30/04/2014 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up on the programme

today: With fewer than five months to go until the independence

referendum, the debate heats up. MSPs discuss it in parliament this

afternoon. More delays for the plans to introduce minimum pricing for

alcohol as a Scottish judge sends it to a European court for

consideration. And here at Westminster, they may not have any

MPs but the parties are all watching the rise of UKIP.

Now, as the countdown clock ticks until the 18th of September the

debate is heating up and political arguments, once confined to Holyrood

and TV studios, are now taking place in the nation's workplaces, schools

and pubs. The Conservatives are using their debating time in

Parliament to look at the issue. More from the chamber in a moment.

First, let's cross to Glenn Campbell who's standing by with a quartet of

MSPs. Not just any quartet. Let's go to

Alec Johnson. It is your motion. This is Scotland's democratic

elected parliament. If you lose this afternoon that is it, you give up. I

don't see that happening. The motion today is all about celebrating

Scotland's place in the union. It is something we need to shout about

uncelebrated. There are a lot of people in Scotland who believe that

Scotland have a great deal to contribute, have contributed in the

past, will contribute in the future. This is Scotland's opportunity to

support the union. You won't be shouting in the same direction. I am

looking forward to the debate this afternoon and some of the positive

contribution will come from our benches. Scotland has the

opportunity to reinvigorate democracy. Scotland got government

it did not vote for. But it is a democratic institution. Scotland

voted one way and we got governments of a different colour. That is the

opposite. Is there an opportunity for Labour to be the government for

the independent Scotland? Whatever happens after the referendum we will

compete in elections and so will the SNP weathered it is a yes or no.

Democracy will continue no matter what happens. One of the reasons for

maintaining the union is dead is an opportunity for a Labour government

right across the UK. -- is that it is an opportunity. Can Labour govern

in England? We need to have solidarity. We know that in

progressive decisions that have been taken across the UK that is because

working people have demanded those progressive decisions to be made.

University education, the NHS and minimum wage were made because

progressive forces across the UK demanded them. It is only across the

wider tax base that the wider demanded them. It is only across the

of the UK that policies are advanced. I was trying to keep a

straight face when advanced. I was trying to keep a

has done very well. It has done well advanced. I was trying to keep a

hands of the people? Compared to Alec Thomson, Nigel Farage... Not so

long ago, there was a Tory majority in Scotland and this idea that all

you need to do is vote independence and somehow a socialist Scotland

will emerge is bogus. He is saying he will get the government you vote

for. People in the independent campaign believe that and it is

nonsense. Opinion polls on the way that UKIP is performing in Scotland,

that is a right-wing vote in Scotland and if we don't watch out

the conditions that are created for an independent country might allow

that to return. Independence is the beginning of a campaign for

reshaping our political landscape. There are more dividing lines than

one in Scotland. In all those other debates, we might be on the same

site. What I take today's debate as a signal is the parties campaigning

for a no vote and increasingly taking seriously the prospect of not

win this referendum. The people of this Scotland will vote yes. That is

an intriguing perspective. The yes vote is beginning. Do you accept

that the yes vote is catching up? There are opinion polls all over the

place at the moment. It depends who you look at. That is your opinion, I

don't necessarily agree with that. When we get nearer the date and when

people go to the ballots, that is when people will get serious about

this. I think people have got a lot to lose in this. It will be at that

point, when we get closer to the date of the referendum. It ceases to

be an abstract concept. It becomes a real possibility. We can do it in

the real world. It is exciting and scary. The UK government your party

leaders have tight hard. There is to be new figures that to the bank the

economic prospect. We had a chance refusing the idea of a shared pound

and yet still, the yes camp seems to be coming up. I have no faith in

opinion polls. What you think is happening on the ground? I think

people are focused on what their decision will be on that day. I

believe it'll be closer than some people expect it to be. What is your

party and the government of a party needs to do? We need to keep our

nerve, make sure we continue to talk up the positive side of the United

union which is what we have been trying to do and make sure the

people of Scotland know the union still has a lot to offer them.

