 Of the western Balkans. We now move to the First Minister's question. It is question number one, Johann Lamont. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. First Minister. Engagement is to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Johann Lamont. Thank you. On Tuesday, Health Secretary Alec Neale said that satisfaction with our NHS has increased by 20 per cent over the last seven years and nearly two thirds of people in Scotland o'r cyfweld sy'n gyffredinol. Felly, y ddisgu mae'r Cymru, dr Brian Keithle, saidd, That what I have seen over the past five years is the continuing crisis management of the longest car crash in my memory, and it is time for politicians to face up to some very hard questions. I agree with Brian Keithle. He speaks for NHS staff all over the country. country? Can the First Minister tell the people of Scotland why the leader of Scotland's doctors is wrong? First Minister? Let's deal with the question of satisfaction of the public in the National Health Service. That wasn't an opinion poll or some SNAP survey. That was the social attitude survey for Scotland, which is the most detailed assessment of social attitudes in the country. What that showed and demonstrated is that satisfaction with the National Health Service has risen to 61 per cent. By way of comparison, when Johann Lamont was a minister, it was 45 per cent in 2006. So when Johann Lamont starts by saying that it was a claim of Alec Neill, it's actually the social attitudes survey for Scotland, the most detailed assessment of public attitudes. That compares directly the satisfaction with our national health service today and the satisfaction which was when Labour was in power and it's been a strongly rising trend. As far as Dr Brian Keith is concerned, he wants to have more funds for the national health service. He makes an entirely reasonable point that despite the fact that the national health service has been protected its budget in real terms, it's under sustained pressure because of the rising demand for health services. How do I know that? Because, as Brian Keith said in GMS on 24 June, I accept the SNP has done as much with the Barnett formula and resources that are available to them. When Johann Lamont says that the NHS is under pressure, as indeed he did, let's remember he also said and accepted that we are doing everything that we can with the resources that are available to us to provide the resources for our national health service. That may be one reason why satisfaction with the national health services is on a rising trend, and the other reason, of course, will be that the people of Scotland understand the work and performance of our people in the national health service who are delivering such an excellent result, even under circumstances of pressure. Johann Lamont, Dr Brian Keith is a member of staff in the health service. You ought to listen to what he is saying, not to pick one thing he has said but reflect on everything that he says. With accident and emergency targets missed, with cancer targets missed, with care for the elderly in crisis, the man who represents Scotland's doctors, Brian Keith, said and I quote, the current service is teatring on the edge of collapse. The leader of Scotland's doctors said, my main regret is that I have not been able to do more than act as a deck chair attendant on the good ship NHS Titanic. So, could the First Minister tell the people of Scotland why the leader of Scotland's doctors is wrong and he is right? First Minister, can I offer another quote from Brian Keith again in the same interview that Johann Lamont does not want to accept but that the quotes are here? He says, clearly my target is not the current cabinet secretary, my target is the political classes in Scotland and the point that he is making is that health resources are under pressure because of rising demand. He accepted the point that we have done everything we can under the constraints of the Barnett formula to protect the national health service. I think that we are entitled to ask, would that have been done if the Labour Party had been in power over these last seven years? We know that it would not have been done in 2007 because Jack McConnell said the NHS would just have to cut its cloth and would not have access to the consequentials. We doubt that it would have been done in 2011 because the Labour Party refused to commit to the resources in real terms. We want evidence of the Labour Party in power, then just look to Wales, suffering the same stresses under the Barnett formula of Scotland and on every measurement turning in a worse health performance. So does Johann Lamont not accept the connection between the resources available to us under the Barnett formula and the ability to fund the national health service to the degree that Brian Kefley and all of us would want? Is not that an argument for having access to Scotland's resources so that we can deliver that desirable outcome? Johann Lamont? It is also under the First Minister prescriptions for Scotland that we would have less money to spend on public services, and while his friends in the back benches applaud that oft-heard script, he should reflect that the script that he trots out every time the NHS is heard sounds very much