Scottish National Party Scottish National Party Conference

A very warm welcome to live coverage of the SNP's autumn

conference. The Eden Court Theatre is filling up for Party Leader Alex

Salmond's speech. The nationalists are in fine fettle after their

historic Holyrood wind. Alex Salmond has a tough task ahead as

he tries to convince the rest of the country about independence. We

will bring you his speech in half- an-hour.

I am here in Inverness. The theatre is packed. They are using all the

breakout rooms. Some 2,000 delegates and visitors are here.

They particularly want to hear Alex Salmond's speech.

Or from Brian later. That spectacular win in May allowed the

SNP to move from minority to majority government, paving the way

for an independence referendum. A difficult fight lies ahead and they

have difficulties on the policy front, too. Alex Salmond has been

buffeted by a opposition to his programme.

Infection light -- election Nitin May. At schools and sports centres,

the electorate delivered an overall SNP majority for the first time

since devolution. It was a winner that changed the way that politics

were done in Holyrood, something Alex Salmond was aware of when he

delivered his victory speech. Although the SNP have a majority of

the seats, we do not have a monopoly. The SNP's meeting here in

Inverness for its first conference since the election win. There is no

doubt that the two big stories are likely to be public spending cuts

and the independence referendum. The Scottish Government is going to

deal with the thing that Harold Macmillan feared the most - events,

dear boy, events. A Bill is proposed to deal with sectarianism.

The government backed down on its rush to pass the Lords as it stood

accused of failing to listen to church and supporters' groups.

Labour, Tories and Lib Dem members refused to support the Lib Dem --

the legislation. You can either be part of the problem or part of the

solution. If hate crime has polarised things

outside the SNP, does the issue of gay marriage have their potential

to do the same inside it? The party is keen on introducing gay marriage,

but John Mason's remarks that nobody should be forced to approve

of it sparked a row, with some of his colleagues accusing him of

encouraging discrimination. Ultimately, the SNP should overcome

these issues with its overall majority. But it it -- but is it

always as simple as that? The main challenge is the economy. The whole

of the UK is in trouble. There are billions of counts of cuts in the

next few years -- billions of pounds of cuts in the next few

years. Then there is the Battle of government - Holyrood verses

Westminster. They have clashed on things like the influence of the UK

Supreme Court on Scotland's legal system and deficit reducing

spending cuts, which the SNP says will take billions off of its

budget in the next few years. The UK Government says the Scotland

Bill will deliver the biggest single transfer of financial and

other powers in 300 years. The SNP says that its status as a pocket

money parliament means that Scotland cannot realise its

potential. A referendum on independence is to be held towards

the end of the current Parliament, with parties coming under

increasing pressure to get on with it. They fear that they will lose

an outbreak vote on whether to be in or out of the UK. They will keep

coming back until they get full independence. The SNP recognises

that not everyone backs independence. But Alex Salmond has

spoken of Scots today as being part of an independence generation.

Andrew Black reporting. Let's discuss some of those issues

further. I am joined by Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde

University and by Brian Taylor. Bryan, at this point in the

proceedings, we always talk about the mood of the conference. I take

it it is pitted -- pretty upbeat in Inverness? It is positively

ecstatic and euphoric, but there is a contained elements to that. This

party did not come into existence in 1934 to seek power. At that time

it was a distant dream. Recently, when they have gained power in

Holyrood, it is always with an eye to that greater objective of

seeking independence. Winnie Ewing famously said that she was not in

the House of Commons to settle down but to settle up. That remains the

objective of the SNP. They are euphoric at their victory in the

Holyrood parliament, but always there is the calculation of the

strategy with regard to independence.

Professor John Curtice, the stage is set in Inverness. What you think

Alex Salmond has to do in his speech this afternoon? Two things

we're looking out for. The first is the range of arguments that are put

forward for independence. I think we can probably regard this as the

beginning of a long campaigned to wards the referendum. We have seen

the SNP make the arguments, as it sees it, in favour of independence.

To that extent, I think this conference is quite an important

event. The second thing which we are looking for is what he says

about Devolution Max, his second choice. We have been told he is

going to suggest it is a legitimate proposal. I think the SNP are, as

it were, moving closer to it as something that may be a second best,

but better than nothing. This referendum is not simply going to

be an independence referendum, it will be a referendum on Scotland's

constitutional future. Around that there is an important potential

battle about who is going to claim ownership of the Devolution Max

option. The SNP, quite sensibly, are moving to try to claim

ownership of it before the opponents do. The Lib Dems said

they were in favour of home rule. Model Fraser, clearly, is not

unsympathetic to devolution powers. -- model Fraser.

It sounds like an important afternoon for the SNP in terms of

them giving a little more information about what they hope

for in this referendum, which their critics have already said they do

not give much information on. think, at the same time, it is a

conference speech. There will be some gutsy speaking from Mr Salmond.

He needs to energise the party. I have been stunned by the extent to

which there is compliance with the slow progress of the referendum.

One wit have perhaps expected some sections of the party to get a

little bit weary with that. Quite the reverse. They have bought into

the project, bought into the calculations Alex Salmond is making

about the need to be fair that referendum. Why? He promised he

would be fair it. Alex Salmond always believed that independence

would come about when Scotland felt confident about itself, not weak.

One final thought on this business of the second element of Devolution

Max, I wonder who that mandates, who would feel obliged to act as a

consequence of that - the UK Government, could dislike that

second option. Mr Salmond says that if the people of Scotland speak

they are entitled to have their way. New laws allowing gay marriage will

be brought in, according to one SNP MSP. Ministers are consulting and

stress that no final decision has been made. At a fringe event on the

issue, Pete Wishart said he was confident the government would back

reform. It has led to concern from religious groups. Glen Campbell

Traditionally, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but

should the institution also be opened to same-sex couples? The

Scottish Government's consulting on making it possible for gay couples

to marry in Scotland. If the law is changed they say no church or other

religious organisation would be forced to carry out same-sex unions.

That has not been enough to win round Catholic bishops who have

warmed the First Minister of a serious chill in relations with the

Church if same-sex marriage goes ahead. Objections have also been

raised inside the SNP. I think there will be a trip -- terrific

amount of opposition. You do not take steps like this when society

is broken, when families are breaking up. You do not pull out

one of the cornerstones, that his marriage, which is there primarily

for the raising of children. issue that is crucial to what sort

of comfort -- country we want to be. A fringe event on same-sex marriage

heard mainly from supporters. must go forward as equals and admit

that love is a concept that we simply cannot qualify and we cannot

bind. We only really have one choice here - to support equality

for everyone. Equal marriage is about strengthening the institution.

Equality is the only answer for our future in an independent Scotland

and we should be fighting for it across the SNP, despite all the

fears across parties and society on what change brings. Two speakers

warned against same-sex marriage. believe that, whether our nation

goes forward to independence under the SNP will depend what the SNP

does with this, whether we continue to be blessed by God and be able to

lead the nation or whether God's blessing will fall from us if we

allow homosexual marriage as opposed to partnership. We did not

vote for it at and we are not having it.

The repeal of the law banning the promotion of, sexuality in schools

caused a furious row in Scotland a decade ago. Businessman Brian

Souter, an SNP principal donor, backed a referendum on the issue.

He has made no comment on the issue of same-sex marriage. It is not his

party's section 28. This is a debate that will be held with

mutual respect. What I believe will happen is that our government in

the course of the next few years, after this consultation, will bring

forward legislation which will ensure that we have equal marriage

in this country. Some worry the new law could have unintended

consequences. Priests and ministers, if they refuse to carry out these

ceremonies, could end up in court. I have a strong feeling that, under

the Equality Act, any legislation from Scotland or Westminster could

be over ruled by the Supreme Court. The Finance Secretary told the BBC

that would not happen. I do not think that is a danger at all. This

is an issue of clear sensitivity. We have to make the provision

available on the basis that the commitments and protections that we

put in place our commitments and protections that we can fully on

are. I don't support gay marriage in

spite of being a Conservative, I support gay marriage because I am a

Conservative. The Prime Minister has already promised to change the

law in England and Wales. Nicola Sturgeon is in charge of

devolved policy ins,. She made no reference to same-sex marriage in

her address to conference, but when she launched a consultation on

changing the law, she made clear her support in principle. More

recently, that Scottish Government is keen to sit -- stress that it

will consider all the response I am joined by two MSPs from the

conference. First of all, can you each state in 20 seconds your take

on gay marriage. First of all, to you, Maureen Watt, what's your take

on it? At the moment, as you know, it's out for consultation. I am

waiting to see the responses. I would be minded to support it, but

I am very much open to see what the responses will bring. And Dave

Thompson? Well, similarly, the consultation is taking place at the

moment and I am keen to see what comes in at the end of consultation.