Better Together has been in interesting aspect. Sadly, one thing

that has been short in this campaign is the willingness of the business

community and academic community to persist about in that. It is made

difficult for them. I think that is a mistake. We should have been

encouraging people to participate. Based isn't just for politicians. I

belated business for Scotland has got a massive membership in growing

recent -- weekly. We have seen the meltdown in the CBA when this

position was laughable. They ever in a real mess. Alex Johnson wouldn't

back the Better Together campaign. He avoided the question. He said he

wouldn't support it in a clear way. The fact is, we have an opportunity

to make a huge difference to the future of Scotland. This is a once

in a lifetime opportunity. Thank you. Stewart 's badge says yes and

your badge says no. I'm joined here in the studio for

the duration of the programme by the commentator Alf Young. Good

afternoon. Thank you for coming in. Interesting to hear that discussion.

As Brian was pointing out, we can guess how the vote will go in

Parliament this afternoon. Patrick Harvey is talking about it being in

exciting and scary prospect. I don't know if the debate is going to be

either exciting prospect. I suspect it since it is a Tory motion and the

listeners SNP amendment we know how it will end. Let's hear that debate

now. Here is Annabel Goldie from the Scottish Conservatives.

I look forward to their contributions to this debate. This

union is supported by people with no political views and opinion polls

confirm that across Scotland a majority of people support and want

to stay within the UK. We just in question to pose is why? Why in 2014

is there such broad support for a structure which was conceived over

300 years ago? To answer that we need to look at the what. What is

this partnership, what does it enable Scotland to do? Like any

other partnership it offers twin attractions will stop it lets us

share talent, maximise opportunity, in times of challenges St Brides the

burden of risk. Together we have fought against and continue to fight

against terrorism, together we faced the ceiling challenge of recession.

It is worth remembering the UK Treasury had a fine nearly ?50

billion to bailout the banks including Royal Bank of Scotland and

the bank of Scotland. It also had provide guaranteed measures equates

into ?275 billion for the Royal Bank alone. That has not been negative.

That is a godsend. In the 21st century, if it is defined by any one

characteristic... Certainly. With the member not also agreed that the

US government also contributed to the bailout of both the banks to the

tune of ?180 billion. I'm merely indicating the use of port of the

Treasury and saying that is an important dimension of stability.

Can I also point out that in this global world, in which we live, a

world only as distant as your mobile phone, your iPad or your tablet,

this is a world we will be able to influence. Not a exercise in ancient

and colonial control but to be at the heart of international

influence, policy direction and decision-making. To promote

international security, global peace, protection of democratic

freedoms, protection of the planet, to find trading partners, to support

business and create jobs. Our United Kingdom partnership allows us in

Scotland to do that. We add in the G7 and G8 groups, we are one of the

five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. We are an

elite member of NATO and we have one of the top three countries in the

EU. In this global aids, we need that global reach and as part of the

UK we have it. A separate Scotland can't replicate that. Consider this,

the UK employs 14,000 people in 267 embassies, high commissions,

consulates in 154 countries and 12 overseas territories around the

world. You can't move abroad without the reassuring sign of the union

Jack. I think that is a sad reflection of the gravity of this

debate. The UK internationally is defending Scots whiskey against

counterfeit, excessive taxation, UK internationally is defending Scott

was the against trade barriers and other restrictions. Scottish

businesses benefits from the active support of UK trade and investment.

Last year alone, UK trade and investment helped nearly 2000 Scotch

businesses to trade with other countries. In a global world, we are

plugged in where it matters and a separate Scotland, however well

intended, can't create that scale. Very importantly, we also deliver to

those less fortunate than us. Last year, the UK gave over ?11.4 billion

of international development spending, the second-largest donor.

