Part 1 Politics Scotland

Hello there and a very warm welcome from Holyrood to the Scottish

Parliament and the special programme. We will hear from the

First Minister, he is on his feet now. He has begun his statement

setting out his proposals for an independent referendum, this is the

consultation paper that will go out to you, the people of Scotland to

of their views on that. Alex Salmond started his speech a few

minutes ago but we do not want you to miss anything so let's catch up

with Mr Salmond from the bear -- from the very beginning. Presiding

Officer, the people who live in Scotland are the best people to

make decisions about their own future. Of that, there can be no

doubt. In May of last year, the people of Scotland gave this

Scottish Government an overwhelming mandate because of a record of good

government, a clear vision of the future and the promise of a

referendum on independence. Today the Scottish Government has

published a consultation paper, Will Scotland, Your Referendum. --

your Scotland. This gives Scotland the opportunity for people to offer

their views on referendum on how the country should be carried out.

It's set out a key principles on which the referendum will be based,

most importantly that it should be the highest standards of fairness,

transparency and propriety. The most important decision by the

people of Scotland in 300 years must be beyond reproach. Let me

begin with the referendum question. The question we intend to put to

the Scottish people when the referendum is set out on page 11 of

the consultation, a nation short straight forward question so let me

read it. The question is "do you agree that Scotland should be an

We have a great deal of questions to deal with to make, I would

appreciate if you left a pause to the end. We have set out in the

consultation paper that those who wish to do so can provide their

views on that question and other aspect of the referendum through

the consultation process. The question is designed to comply with

the Electoral Commission's guidelines which are the referendum

questions which should be provided simply and with neutrality. The

question we are publishing today aims to be all three and is subject

to testing of course, using a sample of voters. The regulation of

the referendum will be an essential element in ensuring its fairness.

The regulator must be a body which has the profession and --

professionalism to ensure that the vote is above reproach. The

regulator should be accountable to this Parliament for its work. As

members know, we have had concerns previously about the best way to

ensure that accountability. Last year, the Scottish Parliament

however passed legislation to give up the Electoral Commission a role

in regulating local elections in Scotland. That is a role which the

commission will report to this Parliament into how it carries this

out. We therefore have the opportunity to build upon that and

the Commission's experience in surprise in two elections in 2011

and to Ricki Lake -- to regulate the referendum. The document we

have published has roles before the commission and the electoral

management board. The electron Management Board developed by the

Scottish Government work of electoral professionals was

established in response to the recommendations of the pooled

report into the conduct of the 2007 parliamentary election -- the Gould

report. One area where we do agree with the UK Government is on the

geographical basis of the franchise. To the people who live and work in

Scotland are best placed to decide its future. Our proposal is

therefore that the eligibility to vote in the referendum should

reflect international accepted principle that franchise for

constitutional referendum can be determined by residents. It was the

approach for the 1997 referendum on devolution as well. The one area

where we propose to extend the franchise relate to young people.

This government, and I should say leading figures in the opposition

as well have been consistent in commitments, to extend in the

France side -- franchise to all 16 and 17-year-olds. Our young people

should have the chance to play their part in decisions about the

community and their country. Well we have been able to include 16 and

17-year-olds in elections, which has been a responsibility of this

Parliament, we have done so. If a 16-year-old in Scotland can

register to join the Army, get married and pay taxes, surely he or

she should be able to have a say in this country's constitutional

future. In our cost edition therefore we are seeking views on

our right to extend the right to vote in this referendum to 16 and

17-year-olds who are eligible to be included on the electoral register.

Presiding Officer, just as we do not intend to artificially

restricts the fine tries, nor should we restrict the scope of

options -- restrict the franchise... The United Kingdom argues that

there should be no question of law or that evolution, but the choice

should be between full independence of the status quo. The Scottish

Government's position is for independence. Therefore that option

will appear on any ballot paper in straightforward manner. We set out

our proposals for the questions as I said in the consultation document.

However this is a consultation with the Committee of the realm of

Scotland. And it is imperative that the referendum is seen to be fair,

democratic and inclusive. If there is an alternative for maximum

devolution which would command support in Scotland, it is only

fair and democratic that that option should be among the choices

open to the people of Scotland. We will not, as the UK Government

seems to want, eliminate that choice simply because it might be

popular. We will hold the referendum in the autumn of 2014.

The United Kingdom Government argues that because the referendum

is so important, therefore we should rush ahead. We are taking a

more rational and sensible approach. This document, this consultation

document, set out in the clearest form the steps that will lead to be

taken to prepare for that referendum. It ensures that in the

autumn of 2014, it is the sin is that a referendum could be held in

a way that meets the high-standard -- it is the way that the

referendum, a high standard that the people this country could

expect. We share with United Kingdom government the idea that

the views of the country and the electorate should be important, not

over parliamentary competent. We have set out in the past of the

Scottish Parliament could hold a referendum which we are satisfied

would be with in its present confident. In order to ensure the

referendum is affecting beyond legal challenge, we will work with

the UK Government and I look forward to my conversations with

the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister over the coming

weeks. Let me be quite clear however. The terms of the

referendum are for the Scottish Parliament and the people of

Scotland to decide. This is the mandate given to the Scottish

Parliament by the people and the responsibility of carrying through

the will of the electorate now rests with this chamber. Presiding

Officer, I am sure it is not lost in the chamber today and certainly

could not be after a time for reflection, that today is the

birthday of Robert Burns, our national poet. It is a remarkable

testimony to the power of Robert Burns in the 253rd anniversary year

of his birth, we will toast the man in many different guises, continue

to explore his work and find inspiration in his words. However

for the purposes of today, I want to invoke Burns, the Democrat.