like complacency for staff and patients who live in the real world and are dealing with these problems daily, because we have been warning the First Minister about the amount of problems in our NHS for the last two years and every time we get the same old script, but he cannot keep ignoring the reality. Brian Kefley, the leader of Scotland's doctors, said that we have a crisis of out-of-hours health provision that sees huge and unacceptable queues at A and E departments. We see reports of geriatric provision coming under increased criticism through inadequate care packages and increasing bed blocking, and at the same time, GPs coping with a 20 per cent increase in workload. We then continued. We see vital cancer treatments delayed because of unsustainable cost, and we see cracks emerging in hospital food, cleanliness, staff shortages and vacancies within the consultant body and GP trainees. He finished. How has the Scottish Government responded? It talks of seven-day provision at a time when we have an inadequate five-day service. First Minister, those are the problems that our NHS staff are facing every day, so can I ask him what is the First Minister's plan for the NHS? First Minister, our plan is to continue to fund the NHS in Scotland to the maximum degree, something that the Labour Party, neither in Scotland or Wales, would commit it to. Our plan is to have access to the resources of Scotland so that we can move beyond austerity and have a proper, responsible, reasonable increase in public spending, as John Swinney outlined. We know that Brian Kefley accepts that we are doing everything we can within the Barnett formula. That is a reason to break free of the Barnett formula and have access to the resources of Scotland. However, I do not accept Johann Lamont's prescription about the accident and emergency and the cancer waiting list. Let me say that we are acting to improve performance in the accident and emergency. We are acting, as Alex Neil announced this week, to improve meeting our cancer targets. We are particularly concerned that we have moved below the 62-day target. However, the Labour Party never once achieved that target, not once in office that the Labour Party achieved the 62-day cancer target. Yes, we believe that 93 per cent of people being seen within four hours in the accident and emergency is not good enough, but the Labour Party, in power when Johann Lamont was a minister, proclaimed that 87 per cent was an excellent performance. Given that, as the social attitudes survey demonstrates, public satisfaction with the national health service is rising, given that we committed what Labour would not do to protect the national health service budget in real terms, and given that our performance, under pressure, although the NHS undoubtedly is, is better than when the Labour Party was in power. What possible credibility has a minister in the last government complaining about the situation when public finances are in the pressure, when they could not run Scotland when public finances were plentiful? The challenge for the First Minister is that the First Minister wants to make this a cheap political debate between himself. Settle down, order. Miss Graham. That's not a problem. We can do that, but we let the people of Scotland down every time we settle for that. On the big issues when we settle for that or saying that the only solution is independent, when not I raise these questions but the head of the BMA raises it, nurses raise it, patients raise it, people out there in our constituencies who every day are being let down by a government, not interested in the NHS, not interested in anything but not interested in anything but the obsession that took them into politics in the first place. On behalf of the people of Scotland, when I have asked the First Minister about blanket shortages, unacceptable waiting times in A&E, a lack of access to cancer drugs, cancer waiting times, elderly people left in trolleys for hours, all the people getting 15-minute care visits, doctor shortages, anything about the NHS and we've seen it again today. The First Minister has told me, people are happy with their health service, it's getting privatised in England and it would be worse if we were Welsh. Inadequate answers to serious questions. The First Minister has told us. The First Minister has told us that this is a really serious issue for people of Scotland and it deserves better than that. The First Minister has told us that he's a plan A, B, C, D, E and F for a currency in an independent Scotland. Does he not realise that what Scotland wants, what our hard-working doctors and nurses are demanding from him is any kind of plan for the NHS today? I see that John Lambert doesn't think it's important that the NHS in Scotland has been kept in public hands and not subjected to the disintegration. Very interesting. You see, Dr Kefley, in his speech to BMA Scotland this week, didn't say that. What he said is quote, what is totally clear is that the national health service we have in Scotland is fundamentally different from that in England in terms of philosophy and organisation. North of the border we have been spared the spectacle of a huge organisation being thrown in the air with the only speculation as a guide