I am on record as having said I don't see any need for change at

the moment, but let's see what the consultation brings in and let's

have a proper and full and sensible debate about it after that. What is

the need for change? We do have civil partnerships in law, we have

had those for a few years, why is there this need for a change?

I think we can see other countries moving in that direction and as we

said, we have put it out to consultation. We have said we would

do that and have done it. We will wait and see what happens. What's

your objection to gay marriage, why do you think it shouldn't happen?

Well, the consultation is drawing in a lot of responses, as your

piece just showed there, that there's a big debate going on at

the moment and we need to see just what comes in on the consultation.

It is important for a Government that is a listening Government to

listen to what the people say. I would encourage everybody out there

who wants to influence this debate to get their contributions into the

Government and we will have a full and frank and sensible debate about

the issues in due course. On the press release accompanying the

consultation it's pointed out the social attitudes survey which said

60% of Scots do support gay marriage, if you are a listening

Government why don't you just go ahead and do it? I think you have

to look much more widely than just an opinion poll. Opinion polls can

be affected by the question and how you ask it and so on. We need a

full consultation. We need to listen to what people all over

Scotland have to say about this issue and the various different

organisations that have an interest in it, as well. The sensible thing

to do for a listening Government is to wait, see what comes in, have a

proper debate, and then decide what to do. We saw some strong

objections to gay marriage in that report, words being banded around

such as God removing his blessing from the party. We have seen the

mainstream faith groups such as the Roman Catholic Church opposed to it.

Do you fear there could be unintended consequences in the

legislation, ie, forcing religious groups to perform these ceremonies?

Well, when the legislation comes, it has got to be detailed and we

have to make sure that it's tight enough, that it doesn't have

unintended consequences. These kind of things will come out in the

consultation and the debate, once the legislation is proposed and

that's why we can't pre-empt that. We shouldn't as a Government and as

parliamentarians pre-empt that. We should be, as Dave has said,

listening to all aspects and all answers to the consultation and

that's what we are doing. Dave Thompson, I am sure the legislation

would ensure that people weren't forced to go ahead with this, do

you think it's time for a more tempered discussion in the SNP and

not the kind of devisive language we saw yesterday. I wasn't at the

meeting you referred to and I am quite sure that the debate that we

will have will be a very measured debate. It will be a sensible

debate where people can put their point of view on both sides of the

argument and we can decide how to go forward. It's a debate, not just

for the SNP, it's a debate for all parties and all parties will have

different views within them. Thank you very much.

Now, the point of this party is fundamentally independence. The

referendum is going to happen but it won't be cut and dried. There is

a debate about what forms Scottish independence might take and whether

there should be more than one question. Here is our correspondent

Raymond Buchanan. They can almost taste it. An

independence referendum will be offered to the people soon, but so

far a debate on the subject hasn't been on the conference menu.

Instead, a fringe event hosted by the Daily Telegraph gave delegates

a chance to discuss the policy. This is why we are in business.

This is it. They came here to debate visions of independence. At

the top table the party's campaign director, and the former treasurer.

From the audience questions about how this party can win with a

referendum at least two years away. I have friends who are not at all

interested in politics and I was visiting them last week and they

were saying everybody is talking about independence and Alex Salmond,

how do we sustain that until 2014? My fear is dirty tricks at the

crossroads. Do you think that can happen? Firstly the issue about the

establishment, I am not sure there is an establishment in the sense,

the idea that there's some sort of huge conspiracy, I am not convinced

about. Indeed, to help them win the party hierarchy are actively

embracing British traditions, so an independent Scotland would keep the

Queen, the pound, and have an open border. When people do listen to

that they'll realise this is what every other normal country does in

the world. We can continue to have a social union we all value, but we

can also be a normal country that makes the important decisions that

affect ourselves as individuals, as families and communities.

doesn't that sound like a light- weight version of independence?

Independence is your parliament being Sovereign so parliament can

make whatever decision it is wants. It may be that there are a whole

series of areas where we continue to pool our interests, both with

our neighbours and friends on these islands, but elsewhere in Europe

and the world. The key thing is that our parliament can make

whatever decisions it likes and that means if any of these

arrangements aren't optimal in the future you can change them. If that

seems too strong for voters the SNP have another option, more powers

for Holyrood, but not independence. It's been called devolution max.

It's not what delegates here want, but it will be better than nothing

at all. One is about absolute independence and the other is about

more devolution and more powers. Which powers? Possibly tax-raising

powers. More of a Sovereign ownership on what we think of as

Scottish and Scottish issues. half-way house between what we have

at the moment and full independence where the Scottish parliament would

have more powers than it currently has, but is not the full

independence that we seek. there are some within the party who

think a second referendum question could risk confusing voters and

imperil independence. The aim should be to take the people by the

hand and show them we can create this better society and that mean

hrrb. The party are likely to back two referendum questions, but look

to others to argue for the devolution max option. Then there's

the question of when this will all happen. 2014 has been hinted at but

that's a secret to be revealed another day.

Well, let's discuss this further and go back to Inverness and our

political editor Brian Taylor. Thank you very much.

I am joined here at the Eden Court Theatre by Professor James Mitchell

and eubgs pert on -- an expert on these matters, covering these

things as long as I have anyway, which is probably a depressing

thought for both of us. You were here to deliver the Donaldson

lecture. First, this issue of the second question in a referendum,

there will be independence and then devolution Max which I kper pret as

being -- kper pret as -- interpret. Is that a clever strategic move on

the part of the SNP or a confusion? I think it's a clever move. In a

sense it's an insurance policy so that if the Scots don't vote for

independence the likelihood is they'll vote for more powers and

that seems to be where public opinion is at the moment. Polls

suggest, the large polls. We have contradictory evidence from the

polls. At least the SNP would win something if it's not the end goal.

Exactly what that more powers involves is as yet unclear. I have

to say my view would be that the SNP alone cannot define that.

That's got to be something the other political parties and perhaps

even beyond the parties have to have a share in defining. Is that

because it will be down to a UK Government to make the changes, the

Scottish Government, if that is mandated, the Scottish Government

on its own could not bring about devolution max? You cannot devolve

as it were, over the years even before we had devolution. The

problem is if Scots vote for independence it's clear-cut, you

get independence. There are negotiations but you get it. When

you vote for more powers you have got to negotiate with a UK

Government and it would make sense before you put anything on the

ballot paper to have some agreement across parties, at least some of

the other parties, on what that vote will be. The Liberal Democrats

are clearly engaging in this. They've set up a Commission to look

at this. We know there is a debate inside the the Labour Party. Who

knows who may happen in the Tory Party. Your own lecture, you

referred to Scottish identity had become more comfortable, a change

you had seen since the previous time you did the lecture. 94.

said perhaps the party near needed to recognise there were continuing

British dimensions, did you arrange a bodyguard for after the speech!

If I tried that in 1994 I wouldn't have got away with it. It wouldn't

have gone down at all well. That's a major statement, not just in the

changes here in the SNP but in Scotland. We are more relaxed about

who we are. This is an identity, a Scottish identity that doesn't feel

threatened. What do you mean by the British dimensions? A number of

different dimensions. There will be continueities, unions that will

continue. The social union, the links between people with family

and friends in parts of the UK. SNP need to begin to... They need

to articulate that. Britishness is the term to use. They've problems

with this term and we need to get over this. Now it's possible

because Scottish identity is more secure. Thank you very much.

Back to the studio. Thank you very much.