Impressively, the Westminster Government has increased spending to

0.7%. It is the first G8 country to meet this target. A separate

Scotland cannot match that level of contribution. In a global world,

that United Kingdom presence and influence are what I want to be part

of, it is immensely positive, very important, something to celebrate

and something to be proud of, and in a separate Scotland I would not have

it. Deputy Presiding Officer, I for 1am not jacking in the union Jack.

-- I for 1am not. I have never regarded myself, at least not for a

very long time, as being in the van of youthful opinion, but I have been

visiting schools, taking part in debates, and the evidence coming

through is overwhelmingly young people in schools and university

support the United Kingdom. Why is that? I think, to them, the UK

partnership is positive, relevant to Scotland, and in their global world,

it is a partnership with huge significance. Let me finish the

point. With a population of 5 million people, we are not going to

be at these top tables. Not only does Scotland lose out on that

influence, but others will make these strategic local decisions. She

mentions the opinion of young people. Which she accept that young

people are enthusiastic about being in the European Union and that is a

key way forward for the UK and Scotland? I'm sure they are, about a

range of issues. At the moment we are in the European Union, so they

can be there if they so desire. Presiding Officer, from the age of

11 I did not grow up beside an ordnance factory and I watched

regular naval presence whilst being acutely conscious of defence.

Defence is linked to the global world I have been describing. The UK

is a major presence in NATO. It has had a global reach. She says that

she grew up in the West of Scotland, and I wonder, when her speech is

going to refer to the injuring intergenerational poverty the United

Kingdom has resided over on her own backyard in the West of Scotland? In

the West of Scotland, I have been fortunate to see a very impressive

economic transformation from industrial and traditional

industries to the high-tech industries which arrived at

Inverclyde at the end of the 20th century. On defence, Scottish

regiments are an integrated part of the British forces. At a time when

numbers are decreasing, army numbers will increase in Scotland by 800,

and that is the highest level since 2007. I want to make progress, I

have been generous with my interventions. In procurement,

defence for Scotland means thousands of defence jobs, jobs which are

generally well paid, skilled positions I arrange of companies,

from specialists. -- from arrange of companies. A legal challenge to the

Scottish Government's policy on minimum alcohol pricing has been

referred to a European court by the Court of session. For more on this I

am joined by our home affairs correspondent Reevel Alderson. Good

afternoon. First of all, let's look at the story behind this. Why is the

Court of session referring this? It seems as if we are going back into

the mists of time, but the Scottish Government has been very keen for a

number of years to bring in minimum alcohol pricing, and they passed

legislation in May 2012 setting down what that minimum price would be,

50p per unit of alcohol. There has been a series of challenges to

this, most notably from the Scotch Whisky Association, which says this

measure would be contrary to European Union law, in effect, it

would be a restraint on trade, and they say that is not allowed. They

went to the Court of session and the judge said this measure is all

right, it is compliant with European Union law, they then appealed and

there is a hearing where they argued it should be decided by Europe.

Today, the judgement of the Court of session has said this is a matter

which should be decided upon by a European court, the Court of Justice

of the European Union. This is a court of the European communities,

and it would decide whether the Scottish Government's legislative

proposal is compliant with European Union law. This is a process that

will further delay the implementation of this policy. What

kind of timescale are we looking at? You mentioned we are looking back

into the mists of time when it started, what are we looking at now?