Because the choice Scotland faces now is fundamentally a matter of

democracy. Our country is facing a new constitutional future and we

must take the best part for our people. I am told that there are

members of the House of Lords who believe that it is in their

province to set boundaries on what Scotland can and cannot do. Caps

they should be reminded that Burns' great hymn to the quality has been

heard in this Parliament before -- perhaps they should. A man is a man

for that and that was... There are hundreds wish at his word, for all

that the man of independent mind looks and laughs at all that".

Burns's' journey was remarkable. Three centuries on and beat 17 No 7

Union, the people elected a majority independence government --

pro-independence government. This time the decision will be made

democratically by the people of Scotland. Presiding Officer, during

the 2011 at election campaign as this column was on a journey. There

is a continuity and a sense of purpose. As one of my best friends,

bash at bed, said. It is where we are going to go that that is

important. It is my belief that Scotland is going forward towards a

fairer and more prosperous society and today is the latest in the

Vicente along that path. -- is the latest significance. To quote the

words of James Robertson, a contemporary poet of who Robert

Burns would have undoubtedly approved, the road that was blocked

has no end, the unknown journey is known, the heart that is how it

will mind. The bird that was trapped has flown. The bird has

flown and cannot be returned to its cage. I believe this to represent

the aspirations and ambitions of the people of Scotland. Today as we

passed another milestone, we reach out to the other parties across

this Parliament in a spirit of consensus urging them to contribute

to this consultation on the referendum that the people voted

for in such huge numbers. Expressing their views, I would

urge them to listen not to voices from elsewhere, why not instead

take the lead from the people of Scotland? In the election we set

out our immediate focus is in addressing the immediate challenges

and strengthening Scotland's recovery. Today's decline in the

United Kingdom GDP underlines the urgency of that objective. There

for our immediate constitutional priority was improving the Scotland

Bill to give its job-creating powers that this country

All the powers in this Government to improve things. This Parliament

needs full economic powers so we can do more for Scotland. The next

two and half years promise to be among the most exciting in

Scotland's modern history. In the autumn of 2014 the people killing

aver country will have their say and the referendum. -- billing and

breadth of this country. The people who care the most about Scotland

should be the ones making the decisions about a nation's future.

No one else is going to do a better job of making Scotland a success.

No one else has a stake in the future that the people of Scotland

should be in charge. Independence would give us the opportunity to

make different decisions, to employment policies designed for

Scotland. That means we will be able to make Scotland the country

we all know we can be - a wealthier and fairer nation. A country that

speaks with its own voice, a stance Toller and the world, takes

responsibility for its own future. Independence is about Scotland

rejoining the family of nations in her own right. We can be both

independent and interdependent. We can stand on our own two feet was

working with our friends and neighbours. When the United Nations

were formed, they were just over 50 independent countries in the world.

Today that figure has risen to almost 200. Of the 10 countries

that have joined the European Union in 2004, the majority have become

independence in 1990. And Scotland is bigger than six of them. All of

these reasons now have a seat at the European top tables. Scotland's

journey, a Home Rule journey, is clearly part of a bigger

international journey. Independence is what we seek is individuals,

whether it is our first car for a strong, it is a natural state for

people across the world. Not being underpinned it is the exception.

This Parliament in Edinburgh already takes a range of key

decisions when it comes to running its schools or hospitals are police

and much else besides. Independence will mean we are also responsible

for raising our own money. Scotland is a land of unlimited potential,

its culture and history, reputation for innovation are renowned

throughout the world. Our universities are world class. Our

energy resources are unrivalled in Europe. Indeed with current figures

we would have the 6th how must gross GDP. With independence, we

can have a new social union with the other nations of these islands.

We will continue to share with Her Majesty at the Queen as head of

state. But we will not have her young servicemen and women dragged

into a legal war like Iraq and we will not have nuclear weapons

placed on Scottish soil. Order! dependence will create anew modern

relationship between the nations of these islands, a partnership of

equals. I want Scotland to be independent, not because I think

we're better than any other country. But because I know we are just as

good as any other country. Like these other nations, our future and

resources and our success should be in her own hands.