Well, Professor John Kurtice is still here. What do you think about

that, about a second question, a clever move or confusion? Well, the

truth is the history of this is that the SNP when it held the

national conversation I think through that process discovered

that indeed what some opinion approximatelies already de-- polls

already detected, the idea of Scotland being responsible for more

or less most of its domestic affairs, but defence and foreign

affairs was the most thing - through that conversation they

discovered the popularity of that position. As a result, ever since

the conclusion of the national conversation that's clearly been

potentially on the SNP's agenda. I think in part the SNP learned

something. But it's also true that certainly the opinion polls

indicate that seems to be something the public are willing to vote for,

whereas they don't seem to be willing at the moment, at least the

majority, to vote for inpence. It has to be said, if you were to go

back... Sorry, I have to stop you there. We can go straight to our

commentator Andrew Black where Alex Salmond is about to speak in Eden

I was just Can I say to the folk in the hall, you are the lucky ones.

These five overspill halls, they're all paying, you know!

The message from premier Ran should remind us of two things. Firstly,

Scotland has many, many friends internationally. People are

cheering us on, they're wishing us well. And that international reach

is a huge asset for our country. Secondly, climate change is perhaps

the biggest single issue facing this planet. The responsibility of

the Scottish parliament, the Scottish Government for it's

element accidental, it wasn't even on the agenda back in 1997 and

therefore, wasn't specified or reserved in the Scotland Act, as a

result it became devolved. So, given that by international acclaim

we have handled this mighty issue well, as a Government and as a

parliament, what possible argument could there be that the Scottish

parliament is not capable of discharging all of the issues

facing the Scottish people? APPLAUSE.

Also I wanted to say a word about Scotland's late national poet Eddie

Morgan. He was a man whose modesty as an individual was matched only

by his brilliance as a poet. He didn't wear his politics on his

sleeve, but he's left this party a financial legacy which is

transformational in its scope and Angus will spell out that tomorrow.

His real legacy, of course, to the world is in the body of his work.

He once told our Scottish parliament we give you our deepest,

dearest wish to govern well, don't say we have no mandate to be so

bold. Delegates, by your applause, let's salute the life of Edward

Nicola, when I was cutting my political teeth in West Lothian,

trying to work out what I did with that computer screen, the late

Billy Wolfe once told me that the Scottish National Party stood for

two things: Independence for Scotland and home rule for Bo'ness.

In reality, of course, the SNP does stand for two fundamental aims.

Independence for Scotland and also the furthering of all Scottish

interests. These are guiding lights and they are equally important

because they reflect the reality that our politics are not just

constitutional but based on people. I tried to reflect some of the Sun

election night when the community of the realm of Scotland presented

us with their greatest ever mandate of the devilish in Iraq. We got an

absolute majority in a proportional system, a system specifically give

up -- designed to prevent such a thing from happening. Mind you, it

was designed by the Labour Party, so... Perhaps we should not be

surprised that their cunning plan did not work out. The best laid

schemes of mice and Lord George Robertson. I said that, after

almost 80 years, we had lived up to the name of one of our founding

parties. East, west, south and north, we are now the National

Party of Scotland. It is a good phrase - the community of the realm.

It is a concept developed in medieval Scotland to describe an

idea of community identity which was beyond sectional interest. The

best Scots term would be the common well. Sometimes as a government we

have to take sides with in Scotland as well as taking Scotland's side,

particularly when times are tough and we have to ask the rich to help

the poor and the strong to help the weak. We always do so in pursuit of

that common good. We love Scotland but we do not believe our country

is perfect. We seek to make it better. We know that, in building

the new Scotland, we must confront the demons from the past, like

sectarianism, and problems from the present, like alcoholism. The

election told us that the people respect and understand that

sometimes it takes guts to govern. We shall always government for that

common good. We government, we have government, wisely, and we will

continue to do so. We have sheltered the community from the

economic storms in so far as it is in our power to do so. Our

community face hugely difficult circumstances, a squeeze between

falling in comes and rising prices. To help family budgets we have

frozen the council tax for four years and we will continue to

freeze it through this Parliament. APPLAUSE Labour say that we should

not do this. Really? Then we would have the same

60% rises as when they were in power, a council tax rise of �680

for a Band D property. We have held down water rates. The Lib Dems say

we should privatise water. Really? Then we would be as powerless to

act on water bills as they are right now to act on energy bills.

And to help family budgets we have abolished prescription charges.

APPLAUSE The Tories say we should not do this.

Tell that to the 600,000 Scots on incomes of �16,000 who were forced

to pay for their medicine. Every household bill which is on the road

influence we have tried to control. Every household bill under UK

influence is out of control. In Scotland, we have a prices and

incomes policy, in England, the Tories control in comes, except, of

course, in the boardroom, but not prices. None of these things - the

frieze of council tax, prescription charges, water bills - has been

easy. The record shows that the only party attempting to hold down

household bills is the Scottish Government and the SNP.

APPLAUSE Now, the Unionist parties have lost touch with the people.

Labour and Tories are parties without a lead of. The Liberals

have a leader without a party! LAUGHTER.

We govern well, they will pose badly. In the election, the people

decided that Labour would not fit for government. Right now, they are

not fit for opposition in Scotland. Governing well makes a real

difference to real people. Back in 2007, we said we would put 1,000

extra police on the streets and communities of Scotland. Labour

said it could not be done, but it has been done. The result has been

a 35 years low in recorded crime in Scotland. I will just repeat that.

Recorded crime is at its lowest since 1976, when Jimmy Carter was

the President of the United States and Jenny Saville was presenting

Top Of The Pops. Earlier this week, an opinion poll showed that fear of

crime in Scotland were running at almost half the level of the rest

of the United Kingdom - 28% against 48%. Much of that success is down

to these extra police officers. We believe in freedom, but the freedom

of people from fear of being mugged or Robbie is a key objective of

this government. The extra police officers and a substantial part of

achieving that objective. Let there be no mistake - at our reform of

the police service in Scotland is about protecting the front line so

that the front line can protect the people.

Right now our focus is on jobs and the economy. John Swinney and his

team spend every waking minute seeking to encourage our businesses

to grow and to attract new companies to Scotland. We have the

most competitive business tax regime across these islands. 80,000

small businesses either pay no rates a tall or have a substantial

discount. We know, as they do, that their success is the key to future

job creation. We shall continue to offer that crucial incentive

throughout this Parliament. Let us be clear - the Small Business Bonus

stays in SNP Scotland. APPLAUSE In the last few months, a

procession of major international companies have chosen Scotland as

the place to conduct their business. The message has been the same -

Scotland has the people and the resources to allow them to conduct

their international operations from a Scottish base. What have the UK

Government been focusing on while we focus on jobs and investment?

They have formed at Cabinet sub- committee to attack Scottish

independence. Let us get this right. Cameron, Clyde, Osborne and

Alexander set on a committee thinking of how to bring down

Scotland while inflation is more than double its target and don't --

unemployment is at an all-time high. And they wonder why they carry no

confidence among the people of England, never mind the people of

Scotland. Our message to these ministers is clear: Stop attacking

Scottish aspirations and start supporting economic recovery.

APPLAUSE We need more capital investment, not less.

Finance for companies, job security for the people. What is the grand

strategy emerging from London to restore their flagging political

fortunes? More ministerial day trips to Scotland. Conference,

every Tory minister who comes North puts it another 1,000 boats towards

the national cause. -- puts another 1,000 volts. -- votes.

The Prime Minister came to hail the new investment in oil and gas

fields. There was no sign of a ministerial visit this week when

his government betrayed the future of Long Gannet. Over 13 billion

from Scotland's oil and gas in the course of this year, but not even

one 10th of that to secure the future of the Clean coal industry

of Scotland, not even one 10th of one year of oil and gas revenues to

help our planet saving technology. Mr Cameron, how little you

understand Scotland! CHEERING AND APPLAUSE when he was

making the BP announcement, Mr Cameron claimed his geography

teacher at Eton had told him all the oil would be gone by the turn

of the century. The Prime Minister's memory is

faulty. It was not his Etonian geography teacher, it was

successive Labour and Tory governments, like Margaret

Thatcher's Energy Minister, who claimed that oil was declining in

1980. Now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. We know that oil

and gas will be extracted from the waters around Scotland for at least

the next 40 years. Can I, therefore, put this very simple proposition?