They do say the crests of Justice, the mill of justice is exceedingly

slow, and I don't think this will be a fast turnaround. We are looking at

at least 15 months, possibly two years before the court in Luxembourg

pronounces on this, then it comes back to the Court of session in

Edinburgh and they have to decide on the basis of the advice they have

got from Luxembourg whether or not the Scotch Whisky Association case

is approved or not and whether this policy is compliant. There is then a

further possibility of another appeal so I don't think we'll see at

any soon. What kind of reactions have we been seeing? By coincidence,

Alex Neil is in Brussels, the Health Secretary who is driving this, and

he told BBC Scotland the government is disappointed by this ruling,

frustrated it is going to take a further number of months if not

years, he says it must be tested by European law, and if that is what is

going to happen it is fair enough. The Scotch Whisky Association have

said all along they wanted it to be tested by a European court because

they think it is not compliant with European legislation, so they are

happy, but an alcohol organisation that promotes responsible drinking

said that every week, 20 people in Scotland are dying because of

alcohol misuse and problems with alcohol, and as a result of this,

that death toll will continue, the cause they say bringing in minimum

unit pricing will help tackle Scotland's terrible record with

alcohol. Thank you. This has been a controversial policy, but

frustrating for the Scottish Government to have another legal

setback. Absolutely. If it takes this kind of time, two years in

Europe, possibly, coming back, going to the Supreme Court, you're

beginning to think, will we see anything happen on this issue this

side of 2020? It is getting into that kind of timescale. For

legislation that was passed at the beginning of the decade to be

struggling to get an outcome at the end of the decade it is not exactly

fast and effective policy-making. With an election intervening. Some

people watching this will think, the Scottish Parliament has voted on

this, it is the democratic will of Parliament, is it perhaps right that

an issue like this is mired in legal argument and the courts? We are for

now part of the European Union, and it is all about free trade, so if

there are issues about a particular approach to one alcoholic drink, it

is not only going to affect whiskey, but it is the important one in

Scottish terms, because it is an important and successful industry,

if it feels discriminated against, and it has that in other markets,

local markets in the Far East, they will preferentially treat rice

alcohol derivatives against whiskey to keep it out of their market. It

is a long, seething issue for the Scotch Whisky Association. Trying to

work it out in a European context, without going through the European

legal system and saying, is this compliant with being in a free trade

area, it would be open to challenge anyway. It has probably got to go

through this process. The irony is whiskey is not really targeted by

this, what the Scottish Government is desperately trying to target is

cheap cider, cheap vodka, cheap bottles of wine, Chuck was in

damage. They are not really targeting whiskey at all, because

only the cheapest brand of whiskey would be affected by this. Thanks

very much. A short time ago we were covering the debate on the

independence referendum in the chamber. We heard from the

Conservatives. Let's watch the response from the Deputy first

Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. The Tories were wrong in the last

referendum, not just a bit wrong but 100%, comprehensively wrong. And

yet, despite that, they expect people to believe them know when

they say it is best to leave powers of the economy, taxation, the

welfare state, energy and defence in the hands of their friends at

Westminster. Will the member agree that it was a Tory led government at

Westminster in 2012 which delivered the Scotland act giving this

parliament even greater powers? If Annabel Goldie thinks the Scotland

act 2012 is great powers, I think it tells all of us we can expect

nothing from these parties when it comes to more powers in the event of

voting against independence. The truth is, the Tories are wrong in

this referendum, as they were in the last one. The tragedy, if you're a

Labour Lib Dem supporter is only this time, the Tories have dragooned

the leadership of those parties as well. The reality, which I believe

is obvious to decent Labour supporters the length and breadth of

our country is, the Tories are the living embodiment of the democratic

case for Scotland being an independent country. Why should the

party that in the last four general elections managed to win zero, one,

one, and won seats in Scotland be in any position of power in Scotland?

They have no democratic mandate to govern Scotland. For half of the

time we have been governed by Westminster administrations with no

mandate in Scotland, parties that had been comprehensively rejected by

the people of this country. It is a democratic outrage. If we vote no,

we have no guarantee the same thing will not happen again in the general

election, because whatever Labour say, they cannot guarantee we

election, because whatever Labour not end up with another Tory

Government. Scotland has voted Labour only to end up with the

Tories too often in the past to have the wool

Tories too often in the past to have rule makes me... It acts people to

fill in the rest. Here is the answer, more and more Labour voters

are coming up with in Scotland, answer, more and more Labour voters

independence as an impossibility to laugh at. Clear they are losing

momentum, they are losing the argument and they are rattled the

people of Scotland are ready to vote yes.