Order! The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised

in his statement and the consultation paper. I intend to

allow 40 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the

next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wished ask a

question should press the request to speak but are now. Can I say

that time is tight. Can I ask that the questions and the answers be as

a sink as possible. By Colin Johann Lamont. This on Burns's day I'd

will reflect on my own party piece when I do reply to the toast of the

lasses. I shall resist the temptation to give you some useful

quotations today but to reflect that with Robert Burns as others

called on us to be humble. I thank the First Minister for his

statement. He will know that I asked to hold all-party talks and

the referendums so everyone in our country could have confidence in

that referendum and its outcome. We must recognise that we all love our

country, whatever constitutional set we support. The most important

thing is that whatever side wins the referendum, that the process is

done in such a way that the day after it all Scots come together to

fulfil our national duty to make Scotland dollar can be. I regret

very much the Prime Minister has continued to decline these all-

party talks that I have offered an sadly this consultation paper has

done little for those who fear his process is not a fair one. The

First Minister asserts is just his own view of the future of Scotland

and misrepresents the position of those who want to remain in the

United Kingdom. Indeed, he tries to define those who believe and

evolution that in order to recognise that, they must have

maximum devolution. Let those who disagree with Scotland be separated

from the rest of the United Kingdom sheet their own position a let not

the First Minister do find it for them. Does the First Minister

recognise that both of us that want to stay in the United Kingdom what

Scotland to be a strong country? Why does he belittle this pitch

Scots and generations of Scots that say we are not equal partners with

the other nations in the United Kingdom? Does he has satisfied that

we all wish to be independent of each other when we all know that as

families and communities you want to come together in partnership and

co-operation. And those of us who argue for Scotland being strong in

the United Kingdom are the first principles of co-operation and

partnership, not about separating ourselves from others. And even at

this late stage, given the willingness of the First Minister

to meet with Westminster, to negotiate with Westminster, to meet

with the world's press at Edinburgh Castle, which yet this lays it

acknowledge the importance of coming together with the political

parties are in here who represent the majority of Scots who do not

support the separation of Scotland from the and -- crest of the United

Kingdom. On the platform on which re-engage on a serious debate about

the choices facing Scotland, not was his assertion of his position

and his misrepresentation of those who disagree with them. First

Minister. Can I be clear that the consultation document has been

published, we are happy to talk with everyone. That is why we are

publishing a consultation document. The consultation is not just for

political parties. It is for the community of the realm of Scotland.

I am sure that Johann Lamont has noted that many of the represent of

Scotland have been speaking and coming forward over recent weeks,

in particular some have been shipping their ideas of what they

regard as a sensible proposition, not least of which is one of my

predecessors Henry McLeish was being outspoken and this regard.

The consultation document could not be clearer - we offer that

opportunity to people who believe it who think like that to come

forward with their ideas. Johann Lamont says I am trying to shake

the policy of the Labour Party. I suppose the answer is somebody

should be stating their policy of the Labour Party. When I last

checked, the Labour Party policy was far the Scotland Bill which is

currently going through The house of Parliament in Westminster,

without the additions of the economic powers which were one of

the things that we -- were so strongly supported by the people of

Scotland in the recent elections. If she was to come forward with a

further policy, I gently suggest to her that she get on with a process,

otherwise it seems a cross of its Colin Butter range of people are

going to get there first. Johann Lamont implies that I do not argue

in the statement that independence and interdependence, they were part

of the same process. That is exactly the point I was making. In

terms of the argument about the equality of status, what I believe

is that the relationship between equal independence Nations is a

thoroughly healthy relationship to have. I do not have to look in

their recent past to find a Labour spokesman and Labour politicians

complaining when measures which were being against they will of the

Scottish people have been enforced on this Parliament against its will.

Only recently reunited as the Parliament to attempt to resist

some aspects of the welfare to reform bill. I merely suggest that

a relationship based on the equality of independent status

would be fundamentally a better relationship across the silence

than the rather unequal relationship that we have at the

present moment. -- across these islands. To add like to thank him

for his earlier statements. I would like to thank. This is running

across the UK Government consultation. I would urge as many

people to respond to Boz. The First Minister says that he should be

judged on the mandate that he received from the people of

Scotland last May. It is to hold a referendum of independence, a

single straightforward question on whether we want to be a separate

country or remain part of our United Kingdom. What the people of

Scotland want and deserve is a fair, legal and decisive referendum held

as soon as possible. But the men's -- the first was deposed as a fear

of legal question. We need to make sure that it is asked in a League

Two referendum. Will the co-operate with the UK Government? We want co-

operation, not confrontation. An outcome decided by the voters of

Scotland, not the law courts and a clear answer to the one question

which will finally resolve the issue. Scotland wants to move on

from the process of the referendum so we can look at the issues

surrounding the sovereignty of our nation. The key questions the First

Minister has been unable to answer on this column's currency,

Scotland's relationship with the EU. The process matters as well. That

is why I as a First Minister to enter into further discussions to

ensure that Scotland seized also for governments, both of her

Parliaments working together to resolve the remaining process

issues so that it can then engage with the real debate - will he do

so? Yes, I have said we will co- operate in the statement I have

just made. Of course the offer of a section 30 is something that I will

come. As the Conservative leader will understand, there are very few

people in Scotland to think that offer it should be accompanied by a

Westminster pulling the strings of Scotland's referendum. I don't

understand why anyone in Westminster should be regarding

that as a good thing to do. Already we have seen a substantial reaction

against the apparent wish or the semblance from Westminster of

attempting to dictate the terms of a referendum. Surely it is for this

Parliament and the people of Scotland to decide. Can I remind

the Conservative leader that her party went into our recent election

opposed to any referendum. It does seem wretch that having opposed a

referendum. Like it should now be in the position of the Conservative

Party that the terms of a referendum should be dictated by

air party and Parliament that consistently has a pose that in the

first place. If the offer of the section 30 is meant in good faith,

then that is the basis for co- operation. I would welcome the

welcome! Could I draw her attention to the timetable which has been set

out so clearly in the consultation document, which I believe sets out

exactly why this is the timing required for a proper and full

consideration of the most important decision that this nation has taken

for 300 years. It sets out in detail the process. I noticed end

the Government's consultations papers, the elements says should

there be a question are questions in the referendum. I don't think

she would want to give the impression that the United Kingdom

Government have prejudged their own consultation. Can I point out,

regardless of what many people outside of this chamber might

believe, in that timetable we set out a process. In the UK

Government's consultation there is no side saying that they managed to

run what they call a successful AV referendum in the space of a year.