After 40 years of oil and gas, West Minister has coined in some �300

billion from Scottish waters. That is around �60,000 a head for every

man, woman and child in this country. The Tory's own Office for

Budget Responsibility figures suggest another �230 billion of oil

revenues over the next 30 years. And that was before the latest

announcements. London has had its turn out of Scottish oil and gas.

Let the next 40 years before the people of Scotland. -- before the

APPLAUSE Scotland, our country, has the greatest a real energy

resources in Europe - dazzling, gas, Hydro-Electric and clean coal.

I went to announce the redevelopment of a fabrication site.

Marine engineering is coming alive in the Highlands of Scotland again.

Today I am announcing a further important development on our

journey to lead the world in wave and tidal power. There will be a

new �80 million fund to support Marine Energy commercialisation.

This will support development, scaling up device is already under

test in Scottish waters. This is part of a �35 million investment

over the next three years which will support the testing,

technology, infrastructure and deployment. Scotland is leading the

race to develop offshore renewables. With this announcement, our nation

moves up another gear. The message is clear: In Marine Energy, it is

Right now some two thirds of wave and tidal projects in Europe are in

Scottish waters. That will soon be three quarters. The announcement on

Thursday of the intention to test underlines the international impact

that Scotland is having. And as we develop wave and tidal commercially

in our waters, then we will export that technology across the planet.

Our objective in wave and tidal power is not just of demonstration

projects, but hundreds of megawatts of electricity by 2020, enough to

power half a million homes in Scotland. The green

reindustrialisation of the coastline of Scotland is central to

our vision of the future. And the jobs impact will be felt to Dundee,

to Aberdeen and the northeast ports, to the Murray Forth, from Orkney

waters to the western Isles. All of these areas will benefit from the

green reindustrialisation of Scotland.

Now onshore wind power has wb one serious drawback, that is only a

little of the fabrication is homebased, despite the fact the

first modern wind turbine was tepl straighted in 1887, that's right,

1887, the technology was exported to Denmark and Germany more than a

generation ago. However, we can do something about our off shore

renewable opportunity. Our objective is that Scotland will

design, engineer, fabricate, install machines that will dominate

the energy provision of this century. That's our vision for

Scotland and we shall get there. And in doing so, we will create

jobs and opportunity and hope for young people in Scotland. It is the

inescapable responsibility of this Government, indeed for every adult

Scot, to help tackle the scourge of youth unemployment. Employment

among Scottish youngsters is almost 5% higher than elsewhere in these

islands. We have a near record of school leavers going on to positive

destinations of a job and apprenticeship, or full-time

education. However, this is not enough. Youth unemployment is still

far, far too high. So this is what we are doing, and this is what we

shall do. First, apprenticeships. There will be 25,000 modern

apprenticeships in Scotland. 60% more than when we took office. Not

just for this year, but every year. And in Scotland remember every

single youngster on a modern apprenticeship is in a job.

Secondly, every major contract or grant from Government will now have

an apprenticeship or training plan attached to it. For example, when

in the last few weeks pwrobgs stopb was chosen as there were 50 new

apprenticeships in new jobs. Every junkster not in a job -- youngster

not in a job or apprenticeship will be offered a a training opportunity.

Fourthly, we shall ensure that university and college education

remains free to Scottish students. We now have more world-class

universities per head than any other nation on the face of this

planet. And thanks to this party that opportunity will remain to

young Scots on the basis of ability to learn, not the ability to pay.

Today I am announcing a further move, companies in energy sector,

even this difficult economic climate, are reporting skill

shortages. Over the next four years we will deliver 2000 modern

apprenticeships specifically designed for the energy industries.

However, we will also now provide an additional 1,000 flexible

training places for energy and low carbon. Real opportunities for our

youngsters in the sectors which will shape the industrial future of

our country. We can't wipe every tear from every

cheek, much as we would like to. But we can try. Everything that we

do will reflect the common wheel of Scotland. The best way to get

people back into work is through capital investment, that's why John

Swinney is diverting funds to sustain economic recovery. That's

why we created the Scottish Futures Trust to gain value for money.

Major contracts sponsored by the Scottish Government have now

delivered on time and on budget. And this gives me the opportunity

to make a further announcement. Two years ago we set out plans for a

new school building programme in Scotland led by the Scottish

Futures Trust, our investment was to deliver 55 new schools. 37 new

schools already committed in the first two phases. Conference, the

Scottish Futures Trust has levelled the playing field in public sector

construction contracts, we have sunk the PFI and replaced it with

That's the sort of action that's allowed us to deliver over 300 new

or refurbished schools in the last four years. And that's why today I

am able to tell you that the next phase of the new school building

programme will be able to deliver 30 new schools across the nation, a

dozen more than previously planned. That will provide a further 15,000

pupils with 21st century learning facilities. Delegates, in the face

of Westminster cutbacks, �2.5 billion non-profit distribution

programme is crucial to economic recovery. None of that would have

been possible if we had allowed the PFI rip-off to continue. That's

We face a winter in this energy rich country of ours, where people

will be frightened to turn on their heating. Fuel poverty amid energy

plenty. What a miserable disgraceful legacy from Westminster

to our energy-rich nation. Fuel poverty amid energy plenty, if

there was ever an argument for taking control of our own resources,

then this must be it. The Prime Minister's fuel summit was little

more than hot air. We don't control the energy markets. But we can and

will do something to help. We already have the best heating

initiatives in these islands, we have invested funds this year to

make what's good even better. We have expanded our energy assistance

package to include thousands of Scottish carers. And by 2015 the

Scottish Government will increase our fuel poverty and energy budget

by one third. And because of that investment I am able to make a

further announcement. A few moments ago you heard the premier of south

Australia praising our offer of energy efficiency measures to half

a million Scottish households. I can now tell you by April of next

year that 500,000 will become 700,000, ensuring 200,000 more

Scottish families get the help they need to heat their homes in this

energy-rich country of ours. Delegates, on the way to Inverness

on Thursday, I noticed an outdoor company called Nay Limits. Now, no

limits is a beautiful idea. And somehow it carries a bit more punch

in the Scots. Nay limits to your ambition, your courage, your

journey. It sums up the spirit of freedom which many of us take from

our magnificent landscape and which we wish for our society and for our

politics. It's the same spirit that was reflected in the worlds of

Charles Stuart Parnell. No man has the right to fix of boundary of a

march of a nation, no man has the right to say to his country thus

far shall thou go and no further. No politician, and certainly no

London politician, will determine So the Prime Minister should hear

this loud and clear. The people of Scotland, the Sovereign people of

Scotland are now in the driving seat. 20 years ago when Scotland

faced a previous Tory Government, a cross-party group through up a

claim of right for Scotland. This is what it said: We do do here by

acknowledge the Sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine

the form of Government best suited to their needs and do here by

declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations, their

interests shall be paramount. 20 years ago we demonstrated for that

right in front of an open-top bus in Edinburgh. But we had no

parliament then. The point is a very simple one, we have now that

claim of right and next month I will ask Scotland's parliament to

endorse a new Scotland's khraepl of right. The days -- claim of right.

The days of Westminster politicians telling Scotland to do or think is

over. The Scottish people will set the agenda for the future.

Robert Kennedy once said the future is not a gift, it's an achievement.

That's true for Scotland as it is for any nation. Our future will be

what we make it. The Scotland Bill isn't even enacted yet, yet it lies

in the past, unloved uninspiring, not even understood but its own

propoepbents. The UK Government haven't even gone through the

motions of considering the views of the Scottish Government. The

current Scottish parliament committee, the last Scottish

parliamentary committee. Total negativity to even the most

reasonable proposal to strengthen the Bill's job-creating powers. The

respect agenda lies dead in the throats. This is Westminster's

agenda of disrespect, not disrespect to the SNP, but a

fundamental disrespect for Scotland. The Tories and their liberal

frontmen have even taken to call themselves Scotland's other

Government. A Tory-Scottish Government? I tell you if phraser

thought such a notion was conceivable, he wouldn't be trying

In contrast fiscal responsibility, financial freedom, real economic

power is a legitimate proposal. It could allow us to control our own

resources, introduce competitive business tax, and fair personal

taxation. All good, all necessary, but not enough. Delegates, even

with economic powers Trident nuclear missiles would still be on

the river Clyde, we could still be forced to spill blood in illegal

wars like Iraq and Scotland would still be excluded from the councils

of Europe and the world. These things only independence can bring.