to where the pieces might land. We have avoided wholesale reorganisation. The NHS manager games of musical chairs are the worst successes of the use of the NHS as a party political football and for that we must be thankful. Brian Kefley thinks that it's important, given that John Lamont cited him. Why don't the Labour Party think it's important? Is it perhaps because Andy Burnham was talking about having a common health service across the UK and leaving the health service in Scotland to the tender mercies of the privatisation agenda being pursued at Westminster? John Lamont doesn't want to talk about what the public think about the national health service, because the increase in national health service performance in terms of accident emergency and in cancer care is reflected in the 21% increase in public satisfaction. 85% of Scottish in-patients say that overall care and treatment was good or excellent. 87% rated the performance of their GP surgery as good or excellent. 84% of social care users rated their overclared care and support as good or excellent. That is real people in the real world, understanding the commitment and strength of people in the national health service, supported by a Government that has funded the health service in real terms and which would be able to do a great deal more in an independent Scotland. Ruth Davidson To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. First Minister. No plans in their future. Ruth Davidson Thank you, Presiding Officer. We end this parliamentary session in a familiar place. We have the SNP blind to the very real risks involved with leaving the UK, and we have independent expert analysis pointing those risks out. To take an example just from this morning, a new report from the Scotland Institute, which has examined the blunt financial truths that would face a separate Scotland. We may not like to hear it, but having interviewed the main credit rating agencies, they say that an independent Scotland is, and I quote, likely to end up with a much lower credit rating and significantly higher borrowing costs than currently enjoyed within the Union. Does the First Minister agree with this report that there is a real pounds and pens cost to separation? The First Minister I do not think that credit rating is the better-to-gether strongest suit, given that famous leaflet of the triple A rating, which was published only weeks before the triple A rating disappeared, and given the speculation on rising interest rates that are as much about at the present moment. However, let us talk about the credit rating agencies directly. Even excluding North Sea oil output and calculating per capita GDP, only looking at on-show income, Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment. That is standards and powers in the 27th of February this year. Moody's, scoring for the economic strength of an independent Scotland, we would like to fall somewhere in the high range. We know the growth rate of Scotland, the volatility of growth. There is limited range of outcomes for GDP per capita, but on all possible outcomes point to Scotland being amongst the wealthiest sovereign nations in the world—page 15 of the Moody's report. Even if people in the ratings agencies are not known for their sunny optimism about the prospects of any country, if they say this about Scotland and point out that Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, cannot the Scottish Conservatives, in any of their manifestations, realise the potential of this economy and have confidence in our ability to marshal those natural resources, combine them with the talents of people and live up to the excellence of the assessments, even from the credit ratings. As the First Minister well knows, standard and poor did not give an independent Scotland its highest credit rating. An economic assessment is only one of the measures that it uses for it, and it is misrepresenting its views to say so. However, it sounds to me that the First Minister thinks that the Scotland Institute from that answer is wrong, which means that they join a long list just since January. Since January, he has stood up here and told us that the former director general of the legal service of the EU council is wrong, that the governor of the Bank of England is wrong, that the First Minister of Wales, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Shadow Chancellor, the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry is wrong, that the Barclays chief executive is wrong, that the chief executive of standard life, that the chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, that the chief executive of BP of ASDA are wrong. He stood up here and said that the Scottish Government own oil figures were wrong, that the office of budget responsibility was wrong. He said that Keith Cochran, the chief executive of the Weir Group was wrong, that Scottish financial enterprise was wrong, that Scottish engineering was wrong. He said that the IFS, the Centre for Public Policy and the Regions, that city group were wrong. Finally, he said that the much celebrated Professor Hughes Hallett, the Government's own economic adviser, was wrong, wrong, wrong. So First Minister, how does it feel to be so misunderstood? A correct unfairness to the