29/01/2014 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to politics Scotland. The Governor of the Bank

of England gives his assessment of how our currency union could work in

an independent Scotland. Our live debate in the chamber today

discusses whether Scottish farmers could be worse off under the EU

farming policy. The first Minister and the Governor

of the Bank of England have meant in Edinburgh to discuss Scotland's

currency options in the event of a yes vote in the referendum. The

first Minister said he found the Governor's visit useful. When the

governor speaks, we will see what he has to say but he will be giving a

technocrat assessment of the institutional changes necessary to

make a single currency work. He will not be arguing that, but as for the

Scottish people, nor will he be saying whether Scotland will be

worse off as an independent country. That is for the Scottish people to

decide. The government finished off his speech a short time ago. The

Scottish government has stated in the event of independence, it would

seek to maintain the pound. That would be a matter for the Scottish

and UK parliaments. If such deliberations were to happen, they

would need to carefully consider what the economic of currency unions

suggest are the necessary foundations for a durable union,

particularly given the risk if these foundations are not that in place.

Those risks have been clearly demonstrated in the euro area over

past years. Large divergence is in economic performance has been shown.

Your area is beginning to -- the euro area is beginning to rectify

its shortcomings but the sharing of risk and the pooling of fiscal

resources needs to be improved. A successful currency union requires

some seeding of national unity. I am joined by Professor from the

University and an economist. Thank you for joining me. David, a clear

warning from Mike Carney that keeping the pound would require some

compromise. Absolutely. He is very, very clear on that point. He talked

about the Eurozone and he sums it up in a sentence. A juror Bob,

successful currency union requires some seeding of national

sovereignty. By that, he mean to Scotland and the rest of the UK do a

deal on a currency union, they need to reach a compromise on other

things, on the way the governments run the economy. He pointed to the

Eurozone, to the problems that occurred there, to the fact that

competing economic demands between these countries almost pulled the

union apart. He warned that the lessons from that is that individual

countries who are part of a currency union have two agree broadly and

fiscal measures, on taxation levels, on spending levels. That is

what would need to happen between Scotland and the rest of the UK in

the event of independence. He also pointed that there would have to be

an agreement on the size of deficit these countries would be allowed to

run up. There would have to be a single lender of last resort. He in

effect, he is saying, you cannot go and do as you please if you are part

of a currency union, at least in economic terms. Where does this

leave us, do you think? What he does not say is what is important. He did

not say, as someone hoping, that currency union is impossible in the

event that Scotland becomes an independent country. What he has

done no, in effect, is re-stated the point is that the no campaign have

pointed to. He has also gone over points which we know the SNP have

looked at already. He needs to meet the measures of financial stability.

The need for compromise, banking union. We know these are things

which have been broadly ceded by the SNP in the independence campaign.

What he has not said today is whether it might be possible,

whether a currency union is even possible between two countries which

are pulling apart politically. He took his seat and reaction flooded

in straightaway. What has it been like? You know speech is reasonably

well-balanced when both sides are claiming it them their point. We

have had the Scottish finance secretary welcoming this

intervention is a serious and sensible analysis. He says, such a

shared currency area, a currency agreement is a common-sense position

as it is in the overwhelming economic interest of both Scotland

and the rest of the UK. He goes on to try to nail that issue as to

whether it is worth it, in effect. Whether independence is worth the

effort because of the compromises involved. He says an independent

Scotland would control 100% of our own revenues as opposed to 7% at the

moment. We have also had response from the Treasury. They say it gives

them their point and it highlights the principal difficulties of

entering a currency union and that as a result, the Scottish government

needs a plan B. An interesting time in Edinburgh today. Both sides

claiming credit. What is your reaction? I think, for most part,

most economists would say this is going over standard ground. There

has been a lot of research over the last few years about what makes a

successful currency union and what are the risks as well as the

opportunities that flow from that. The governor was essentially giving

us a mini lecture on that today. Many of the point he was making,

both in terms of monetary unions promoting more trade but also coming

with risk which has to be mitigated, we have heard a lot of it

already in the referendum. This has caused a great steel of excitement

amongst journalists, commentators, journalists etc but how much effect

it will have on the Scottish people is debatable. There is quite a

degree of scepticism with in the British -- the Scottish public that

they would be allowed to use the pound. Apparently three quarters of

the Scottish people would like to be allowed to use the pound in an

independent Scotland but many less think they would be allowed to.