It's why this party will campaign full square for independence in the

coming referendum. We have the talent, the resources,

the ingenuity. The only limitations our imagination and ambition. Let

us put the people of Scotland in charge and see our nation flourish

as never before. Let us build a nation that reflects the values of

our people. With a social contract and a social conscience at the very

heart of our success. It is not a country or a future on offer from

the Tory government in the south. That one institution which really

made that -- made great Britain great - the National Health Service

- is being dismantled. The Tories Colet "big society", I call it no

society at all. -- the Tories call it. Remember the founding

principles. We are committed to winning independence for Scotland

and we have pledged to the furtherance of all Scottish

interests. Both are in our DNA. It is to we are and what we are for.

It is what makes us Scotland's National Party. It is more than

just the name, it is an attitude. Over these past three days at this

conference, I have seen that passion and belief in action. We

are a party with a mission because we know Scotland's causes great and

we know Scotland's need is great. Let us be strong, let us have her

own debate about her own future on the timescale that was endorsed by

our own people in May. Let us decide it in a proper fashion. Our

task as a party is to convince the people of this nation that we can

do better, to work at building a society which is not simply better

than to, but a beacon of justice and fairness to the world. These

things will come from hard work and sweat. Look around you, look at

where we stand now. Tell me this was easy. It was not easy. It was

80 years of hard work. We stand where we do today because of

generations before us, because of party workers and campaigners who

are not here today. We share a vision of a land without boundaries,

of a people unshackled from low ambition and chances. We have a

vision of a Scotland on bound. No limits for Scotland! -- -- a

Scotland unbound. MUSIC: Let us Spec Together. --

Let's Stick Together. Alex Salmond was saying that they

were governing For The Common Good and governing well. He was speaking

about Scotland's Reg energy resources. Turning to the

referendum, he started to speak about how fiscal responsibility was

a legitimate proposal. There you can see Mr Salmond being applauded

as he speaks to some of the delegates. He ended his speech by

saying we shall prevail. I am joined by Professor John Carter's

from Strathclyde University. Your immediate thoughts. Alex Salmond

has a remarkable talent to always paint a positive vision of where he

is going and where the country is going, even when the current news

is not very good. That was a very strong theme of his speech. The

other thing about the SNP is that they had simply been providing

Scotland with what most people regard as reasonably effective

government. That was clearly endorsed by the election last May.

One of the things Mr Salmond is trying to do it is, the first half

was very much about defending the records of the Government, coming

up with indications of new things he is going to do, linking that

into his vision of a better Scotland and then trying to get

people by saying, if you buy into this then you what to buy into our

vision of no limits. He is trying to persuade people to move from

admiring the SNP as a competent government to wanting to have their

country, Scotland, independent as a means of delivering that vision. We

will have to see whether any of this makes any impact on public

opinion. I mentioned the point about fiscal

responsibility being legitimate, but campaigning for full

independence. There was a further indication of at two questioned

referendum. At the end of the day, it might be a lot easier to win

Devolution Max. He did not say that explicitly in the speech. He

arguably moved closer than he has in the past, saying that it is not

that bad an idea. There was one paragraph in a speech that, for the

most part, was about good government and independence.

Devolution Max made less of an appearance in the speech than

perhaps we had been led to believe it would.

Let us go straight back to the conference hall where Brian Taylor

has rushed out. I thought it was an intriguing

speech. There was the early section on jobs and the securing of jobs.

That is the way the Scottish Government is proposing to act -

going for the economy first and then the constitutional issue later.

He is clearly placing that in the context of people's aspirations.

There was also struck to to the speech. The two is in the

aspirations of independence and for the in the interests of Scotland, I

think he was making that tantamount to the two question in the

referendum. I am joined by three MSPs who were observing the speech.

Thank you for joining us. The stuff about energy and jobs and

development, are really a lengthy section on that. I know he is

evangelical about the subject. He clearly thinks it is important.

Incredibly important. You cannot come up and deliver a speech just

about constitutional future, you have to make an announcement about

what really matters to the people of Scotland. It is jobs, security,

youth unemployment. That came out with just as much passion as

anything about the constitution. I thought it was fantastic to have so

many announcements in one speech. You tackle jobs and the economy

first because that is the people's concerns, rather than the party's

concern. As he said at the beginning of the speech, the party

is about the furtherance of Scottish interest. It is about what

independence is for as well. I think what he is saying is that we

are doing our very best within the constitutional arrangements. We are

doing what we can but we are constrained by the constitutional

arrangements. We could do so much more with independence, or even

with full fiscal responsibility bus-stop and yet the focus now is

on concerns about jobs with the referendum deferred.

Yes, the focus is on the economy and any responsible government

would focus on the economy. I loved when he said that the UK Government

seemed to be focusing on setting up a sub-committee to do Scotland down

when they should be focusing on the economy. That is an intriguing

point. The vast bulk of the speech was about the Scottish Government's

achievements, but it was the big attack lines upon Westminster that

got the cheers. It is the sort of thing that gets the audience going.

As Alex said, we have no limits. The problem with them Westminster

Government is that they set limits. We have to establish the common

good for the people of Scotland. What Alex was saying throughout his

speech, and I think it came across well, is that we should have the

ambition. We need the imagination to go forward. I think that came

over loud and clear, basically. That phrase, the common good, is

intriguing. It was used in his Scotland address on setting out the

programme for government in the Scottish Parliament. He seems to be

saying that you try to govern as sensibly as possible within the

limits of devolution and then invite the voters to go that stage

further. Is that the strategy? think the phrase is saying that

there are limits and we have constraints on us at the moment. We

need to do it with good governance. The programme is to try and ensure

that we get that agenda right. We need to create a Scotland for the

future. That is why his announcements today, even with the

apprenticeships and focusing on the energy sector for those, is the way

forward. It is the way forward for our young people. The future for

Scotland is our young people. Jonathon Porrit, let us tackle the

independence referendum issue. Your political opponents are saying --

Humza Yousaf. The Tory conference is saying, have a referendum now,

get it sorted. This is what I love, not just about politicians but some

sections of the media, the utter hypocrisy of it. Independence is

riding high in the opinion polls. Alex Allan's approval ratings are

higher than all of the other leaders combined. Here we are,

sticking to the promise that we made, no mandate upon which we were

elected - take care of jobs and the economy, tackle youth unemployment

and fuel poverty. In the meantime, we are making the case for

independence with everything that we do. That referendum will come in

the latter half, as it should. That promise to defer the

referendum to the second half was not made accidentally, it was

because you calculated that the economic circumstances might not be

prepare we made the promise during the election. I am sure that, had

we broke it, you would be standing here are accusing us of breaking

promises. If I could just say something about Annabel Goldie. She

does not represent people in Scotland. Her pronouncements today

contradict William Hague, who said that the UK Government should

postpone having a referendum on Europe because of economic

circumstances. They are in complete disarray. As the First Minister

says, we do not have an opposition in this country. They do not have a

mandate. You will not is that the biggest cheer came when he

underlined that fact - that they do not have a mandate. It is

interesting that we are going to bring forward another claim of

right for Scotland. He is going to put a motion to Parliament and

challenge the other parties? Yes. The Liberals and the Labour Party

signed it in the past. If they accept the sovereignty of the

Scottish people they will sign it this time. Was that a bit of a

stunt? Not at all. It goes back hundreds of years. We are carrying

on a tradition in Scotland. This second option of fiscal

responsibility, control of tax, spending and benefits, Mr Salmond

made it clear that it is very much second best. Is that a fall-back

option for the SNP? Is that why it would be in their referendum?

think he made it very clear. The aspiration for our campaign is to

walk out there and actually go for full independence in the referendum.