I agree with that. You have pre-empted what I was about to say.

There are many reasons the no campaign is in deep trouble and the

yes campaign is gaining ground. I want to focus on three of them

today. Firstly, people are not daft. That is something the no campaign

ever factored into their calculations. They see through the

scaremongering and they don't take kindly to the threat. Above all,

people know the ties that matter between our nations, family,

culture, history don't depend on Westminster. We only have to listen

to the words of the president of independent Ireland when he made a

state visit to the UK a few weeks ago. Our nation share a unique

proximity, we share a common narrative woven through the

connections between our people and heritage. Words that demonstrate

through the example of independent Ireland the political independence

and a strong enduring social union go hand-in-hand. People know now the

no campaign's position on currency is bluff and bluster. We have got a

report today describing it as confused logic, inadequate economics

and subterfuge to frighten the Scottish people. They currency bluff

has been blown, it is in tatters. The question being asked now is if

people can't believe no with currency, why should they believe

them on anything else? The second reason the no campaign is in

trouble, people know we need independence to put ourselves in the

driving seat of our future. It is only by voting yes that we can make

sure we don't get saddled with government we have rejected, it is

only by voting yes we can secure our place in Europe. We can't escape the

risk of being pulled out of Europe by the UK driven politics of the

Westminster party for stop -- by the UKIP driven politics. It is only by

voting yes that we can stop the dismantling of our welfare state. I

had to check wasn't seeing things when I read the Labour amendment

today. The legal amendments talked about pooling, sharing and

redistributing resources. Then you read stuff like that you have to ask

yourself if the Scottish Labour leadership is living on the same

planet N same country as the rest of us. If Labour really thinks that ?6

billion of cuts to social security, 100,000 more kids being pushed into

poverty and a 400% rise in demand for food banks represents

redistribution, then we have taken a wrong turn somewhere. The best way,

the only way to protect the institutions we cared about, what

could be described as the best of British institutions, is to get the

power to decide for ourselves what happens to them. We have proved that

with the NHS, we need independence to protect the welfare state. Can I

say to Annabel Goldie, I would rather, much rather, have an end to

child poverty and a seat on the EU when security council or weapons of

mass destruction any day. -- the UN Security Council. The third reason

the yes campaign is gaining ground is this, the more people hear the

doom mongers saying we can't, the more people will say loudly and

clearly, yes we can, we are the 14th richest country in the world, we're

blessed with natural resources, we have world-class universities and

industries, there is no doubt we can be independent and the more the no

campaign questions that the more they insult our intelligence and

damage their own credibility for stop the question in this debate is

how we rich enough to be independent? The answer to that

question is an emphatic yes. The real question is how we use our

wealth as a country to create the kind of economy and society... I'm

afraid, the mentor is finishing. The member is closing. A country that

can protect things that matter like our NHS and our welfare state. A

country that is confident, was a tiff, outward looking. One that

takes responsibilities for our own future and isn't driven by the

politics of Nigel Farage and UKIP. I am afraid you must close. We have a

prosperous independent country. The only way to secure that is to vote

yes and I move the amendment in mining. That was Nicola Sturgeon.

You can catch more of that debate on democracy live.

Some of Scotland's charities have been warning MSPs on Holyrood's

Welfare Reform Committee that there is a clear link between benefit

changes and the increased use of food banks. But a director for the

Department for Work and Pensions said the rise in the use of food

banks was as a result of "people maximising their economic

opportunities" and not because of tougher benefit rules.

In terms of our own experiences, it seems the sanctions is a major cause

of referrals. In January to March we had to signpost 1300 clients to food

banks. That is about 150 of our clients. We have done a recent

survey of advisers and they found that 90% of them agreed to

sanctions. Both national evidence and on the ground evidence is

pointing towards welfare reform. In Scotland, what I was struck with,

was the broad agreement as to the causes of surgeries and food bank

use and it isn't credible to say there is not a link between welfare

changes and food bank useful stop Oxon doesn't do direct delivery, we

work with partners. They are very clear, they have given evidence

recently showing 77,000 Scots used their services last year. One of the

key reasons was that was welfare delays. Third, was welfare changes.