Those who are sceptical about that would be sceptical about the

independence project, or so you would think. You discover that is

not the case though. Whether or not people think an independent Scotland

would have an economy that is better or worse than it is at the moment,

you discover that the views of those people who think that Scotland board

to have the pound but wouldn't have it are virtually independent so far

as the economic independence as those who would like to keep the

pound and would have it. It is clear that this debate is not linked to

what the economic consequences would be. Those who have different views

are similar when it comes to voting yes or no. Thank you very much.

Campaigners have called on the Scottish government to provide ?50

million to mitigate the effect of the bedroom tax in Scotland. Giving

evidence to the petition committee, it was said the money is needed to

protect honourable people. This policy penalises tenants who are on

benefits. This, to me, is not a good situation. It is not political, it

is ethical, moral, what is right and what is wrong. This is wrong. What

can we do? We can't repeal the policy here so we need to mitigate

the effect of the policy. We are asking the Scottish government to

fund the bedroom tax shortfall. This temporary funding measure would

protect tenants from the debt and would also protect them from

landlords. We do not specify a mechanism for this although we do

except that DHP funding is at its maximum level. Where would you

suggest we find the money from? I have a suggestion for where

particularly the funding could come from. My point is that we need

housing to be fully funded and we need tenants to be protected. The

Parliament needs to take a decision here to make it a political

priority. I think this is one of the most important decisions the

Parliament has had to take in its history, in that this is exactly why

people wanted a Scottish parliament. They knew that down the line there

would be Conservative governments who would take extreme measures that

people would want some protection from. That is what we are facing

now, social chaos being caused by this policy. We appreciate that this

puts the government in a difficult position, but the point we are

saying is this is the level of emergency which we need to

prioritise in order to assist tenants with paying their rent. We

are here because it is desperate measures. I have got a friend, which

probably explains this well, she used to be in the Army, as veteran

who fought for this country, and she said she has tried really hard to

readjust to life. That happened to me when I left the Army. Although my

friend spent -- had a good quality of life, the system the state

provided to maintain her welfare worked and it provided her with a

safety net and a launch pad to give her a happy life. Everything was

fined -- fine until she was considered to be fit for work when

she wasn't. She has been in her family home for 20 years and when

the bedroom tax came in, she was told you would lose it. She appealed

for DHP what but was told she had failed. She has a choice, paying her

rent or feeding herself and her family. She decided not to pay her

rent. Because of that, and because she is not in the best of

situations, she had to be hospitalised and they have split up

a family. In December, she found out she is exempt from the bedroom tax,

so all of that was for nothing. The bedroom tax is about rent, but it is

not, it is about families in horrible, sad situations and it is

not their fault. It is through the fog of a senseless, mindless,

short-sighted policy that has caused more trouble than it is worth. It

has cost more money and it is hurting people really, really badly.

I acknowledge that this would mitigate other aspects of the

welfare reform, but this is affecting some of the most

vulnerable people who need the most help and are not getting any.