If roughening a referendum is running a referendum on a policy

that nobody supported in a way that thoroughly confuse the electorate

and which had a low turnout and every part of the country which

wasn't having Parliamentary elections, then maybe that is good

enough for her friends at Westminster. I think Scotland's

referendum should be based on the process and the timetable that has

been set out of this document which will allow all of the people of

Scotland to contribute first issue to the process, to determine their

legislation next year and to get a decision after that. The most

important decision this nation has taken in 300 years. Let's do this

and a careful, proper and I find the First Minister for an

advance copy of the statement. Today we will seek much pomp, much

ceremony at the castle but we will still have fewer answers about

independent. It is more Shakespeare than Burns. Much of -- Much Ado

About Nothing. Whilst independence dominates the work of his

government, our country is gripped by an employment and rising costs.

I want home rule within the UK family. But can the UK for -- First

Minister told me if devo max got 99% of the vote, would his

government guarantee to honour the wishes and will the Scottish

people? First Minister. Given that the Liberal leader does not want

the option on the ballot paper... Sometimes I think it a son

advantage and sometimes I think is a disadvantage. -- sometimes I

think it is an advantage. I have got a very clear memory of

luminaries such as Lord Steel arguing passionately in the House

of Commons for having a multi- option referendum. I remember a

Liberal Party campaigning in the 1990s overtly for a multi-option

referendum. There are a range of ways and it is not beyond the wit

of man to devise a referendum which has a clear answer but does not

deny the body of opinion in Scotland the opportunity to have

their option on the ballot paper. In terms of quoting the Bard,

either from south of the border or north of the border, I was rather

struck by a burnt' view on coalition government. -- Robert

Byrne's view. A queer hotch potch, Thank you, Presiding Officer. The

referendums to Scotland take a place in the world as an

independent nation. Can the business to confirm that Anand than

touch of that is that Scotland can be a nation without the obscenity

of nuclear weapons within her waters? Yes, I can and yes, it will

be. La snap the First Minister spoke about the relationship --

last night, with the rest of the UK. Can he reassure businesses and

constituents that an independent Scotland will be the best friend

and neighbour to the UK? Yes, I can. I have to say that the response to

that argument seems to be rather more positive among our friends

south of the border than it does to the opposition parties in this

chamber. The idea of a country standing on its own two feet co-

operating with its friends and neighbours is not something that

many people in England find difficult to understand. Therefore

perhaps it is surprising that if you people in this chamber have

trouble with that internationally recognised an extremely common

concept. I am pleased that the Government's consultation document

published today which show acknowledges that formal

negotiations will be opened with the EU by an independent Scotland

and many of us have known that that would be the case. Were the First

Minister, having conceded that principle, now publish the legal

advice that he commissioned in this regard? I have referred in this

chamber and can refer again a range of legal authorities to support the

Scottish Government's position. But to correct, the point is that

negotiations will be held within the context of the European Union.

The precise point was made best by Lord Mackenzie Stuart. If there...

If the union is dissolved it creates two successor states each

of which will have the same obligations and rights as the other

state, both of which will negotiate their position from within the

context of the European Union. I can say to Patricia Ferguson, there

is no evidence whatsoever that there is any body of opinion across

the European Union that would not welcome but Scotland than the west

of -- the rest of the UK into continuing membership of that

organisation. First Minister, you and I are both

old enough unfortunately to remember the 1939 referendum. By

process gerrymandered by a Westminster Parliament. If this

process is to have any... Order, please that has hear the member.

must be developed in Scotland rather than constricted by a

Westminster. Does he therefore believe that it is essential that

is as broad across Scotland is possible involved in shaping this

referendum through consultation, evidence taken, debate within and

without this Parliament? Something much more likely to happen to a

Scottish Parliament than any UK Parliament. First Minister.

remember two things particularly about 1979. I remember the 40% rule.

Introduced into the franchise and supported by the Conservative Party

and introduced by a Labour Member of Parliament called George

Cunningham. A process which was quite uncommon then that is

becoming ever more common in the current House of Commons and I also

remember well Douglas-Home, former Prime Minister, telling the people

of Scotland that they should vote against because he was sure that a

better form of government was coming forward very soon. Something

which the people of Scotland waited for in the long years of government

of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Those of us with long enough

memories will not be taken in by any such ruse again.

APPLAUSE Richard Baker to be followed by Stuart Matt Mullan. The

Thatcher government the SNP ushered in. In Paris three, editor of the

referendum is -- paragraph 3 the days of the referendum is "insert

date here. Can you guarantee the referendum will not be held later

this autumn 2014? Yes, I can. It will be held on the timetable which

has been outlined. I suggest that Richard Baker reads that timetable

and then I would be genuinely interested... I think it would be

difficult to do, if we have here to the requirements or at least the

suggestions of the Gould Commission in terms of the timing after

legislation in which road should be held, it would be extremely

difficult to short circuit that time period. I don't think we

should do so, we should have proper consideration on the timetable that

is set which comes to the referendum date in the autumn of

2014. I am not sure of Richard Baker's activity in politics way

back in 1979 but can I commend him to read the autobiography of James

Culligan, the Labour Prime Minister -- James Callaghan. He actually

blamed Labour devolutionists of the downfall of his government. Perhaps

The consultation proposals giving all those living in Scotland and

electoral roll the right to vote. I was born in Barrow-in-Furness

therefore in England but the First Minister encourage all those in

Scotland no matter where you come from two joined the debate between

now and 2014. I think there is an important point. The people of

Scotland are those who live in Scotland, have chosen to make their

home and livelihood is collared, pay Scottish taxes and a part of

the Scottish Community of the realm. That is the right franchise to have

in a referendum. It conforms to other international experiences. It

is the right things to do. We are not interested where people come

from, we are interested in where we are going together as a country.

someone who signed the vote 16 pledge, I would like to ask the

First Minister about that particular aspect of the franchise.

