 That require discussions with the contract winner. We are in the process of going to financial close and it is true that in that process we can have the discussions with the contractor to see which parts of the project may be brought forward. Of course, there should be the iron airport in the Dice area. We now move to First Minister's question, 1. Johann Lamont Thank you very much Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. OK. Engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Johann Lamont A chfaisiwr, the Government of the Bank of England said yesterday that uncertainty about currency arrangements could raise financial stability issues. The First Minister isn't getting his currency union, an option that Jim Sill called stupidity and stiltz and is now implying that he will use sterling without agreement. John Swinney hints at a separate Scottish currency, while Denis Canavan specifically backs one. ymlwg Ffmryd、 Ffmrwmaeth, Joe Kae gymaintadwyl i chi ei fod eich Halladau i dwylliannol yegol. Ond ddod yr aelod ddechexisting ar gyfer y cyfnodau, ar gyfer y prifysgwr, rymdyn nhw ddweud y prifysgwr sydd oedd y virus i gyrnau hyn? Yr ateb gyffin? Fy fydden nhw, rwy'n hyrch chi fyddai gafodd ar gyfer yr aelod ddech binsgliad yr aelod ddech elvesgwr. It was a very effective statement to calm the financial markets and speculation. We should all appreciate the fact that the Government of Bank of England fulfilling his responsibilities made clear that the duties of the Bank of England would be fulfilled—I think that that was excellent. Secondly, I also welcome the fact that he reiterated yesterday that the suggestion by some in the no campaign that he was against the currency union was not true, ond, a pob ammlygwch ddifudio'r ddaf ar gael i fod yn mythal gwybod a maith o bwysig i ddweud ddim yn ddalfarlusoedd. Felly, i fod, i ddim nid i'n mythal, yn fawr, fel yr unrhyw ysgrifennidau Northwyr ac yn ddifu dicynig iawn yn ei ddaf, ond mae sefydlu bach yn ei ddalfariad roi gweld sy'n i gael i fod ei ddalfariad ar gael yn fawr i'r rhan o bwysig i'n mythal, ond mae'n gael i'n ddalfariad all the subjects, where they said they would not pre-negotiate. Why has the combination to rule out the proposal for a currency union come from? Was that not about trying to create uncertainty and, thankfully and welcome, the fact that the Bank of England Governor has moved to put an end to the unionist campaign's plans? The First Minister, as usual, may impun the motives of the Westminster parties, but it's not the leaders of the Westminster parties that the women of Scotland are describing as dishonest. They also describe him as arrogant and they describe Nicola Sturgeon as ambitious, but then we knew that last week. When the First Minister needs a reality check because he welcomes a statement but he doesn't listen to what the statement was saying. Let's look at what was actually said yesterday. The Governor of the Bank of England made it clear that a crucial element of sharing a currency is sharing fiscal risk. He said that there needed to be, and I quote, some form of fiscal arrangements. In response, the First Minister told Jackie Bird last night what we will control is 100 per cent of our fiscal policy. That is simply not true. No, we wouldn't. Mark Carney says we wouldn't. Isn't the First Minister deliberately misleading the people of Scotland on the fundamental issue of the currency? First Minister, in terms of the suggestion that I made that the unionist parties were trying to create instability, I cite Professor Anton Muscatality at McKelley, the principal university of Glasgow, quote, in terms of an article in the Financial Times. The most damaging prospect to the rest of the UK from rejecting a sterling currency union is that it will do to its own trade and business activity. Wherever the political tactics involve, it will be tantamined to economic vandalism. It is not just the yes campaign that detects from the behaviour of the no campaign a deliberate attempt to create uncertainty and fear. The academic observers who have set impartiality on these matters in commentary cannot be impugned and detect exactly the same thing. As far as the surveyion poll is concerned, I suppose that we have a chance and opportunity each month to look at the surveyion poll and to find out what did not seem to, for some apparent reason, get into the record poll. I think that the answer this week might be in page 10, because the poll asked the voting behaviour of the 1,000 women that they polled. They found that the Scottish National Party could expect 43 per cent support from the women polled. The Labour Party, 27 per cent. I have to say that many people consider to be unlikely that the SNP could ever repeat the landslide of 2011. According to the surveyion poll that Johann Lamont seems to be so pleased about, the SNP support among women over that period has increased. The Labour support has declined. On the basis of a poll, it is only one poll of women voters. A very, very important part of the population of Scotland, if there was an election now, the SNP could expect to have even more members and the Labour Party considerably left. Johann Lamont I wonder why people call the First Minister arrogant. He did not answer the question he was asked on a serious question of the currency. The