Professor Curtis, you are still with me. Interesting to hear what was the

evidence in the committee yesterday. Obviously these welfare reforms have

had quite an impact politically speaking when you think of the bad

press the UK government gets when you see something like that. There

is no doubt that the bedroom tax has become widely known as not very

politically successful austerity measure. That said, we should be

aware that the reason politicians on both sides of the Westminster

divide, not necessarily just the SNP in Scotland, have been increasingly

adopting what sounds like an anti-welfare rhetoric is because, in

truth, that is the action in which rhetoric has been going. Older

people, those on welfare benefits, those with disabilities who cannot

work, all fine. Single people who are of working age and are not

working, then you have people saying, why are we spending money on

these people? A lot of people think that Scotland is immune from this

change in public opinion but it is not clear that it is. Most Scottish

public attitudes which looked at welfare funding in general and

particularly on spending on welfare and unemployment benefits, which it

has looked at since the advent of devolution, we now find that 60% of

people in Scotland agree that employment benefits are too high and

they put people off from seeking work. That is clearly a record high

figure for Scotland and it suggests, along with other figures,

that in Scotland, as south of the border, the public has become more

critical of welfare, at least for certain groups in our society, and

for that reason we should not assume that public opinion on welfare in

general, though not necessarily the bedroom tax, is to call off the

austerity programme the UK government has been pursuing. ?20

million has been set aside to mitigate the effects. They want more

money, but the SNP 's were making it clear there is an opportunity cost.

Yes, the Labour Party are doing the Scottish Government should try to

find what they think is the full amount of money required to mitigate

the effects. Arguments about whether the SNP are deliberately not

mitigating the cost in order to make people aware of the consequences of

the Scotland being inside the UK. Whether that is right or not is for

people to decide, but in some senses it as per BSN PNA politically

slightly awkward position of apparently being more awkward than

that Labour Party. Certainly, one of the motivations for some people for

creating the Scottish parliament was to defend Scotland against what they

thought were unwonted UK Government policies, but of course whatever the

Scottish Government does always has to be within the framework of a

budget the total size of which is still divided by Westminster.

Now to the debate live in the chamber, and the words "Common

Agricultural Policy" can make most people wilt, but it is an important

issue. Today, the Scottish Government are commending the policy

for delivering viable food production. However, SNP ministers

are criticising the UK Government for leaving Scotland with the lowest

per-hectare funding in Europe. The Rural Affairs Secretary Richard

Lochhead is speaking now. The cat must deliver clearer

benefits for the public purse. We also insist Europe does not lose

sight of the primary purpose of supporting viable food production.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the objectives of our Government

differ from the UK's. The UK still wanted a substantial reduction in

spending, especially the direct payments to Scottish farmers. It

wants to abolish support and phase out these payments completely. The

negotiations finished last autumn. As always, the final compromise was

far from perfect, but Scotland did score some negotiating successes. We

secured a clause to ensure new entrants can be treated fairly and

we changed the details so that it fits better with real farming

practices. We fought off the risk that Heather would be ineligible

whether or not it is genuinely farmed, and ensured the timetable

for changing the less favoured area system was realistic. We secured

more flexibility and remove the worst of the bureaucracy in the

original proposals. I think I speak the many in Scotland when I say

alongside the successes there were of course some disappointments.