Can you clarify whether voters at 16 would require 14 and 15-year-

olds to be added to the public electoral roll? Is so, how does his

government approach the child- protection issues arising?

process is not only laid out in the document and I suggest it is read

by the member but of course the practices already being carried

forward in the health board elections. Without any difficulty

whatsoever. I really think that if the member is now saying that the

Labour Party supports votes for 16 and 17-year-olds except in the case

of the Scottish referendum, then they had better explain what they

were doing at the House of Commons supporting an amendment to allow 16

and 17-year-olds to support in the AB referendum. I really think the

days of saying one thing in this chamber and another in the House of

Commons are over for the Labour Party. Although I have to say,

given the embarrassment that must be a Crosby Labour benches in the

House of Commons siding with the Tories on every single issue, I can

well understand why they would like to exclusion cells -- across the

Labour benches. To exclude themselves. I would like to ask the

31st minister if his government intends to falsify the opinions or

any other constitutional experts -- First Minister, in order to justify

a model multi- option referendum. Here was I thinking that David

would lead his party and rise to the occasion but David has

disappointed me on many occasions and does so again. I think the

record of the Conservative Party and its approach to referendum not

least in the 40% rule is one which David would do well to reflect on

but I hope that even he will look at the paper in the consultation

paper which has been published and whatever else he may say or do or

agree with, it sets out a process which is above and beyond reproach.

The Annabelle Ewing to be followed by Neil Findlay. I would like to

thank the First Minister for his statement. It is clear to me that

independence would deliver to this Parliament the powers we need to

ensure a prosperous Scotland. Can the First Minister confirm that

ahead of the vote in autumn 2014, the Scottish Government will come

forward with the prospectus such that we can ensure that there is a

comprehensive debate in which all the people of Scotland will be

fully engaged? Yes, I can and it is in the timetable laid out in the

document. We are following the process which is similar to the

1997 paper which a white paper saw being published. The White Paper

gives people people range of information they argue and entitled

to in terms of up deciding on their vote. And that is set in the White

Paper next year and the timetable of the consultation paper. He will

friendly. Given that the 1 o'clock gun has been fired to start the

process of yet another constitutional consultation, for

the First Minister take some time to reflect on how he wants this to

proceed? Does he agree with me that party members and supporters on all

sides should have an informed debate devoid of personal attacks

on those individuals who may hold a different view? Yes, I do. Chris

ingrained. Thank you. Given the proximity of my constitution see --

constituency to the English border, come the First Minister confirm

that the current harmonious sharing of services English Patient to the

border general hospital and Scottish elderly to care homes in

Berwick will continue upon independence? Yes, I can. Lewis

Macdonald. Thank you. Can the First Minister confirm that the

referendum did so on the basis of a detailed scheme of devolution which

was put in place within a few short months of the election of the then

Labour government? And the First Minister tell us why it is that he

believes that this Parliament is incapable of even considering the

responses to this consultation and passing the Referendum Bill

published today in draft for a further 18 months or are the

Scottish people not capable of having a debate on that for a

further year? Will he consider having a look at the timetable or

consider the question being asked this afternoon, tell a specifically

the date on which to hold the referendum? I think the timetable

is detailed. Lewis Macdonald will be good to consider that the

legislation has to go through this Parliament in a proper fashion. I

have lost count in the number of times of other matters brought to

this Parliament, particularly legal matters, where the Parliament I

think rightly has had to adopt a short and procedure. IC no reason

why there should be in the Referendum Bill an icy that Lewis

Macdonald is agreeing with that. I have build this into the timetable

published in the consultation document and I would commend it to

Lewis Macdonald because I think any reasonable reading, and that

timetable includes the publication of the white paper and that we are

following exactly President of 1997. I hope we can have a genuine debate

-- the conditions of 1997. I disagree with him in terms of the

nature of how the referendum in 1997 was presented. I think it was

absolutely imperative in terms of the success of that referendum not

to present self government of devolution and self government of

independence as opposites to each other and that is why I was able to

stand with Donald do on a platform and both of us argue together in a

way which did not allow the no complain to divide us. I really

would come penned -- men him to -- meant him to go back at how that

debate was allowed to approach. Perhaps other in his benches may

well be able to stand shoulder to shoulder again when we get to the

campaign proper. The as the First Minister agree that Westminster

attaching conditions is unacceptable and might be

considered playing politics with an offer made ostensibly to achieve

legal some urgency was. People my it, to that decision but I have to

say and Michael Moore has made it clear that the objective of a

section 30 order is merely to be helpful. To enable this party

therefore if that is made in a genuine way and if the consultation

is genuine, asking people questions about one questions or to questions,

then negotiation should present us with that. If it is a genuine offer

to enable this Palmer to fulfil the mandate that we undoubtably have, I

think most people would not take kindly to the idea of strings in

this Parliament or this country in terms of a decision on our future

I welcome today's consultation. I am sure many people who came to

support independence on the issue of Trident. Does the prefers

Minister agree with me that those voters need to know more than just

the current Government's policy? They will need to have certainty

that no future Scottish Government either after the referendum our

next election will be able to put the issue of Trident back on the

table and strike a table -- deal with the continued existence of

Trident? Will he consider a prohibition on a future Scottish

Government on striking such a deal? In technical terms, one Government

is not able in this Parliament or any Parliament to bind its

successors which would have to be voted on by the people of Scotland.