Why is it in there. Why do you not just do yes or not to independence?

Alex said that we are taking things square on. He said we are for

independence. At the end of the day, it is up to the people of Scotland.

We are a party who will listen to Scotland's people and give them the

choice. That is something that is not happening in Westminster. They

are trying to dictate what should happen in Scotland at the moment.

We're saying, let's listen to the people and tell them what we are

about, give them a clear message. You listen to the Scottish people,

but if either independence or full fiscal autonomy is supported, it is

not the Scottish Government would have to act, it is the UK

Government. How would they feel mandated when they have opposed the

idea of having that question on the ballot paper? The UK Government

have made it clear that they will accept the views of the Scottish

people. On a yes or not to independence. They do not want the

second question. It is really not for them to decide, it is for the

Scottish people, as the First Minister made very clear. They do

not have a mandate in Scotland. The coalition parties got less than 20%

of the vote. They are held in complete contempt. I hear the point

about mandate and listening to the views of the people, but if it is

full fiscal autonomy it is the UK Government to would have to

implement it. Should they not been -- be involved in drawing up the

referendum? The reason it could be put on the paper is because we do

not restrict the people. The SNP campaigns for independence but we

want to hear the voice of the Scottish people. That will be

demanded and will have to listen to the boss of the people. These

activists, on those cold, wet and windy days when they have put

leaflets through the door, that will be what they want from the

people of Scotland - independence. Thank you for joining me. Back to

I am still joined by Professor John Curtice here. One interesting point

about the claim of rights, Brian was asking if that was a stunt.

What do you think could be happening with this? One of the sub

things of Alex Salmond's speech was in a sense this continuing debate

going on, and there was a story in The Scotsman this this morning,

alleging the London Government might want to take on the

referendum itself. Hold the referendum instead of the Scottish

parliament. And in so doing, as you heard there, only to put on the

issue of independence on that referendum, so there have been

various noises to suggest maybe the UK Government in parliament might

decide to try and taeupbg over the -- take over the referendum process.

Alex Salmond was laying down clearly in that speech that in his

view those moves are illegitimate. After all, I guess he would argue

none of those parties had the idea in their 2010 manifestoes which is

the mandate which the UK Government has, let alone the 2011 ones. His

point about putting the claim of right before the Scottish

parliament, in part, as you have seen, it's to embarrass Labour and

the Liberal Democrats, to accept that's a claim of right and he's

suggesting if indeed Scotland does have the right to determine its own

future, then therefore, it should be the Scottish Government in

parliament that determines how that future is decided. I think the

difficulty is, again you saw that in the recent discussion, John

Major's Government over 20 years ago accepted that Scotland did

indeed have the right to cecede from the union. It's rather more

difficult to argue that Scotland has the unilateral right to

determine the terms of its membership of the union. And

clearly if Scotland were to vote in favour of devolution max people in

England and the Government would have to be willing to facilitate it,

so that extent it's difficult to suggest that Scotland can simply

assert its right within the union as opposed to its right to

independence. This is a point that's been hammered home by the

SNP at the moment about Westminster having no legitimacy, we have been

seeing that with investigations and so on. It's a point they're really

trying to push and Mr Salmond was pushing it in his speech. They are,

of course in making those comments they're always referring to the

outcome of the 2011 Scottish election, even there the SNP didn't

get over half the vote, 44 or 45%. They don't say much about the 2010

general election when the Labour Party got over 40%. The SNP around

20. The Liberal Democrats weren't that far behind. Of course, the UK

Government will argue that's where its mandate comes from. Tories and

Liberal Democrats in Scotland didn't do that well, but equally

the SNP also didn't dominate Scotland when we were last electing

UK Government, as opposed to Scottish one. Thank you very much.

I am delighted to say that I am joined now by the SNP deputy leader

and Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. Thank you very much for