Couples support is the only remaining to for directly supporting

production. Scotland is laminated -- eliminated... Willie concede the UK

Government totally opposed this support at all. Well, I hope we did

influence the UK Government. We had a situation where the UK Government

wanted zero support, which given the disproportionate importance of

livestock to Scotland would have been grave news for our economy. So

we got the 8% just now and other countries have 13%. The UK says it

is prepared to discuss letting us go a bit higher. That offer is hedged

with conditions. It reminds us they did fail to negotiate what Scotland

needed in the first place, just as they did on the budget. We entered

negotiations with the best -- worst budget in Europe. The UK had the

opportunity to get a fairer deal but did not even lift a finger to try to

do that. To add insult to injury, when dividing the budget within the

UK, they took the so-called convergence money the Europe

intended the Scotland and spread it across all UK sectors, leaving us

with the worst per hectare budgets in Europe for both direct payments

and development budgets. Had we've been an independent country we would

have got an extra billion euros which would have estimated about

2500 new jobs in Scotland. We would have been able to negotiate a better

deal and a too, where it is easier to target support on active farmers

then Peller one. Faced with this impossible situation, our budget was

so poor that without a transfer we would have been unable to meet our

rural development commitments such as legal requirements of the

environment. So, after taking stakeholders' views, I decided on a

policy which would strike the right balance. Even with the transfer, our

budget for the rural development programme is extremely low,

requiring tough decisions about prioritisation within that

programme. I do continue to look at envy with other member states. I

would love to be like Ireland, to be able to fund a big beef sector

improvement given their large budgets, but Scotland's budget is

tiny in comparison with their mini other countries. My proposals for

the rural development programme will protect payments and increase

environment schemes by ?10 million a year. We are having to squeeze

budgets in other areas, and in particular farmed cattle grunts will

have to be more focused on new entrants, for example. We ever

separate consultation on direct payments which finishes in

mid-March. To complement those consultations, I will be writing

shortly to all farmers in Scotland who received payments about the

remainder in -- of the consultation period so they can submit their

views. In relation to the consultation, be aware that in our

own constituency where agriculture is intensive and important, there

are issues. I received a briefing from the local farming union

suggesting one stream -- vestry could be losing thousands of pounds

as a result of these changes. Has he had time to reflect on what sort of

interventions might be possible to try to compensate or redress that

problem? I will come to some of the wider issues that are similar to the

situation he suggests. This is why we were keen to protect payments

which account for a third of the budget.

Scotland's newest MSP has taken his seat at Holyrood this afternoon.

Alec Rowley won the Cowdenbeath by-election last week. He took the

oath of affirmation in the chamber a short time ago. Mr Rowley, who was

the leader of Fife Council, beat the SNP's Natalie McGarry with an 11%

swing - a majority of more than 5,000 votes.

Scotland's newest MSP has taken his seat at Holyrood this afternoon.

Let's speak to some of his new colleagues now. I'm joined from

Holyrood by a trio of MSPs. From the Scottish Conservatives, Alex

Johnstone, Iain Gray from Scottish Labour and Mark Macdonald from the

SNP. Let's go back to the top story, Mark

Carney speaking about currency. The Conservatives are saying he has

delivered a hammer blow to SNP plans for a currency union. They've

obviously been listening to a very different speech and press

conference, because the issues Mark Carney identified were all factored

into their considerations of the physical working group when it drew

up its recommendation that a sterling zone was the optimum

approach an independent Scotland should take. There is nothing in

what he said that hasn't been factored into their considerations,

so I'm entirely unsure where these doom mongering comments from the

Tories are coming from. Maybe Mark Carney is the doom monger. He says

currency union involves ceding some national sovereignty. There is a

difference between independents and isolation. Independence is about

choosing how you exercise your sovereignty where it is appropriate

in your national interest and when you choose to share it. That is what

independence is about, having the opportunity to take those decisions.

We've decided that in terms of a currency union, that would be in the

national interest of Scotland, and the national interest of the rest of

the UK. On both sides of the debate, that is the best option. Alex

Johnstone, I was quoting from your press release, but we hear from Mr

McDonald how the plans can still work and a currency union. What

would Mark Carney no? Is only the governor of the bank of England. But

he pointed out was something very clear to many people who'd looked at

currency union in Europe, and that is, you cannot have currency union

without some form of political union. We in this country have

political and currency union already and that is how things should

remain. What was your reaction? It sounds like the technocrat it

discussions that were had mean that foundations could be laid in place

for this. Mark Carney looked at a number of monetary union is. The

successful examples such as Canada and Australia are a nation state.

The euro is much less successful for the reason that it does not have

integration around taxation and spending. But the last thing in his

speech that he said was it would not be him who decided the pros and

cons, it would be the politicians. We know that, contrary to what Mark

Carney said, Ed Balls does not believe it would work, Carl Wynn

Jones does not believe it would be in their interest. So the fact is

this is not going to happen and SNP and Alex Salmond need to tell us

what their fallback planners. But if the people of Scotland do vote yes

in a referendum, it is something that simply does have to happen. It

is Scotland's pound as much as the rest of the UK's pound. At that

point, Scotland would have walked away from the pound. They would have

to decide if monetary union was in the interests of the rest of the UK.