If you take the figures produced a few weeks ago saying there are a

million people who've used food banks. We had about a third of the

whole food bank sector. If you gross that three million and divided by

you -- weekly usage you get a figure of about 60,000 that is being

generous. If I told you that in Canada the population there is half

of the United Kingdom, 32 million. The weekly use is 700,000, not

60,000, 700,000. If I told you in Germany the equivalent of the trust

reckoned in 2009, they were helping 1 million Germans a week, not

60,000, 1 million Germans a week and the latest figures are 1.5 million

Germans are weak. Germany isn't a welfare wasteland. That makes me

think that supply is the issue that is driving that. Why would put

people respond in a different way to rich people would respond to their

being incentives or things you can claim? This is a supply led growth

going on. It will continue to be growing over the years ahead

whatever the path of welfare policies. We live in a society where

there are poor people and rich people and people will maximise

their economic choices. That is just how economies work for stop it is a

mistake to see sanctions as a punitive measure.

My experience is many benefits recipients welcome the jolt that the

sanction can give them. Now to Prime Minister's Questions

and the Labour leader Ed Miliband said the UK government had given

privileged city investors a golden ticket to buy Royal Mail shares and

then sold them onto a profit. David Cameron insisted the policy was a

success. He also criticised comments Alex Salmond made about President

Putin. I am raising issue about the health

of tax. The reason this matters is because...

Order, order. This is incredibly tedious. People can calm down, take

a tablet if necessary. Ed Miliband. Shares were sold for one seven

billion and are now worth 2.7 billion. Who cashed in? Long-term

investors. They made killing of hundreds of thousands of pounds in

weeks. Yesterday, the representative of the bank that sold the shares

said there was an understanding, with those investors. He said there

was any understanding, it is on the record. Why were they allowed to

make a fast buck? He talks about ripping off the tax when it was he

who left in 11% budget deficit after the biggest banking bailout in

Britain's history. I have to say that these are exactly the argument

that Michael foot made about the privatisation of the other

companies. It pleases the backbenchers, it excites the trade

unions but it is a silly meaningless. It's easy to recommit

into renationalising the Post Office? Of course not. It is plain

to the gallery because he can't talk about the success of our economy. --

it is playing to the gallery for stop it is one rule for the postal

workers and another for the headphones. They have been very coy

about who runs the hedge funds. It is the Chancellor's best man. Why is

it, it is one rule if you deliver the Chancellor's best man speech and

another rule if you deliver the Chancellor's post. He is painting

himself into the red corner bike only talking about issues that are

successive for the government that will appeal to the left wing behind

him and the people who want to play the politics of envy. That is what

is happening in can see it. Nothing to save other long-term economic

plan measures Britain is on the rise and Labour is the slide. Ukrainians

in Scotland votes to Alex Salmond expressing astonishment at the First

Minister statement that he admired President Putin. Will the Prime

Minister support the statements of the Scottish Ukrainian community in

condemning those statements which support a regime which repressive

its own minority and silences its critics. I agree with the honourable

lady. I think what Alex Salmond said was a major error of judgement. All

of us in this house should be supporting Ukrainian desire to be a

sovereign independent country and to have the respect of the

international community and party leaders for their ambition. Let's

stay at Westminster now. Our correspondent is on college green.