It is inconceivable that a nation we tolerate the continued presence

of weapons of mass destruction on its soil. I do not believe that any

Government that puts forward such a proposition would be elected by the

people of Scotland. I think Patrick Harvie and I will have to express

our joint trust on the good judgement and wisdom of the people

of Scotland on who the light and for what purpose. The First

Minister has set out a timetable leading us through an independence

referendum to we first Scottish General Election. Does he agree

that if the people of Scotland vote for independence then it would be

for all parties in this chamber and beyond to put forward their

positive vision about how best we can use those powers so that the

sovereign right of the people of Scotland can fully determined not

only the type, the form of Government are the type of Gorman

best suited to the needs? -- type of Government I sop an interview at

of Johann Lamont during the leadership campaign. She wasn't

saying she supported at but in the context of an independent Scotland,

the Labour Party would put forward a policy programme that was in the

best interests of the Scottish people. I take Arata word and that

would be a view of all parties and therefore you can be reassured. All

people -- politicians a want to serve the people of Scotland,

whatever the constitutional context, I think that is no assurance that

is shared across this chamber. -- that is an assurance. It is

important that any referendum is legally competent and is not just

an opinion poll. Will the First Minister state what advice he has

taken from the Lord Advocate on the referendum been legally binding and

whether he will publish such advice? Can I give you some general

advice. There is no such thing as a binding referendum in the pure

sense and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom principle is the

sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. Whatever a Government

does or doesn't do, they have been done as consultative referendums.

Most Democrats, most parties acknowledge they will of the people.

That is why the referendum has for us. In terms of the question on

legal advice, no Government that I know of, the only example I can

think of his Iraq, by the publishers are confirms these

things. Every document that the Scottish Government has published

confirms to their legal position as we know it. We would not be

publishing the documents otherwise. I congratulate the First Minister

on his speech and the clear intention with which she has just

exemplified to state that the Scots have a choice between the

sovereignty of the Queen and Parliament and that Parliament as

the Parliament at Westminster and the sovereignty of the people of

Scotland. We represent them at a limited ways of course because it

is Westminster who has decided how far we should fail to govern

ourselves. I think that is what is the issue of minds of Scots at the

moment. They lack the confidence that we could govern ourselves

properly. Therefore can the First Minister assure me that during this

fair referendum, affair contrast with the pit between what we know

we can get if we vote for the continuation of the union, like the

worst health statistics in Europe, are men and women's centre fight in

wars we should have nothing to do with, low rates of growth and a

continuous for station as exemplified in this Parliament in

the many petty things that we are not allowed to do as a sovereign

Parliament. If he contrasts that with what we should be to do to

achieve our optimum as a nation among stations, co-operating with

those we have most in Government with, he is likely to have the

outcome of the referendum by the seat. Finally, will they have

nothing to do with the second question. He can deliver the answer.

I am grateful for 90% of Margot's question. I know that her voice

will be clearly heard both from the process of the agreeing of the

terms of that referendum and the conduct of the referendum Ref --

itself. There are signs in Scottish politics that the people of

Scotland want to hear positive arguments correctly deployed. I

think the success of the SNP and last year's election in particular

was an assertion that a positive vision of the future would triumph

over a negative campaign. In those circumstances negative campaign is

-- campaigns... I think if we hold to that positive vision of the

future of Scotland then I think we will triumph over any negative

campaigning that merely pulled against us. -- may be levelled.

relation to the franchise, can I ask about the not -- non-voters.

Given that these people often come from the most deprived communities

which have most to gain from Scottish independence. There is a

section where we put forward an idea in terms of increasing turnout.

I do agree with them. Increasing turnout is not just about the

facilitation and making it easier for people to attend a polling

station. It is also about motivation and the wish of people

to turn out and have a say. It is wise to turn our attention to that.

I would talk that the response to this paper will be strong indeed.

It will signal agree level of interest among our fellow citizens.

He is right to point out that it is in everyone's interest that the

turnout in the referendum is maximise, that as many people as

possible are able to vote, and he is correct to draw attention to the

idea that people have to be motivated to vote to feel that

their vote will make a difference to the future. From answers to

Parliamentary questions we know that the Scottish Government spent

�400,000 on the last historic consultation, the national

conversation, if not including staff time. How much more public

money will be spent on the independence question between now

and there spending limits coming into effect? Will any Government

money be spent on others including groups outside Parliament to

develop almost the not quite independence options? Can I say it

to hem, I think when you look at Scottish Government expenditure, it

is a mere fleabite compared to it - - compared to the extraordinary

expenditure of the last Labour Government and the present

coalition Government to seem to be staffing the entire Downing Street

with special advisers whose job it seems to be to intervene in the

referendum campaign. Even people who until recently advisers in this

very Parliament. So when it comes to looking at the efficient use of

public money, then I think this party has a lot to commend it.