There are a number of factors they would have to take into account.

And, as I say, George Osborne and Ed Balls have said that in their view

it would not be in the interests of the rest of the UK. Would it really

be in their interests have the Bank of England continued to be the

lender of last resort for another country? I didn't think it would. So

that those reasons, we've been told it is unlikely monetary union would

be possible. Let us put these points to Mr McDonald. Surrendering control

of fiscal policies such as tax and spending rates - you talk about

isolation and independence, but if you are surrendering these controls,

how can Scotland operate as an adequate economy with a proper

fiscal policy? The same question rebounds on this argument we've been

getting from the campaign against independence. You cannot argue on

the one hand that you could make a currency union work if you have

depression on taxation and spending policy and then at the same time

hold that a carrot saying Scotland will get much greater tax and

spending powers with further demolition. The two things cannot be

argued simultaneously by the other side. We've made it very clear in

terms of the physical working group, and it is interesting to note

is that he highlighted one great influence on his career. Professor

James is one of the members of the this core working group who drew up

proposals for a server linked loan. -- for a sterling zone. I want to

move onto welfare reform. Alex Johnstone, on the so-called bedroom

tax the housing minister was down Westminster about this loophole that

is going be closed. If you'd been in rented accommodation for more than

17 years, you will be free of the so-called bedroom tax. That loophole

is now being closed. This policy is a mess, isn't it? No, it is a vital

form of welfare reform. We have a Government who apparently don't

believe in the policy, in the view of a number of Westminster

ministers, they have the power to deal with it if they wish to and

they are doing nothing about it. So I think the Scottish Government, the

ball is in their court. Mark McDonald, the ball is in your court.

You've spent 20 million to mitigate the effects of welfare reform. You

could spend more if you want to do. Do you want to give this issue going

ahead of the referendums so that people think, when not that keen on

the UK Government? We've advance the discussion about housing payments

having a legal cap. There could be additional money and there are

discussions ongoing between the Government and the Labour Party. I'm

not privy to them so I don't know their position, but mitigation is

one thing. If we want to truly get rid of the bedroom tax, we need to

have the powers over welfare here in Scotland. We need to look further

down the line about removing housing benefit for under 25 's. We couldn't

deal with that within a devolved budget context without making

significant constraints elsewhere. Finally, at where there is no --

Westminster are you trying to come across as tough on welfare reform?

Well, if we were elected next year we would abolish the bedroom tax. We

believe the bedroom tax could be abolished in Scotland completely.

Until now, the SNP have said the law doesn't allow them to do that. This

morning, I met with John Swinney and presented him with a plan as to how

that could be done. That includes legal advice as to the legality of

that approach. I'm very hopeful that all of theirs, the SNP and Labour,

agree that this is a horrible tax and we should abolish it.

