chance to

recognise the value of all our people to a system that values all

our people, a system that would deliver from cradle to grave. That

is a point about childcare policy which the other parties seem to have

ever guilty with, but to invest the sums we required to deliver that

change, we need control of Scotland's revenues. We don't

require what is currently operated by Westminster which is a

diminishing grant subject to the whims of austerity mad politicians

in Westminster. We need the full power of Scotland's resources to

deliver the full range of powers for the people of Scotland, and that is

the essence of independents. It is about Scotland's people controlling

their future and Scotland's government delivering for

Scotland's people. It is about attracting talented people to come

to Scotland, not booting them out of Scotland. It is about protecting the

vulnerable, not humiliating them. That is essentially what

independence is about, the step where we say to the Scottish people,

we trust you, and they put their trust in those we elect to govern to

take decisions for them. We do not have a system for decisions on

Scotland's be are taken by people who did not ask what Scotland wanted

them to do on Scotland's Bihar. We need only look at what happened on

the Common Agricultural Policy decision to see we have that system

where government officials and ministers take decisions on behalf

of Scotland without a care for the impact on Scotland. Can you bring

your remarks to a close was Max with regard to independence, we can take

control is -- we can take decisions for the people of Scotland that

reflect their values. That decision I want for my children. Scotland's

finances and the economy are central to this debate. We have heard much

of that already. The white paper, figures show tax receipts in

Scotland are higher in the UK as a whole, but less is made of the equal

fact that public spending is higher. The IFS showed the same figures mean

an independent Scotland would face higher tax increases or greater cuts

than the UK. That drew even on the most optimistic case, using the

SNP's lowest estimate of debt and around highest projections for oil,

the calculation shows costs would still be in the area of ?1000 a year

taxation, so they refuse to face the arithmetic of independents. I

understand the Government dismisses these figures because they argue a

separate Scotland will suddenly grow stratospherically and the First

Minister asserted that again today. The white paper is vague on why that

should be expected to happen. It suggests corporation tax cut, no one

but the SNP believes it, a small-business National Insurance

scheme which already exists and has not works, and a pledge the SNP

could deliver today if they cared, the SNP had to take ten minutes to

date to apologise for his failure to do so. What this document is clear

about is the fundamental platform Scotland's future requires. Since

Johann Lamont the dog and so the question, can he now and corrupt? We

have identified how child care could be funded by increased revenues and

female per dissipation in the workforce. That could happen under

independence, but under devolution how would you find this ?700 million

required? Let's start by finding the resources to deliver the child care

pledge that in six years he has not managed to deliver. This document is

clear about the fundamental platform the future requires. It says we will

retain that pound, the Bank of England will be the lender of last

resort in case the banks fail, and on that financial sector, we will

retain a broadly integrated market, and as for energy, Scotland will

continue to operate in the great British market since we succeed in

attracting one third of the subsidies paid for by UK consumers

and we will have a single transmission operator paid for by

consumers across the UK and the green investment bank will continue

on a UK wide basis. For Scotland's universities, winning up to 50% of

available research funding, way above our share, the white paper

says these UK wide arrangements will continue after independence. Why?

Because it says so in the white paper. Workforce needs to move

freely across borders so we will continue with the Common travel area

except all the evidence says that even where borders remain open,

cross-border flows of people and trade will plummet when countries

separate by as much as two thirds in the case of Czechoslovakia. Last

week we debated the importance of UK defence contracts, not least to ship

welding. The white paper says these will continue but we know the

workers whose jobs depend on them say they would not. This document

offers no evidence that these things would continue after independence.

It simply asserts that because the SNP argument needs it and wishes it

to be so, it will happen. If wishes were horses, the First Minister

would today be riding at the head of a veritable cavalry Regiment for the

new Scottish defence force. There is no reason to believe and no

guarantee that the rest of the UK would tailor its currency to our

needs, subsidise our renewable industry or fund research rather

then there is, far less ills more ships here in another country for

the first time in the Navy's peacetime history because it suits

us, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. The First Minister took a

minute to give way. The SNP say those who reject separatism should

describe a vision for Scotland's future but the argument we are

better United joins -- runs through their own white paper. A single

currency risks free trade and movement, an energy market with

access to ten times the research contract we could command research

contracts running into billions of pounds. That is the foundation of

our prosperity and if we vote no we keep these things. Not maybe, not

subject to negotiations, but guaranteed. This is the Better

Together case. Mr Gray is winding up. The SNP think we are too weak to

seize the opportunities of the UK and the world beyond in order to

thrive. Ian great speaking live in the chamber there. -- Iain Gray. And

if you'd like to watch the rest of that debate, just go to BBC

Scotland's Democracy Live website. Let's get some final thoughts from

Professor John Curtice. Let's go back to another Labour speech,

Johann Lamont a few minutes ago talking about the currency union and

perhaps that England may want to have a referendum on a potential

currency union with an independent Scotland. Most of us who listen to

this debate have heard lots of arguments for and against

independents are occasionally looking for new arguments. We

haven't heard many recently but here was one. She was arguing that there

in mind both Conservative and Labour parties said the UK would not join a

monetary union with the liver is -- with the EU in the absence of a

referendum. She said what the UK Government should decide is if

Scotland votes yes and wishes to have a monetary union with the rest

of the UK, the Government will insist on having a referendum on the

subject. An interesting argument, maybe therefore accept, but it

indicates that by becoming independent Scotland could

supposedly make its own choices, that many of the choices the SNP

would like Scotland to make our ones that require collaboration with the

rest of the UK. It is reasonable to argue that might be in Scotland's

interests but it means the SNP is arguing for positions that are not

entirely in its gift, and here we see a clear capital, perhaps even

strategic tension or the independence case. The SNP want to

put forward a case for independence that says the things for Britain we

like, they will not all be ripped up, it does not mean the drawbridge

comes down, things like the BBC and the pound we can keep, and I can see

why they want to do that because significant sections of Scottish

society still feel a sense of Britishness, but they then expose

themselves to the argument about Hang on, you cannot be sure what

will happen, and in effect the rupture will be bigger than you are

arguing. I think we can expect the no side to keep banging on about

this, especially the currency but also about agendas. We see the SNP

want to talk about childcare and what they see as the positive case,

we see the no side wanting to go back to currency and what they see

as the negative side. It will be interesting to see how that comes

out. The First Minister talked about childcare and growing the economy,

we also heard him talk about more immigration to Scotland. How do you

think that goes down and will that be possible in an independent

Scotland that doesn't have borders with the rest of the UK? It will be

fascinating to see how this goes from the border, the SNP are arguing

for more immigration while the UK Prime Minister is trying to limit

immigration from within the EU. Is the Scottish public necessarily more

immigration? It is debatable. Around half of people in Scotland say if a

lot more people came here from Europe, it might affect our cultural

diversity, and more people in Scotland may be as happy about

recent levels of immigration as the rest of the UK, so that is

potentially an issue to emerge more from this today. Thank you, John. We

will see you again soon. That's all we have time for today. We're back

at the usual time next week here, 2:30pm here on BBC Two. Newsnight

Scotland will be debating the white paper tonight with the Finance

Secretary John Swinney and Scottish Labour Leader Johann Lamont. That's

at the earlier time of 10:30pm. Thanks for your company. From all

the team here, goodbye for now.