Perhaps that is one reason for the election result last year. Good

afternoon from the politics Scotland studio on the day the

First Minister outlines his vision for the forthcoming referendum on

independence. We have heard from Alex Salmond and the opposition

parties. Let's get some analysis from Brian Taylor. Eyes to joining

us. Any major surprises are is this what you expected? It is what we

expected. This on page 12. That is what the ballot paper could look

like be in its simplest form. It says, do you agree that Scotland

should be an independent country - yes or no? That is the clear,

simple straightforward question that Alex Salmond is putting

forward. But a couple of issues arise from that. It seems that that

form of question is only feasible according to Mr Salmond and there

is a transfer of legal powers from Westminster to Holyrood. The so-

called Section 30 transfer. The paper indicates that if that does

not happen there are strings attached by Westminster then they

would revert to the form of question in an earlier document

that was talking about enabling the Scottish Parliament to move beyond

existing powers towards independence, in other words are

more muddied question. The other issue is the business of the

electoral commission. It is being said they will be in charge of

monitoring and scrutinising the report. Those who have been through

it in detail have been pointing out that the list of response will --

responsibilities do not appear at this stage to includes rolling upon

-- ruling on whether the questions affair are not. That comes in at

the campaign stage. Something we will clarify as the day goes on.

The UK Government had other issues about the franchise and the date.

What was Mr Salmond thing about that? On the franchise he was

allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to vote. And the entitlement of being

allowed to vote to be based on residency. I think we will push

hard for of 16 and 17 year-olds to vote. They will push on the date.

Mr Salmond is adamant on autumn 2014. He does not believe that we

it would be sensible to be going to the people of Scotland with the

proposition of independence right now when there is such economic

uncertainty. Therefore to divert this took autumn 2014. It is in

line with a promise he made earlier. We had the Prime Minister saying he

was to get on with it. He wants it earlier than later. I do not think

the UK Government cant and force that sooner than later pish. I

think bottom 2014. I reckon the franchise will be on residence. Do

I think it 1617 year-old? I'm not sure. An important day in Holyrood.

A lot of international media what is happening later on this

afternoon? I am going up to the castle later on where the first

Minster is holding an international media conference to publish the

document here, the consultation paper. The consultation is open to

all the people of Scotland. It is open for them to write to, to the

administration headquarters. I am sure that everyone hopes that this

consultation is as widespread as possible. The UK Government under

Michael Moore have publish their own consultation paper. Widely in

the same areas but coming to different conclusions of the

referendum. There is an opportunity to have all these discussions at

the same time. There also be negotiations taking place directly.

Here as we heard between the parties here and their Scottish and

UK Government. Just one small snag, the Scottish secretary has chicken

Let's get some analysis from our two guests in the studio. Thank you

for joining us. To you, John. Your general reaction first. What did

you get out of the First Minister's statement? The first thing to

understand strategically about the statement and the consultation

document is that this is perfectly clear that the Scottish Government

accept that they are involved in a negotiation with the UK Government.

These are proposals that could only be implemented if both sides would

agree if indeed a so-called Section 30 orders made under the Scotland

Act because certainly the referendum question which Mr Sam

and wants would not be legal within the existing terms -- Mr Burns.

Hacienda nothing in the consultation to do that and my view

is that he has probably has -- has he done anything. You read the fine

body tell, there would not be many people who would be able to vote in

the first place. What I thought would be the sticking point is

whether there should be one question or two. There is a crucial

difference between this and the paper published two years ago.

There and no details about what the question might look like or how it

might be decided if both questions are on the ballot paper. I think

the truth is that the consultation is going to have to come to some

pretty firm evidence that people want, if it were to be the only

issue that stands between him and Westminster for. You spotted a

footnote on devo max, what is that? I agree with John, there is no de

tell about how the question would be phrased. But there is a

paragraph about what devo max might look like. It was similar to the

earlier document. No real change there. In terms of the referendum

ballot paper, there is a footnote which makes reference to the

international examples. For example, the New Zealand example. It was a

question first on the principle first of change, do not want it or

not? And the second questioned gave different options. But suggest they

are open to include do this on the ballot paper and also as an

alternative option. The Unionist parties would object straight away

if there were many questions because they say it is whether or

not we have independence and the referendum in terms of do you want

a change or not, they would say that is not the real choice before

Scotland. If Mr Salmond can continue with this,... By up with

you two in a moment. It was one of those moments and the Scottish

Parliament, a significant time in the story of constitutional change.

But hear the reaction from the opposition parties and we are

joined by the Labour leader, Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson and the

Liberal Democrat leader. Good afternoon to you all. Johann Lamont,

you're criticising the First Minister for not taking you up on

your offer of cross-party talks. And you are claiming this process

might not be fair. Why is that? from the beginning we have asked

for an early referendum, and with a straight question that it's a

straight result. People can have confidence in the result. 1979 is

often cited as an example of a referendum that went wrong. Part of

the message of that was that you have to be fair, give people the

opportunity to make a choice and then everyone can accept the result.

I am concerned to they that we remain in the same position. We

have not got confidence through the First Minister's statement that the

clear question independently scrutinised is going to be an offer.

