Scotland's big guns battle it out in final 300 debate

Published on Saturday 17 March 2007 00:07

AFTER two months, eight debates and 21 road trips in the Scotsman van, our Scotland 300 nationhood tour finally came to an end in Edinburgh on Thursday night.

The last of our debates marking the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union saw a group of political heavyweights slugging it out just seven weeks before they do battle in the most keenly awaited election in modern Scotland.

The Nationalists' Holyrood leader Nicola Sturgeon took on Labour No 2 Cathy Jamieson and the leaders of the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Greens - Nicol Stephen, Annabel Goldie and Robin Harper. George Lyon stood in for the Lib Dems when Nicol Stephen had to leave for an unbreakable appointment in Glasgow.

The debate was chaired in front of an audience of 250-plus at Our Dynamic Earth by James Naughtie, presenter of Radio 4's Today programme and a former Scotsman journalist. This is a flavour of proceedings:

Q: After 300 years, has the Union served Scotland well, does it continue to serve Scotland well and where do we go from here?

Nicola Sturgeon (NS): "It is time for Scotland to move on and regain her independence. Look at the small independent countries around us with their own economic powers - Iceland, Ireland, Norway - they are some of the richest countries in the world. I believe Scotland could do better as an independent nation but I also passionately believe it is not for us politicians to decide that question - it is up to the people of Scotland to decide that in a referendum. That is the democratic way to do it."

Robin Harper (RH): "We feel democracy should be devolved to the lowest possible level. Scotland could survive as a democracy. It is the right size for an independent country. We are not sure about the economic arguments. We feel the arguments for independence should be taken simply on the willingness of the Scots to take responsibility for their own government and a bit like marriage - for better or worse."

Annabel Goldie (AG): "The Nationalists say the only way to improve Scotland is independence. Well, I don't buy that at all. Our parliament has got powers at the moment that could address all those issues. I want devolution to work but I think the answer is delivery not divorce. There is a lot to commend the Union but we take if for granted. For example the influence we have internationally through the UN, NATO etc. I think it is perfectly possible to be British and Scottish and to be proud of both. They are not mutually exclusive. I actually think they complement each other. So why risk that? Why marginalise us? Why isolate us?"

Nicol Stephen (NSt): "The Union has served Scotland well through the enlightenment, the industrial revolution and the commonwealth but somewhere in the last century we lost our way and it was particularly difficult during those 18 years of Tory rule that refused to give Scotland a say in running its own affairs. We did something about that by voting for a Scottish Parliament and we should give it time to grow. It should not be a straight choice between the status quo and independence. Most people support more powers for the parliament and I think that is the sort of future Scotland needs."

Cathy Jamieson (CJ): "My priority is to build up Scotland not break up Britain. The Nationalists have one aim in mind which is to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK. My party has a much broader set of issues. We have had a referendum on the will of the Scottish people and we should be prepared to make the Scottish Parliament work but we should also be prepared to work with our colleagues in Westminster. That is the nature of the constitutional settlement we have. We should not be afraid of admitting there is a dividend from being in the Union and we should be prepared to take on responsibilities in our parliament."

Does the panel support the retention of Trident?

CJ: "I do not think it is any secret that I have had different views in the past, but I have spoken to Des Browne, the Defence Minister, and been persuaded of the arguments the UK government put forward about keeping our options open. I would have been happy to go ahead and vote the same way as my Westminster colleagues. I respect those who voted against it but I have been given reassurances within my own party."

RH: "We should get rid of it. It is a council of despair for Britain to say we shall wait until someone else moves to get rid of these weapons. For as long as Britain holds all these weapons it is an argument for any other country, however small, with the economic capability to develop weapons for themselves. Countries like Iran have absolute justification for building their own nuclear weapons if they use the same arguments we use for nuclear weapons. We must get rid of them."

NSt: "The Lib Dems believe Trident makes Britain a more dangerous place. We have aligned ourselves too closely with the US with the war on Iraq and Trident. What signal does it send out to other countries? It sends out a very powerful negative message. We have a far better policy of reducing the number of warheads and submarines and including Trident as part of non-proliferation discussions in the future. That is the right message to send out to the rest of the world."

AG: "It provides a necessary insurance policy in an uncertain world. Even the ancient Romans understood if you really do want peace, first you have to prepare for war."

NS: "If it is OK for the UK to say we can have nuclear weapons as an insurance policy then why can't other countries such as Iran and North Korea use that same argument? It sends out the wrong message. It is the hypocrisy of that that does so much damage in the international community. There is no justification of spending 25 billion on weapons of mass destruction. At least in the Cold War the weapons were appropriate. In today's world they are not."