joining me. A rousing speech from the First Minister there to

delegates. Can you tell me more about this claim of right that we

have just been discussing, is it a clever trick to smoke out the

opposition? No, it's a statement of principle. It's 20 years since

Labour and the Liberals were happy to sign up to the principle that

it's the Scottish people who gets to decide their own future. So,

it's a great idea to put that wfr the -- before the Scottish

parliament again and give all parties the opportunity to sign up

to that very simple but very powerful and important principle

that nobody has a right to decide Scotland's future, except the

Scottish people themselves. We have been hearing a lot about this

second question. Is this a way to make sure that Labour and even the

Conservatives sign up to devolution Max, that they set out their

support? Well, the First Minister made very clear in his speech there

that in the referendum the SNP will be full square behind the case for

independence. We will campaign for independence because we believe

that is the best way to build a better future for Scotland. But

fiscal autonomy, call it what you want, it's a option. We are not

hostile to the idea of that question on the ballot paper,

because we are Democrats, we believe it is the right of the

Scottish people to decide. Of course, it's for those who advocate

that option to define that option and to argue for it. OK, we have

been hearing from the First Minister about fiscal

responsibility. He was saying it was a legitimate proposal. This is

one tiny little piece of information that we have received

from the First Minister about the independence referendum that there

probably could be that second question there. Well, what the

First Minister was saying today was that the case for fiscal autonomy,

for the Scottish parliament having full economic powers, it's a

legitimate one and all the extra powers that would come with that

are good powers to have and they're necessary powers to have. But our

view is that they're not in themselves enough, because if we

just had full fiscal autonomy we wouldn't have the powers to get

triedent off the Clyde, we wouldn't be able to ensure we were never

again dragged into an illegal war, so we need as a country the full

powers of independence. But we believe that it's not for any

politician, certainly not for any Westminster politician, to decide

Scotland's future. That right lies with the Scottish people and they

have to look at the options available to them. Mr Salmond also

spoke that he would campaign full square for independence. Why don't

you just have one question then, why don't you make it a simple yes-

no? Well, we said we are not hostile to having the devo-max

option but we will see what transspires in the fullness of time

but there's absolutely no doubt that the SNP's favoured option and

the option we will campaign for is independence and we will do that

for the reasons the First Minister outlined this afternoon, the

reasons I have just repeated, because we believe financial powers

for the Scottish parliament and the Scottish people are essential. They

are necessary. Powers that are job- creating powers, we need those

powers to support and create jobs to get the economy moving. We

believe they're not enough. We need the full powers of independence and

that's what the SNP will campaign for. In his chat with the MSPs they

were speaking about why they would have the referendum in the second

half of the parliament that had been a promise made during the

election campaign. Are you now regretting that promise? You

probably took a clever calculation before the election that the world

economy would start to improve by that point and so you would

probably get a bit of a better showing, showing you were a good

Government, but looking at what's happening at the moment looks like

we are entering long years of economic stagnation? Well, we won a

majority in that election so thra's not much about the campaign that we

need to regret. We made it very clear in the election campaign that

the referendum would take place in the latter half, the second half of

the parliament. The people of Scotland endorsed that timetable in

the overwhelming mandate that they gave us in the election. So, I

think we will do something that people an say politicians should do,

we will stick to our promise. The referendum will be in the second

half of the parliament. Indeed, it's a very vague timetable, isn't

it? And everything about the referendum is vague, we have not

heard much from the First Minister, Michael Moore posed those six

questions to the First Minister talking about what happened to bank

regulation, which currency would Scotland adopt, how many inherit in

pension liability, and what would be the debt and how much eupd pence

would cost. -- independence would cost. We are never hearing anything

about these questions. These issues were laid out in the White Paper

the the Scottish Government published a couple of years ago. I

think Michael Moore would be better advised to start answering some of

the questions about the deFire Brigadeenceies of the Scottish --

deFire Brigadeenceies of the Scotland Bill he is taking through

the House of Commons. The Scottish parliament will ledge late for a

referendum in due course and the detail will be fully debated at

that time. But at the heart of the case for a referendum is that very

very simple proposition that it gives the people of Scotland the

right to decide their own future. That was something the Liberals and

Labour were happy to sign up to 20 years ago. Let's see if they're

happy to sign up to that principle now. The First Minister had some

major announcements about the economy in his speech. He was

talking about governing well and for the common wheel. He mentioned

fuel poverty and what the SNP were doing to tackle fuel poverty. We

heard from Labour earlier this month that there had been a

reversal in as they put it savage cuts to fuel poverty budget,

efforts to tackle fuel poverty. Is Mr Salmond being like a supermarket

in some sense, that he cuts the fuel poverty budget and then he

pretends that it's going up in 2015, is this a sneaky approach to

governing well? I don't think there's much credibility in much

that Labour says these days. It's recognised right across the

spectrum that our measures and initiatives to tackle fuel poverty

are amongst the best right across these islands and the First

Minister announced today that the number of people benefiting from

these initiatives will go up from 500,000 to 700,000. But the real

point the First Minister was making today, I am sure it's a point not

lost on anybody in Scotland, that we have these appalling levels of

fuel poverty amid energy plenty. That's one of the most compelling

reasons for the extra powers that independence would bring, would an

oil-rich country, a renewable- energy rich country, we shouldn't

have people living in fuel poverty. We were hearing about governing

well and he does have a reputation for having a steady hand on the

tiller, but he has been buffeted over the past few months by the

opposition to the anti-sectarian legislation and we are hearing

about divisions in the party over gay marriage. Is the SNP's ship not

just a happy ship at the moment? think anybody who's at this

conference will know the SNP ship is an extremely happy ship. It's

also an extremely big ship. This is the biggest and best conference the

SNP has ever had. One of the things the First Minister said in his

speech, again I think will reasonate with people across the

country, sometimes it takes guts to govern. You have to face up to

challenging issues and deal with them, on the same-sex marriage

issue no decisions have been taken there. We are in the middle of a

consultation and listening very clearly and carefully to all the

views that are expressed. On sectarianism, I don't know many

people in Scotland who don't think this is one of the demons of

Scotland's past, that we really do have to face. Most people think the

Scottish Government is doing the right thing in facing up to that

problem and seeking to solve it once and for all. Nicola Sturgeon,

thank you very much. Now, the finance Finance Secretary

was grilled by BBC online users yesterday in a live web-cast. Our

political editor put your questions to John Swinney on a range of

subjects from gay marriage to independence. Here is a flavour of

that chat beginning with a question on why there were no plans to

introduce a local income tax during this parliamentary session.

What we said in the election campaign was that we would discuss

during the course of this parliament with other parties and

with other stakeholders and with the communities of Scotland, how we

could move from the council tax to a position where we had an approach

that was based on the ability to pay. What's to discuss? You are in

favour of a local income tax during the previous parliament as well.

You said it was the lack of a majority that was thwarting you.

The difficulty with that we said we wouldn't ledge late for such a

proposition... Why not, if it's such a good idea? Why not is

because we acknowledged there were a number of complexities around the

issue of - there's a lots of complexities we have to overcome. A

lot of dialogue that's that's to be undertaken with the UK Government

on these questions and we wanted to get that right as part of a wider

debate within Scotland which would take place during this parliament.

The dialogue being if council tax goes, the benefit goes as well?

There's a material change in that issue, because on 1st April 2013

the UK Government proposes to devolve council tax benefit to the

Scottish Government. So in the course of this parliament there

would be a material change to the council tax benefit arrangements so

that argument that was used by the previous Labour Government to

thwart us would not be relevant because you would have the

devolution of council tax benefit. How would you still have benefit if

you have scrapped council tax? money would be transferred as a

block to the Scottish Government. The other issue which we have to

consider and one of the reasons why we decided that the local income

tax shouldn't be pursued during this parliament is clearly we have

some economic uncertainties, given the wider economic challenges that

we face, some public spending reductions which make it very

difficult to implement this at this time. And also we have the change

to income tax which are coming as a kopbs kopbs kopbs -- consequence of

the proposals in the Scotland Bill. All of that is an element of

complexity and uncertainty we have to navigate through. It's why we

are having the discussion during this parliament. If local income

tax is such a wonderful idea and it doesn't stand up when the economics

circumstances are troublesome, then it doesn't seem perhaps it is such

a fabulous idea, maybe it's not workable? I am saying about when

it's the moment of implement--ation that you have to get correct.

are committed to it still? Government is committed to local

income tax. But not in this parliament? We said in the election

campaign in May we wouldn't ledge late for it during the course of

this parliamentary parliamentary term and we are remaining faithful

to that commit. When we say one thing to people in May we honour

that in the course of the parliamentary term. A question from

south of the border also on finance, how you the Scottish Government can

afford free preskrepgses and university education, when they

can't in England? He says the people in England are having to pay

The Scottish Government is better able to manage its resources than

the UK Government. Spending in Scotland is much higher per head of

population. It is not. There is a comparable level of public

expenditure north and south of the border, in terms of the areas of

responsibility that we have. We're putting our priorities in place to

provide a range of services that are important to people. Free

optical test, for example - people say that is ridiculous. It costs us

about �26 was that if you were to get that examination in the health

service, it would cost a great deal more. One simple lie test can

detect four major medical conditions that can be averted a.

Some of these things that are described as free actually have a

real benefit that is of significant impact upon the health and well-

being of the people of Scotland. Will there be questions over some

of these services in the future? The expert report that was done for

you government suggested that free bus passes for the over-sixties,

even free personal care, may not be up for -- may not be affordable in

the long term. The review gave us a range of

options, many of which I took. The principal one was to apply

constrains the public sector pay. It has been applied to in the

course of the current budget period. They came up with a range of

options that were greater than the savings I was required to make. If

you look at the three-year spending programme, it demonstrates

absolutely that the services we provide, with a free bus passes,

free personal care, these are affordable and are fully provided

for within the provisions I have made.

Bruce from Glasgow wonders what you would do with the powers of

independence. Particularly, he asks if you believe in a fairer Scotland

where the wealthy pay greater tax? We are believers in progressive

taxation. The key judgment is to make sure you're gathering tax from

those with the ability to pay. We have to make sure we have

sufficient balance within our society and within the taxation

system that enables us to generate tax revenues from those who can

afford to pay for them to support public services that mattered to

the people of our country and to invest in the long-term future of

our economy. If you're asking me whether the balance of taxation of

the present moment is an indication of something that is relatively

correct in terms of personal taxation, I am probably comfortable

with the balance of taxation we have that the present time. I want

to tackle the issue of people on low incomes. I think the overall

balance is not far away from which it needs to be.

Brian Taylor, speaking to the Finance Secretary yesterday. The

Treasury spokesman, Stewart Hosie, joins me now. We are heaving from

the finance secretary about why a local income tax could not be

introduced and why it will be defer to the next Parliament. Is that a

definite promise that council tax will be scrapped and that local

income tax will be introduced? John Swinney is telling you that,

that is the plan. Why could it not be introduced for

this session? I am not familiar with the ins and outs of it. I

heard a bit of your package. We have frozen the council tax for a

number of years. It will be frozen for the rest of this Parliament.

The idea is to support progressive taxation. It makes sense to stick

to the timescale that John laid out. A iron surprised you're not

familiar with the proposals. The big worry was that there would

be a rather large funding gap. what John has done is to put in

place the council tax freeze. We need to make sure that stays in

place to help people in the short- term. Then, when we are in the

position to deliver local income tax, which is fair and progressive,

that is what we do. When you deliver a local income tax,

how would it be collected? Would you use the powers that Parliament

has at the moment or perhaps wait for something from the Calman

Commission, which have been against? There is a big problem in

terms of income tax that we would have effectively 50% of the base

rate with a smaller percentage of the 40% rate and the smallest

percentage of the highest rate. That is an imbalance in terms of

income tax. It also causes an imbalance in the basket of tax is

that Scotland ought to have control of. There are various technical

reasons why that poses a problem. In terms of collecting income tax,

of course, you would look use the income tax collection methods that

are in place at the time to do that. We were hearing from the Sports

Minister about how Scotland might be short changed in the future,

when it comes to the Commonwealth Games, compared to the Olympic

Games. We want equity on taxation issues. The fact that athletes for

the Olympics will not be taxed on their in -- on their income, but

have become to the Commonwealth Games they will be. It is not

acceptable or equitable. The sport Minister was saying that

some proposals for Olympic taxation are not fair and equitable. How can

you address that? It is quite important. When big international

sporting events, particular sporting individuals come here and

they are anxious about the money that they make here. Governments

encourage them to come and take part and the tax burden is set

aside. It seems to happen for the Olympic Games but they have not

made the same consideration for the Commonwealth Games in Scotland.