Nigel Farage has loomed large in Westminster today even though he is

not in the House of Commons. It is an interesting one this one. In

under a month's time they will be the European elections and the

opinion polls are correct the UK Independence party seems to have the

majority support, all the majority to think that with a caution. UKIP

is increasing its support well be support for some of the other

parties is going down. The decision by Nigel Farage not a contest that

by-election in new work in the Midlands has pleased some

conservatives. The spectre of UKIP as far as some MPs are concerned is

the elephant in the room. We will be discussing that in a moment. I am

joined by three MPs from Scotland. I will begin a view first because the

issue that dominated Prime Minister's Questions time was the

Royal Mail, the sell-off of part of the Royal Mail. With hindsight

guided your government, your coalition government, your secretary

cell you Royal Mail too cheaply? The portal thing about the privatisation

is they need to deliver the universal service obligation, six

days a week. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to say the

government could have got more money from it, but that is only with the

benefit of hindsight. Every privatisation that went through,

that has been a significant issue. When Labour sold up a defence

company, it was worth ten times more after privatisation. With the

benefit of hindsight, the government could have got more, but that is

wonderful when you deal with the stock market. If you could predict

how the stock market goes you would be rich. I can see you are pleased

the universal postal suffrage has been maintained, particularly for

parole constituencies, but the government paid advisers are a lot

of money, surely if you pay millions of pounds in fees, you expect them

to perhaps say, you're pitching this too low. The government to the

professional advice it received, and as I say, hindsight is a wonderful

thing. If you could predict the stock market you would be

fantastically rich. Every previous privatisation has had similar

issues, the important thing is the universal service obligation is in

law. Ian Murray, no doubt you will agree with your leader that it went

to cheaply. You also have to remember this coalition government

did something your party did not manage to do. We never wanted to

privatise the Royal mail. The 2010 general election manifesto said we

would keep it in public hands stop the Prime Minister lied about that.

Alan is putting on a brave face. We have lost ?1 billion to the

taxpayer. The government took the advice of professional advisers, one

of those, we have found out, they were on the priority investors less

as well, the 17 companies given nearly three quarters of ?1 billion

worth of shares. They sold within 24 hours, making a 40% profit. They

were advising on the price, the price was too low, it was the lowest

of all the prices, they lost the taxpayer ?1 billion, and it is

unacceptable for somebody to be advising on price, to then be a

priority investor and then take the money and run. Questions are piling

up. When Peter Mandelson was business and trade secretary, I

thought he wanted to sell off part of the Royal mail but he thought it

was going to be too difficult? He did want to sell part of the Royal

Mail, but things have changed since then, the Royal Mail made profit,

the regulatory environment was improved, the pension deficit was on

the public books. ?20 billion worth is sitting at the Treasury. The

context has changed. Margaret Thatcher also said it would be too

difficult. This coalition government have sold it to cheaply. It was a

national asset that belonged to everybody, and a serious question

needs to be raised about why people buying the shares were also advising

on the price. That is surely not right and there are transparency

issues. My queer, what would happen in an independent Scotland? We have

a part privatised Royal Mail, what would happen in an independent

Scotland? We have made it clear after independence we will

renationalise those parts of the Royal Mail that are within Scotland.

We believe it should never have been privatised, all that is coming out

about the way it was sold at to that. We have seen since the

privatisation that prices have gone up, job losses, despite what Alan

says about universal service there is still real concern about survival

of that. The best place for Royal Mail to be to serve the whole of

Scotland is in public ownership and we are committed to taking it back

into public ownership. Would that be a forced renationalisation? I'm not

sure there is anything other than a forced renationalisation. Maybe they

would want to sell it to us, they tell us it does not make a profit,

so it should not be very expensive if that is the case, so we are

committed to taking it back into public ownership, the only way to

ensure we have got a service that covers the whole of Scotland. Mike

says the SNP Government have committed that but they have not

told us where they will get the money to do that. If they are going

to have an appropriation of foreign assets, it is little wonder Alex

Salmond praises Vladimir Putin. Utter nonsense. It is not an

appropriation of foreign assets, they are assets within Scotland.