First Minister quotes one person. I would be here all day quoting all of those independent experts who say that his lack of a plan B is creating grave, grave uncertainty for families across this country. John McFall, former chair of the Treasury Select Committee, will only allow us to, we are only supposed to quote people who agrees with the First Minister, but sadly for the First Minister, in a democracy the rest of us are entitled to an opinion. John McFall, former chair of the Treasury Select Committee, and I said that Governor Kearney was asked specifically about the potential of capital flight in the event of independence and said his contingency measures. He continued, It is clear that the Bank of England is putting plans in place to prevent a run on Scotland's bank that would be caused by Alex Salmond's complete failure to set out a credible position on currency. That would put the livelihoods of millions of Scots at risk. Does the First Minister care that his plans for separation could lead to the devastation of the Scottish economy? Is Andrew Larch, the former deputy governor of the Bank of England, right when he describes the First Minister's currency plan as a huge deception? Rather than quote John McFall, estimable man, though he is, but a Labour politician about what Mark Carney said, why do we not quote Mark Carney directly? I welcome what Mark Carney had to say yesterday, because he was fulfilling his responsibilities in an impartial way as Governor of the Bank of England to calm financial markets. John Lamont seems to suggest that all this uncertainty has got nothing to do with the better together campaign, and she did not like the quote from Professor Anton Muscatelli, the principal of Glasgow University. Then, perhaps, shall we take a quote from the better together zone website? The people who, of course, have no interest in creating instability, no interest in fear mongering, no interest whatsoever in project fear. The better together website says that financial market speculation could lead to capital flight and higher interest rates. Ultimately, if markets weren't calmed, Scotland would have to adopt its own separate currency in time of crisis. You and the better together campaign are involved in trying to create uncertainty. They tried to create uncertainty on inward investment, but unfortunately that has moved to an all-time high since 1997. They tried to create uncertainty on jobs, saying that jobs would be lost because of the referendum. However, what we found is that we now have record employment in Scotland and record women employment in Scotland. Just as the attempts on inward investment in jobs failed, so the attempts to try and generate instability in the financial markets will fail as well, thanks to the resolute intervention and action of the Governor of the Bank of England. The person charged with responsibility who has fulfilled that responsibility, and I welcome Mark Carney's intervention. Johann Lamont Minister, as to understand, his prospectus of independence without knowing what the currency is, is what creates uncertainty. Only the First Minister would blame those who point that out to him as being those who are causing the uncertainty. For the rest of us, we want the best option for the people of Scotland, keeping the pound in a currency union with economic stability and political representation in the United Kingdom. That is the best option. That is why the majority of doctors, the majority of women and the majority of people of Scotland are proudly voting no to protect families across this country and in the future. The Governor of the Bank of England was answering a question about savers, taking their money out of Scottish banks and investing it in other countries, because Alex Salmond cannot tell us what Scotland's currency would be after a yes vote. Mark Carney clearly thinks that the risk is real because he has revealed that the Bank of England has contingency plans for it. Before the financial crisis hits, shouldn't the First Minister you know, if it were only your own future you were putting at risk, we would expect that kind of answer. This is a risk for families and their future across the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom in Scotland, and it deserves better than cat-calling from back benches for the SNP. So let me ask this question again. Before that financial crisis hits, shouldn't the First Minister end the currency uncertainty by simply telling us what is his plan b? The point about scaremongering has just been made for me by Johann Lamont's question. Of course, we should all bow to the Labour Party's expertise in financial crisis hitting. If we remember, the financial crisis that was analysed by the former Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, who said that it was the failure of the Labour Government to act made the financial crisis much, much worse. The financial crisis has brought the strongest suit of the Labour Party or Johann Lamont. However, what is certain is that the Governor fulfilled his responsibility yesterday, seeking to make sure that he was doing his job, doing his responsibility, and stopping the instability that I believe is caused as he delivered a campaign tactic by the Unionist parties. I pointed out that he said that inward investment was going