Obviously, pressure needs to be brought to bear on the Westminster

Government. It is a perfectly sensible thing for the minister to

be saying. You are trying to bring that

pressure to the Westminster Government. The pressure from the

Westminster Government is very much on you when it comes to explaining

the costs of independence. I was speaking to Nicola Sturgeon about

Michael Moore's six questions by Alex Salmond. No. 6 - how much

would independence cost? What is the bottom Line? For 30 years,

Scotland run a budget surplus on average. Meanwhile, the UK went

into the downturn �500 billion in debt. Even the figures for last

year, we put in more than the UK and we get less than the average

out of the UK. We make a contribution. In terms of spending

the same money in in in -- in an independent Scotland, we think we

would get more value for it. More importantly, we would have the

ability to take decisions, whether on tax or social policy on anything

else, to deliver better outcomes for the Scottish people.

There are decisions that will not be in your hands to take, even if

there is independence. John Swinney said Scotland would not join the

euro. Essentially, a monetary policy would continue to be

controlled by the Bank of England, even in an independent Scotland.

think it makes perfect sense to stay within the Stirling's on for

the foreseeable future. -- within Stirling for the foreseeable future.

-- sterling. You would not have control of

interest rates on anything. It is every single tax, duty and levy.

You could make sure that cheap, high-strength alcohol was not

available and that other things were taxed more. There are lots of

things that we can do with fiscal levers.

As Danny Alexander pointed out, Scotland's share of the national

debt would be �65 billion. How will we pay for that? We are already

paying for our share of the UK's one trillion pounds debt. It is due

to rise to 1.5 trillion pounds, most of which was created before

this downturn and before the banking crisis. We are already

contributing are full share to that. We have always said, and it is

quite right, that we would take our full the glossy picture of any debt

and we would serve as it like any other independent country, with the

advantage, of course, of having a one trillion pounds asset of

untapped North Sea oil and gas, sitting there for future

generations. Thank you for joining us.

I am still joined by Professor John Carter's from Strathclyde

University. Interesting that Stewart Hosie was not quite up to

date with local income tax there. He was pretty definite that the SNP

would introduce it in the next parliamentary session. After all,

council tax is pretty unpopular. There are a couple of developments

that will make it possible to introduce the local income tax. The

first is the decision of the UK Government to devolve council tax

benefit. Previously, the problem was that if Scotland introduced a

local income tax but council tax benefit was a ball that would mean

that Scotland would lose the amount of money in council tax benefit

that normally flows to Scotland. In order to introduce local income tax,

you would have to use the tax varying powers but the Scottish

Parliament, which is a maximum of 3p on the standard rate. The

revenue from that would not be sufficient to cover the rent -- the

revenue lost from abolition of council tax. Those two things. The

UK Government, ironically, has made decisions that are going to make it

possible for the SNP to introduce one of its own choice policies.

On the issue of monetary policy, the SNP would still have Scotland

in the pound. Stewart Hosie seemed to think that they would have

control, but a lot still remains in London. One has to ask a question

about that. One of the questions about the eurozone crisis is that

you cannot have monetary union without at least some degree of

fiscal co-ordination. The lesson from grace is that if a country

overspends it helps to drive everyone down, including the

confidence of people in that country. The SNP are saying that,

either way, an independent Scotland would remain part of a currency

union. It would be there remained in the pound bought it would join

the euro. If Scotland retain the pound, questions would clearly be

raised in London as to what is going to be done to ensure that

Scotland's fiscal stance is not so at variance with what they UK

Government regards as in the interest of Stirling, and some kind

of fiscal restraint might be required. Recent developments have

somewhat undermined the argument that monetary union is possible but

that you can still have full fiscal freedom. Scotland may have more

fiscal freedom under that arrangement, but the idea of fiscal

-- full fiscal freedom is rather more doubtful than it was a year

ago. Scotland's councillors will be the

first politicians to go over the top end next year's local elections.

They could be the ones who bear the brunt of an angry electorate.

Budget cuts mean slashed services and councillors will have to answer

for schools that close, roads that go on repaired or bins that do not

get empty. Back to Brian Taylor, who is joined by three councillors

who will be in the firing line. Thank you very much.

Let us go first to Todd Buchanan from Edinburgh. What sort of cuts

are pending in Newry area? And �92 million of cuts were announced

recently. I think it will go up to about �140 million. -- �140 million.

We are trying to make sure that we deliver the services that the

people of Edinburgh made. What is happening in East Lothian?

We actually saw this coming several years ago. We started to reduce our

personnel by natural wastage. We also came up with good ideas about

saving money. How many jobs have gone? About 600.

What is happening in Glasgow in terms of cuts? In Glasgow, the SNP

are still in opposition, so it is not really in our hands to make

that decision at the moment. I like how you have ambition there! There

is a voluntary redundancy programme going on in the council.

Unfortunately, that means a lot of Do you feel that voluntary

redundancy will have to become compulsory redundancy, even if you

are fortunate enough to take control? I would hope not. It would

be for us when we come into administration to look at the books

and see the situation. You can't make that promise? We can't, we

would hope not. You say you have staved it off by pre-empting the

issue. We have reducing a lot of our overheads but also our leader

has said we will not have redundancies... Not compulsory. We

are at that point we have lost enough people that we are out of

balance and we have to look at who is doing which job where. We

haven't necessarily lost the right people in the right places. I hear

what you are saying about protecting the frontline but

services are going to be squeezed. Is that not going to mean people

are angry with the council here, they're angry anywhere because of a

certain transport project. The The SNP were never in favour of this

transport project. But yes it is going to be very difficult.

Everybody has to acknowledge that. The settlement that John Swinney

gets in the block grant is going to directly affect the number of

people employed in public service. You got to be going to these voters

in May and saying, and it's not four years' time as it is with

Holyrood, it's in May, and saying we are going to have to cut jobs...

We have lost the link to Inverness there, but I am still joined by

Professor John Curtice from Strathclyde University. How much

have we learned from the SNP during this conference about a future

referendum? I think we have learned one important thing, but we have

also got one still big doubt that arises as a consequence, the thing

we have learned is the SNP have definitely nailed their colours to

the mast of a two-question referendum, one on both

independence and so-called devolution Max, they would have to

do a lot of rowing back now if that weren't to be the case. They've now

pretty much committed themselves. But at the same time we are still

not entirely clear as to how far they're going to be willing to back

devolution Max. We need to bear in mind here in their most recent

White Paper on this they said there would and two-question referendum,

it wouldn't be a case of put these in order. Say yes or no to

independence and devolution Max. That raises an important question.

It may well be that devolution Max is the SNP's second preference. But

how are they going to tell people to vote in the referendum? They

can't say yes, maybe. Yes to independence and maybe to

devolution Max. They're either going to have to say yes-no, or

yes-yes. We could expect the SNP to tell us soon whether the SNP

campaign in their referendum is going to be a yes-yes campaign, or

a yes-no one. Thank you. We have the line back to Inverness. Let's

go back to Brian Taylor. Welcome back. I blame the cuts!

Let's continue that discussion. That same question, isn't it going

to be hell on wheels as a councillor or any party going to

the electorate at a time of squeezed budgets and jobs going and

services? No doubt it will be difficult and certain services will

be trimmed but basically we are going to be able to sustain

virtually all of our services. People understand, since we have

not increased council tax, since we provided all the services they need,

and since we are actually talking to them because we have been more

interactive than a previous administration, we think we have

got them on side. Who is going to take the blame, UK Government, John

Swinney, Scottish Government with the allocation across councils or

is it going to be the local authority that gets a slap in the

face? To some extent it will be spread and there there be political

people who will blame the ones they want. Fundamentally the UK

Government. What do you make about that, it's not where buzz the the -

- where does the blame lie, where in the eyes of the voters?

depends which services they use and what matters most. Pensions, for