They belong to the Scottish people and they should never have been

privatised. I agree they should never have been privatised. You have

to tell people how you would pay for it. The SNP plans to have a separate

Royal Mail in Scotland are just complete nonsense. At present is,

with one Royal Mail, people can post a letter anywhere in the country and

have it delivered the next day anywhere else. Under the SNP plans

there would be separate Royal Mail in Scotland, you would need to pay

international postal rates, it is Daft. Let's move onto another

subject, the European elections, the of UKIP. It might not be a huge

story in Scotland but in the UK generally and amongst your

colleagues down here, the rise of UKIP is focusing their minds. The

Liberal Democrats have always been absolutely clear, we are the party

that believes in Europe. Europe rings us millions of jobs and if we

pull out there would be millions of jobs lost. -- rings us -- gives us.

We need to make that clear. In that, the Liberal Democrat MEP has

done a wonderful job representing Scotland in Europe and I would urge

people to turn out and support him and the Liberal Democrats on the

22nd of May because it is important we remain in Europe and we see off

the campaign from UKIP and from the Conservative party. We got the plot

in for your candidate. Ian Murray, either colleagues in the North of

England looking uneasy? We have to make the positive case. UKIP are

very and the make the positive case. UKIP are

-- opposed to the EU. If anybody is make the positive case. UKIP are

be a major player in Scotland, in the UK context they can shake the

tree up, can they? Indeed, the UK context they can shake the

positive, but I think the unfortunate thing was they were said

with no context of the Ukraine, what was happening there, they were said

some time ago, they are only now appearing. It looks against the

context of what happened in Ukraine rather badly judged, simply because,

for a government that stands for real search in the independent

sovereignty of Scotland, -- reasserting the sovereignty, to be

talking in any sort of glowing terms about the reader -- leader of Russia

who seems to be less careful about sovereignty, it does not look too

clever. Let's ask you about the Royal mail sell-off. You can bring

some of your knowledge on this. We are seeing in prime ministers

questions what else the northbound -- Ed Miliband was saying about city

speculators pocketing money, about how George Osborne's best man was

one of the advisers, is it right for the government to have this advice?

In the sense that if you're going to sell a major state-owned industry,

assets, you need to get advice from somewhere, and the only place to go

in a market-driven economy is the city. They've gone to the city, but

when you get allegations, as we did have at one point from Ian Murray,

that one of the advisers was also one of the beneficiaries, of this

special allocation, many of those institutions were holding onto the

shares and then sold off them very quickly because the price rose so

dramatically full of areas? About them -- there is questions about

them having a dog into races which are conflicting. I think there is

milage in this for Ed Miliband. It plays to a wider theme that has run

through this programme, the independence debate, the welfare

issue, there are gross inequalities in Britain and when people who don't

have very much are going to a food bank looking for a bite to eat can

watch city institutions making billions over what used to be a

public asset, that sense of grievance and disillusion about

economic inequality is fertile ground. People like Nicola

Sturgeon, who was the real red in terms of her dress today rather than

the man that Cameron was trying to defeat in PMQs will make use of

that. Whether they have the policies to do anything about it is much the

other question, because I don't see the detailed policies in the

independence case from the SNP about actually making that dramatic change

to inequality in our society. Let's reflate touch on the final issue,

Nigel Farage deciding not to stand in the newer by-election -- Newark.

Was he wise to do that? It was such a safe Tory seat that I think he

looked at it and said, the kind of search I would need would be of

cataclysmic proportions, and fearing he would not do that in a seat in

the Midlands that he had no hinterland in, he decided against it

and is going to put all his energy into emerging as the strongest force

in the European elections on the 22nd of May. For the first time, he

has blinked, and what we don't know is whether it will change the story

about how omnipotent he is and what a great touch he has with the

people. Thank you for your company here. That is all we have time for

in the programme. We are back at the same time next week. Thanks for

watching. It's shocking it'd happen

in a public place. I don't find it funny,

but I don't find it offensive. It really is vile.

Shock value sells. Men are even less tolerant of women

than they were before. The hatred of women.

Some people are offended. Others think women

should just man up. and even misogyny

socially acceptable? Join me, Kirsty Wark,

as I investigate...