independent Governor of the Bank of England, I have never said any such thing. Indeed, I have defended his speech, as indeed Mark Carney had to correct Tory MPs in the House of Commons who are suddenly trying to misrepresent them as Ruth Davidson has. Can I also say, I'm not quite certain, is the CBI in or out the better together campaign at the present moment, but does she must? Well, maybe the Labour Party, with its strong connections historically, might have thrown the latest information. I do accept that I have a question mark about the OBR. See, right from the start, I believe that the Tories have used the OBR not just as part of the Government, but as part of the Conservative Party. I'm quoting directly from Alastair Darling in the Financial Times of 9 July 2010. Can I just put it to Ruth Davidson? If the leader of the better together campaign, until Murdo Fraser takes over, until the better together campaign believes that the OBR is an instrument of the Conservative Party, then am I not entitled to question when it gets all its forecast wrong? Fundamentally, can the Conservative Party not realise some of the analysis of Federal Fraser? The analysis says that because you lack confidence in the people of Scotland and the economy of Scotland, the people of Scotland lack confidence in the Conservative Party. As long as you continue to pursue this doom-laden nonsense, you'll stay rock bottom of the Scottish opinion poll. Can I just say to the First Minister that we should use full names and not nicknames? Kevin Stewart Thank you, Presiding Officer. The appearance of a young man raised in Aberdeen in a nice recruitment video has shocked our Muslim community and all of the people of the city. Does the First Minister agree with me that the actions of one individual should not reflect on an entire community? Will he join with me in calling on all Aberdonians to continue to live together as good neighbours in peace and solidarity? I wholeheartedly agree with that, as I believe and hope that the whole chamber agrees with that. One of the purposes of extremism is to seek to divide communities. Radicalisation is something that we have been continuing to be constantly vigilant about. Police Scotland has been very active in monitoring that but also active in engaging with and building strong relationships for the Muslim community. However, the actions of any individual, as Kevin Stewart rightly said, should not and must not be seen as reflecting in any way mainstream opinion in any community of Scotland. We know from experience how well this country can react to such challenges as the integrated community response to the attack on Glasgow airport in 2007 showed Scotland at its very best. I believe that all fair-minded people in Aberdeen, indeed across the country, will support our zero-tolerance approach to any attempt to demonise or encourage hate crime against the Muslim community or, indeed, any other minority group in Scotland. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to Professor Dunleavy's report on transitioning to a new Scottish state. I could not help but notice in Ruth Davidson's long list of people that I disagree with. Professor Dunleavy had miraculously disappeared from the list thanks to his report. The important contribution to the referendum debate vindicates, of course, the Scottish Government's position on the nature of transition to a fully independent Scotland that is pointed out in our white paper. It blows out of the water, as Professor Dunleavy's report. The treasury figure of £2.7 billion widely briefed to the media, and neither Danny Alexander nor the Prime Minister nor Ruth Davidson have been able to give any satisfactory explanation for this. However, the permanent secretary of treasury has stepped into the void. He has described at Sir Nicholas McPherson as a mis-briefing of key data. I think that it is about time that we found out exactly how this mis-briefing was allowed to happen. I thank the First Minister for his reply. On page 3 of his report, Professor Dunleavy indicates that the main uncertainty surrounding set-up and transition costs following the S vote. I quote, A rise from the London government's apparent reluctance to do any planning for or to make clear to Scottish voters how transition to independence would be handled at their end. Does the First Minister agree that the UK government should immediately desist from issuing misleading figures and misinformation, some of which Professor Dunleavy described as bizarrely inaccurate and spectacularly wrong, and that the Prime Minister should come to Scotland and openly debate those issues? I have to say that I am quoting here directly from Professor Dunleavy's report, Whitehall has been forbidden to discuss issues with Scottish officials, to do any contingency planning for independence. In case the conclusion suggested independence would not cause major problems. That is the analysis of the distinguished professor from the London School of Economics. I think that the better to get a campaign. Since they were quoting and citing Professor Dunleavy, the figure of £2.7 billion was meant to be Professor Dunleavy's figure. In fact, he has demolished it, accused the Treasury of exaggerating his work by a factor of 12. I