Thank you all very natural joining me. Back to our live debate in the

chamber on the common agricultural policy. Labour's Claire Baker is

moving Labour's Amendment on that at the moment. Scotland compares better

but per hectare that is the chosen measure. We all agreed during the

last debate that the UK government should recognise the challenge of

Scotland's distinct and diverse agricultural needs. They did not and

that was a disappointment to everybody here but also to farmers

and all communities across the country. As we enter today's debate

looking back at that decision, and using that to further political

agendas, that would be a mistake. We owe it to grow communities to have a

frank discussion on how we implement this common agricultural policy and

how we go forwards. That is why we must not be dismissive of anything

the UK government suggests. The NFU has a written assurance that there

will be a review of CAP funds and whilst that will not change the

current budget, that is something we must consider. The Cabinet Secretary

is mistaken to dismiss the review. He may be sceptical that such a

review will take place, but we cannot put everything on pause and

hope it sorts itself out. The government must start working

towards a review, completing a move from historic payments and holding

the UK government to a proper review. This should not be a

political football to be used as it is about the future livelihood of

farmers across the length and breadth of Scotland. The onus is now

on Scotland from historic two area -based payments. Direct payments

take a step forward and that is to be welcomed. Movement from

historic... Briefly. The member is focusing on historic two area -based

payments and I understand why she also cognisant of the need to

support production. The member makes a point that I am sure will be

focused on during the debate, the importance of activity and I will

move on to make some comments on that. Movement from historic two

area -based can give distinction from smaller two large farms and

those who need subsidies from us to thrive. To have a thriving farming

sector, we need a varied farming set including smaller farms and high

nature value farming. We need timescales for this to happen. I was

pleased to hear the Cabinet secretaries comments around the

Irish tunnel model and that would result in funding being maintained.

The Scottish government have argued for convergence across the euro zone

and the UK and we need to see that applied to funding within Scotland.

I welcome the consultation that is taking place but the Cabinet

Secretary needs to assure that he hears -- needs to ensure that he

hears a broad range of views. There is an appetite for redistribution of

areas that need the support most and has evidence of giving the greatest

public benefit. In terms of public regions, we need something as simple

as possible but also something that is fair. Guarding something against

becoming too complex runs the risk of failure. We have the issue of

slipper farmers which have been a negative aspect of CAP payment for

too long. We need to enter your this is ended as soon as possible and

that there are no further loopholes to be exploited. It is important

that all CAP payments are as transparent and clear as possible.

This is not just about farming businesses and food production.

Agriculture is one of Scotland's biggest areas of the missions. There

is more the agricultural sector can do towards meeting how climate

change climates, along with our biodiversity targets, and we must

see a stronger move towards sustainable farming. This will

benefit not just our farmers but also our rural communities. That was

Claire Baker speaking in the live debate on the common agricultural

policy. You can watch the rest of that on demand on our website.

Professor John Curtis is still with me here in the studio. John, we are

listening to the MSPs give their reaction to Mark Carney 's visit.

What did you make of the arguments on both sides? Inevitably, his

dispassionate and carefully crafted speech was greeted by the

politicians from the perspective of what they would like it to say as

opposed to what it necessarily said. We saw the Tory as -- the Tory MSP

is saying you cannot have political union without monetary union. My

reading of the speech was not that he went that far. He said you needed

fiscal commune occasion and coordination but not that you needed

a single government. He said there were risks but they had to be

mitigated. Mark McDonald, when asked about things said, if you are going

to have a monetary union, you have to have an agreed fiscal stance with

the rest of the United Kingdom, so if that is a criticism of devolution

it is a criticism of devolution marks. I do not think people have

said they expect Scotland to have for economic freedom but that is

what the SNP have said. The point about independence is that we could

control our taxation and spending. Certainly we would have more control

over taxation and spending now we have at the moment but whether we

would have full control, if indeed you would have do agree a broad

fiscal stance with another government, shall we say is at least

in question. Two prime ministers questions now. David Cameron refused

three times to rule out cutting the top rate of tax to 40%. They began

over the issue of Syrian refugees. Mr Speaker, all sides of the house

will welcome the change of heart on Syrian refugees which I raised with

him last week. We look forward to the Home Secretary's statement but

now the decision has apparently been taken, will he reassure the house

that he will act with the utmost urgency because we are talking about

the most vulnerable people who need help now. What I can assure him of

is that we will act with the greatest urgency because, when it

comes to Syria, we have done so throughout. We have made available

?600 million, which makes us the second largest humanitarian donor,

we have provided food for 188,000 people, clean water for almost a

million, medical consultations for almost 250000 and, as the Home

Secretary will make clear, we will come forward with a scheme to help

the most needy people in those refugee camps and other them a home

in our country. We want to make sure we particularly help those who have

been victims of sexual violence, a cause which the Home Secretary has

championed across the world. Does he ruled out, and the Chancellor could

keep quiet for a second, ruling out giving another tax break to the

richest in society by cutting the tax -- the top tax rate to 40p. Calm

down, calm down. Yes or no? There is so much good news, I can't wait to

get up and tell it. Our priority is to cut taxes for the lowest paid in

our country. That is why we have taken 2 million people out of tax.