A modern Scotland depends heavily on its universities. What would the panellists do to support and maintain the reputation of the Scottish universities for independent thought in view a) of the present push to mass university education and b) the impending deficit in income vis--vis English universities, which will now receive fee income?

NSt: "We have to find the additional funding to support research and our world reputation. I believe the bid by Universities Scotland for 168 million funding in the next four years is right. We have to expand university places as well. People think 50 per cent of people in university is as much as this country can stand. I disagree with that. I think the most successful countries in the future will have 60 per cent because skills will have to be our future to compete against countries like India and China."

NS: "There is a twin challenge facing our universities. We have to increase funding through public funding and greater commercialisation. The second challenge is to keep up student numbers, which have crept down because of massive student debt. My party is advocating the return of means tested student grants instead of loans because unless we do that we have a real problem."

AG: "We run the risk of losing research staff to establishments in England because they are better resourced. Universities can get money from funding, commercialisation and students. There is no easy solution and some courageous decisions have to be taken. There are youngsters being pushed towards university when for them that may not be the best education."

CJ: "We have to ensure young people get the education in our schools that enables them to go on to university and that is why we want to improve education. But we recognise education is different now. A vocational route may be better for some people. We have a hard choice in finding ways of getting more money for universities and also making sure more students have access to courses."

Should Forth Ports be allowed to make decisions on ship-to-ship transfers in the Forth estuary? And why does the Scottish Parliament seem powerless to do anything about it?

AG: "I understand at the moment the Scottish Parliament environment committee is conducting an inquiry into it. I think that is a very valuable facility. The main thing is to find out what the risks are and to make sure political pressure is brought to bear to ensure the interests of everyone in this area are protected."

RH: "It is absolutely bizarre that the Scottish Parliament is not in a position to say no, and that Forth Ports was allowed to be judge and jury in this case. They want huge tankers coming into one of Scotland's principal nature reserves with the risk of untold damage to tourism and wildlife. This is the most appalling mess and it is about time Westminster and Holyrood got a grip of themselves."

CJ: "You can only intervene if you have the appropriate legislative powers. It would be fair to say that ministers have accepted that this particular issue has thrown up a number of grey areas in the devolved/reserved split and has made it clear that there are some of these areas needing to be looked at. We will take that forward. I suspect that what needs to be done here is for people to get around the table and see if the legislation is adequate for the future."

George Lyon: "There is deep concern about ship-to-ship transfer among communities around the Forth. It does seem strange that Forth Ports are the regulatory body and have financial interests. I think this is an area where our policy of devolving more powers to Scotland would be appropriate and I hope to see that happen very, very shortly."

NS: "The fact that the Scottish parliament is powerless is unacceptable. Four million tonnes of crude oil being transferred four miles off the Forth coast is very concerning and I agree that Forth Ports should not be the decision-making body because it can financially gain. It is clear that the law needs to be reformed. The confusion about who is responsible for what is not acceptable and it is something the new parliament in May should look at very quickly."

Is it possible for someone to be opposed to the right of the people of Scotland to have their say on the issue of independence and still claim to be in favour of democracy?

CJ: "If people support independence there is a party they can vote for in favour of independence. If they do not support independence and the risks that come with that they should not vote for that party. That is the democratic process."

GL: "If all these four parties in favour of independence have a majority then they can bring forward a referendum. If they do not then the people have spoken. If these parties do not have a majority, are they willing to drop their policy of a referendum in favour of working for policy on health, education and crime etc?"

NS: "If we win the election, then we have a right to bring in our policy. The Lib Dems argued for a PR government. If we are the largest party in a PR government then we have the right to implement our election programme. I do respect people who oppose independence, I just don't understand why they would oppose a referendum. There is a long tradition of settling constitutional arguments by referendum. As a democrat I will argue my case and let people decide. I do not understand why other parties will not accept that."

AG: "Yes, you can resist a referendum and be a democrat. If you go on the premise we have a referendum just because one party wants it where do we end? We would have referenda on everything from road tolls to legalisation of drugs. I believe in representative government. If the Nationalists can get 65 seats in the Scottish Parliament then let's have a referendum - and you can dream on, dear - if they do not then let's get on with governing a devolved country better."

RH: "I do not see how any democrat could turn down a referendum. But we feel there should be three choices put forward: the status quo, more powers for the Scottish Parliament or independence. People should be able to vote on those possibilities."