I am not sure if that is the case, looking at the document which is

here in the draft Referendum Bill, it looks like it will be a very

fair process with an Electoral Commission seeing it wrong by a

board. I am sure the devil is in the detail and we want to look at

it but I understand people are already expressing concerns

precisely what the role of the Electoral Commission is. You must

understand that they First Minister shifted to this position. He

preferred his own body created by himself at one point to oversee his

referendum. And some of this is being dictated by the First

Minister's desire to control everything and my concern is that

there has been an attempt to fix the question. We all want to know

what the future is and everything must focus on making sure the

referendum process is fair and seen to be there so people can accept

the result and that is why I ask for all party, cross-party talks to

shape the question and not simply responded to what the First

Minister has offered us. Ruth Davidson from the Scottish

Conservatives, you are calling for this referendum to be fair and

legal as well. You listened to what Brian Taylor were as saying with

the set-up set out today, we need the section 30 from the UK

Government. Do you think seeing the details set out today, do you think

the UK Government will be reminded to allow that to happen? We have

seen more movement from the Scottish Government and the last

two weeks family have seen in the last two years so I am glad to see

there has been movement. I want to ensure they are in charge of the

question. As well as the other areas. We have also seen movement

from the First Minister in terms of whether it should be a single

question or not. He says his preference is for that single

question. That is my party position and it is also Johann Lamont's

party position. It is the position or the one would and 29 people

elected to the Scottish Parliament. What we have seen is some wriggle

room -- 129 people. What we need is clarity but one thing we have seen

movement on and this is important is that we want to see Scotland's

two Parliament, governments working together. I am of the First

Minister has finally recognised he does need to work with the UK

Government to ensure that it is a legal referendum as well as fair.

Will he Rennie from the Scottish Liberal Democrats, you have just

picked up a press release saying this is much ado about nothing and

a lot of answers still remain. The looks like we have got a lot of

answers. I am hearing what your coalition colleague is saying, that

we are moving closer to gaining answers. I think we have taken a

step backwards and if you look at the 2010 consultation, they said at

exactly how they proposed the question. The independence question

and the devo max question. Now they say that they will seek advice on

how to construct the devo max question. They have stepped back,

quite rightly, I believe, because that devo max question would not be

right, it would be treated as a second-class question. We have gone

back from where we were before. By reference to Much Ado About Nothing

is that we are still amid a consultation document and we don't

really know the answers that people want about the substance. About

independence, defence, foreign affairs. How we will pay for it.

None of that stuff has come forward today. To be fair, this is a day

about process, though. It is not about the sub-standard detail. The

consultation says that the single question of do you agree that

Scotland should be an independent country, is there a preferred

question? Yes, they say that is the preferred question that they are

still leaving open the door to a devo max question. Why would we put

forward our own proposals in a referendum which would be treated a

second class? 99% of the population, if they did, devo max, would you be

prepared to follow that, he was not willing to support that. Johann

Lamont from Labour, if you had cross-party talks, what kind of

issues would be coming up? What issues do you still have about the

franchise and the timing? I think the fundamental thing is about how

straight forward the question is so people know they are making a

choice between staying inside the UK or leaving it and confidence

that this referendum made in Scotland and shipped by Scotland

issued by more than at the Scottish Parliament itself and that there is

genuinely independent scrutiny of that question. I think these are

reasonable things to ask in a time we are asking people to make

fundamental decisions. I don't think I agree with the First

Minister today, the most important day for 300 years, quite

significant issues have happened in the interim, women getting the vote

for example. We were very keen that there is no charge laid against the

referendum process that it is being fixed in order that people can

engage with debates. Whatever the verdict of the Scottish people

might be. Why not your MSPs was bringing up the cost of the

referendum. What about the cost on spending during the course of the

campaign? The limit is �250,000 for one political party. That is up

�150,000. What is your reaction? Also I notice that any registered

organisation past... This is the 4th consultation document. There is

an issue about that and I want to make sure that everybody who

engages in his political debate about the future of Scotland is not

stop from having their voice heard. Just because of money. This has to

be a referendum about the future of Scotland to put determined by the

quality of the debate and the arguments put their future -- put

forward for their voice. It seems that there and must be a stringent

timetable which ends in 2014, it sounds like that is the earliest

they can hold it. If you look at the timetable and what is in it,

you will see that is not the case. They put forward a draft Bill today

but they will not bring it forward and -- until the following year. We

heard from a great amount of civic Scotland particularly the business

community that once to have answers sooner than -- that would answer

sooner rather than later. I think we should have it as soon as

possible so we can have it settled and settle the question once and

for and we can move on. Do you think you're coalition colleagues

will be getting a little step closer to agreement. The First

Minister needs to work with the UK Government to ensure that this

referendum is not just fair and decisive but also legal. There is a

meeting on Friday and one with the Prime Minister thereafter and this

must be welcomed. We want consensus, not confrontation. We want to

ensure this is a fair and decisive legal referendum. Scotland will not

settle for anything less and we must move forward on that process.

We want to get on to the proper debate about the real substantive

issues of independence. Briefly on the same point, your colleague

Michael Moore is meeting with the First Minister. Closer to

agreement? I am confident there will be agreement. The fat the

First Minister is prepared to talk about this issue to Michael Moore

is the recognition of that. Johann Lamont from Labour, will he Rennie

from the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Ruth Davidson from the Scottish

Conservatives, thank you for joining me live from Holyrood. Our

coverage will be continuing over on BBC Two Scotland in just a moment

including the First Minister's press conference live from