But let us look to the reaction to his 50p an announcement. His Mrs

have said it would cost jobs. -- businesses have said. Labour

ministers that he has served alongside have said it is

economically illiterate and the ISS as have said it would raise hardly

any money. It has been a disastrous policy launch from a disastrous

economic team in labour. A member of my constituency has recently been

convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death in Pakistan. He was

diagnosed with schizophrenic tendencies but they refused to take

that into advance. Can you assure me that you are doing all you can to

support this man and to see him returned to the UK, where he can get

the treatment he needs. I can certainly give the lady the

assurance that she asks for. I am deeply concerned about the death

sentence is passed and she knows it is our long-term policy to view

these death sentences negatively. We have been speaking to people in

Pakistan, raising this case and we are meeting the high commission

officials in London today to discuss this case. We take this extremely

seriously and we are making this clear at every level. People in my

constituency and up and down the country are working harder and

harder to make ends meet as their pay is persistently outstripped by

wages. Does the prime Minister agree with the business secretary who said

that a properly fuelled recovery is the wrong kind of recovery and, may

I be helpful to the prime Minister, the answer is on page 30 in his

older. The business secretary said that it is welcome in terms of our

GDP growth that we have seen strong increase in and not just in

services. In terms of making sure that we genuinely help people as the

economy grows, we need to cut people 's taxes. We have cut people 's

taxes because we have made difficult decisions about public spending.

Every one of those has been opposed by the party opposite. If we had

listened to the people opposite, people would have a more difficult

standard of living rather than a better one. Let us talk to our

correspondence standing by on a wet college green right now. It is a

very wet college green indeed. I believe the polite term is it is

facilitated down. Let me introduce you to the three guests who are

joining me this afternoon, Angus MacNeil from the SNP, Ian Murray

from Labour and Jerry Purves from the Liberal Democrats. A big day

economically down here and in Scotland today, with the Governor of

the bank of up -- the Bank of England intervening in the debate.

He seemed to indicate that, given the pros and cons of her currency

unit if Scotland adopted the pound, they would have do adopt some time

me if they were to keep the pound. George Osborne was hinting and

pretending that Scotland would not have the pound and with that gone,

the reality is there. Of course we would need some autonomy but that

would have to happen with both people. The UK government ceded some

of their autonomy when they shifted things to responsibility with the

Bank of England. Is it true, as most people understand it, that if you

are having your fiscal policy decided by the Bank of England? You

would have an agreement on monetary policy and you would have lending

limits for both parties, which I think is welcome, especially given

that Scotland's deficit is less than the UK's deficit. They are in a much

better position and it is a happy day to day as you could see from the

smiles from Alex Salmond on the steps with Mark Carney. It is the

management of the scare stories that we have heard from me usual

suspects, fear, scare, and we are separating from that. Ed Murray, you

do not see that? I think we need to bring the SNP back down to earth.

That is not what Mark Carney said today. He compared Scotland in a

monetary union to the year a situation and we have seen that

almost demise across individual may show governments do not have that

fiscal consolidation that is required for a physical union. Mark

Carney also said, clearly, but we also have a situation whereby if you

build a barrier of any kind, it stops trade. Bearing in mind that

most of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom, that is

a natural progression. Mark Carney said today he was not being

political and he has given some very harsh political lessons -- reality

lessons. The SNP are saying we will be an Internet and independent

country from September and we would have to give up a lot to the UK.

Although he didn't say it explicitly, there was a hint that

perhaps the same could happen. Well, he outlined some of the consequences

of what you might have been not only a fiscal sterling union but also

banking union. That means our economic future should not be based

upon whether Alex Salmond smile this morning over a breakfast meeting,

but whether there are the proper economic conditions for our

pensions, deposits, mortgages. The reality is the banking and currency

union we operate with is the optimum union. The fact that both sides of

the partnership the SNP are hoping for after independence would be

worth off, I think the governor's contribution has been good. A few

years ago, Alex Salmond was staying -- saying the millstone would be

around Scotland's neck. The great figures we've seen earlier this

week, 1.9% for the UK for the last year, is that going to play well for

your argument, Angus MacNeil, or for the unionist argument's unemployment

is already low and that is because of taxes designed for Scotland.