think that that was very generous of Professor Dunleavy. Usually, their exaggerations are even greater than that. Demolish their analysis, publish their report. At what stage will any of the Unionist Party leaders or any person in the Better Together campaign have the decency to accept and admit the misbriefing of Professor Dunleavy's work? Perhaps Murdo Fraser, when he addresses his speech tonight, will address that very point. We wait with bated breath. Liam McArthur Professor Dunleavy estimates the cost at £200 million, if, among other things, command and control of defence forces is shared with the UK until 2020. Can the First Minister confirm if that is now Scottish Government policy? Firstly, that is not what Professor Dunleavy argued. Secondly, the member will find a full exposition of the defence costs and budget over the period in Chapter 6 of the White Paper. Just as it seemed to me unfortunate that his colleague did not seem to have read the section on foreign representation and overseas representation in Chapter 6 of the White Paper when we were doing the question time last week, I find it doubly disappointing that that same chapter has not been read apparently by anyone in the Liberal Democrats. Do some reading, do some whole work and I will see you after the recess. Do Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wonder what the First Minister's response is to Professor Dunleavy's colleague, Ian McLean, who put the set-up costs at £1.5 billion to £2 billion, and he may want to go back and check Professor Dunleavy's blog this morning. Does the First Minister not understand that the failure of his Government to produce robust and comprehensive information about the cost estimates leaves the people of Scotland with the impression that the SNP would support independence regardless of the cost? I think that if the Labour Party had truly wanted to pursue this issue in the sticky wicket in which they are now batting, it would have heard something about it from Johann Lamont earlier on today. However, I do not actually have to respond to Professor Ian McLean. Incidentally, someone who believes in the scrapping of the Barnett formula—and it will be interesting to know how that is shared across the better-together parties—I do not have to respond, because Professor Dunleavy has already done it and looked at Ian McLean's work and suggested why Ian McLean has been led astray. Given the obvious evidence that Professor Dunleavy's work, cited by the better-together campaign and Danny Alexander, has been comprehensively demolished by Professor Dunleavy himself—in other words, given the source of the figure, it has said that the figure was exaggerated by a factor of 12—at what stage will any of those parties accept that they got it wrong? I know a fundamental apology to the people of Scotland. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government can take to tackle the proliferation of fixed-odds betting terminals and payday lenders on the country's high streets. Those, of course, are direct action on those areas that are reserved, however, with the power of the winner, we are taking what action we can. Scottish ministers held a summit on 24 April on payday lending and gambling, and the Minister for Local Government will be published on the action plan that followed that summit very shortly. As a first step, the new Scottish planning policy put in place this week acknowledged concerns about the proliferation of payday lenders and fixed-odds betting terminals on some high streets. Local authorities, through their town centre strategies, can develop policies to restrict such uses to protect the immunity of centres and, of course, the wellbeing of communities. However, I would argue in terms of direct action that is one of the areas where we actually need the powers of this Parliament to extend over key areas that are affecting the social life of Scotland. I thank the First Minister for the answer, and I welcome the publication of the document earlier this week. I have met the former gamblers and also the campaign for fairer gambling, and tonight I am going to be a guest at a GA meeting in Renfrewshire. Those groups are firmly of the opinion that the only way to combat the issue of FOBTs is with a reduction in the maximum stakes on those machines down to £2, which is something that I support. Does the First Minister agree with me that the UK Government must act now to try to tackle the problem of those machines in our communities, and will he commit to raising a matter directly with the UK Government? We have already made representations to the UK Government over a substantial period of time expressing our concerns at developments such as the growth of fixed-odds betting terminals. Most recently, a letter was sent on 29 May highlighting the risks to public health and calling for a more preventative approach to be taken. We will continue to press for action, but on that and the other matters that the member raised, he will find on page 116 of the white paper our intention once we have control of regulation and our approach to tougher regulation for payday lenders in an independent Scotland. I hope that he assures the member that we are doing what we can within the powers that we have and we will seek to do more when this Parliament has the powers of an independent Parliament. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to Police Scotland report management information year-end 2013-14. The Police Scotland management information gives a snapshot, as Graham Pearson knows, of the strong progress that it has made in its first year with all parts of Scotland enjoying the benefits of a single service. Our recorded crime in Scotland national statistics for 2012-13 show that the recorded crime has decreased by 35 per cent since 2006-07 and that the crime is at its lowest level for 39 years, supported by the 1,000 additional police officers that we have delivered compared to 2007. Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority are working together to safeguard local policing and enhance access to the specialist resources, and now we are doing that against the backdrop of continuing Westminster austerity. Graham Pearson I commend the police officers and the remaining police staff for the work that they do on our behalf. Given the recent controversy over stop and search statistics, the First Minister might wish to know that for almost six months now I have asked for both the notes of guidance for crime recording, along with a briefing to understand the impacts of widening the use of subsuming crime and fixed penalty tickets on the reporting figures. I still await the briefing, which appears inordinately difficult to achieve after long delays. Will the First Minister enable a briefing at the earliest, recognising the need for public confidence in these figures? The First Minister I do not accept that the recorded crime in Scottish national statistics figures do not have confidence, and they have quite marked figures from national statistics. I do not think that Graham Pearson should question him, but they are, after all, the same basis of figures which the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats used when they were in power. I do not see any reason for questioning the basis of those figures now. However, if he writes to me detailing the areas that he has raised with the Police Authority and Police Scotland, I shall write to him to see what further information can be provided. In acknowledging the contribution of the police officers and the additional 1,000 police officers, I think that I have made a substantial contribution to the lowest crime levels in Scotland for 39 years. We say that it is across the world. We only need to glance south of the border to see that they have lost, over the last three years, as many officers as the total complement of the Scottish police force in Scotland. I do believe that the decline in crime figures in Scotland is due to the hard work of the extra police officers that we have in the streets and communities of Scotland, and everybody knows that they would not be there if the Labour Party had been maintained in power. The First Minister My response is to remarks made by the chief executive of the NHS regarding the movement of emergency patients. The First Minister We agree with them, which is not surprising given that Paul Gray is both chief executive of NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government's director general of health and social care. I think that I asked the minister what his response was. I am not sure that I heard one, but given that there is a large influx of visitors expected to Scotland for the Commonwealth Games, how confident is the First Minister that they already under strain NHS, will be able to cope with the additional demand? What extra resources are being made available to help to avoid even greater delays at A&E departments than we currently have? The First Minister Well, I have already pointed out that we are working to improve the 93 per cent figure in accident and emergency, but I have also pointed out that that is rather greater than the 87 per cent figure that was hailed as a success in 2006. Planning for the Commonwealth Games is very much part of the Commonwealth Games structure. We are absolutely confident that we can cope with any contingency in terms of the performance of the national health service in Scotland. As indeed, I know that Murdo Fraser will wish to acknowledge in terms of response to the clue for a tragedy that the national health service responded exceptionally well. That is part of the planning for the Commonwealth Games. I know that Murdo Fraser will be the first to understand the point that was made by Brian Keithley. That, within the constraints of the Barnett formula, even when your resource health is in real terms, is a constraint. That is presumably why he is trying to break out of that straight jacket. It is an annunciation of a federal solution. There is a difficulty, of course, that when Murdo Fraser was in favour of more devolution, Ruth Davidson had a line in the sand. When Ruth Davidson is in favour of more devolution, Murdo has moved to federalism. When Murdo moves and Ruth moves to federalism, no doubt Murdo Fraser will move towards supporting independence. However, I am confident that the independence campaign will survive that endorsement and go to victory on September 18. That ends First Minister's Questions. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.