Scotland is a robust, strong economy, we pay more tax per head,

we provide 9.9% of the tax despite being 8% of the population. People

are swinging round to independence, we've only got to achieve less than

we've already achieved in the last four months in the next eight months

in Scotland will become an independence. The UK -- we can see

when Scotland moves forward to independence that the situation is

very good indeed. The underlying picture is Scotland's economic

fundamentals are better than the UK's. I wouldn't have thought it

would play that much of a role when you listen to the disingenuous

comments of the SNP. Vince Cable hit the nail on the head on Monday. He

said this was an uneven recovery, a recovery for the few and not the

many. We are going through a cost of living Christ in the country, prices

are far outstripping wages for any month apart from when the bankers

bonuses came in. This has not been a recovery for everyone and ordinary

people will know they don't pull that off. That same question to you.

Is the economic situation going to be a key determining factor in this

referendum? I think it will be. We will all be voting with our

combination of our hearts and heads. The position the Lib Dems inherited

when we came into Government in 2010, let's not forget the huge

colossal crisis we had. We've now seen over 100,000 Scots on low and

middle in come having a tax cut. Pensions are actually going up

because of the policies we taken. The reality is, with Lib Dem

ministers in the Treasury, taxes are lower and pensions are higher.

Without Scotland being in the union and without Lib Dem in the tragedy,

that cannot be guaranteed. -- Lib Dems in the Treasury. Tax is an

important deal. Labour has been making noises about a 50p tax rate.

What would an SNP administration do? We have to remember when the taxes

were cut, Labour did not protest it. What I understand from Labour is

they are talking about a temporary tax rise, I don't know why they're

saying that. Is it because they want to reduce the deficit? If so, the UK

deficit is larger than the Scottish deficit. We will do what is best in

Scotland. It is for the next Parliament. The SNP should match 50%

commitment and do it now. They simply have to tell us what they

would do. If you vote Labour in 15, you get a 50p top rate tax, any

other party, you get less. Your party has been making noises that

you could support a top rate tax. Our conference last year except

policy of retaining our current rates today. Moving further on

reducing the millionaire pension benefits that they have that raise

more revenue than the 50p rate. The absolute focus on priority for us is

making sure those on low and middle income wages have cut. An

unprecedented lifting of the threshold altogether across all

parts of Scotland. That is our absolute priority. Making sure when

the recovery is taking holders is now, people on lower and middle

incomes benefit. 50p tax is an issue of fairness. We have to leave it

there. I think we will discuss that issue plenty more in the future.

Thank you for your time. This is a very wet College Green, I can assure

you. We will let you get back inside! I'm

now joined by Professor John Curtis for the final time this afternoon.

Angus was saying the yes campaign has two achieve less in the last

four months than in the now -- in the next four months than in the

last eight months. Yes, there was a poll at the weekend. Once you took

out the people who didn't know, 46% of people said yes, 54% said no.

That was the highest proportion of yes and it was six points up on the

last reading by the same organisation back in September. On

its own, you might say, well, that is just a bit of an unusual poll.

But it does come on the back of four other polls before Christmas, all of

which were done after the White Paper. None showed a dramatic

swimming -- swing in the guest direction, but all showed a small

swing of about two points. Now looking at this poll, maybe the

swing is even bigger. It would certainly be the first significant

swing. A couple of caveats. If you take the average of all five opinion

polls are just referred to, with still only talking about a yes vote

of 39%. Certainly, one as to say this latest poll is rather view on

young voters, a big swing among young voters. We have to leave it

there. Thank you the joining us. That's all we have time for. We're

back at the same time next week. Thank you for your company.