to be the term that it has not. Jobs were going to be lost were it record job numbers, and just as these tactics have failed, so have they, well well, the tactics. Johann Lamont says what currency will we use, we shall use the pound. That is why we have made it clear and adamant. That is why we are saying that, not because we want to get drawn into the game of the Unionist parties in attempted great instability. I welcome the intervention of the Governor of the Bank of England and what another of the Unionist campaign's foxes has just been shot. Ruth Davidson To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. No plans in the near future. The First Minister has heroically tried to spin the Governor's words as a win for him. It is not. We are the side that is advocating the best solution for Scotland, which is keeping the pound in its current stable form. We are the side that backs our banks having a trusted lender of last resort. We are the side that knows that you cannot get divorced and still keep the joint account. He is the one who is throwing a hand grenade into this mix. He is the reason that the Governor is now being forced to prepare contingencies, and he is the reason why the headlines this morning are talking about capital flight and chaos. He demands independence. He claims that nothing will change, but when there is a fallout he protests that somebody else should have to clear it up. We know that the First Minister hates taking responsibility for anything, but is he really suggesting that this is the fault of everybody else? The First Minister? No, I am suggesting that it is the responsibility of the no campaign, who is deliberately trying to create instability as a campaign tactic. I am not blaming other people. I am allocating that responsibility to the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and their alliance in the no campaign. I am applauding the action of the Governor of the Bank of England fulfilling his responsibilities, recognising that those responsibilities continue after September 18. That is exactly what a Governor of the Bank of England is meant to do, but for the Unionist parties to deny, given the evidence that I have quoted, that they are engaged in trying to engender fear and instability is extraordinary. Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that there will be no inward investment? Why did the Conservative Party say that there was already loss of jobs? Isn't the evidence that that scaremongering has been confounded just as the attempt to create instability in the financial markets will be confounded as well? The issue for the First Minister is that he knows the currency union that we have right now, one that works only because we are part of the United Kingdom, is the very best option for Scotland. The stability and the security of the UK pound is trusted and understood the world over, and it is why he is desperate to salvage as much of it as he can. The First Minister's problem is not that he does not get it, it is that he cannot sell it. Every option that he has on the table from a currency deal without a willing partner to sterlingisation to an 18-month transition to who knows what is something that is less than we have now, and that people of Scotland understand that. Why should we settle for second best on the currency when a simple no-vote lets us keep everything that we already have? I have to say that the people of Scotland watch will not believe that David Cameron's Government is worth keeping for Scotland. We have had substantial evidence on the social attitude survey that having a sterling union is the overwhelming choice of the Scottish people. We are advocating a currency union because we think that it is in the best interests of the people of Scotland. A majority in that survey also believed that that is what will happen after independence, and that they are right to believe that. Why are they right to believe that? Because we know the consequences of the unionist parties attempting to keep all of the financial assets of the United Kingdom for themselves. If they keep the financial assets, they end up with the liabilities, they end up saddled with the UK's debt, and it is incredible, as we discussed last week, to believe that George Osborne or Ed Balls want to say that we are not going to take up to £5 billion a year that the Scottish Government has said that we will take our financial share of the UK debt. We do not want that. We are going to saddle that on English taxpayers the inevitable consequence of the refusal to countenance the currency union. Then we come to where people will say that the decision should lie. I thought when we had the Jackson Carlaw manning the barricades, when we had the comment from Ruth Davidson, which we all know incidentally, went into saying that she would support a currency union if it was in the best interests of the Scottish people. I thought that we did acknowledgement from the Conservatives that they regarded the vote and verdict to the Scottish people as important. Let me say to Ruth Davidson on September 18 that the people in Scotland vote for what is in the white paper and the proposals to keep the pound. That is exactly what will happen. Any Scottish politician who does not recognise the sovereign choice of the Scottish people will pay a heavy price. Incidentally, that is something that the Conservatives are long used to in political campaigns in Scotland. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Meetings will discuss matters of relevance to the people of Scotland. Bank of England Governors tend to be cautious. Bank of England Governors tend to be cautious, so Mr Carney being open about crisis plans for a run in the banks is serious. The First Minister has, as usual, spent the last 20 minutes ducking and diving, so let's see if he can give a straight answer to this. Can he confirm that only with a vote to leave the UK will those crisis plans be needed? I could do better than that, because the Governor yesterday said that his plans were in place, regardless of the outcome of the referendum, because that is exactly what the central bank will do and its continuing role. It makes his contingency plans to stabilise financial markets. It is quite simple. I could put it this way to Willie Rennie. The unionist campaign, better together, Labour and Conservatives, is trying to destabilise financial markets. That is why it is on its website. The Governor of the Bank of England is seeking to stabilise financial markets. Let's hear the First Minister. That is his responsibility. That is why people in Scotland, like myself, will welcome the actions of the Governor of the Bank of England and deprecate the politics of Willie Rennie and his colleagues. Willie Rennie. Only the First Minister could claim a warning on the run in the banks was a triumph for his cause, yet claiming credit for a crisis he caused makes him look like they all pretend it. The Governor of the Bank of England is a cautious and learned man who the First Minister has just praised. The Governor has been open about his crisis plan B. Isn't it time that the First Minister tells us his? First Minister. Of course, the Governor was asked to contingency plans and said that it would not be helpful to spell out what the contingency plans were, because that is because he is a responsible Governor of the Bank of England. In terms of what Mark Carney said when he was shooting down the fears, if Willie Rennie could just accept that the Governor has done a very effective job in stopping the instability that Willie Rennie and his colleagues were so interested in creating. However, as I said, in terms of the financial stability questions, this is the Governor, I will reiterate whatever happens in the vote, the Bank of England will be a continuing authority for financial stability for some period of time. He was making the obvious point that they would discharge their responsibilities. I know that the campaign and the let's all enjoy the next five weeks that we are going to take part vigorously. However, there is a responsibility, a responsibility to explain to the people of Scotland that everybody in this chamber should be acting in Scotland's best interests. That is what this Government will do. I really wish and hope that the unionist parties can bring themselves to believe that this prosperous independent nation is well capable of independence. We have agreed unanimously in this chamber last week to let it be reflected in the campaign rhetoric. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reports that an independent Scotland will not be able to support the state pension. First Minister? Well, as one of the richest countries in the world, there is no doubt that independent Scotland could afford a high-quality state pension system. Social protection spending as a percentage both of GDP and tax revenues is lower in Scotland than the rest of the UK and has been for each of the last five years. I was interested in the responsible comments of the UK Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, who confirmed that state pensions built up prior to independence would continue to be paid to the people of Scotland. On 6 May, he said, it is what you are putting into the national insurance system prior to independence. It is entitled to that money. For the First Parliament in independent Scotland, existing pensions were the state pensions updated by the triple lock. That means that pension will increase by 2.5 per cent in line with the increase in inflation or in line with the increase in average earnings, whichever of those free is the highest. I hope that Christine Grahame welcomes that reassurance. As we seek to explain to the people of Scotland that yet another of project fear's favourite stories is based on no foundation whatsoever. I have to say as a pensioner that I welcome that assurance and I thank you for a comprehensive answer. However, there remains the issue of private pensions paid now or in the future, which many pensioners fear will be under threat with independence. Does the First Minister agree with me that these are a matter of contract and payable under the terms of contract whether in an independent Scotland, are UK or elsewhere, and that, with a yes vote, we have an opportunity to use Scotland's wealth to develop sustainable and better pensions for Scotland's pensioners now and in the future? I think that I can claim an unimpeachable authority for that point. That, of course, is the Daily Mail newspaper. There has been a number of speculations in that and other newspapers about the position of private pensions. One of the yes campaigners, who wants to remain anonymous, probably because he is an ex-employee of the Daily Mail, wrote to the Daily Mail pension provider asking about such claims and received the following reply from the pension provider DMGT. I can confirm that, should there be a yes vote in the 2014 Scotland referendum, the benefits that you have accrued in the scheme will be unaffected. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to telephone me. I think that we should all telephone the Daily Mail why their own pension provider is giving the reassurance to their pensioners, which unfortunately, as yet, they are not prepared to give to their readers. Whatever the Daily Mail said, we have all read what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance said to his cabinet colleagues when he warned that the volatility of oil revenues would compromise the affordability of pensions in an independent Scotland. Yesterday, we saw that oil revenues for last year were half what the Scottish Government had told us they would be. Does not that just show us how right Mr Swinney was to flag up the threat to pensions from a yes vote next month? First Minister. If an erring sense of timing Ian Gray has managed to make that point on the day that Sir Donald Mackay, 25 years adviser to successive Labour and Conservatives Secretary of State for Scotland, the YIN of Oil Economists in Scotland has described the OBR figures as precisely wrong and produced forecasts which back the Scottish Government's assessment of oil revenues. Therefore, I welcome the fact that Ian Gray would wish to mention oil and its forecast. The difficulty for the unionist parties is this apparent suggestion that oil and gas is some tragic burden on the people of Scotland. When, for every other country in the world, it is a substantial asset, that substantial asset will continue, and the best thing about it is that, at last, the resources of Scotland will go to benefit the people of Scotland, not the London Treasury. The official Scottish Government pensions paper has 30 key proposals, but only four of those proposals are costed. Given the importance of pensions to the people of Scotland, will the First Minister agree to update his pensions paper and put costings next to all 30 proposals? I do not accept the premise of the question that the white paper was quite specific about our proposals on pension. The guarantee that pensions would continue to be paid and why they would continue to be paid is the explanation of affordability, the proposal for the triple law and the consideration of the retirement age consideration, because that is an important aspect to meet the Scottish population. That has been a significant body of work, and I suggest that the member re-consults it, because he will see that the Scottish Government's proposals on pension give more guarantees, more assurance and, above all, more fairness than anything that has come from the Tory Labour Government. To ask the First Minister whether there will be food banks in an independent Scotland. We will seek to eradicate the need for food banks. As one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, the powers of independence can shape a fairer welfare system and ensure that many more of our people feel the benefit of that wealth. Is Jackie Baillie aware that the Trussell Trust has seen a 400 per cent increase in people using food banks in the last year? That includes more than 22,000 children, yet Labour on Sunday suggested that when the Deputy First Minister raised this hugely important issue, she was just creating a distraction. I saw today that another well-known Labour commentator described the debate on national health service and independence as another distraction. Has Labour really got to the point that they can't face issues like food banks in poverty in Scotland without calling them a campaign distraction? Address the issue, because what it tells you is that thousands of our fellow citizens are suffering and being covered in poverty by policies of Westminster Government that we did not vote for. Can I thank the First Minister for his response and just point out to him that, rather than just talking about it, we on this side of the chamber are engaged in doing something about it? On Monday morning, Nicola Sturgeon in an interview with GMS acknowledged that there would be food banks in an independent Scotland. By lunchtime, she said that there wouldn't be any food banks at all if people voted for independence. Isn't it the case that countries like Ireland have food banks when one in 10 people are living in food poverty despite being independent, demonstrating that it is in fact a matter of political will rather than constitutional change? Isn't it the case that, while the SNP offers vague and uncosted promises on welfare at the same time as giving tax cuts to big businesses, Nicola Sturgeon's first answer is the right one? We are meant to say that a policy over a period of time to eradicate the need for food banks in Scotland has criticised by the Labour Party. I suspect that that is the position that the no campaign has got themselves into. Let me quote from better together Aberdeenshire. Food banks are Scotland becoming a normal European country. Far from being a sign of failure, they are an enriching example of human compassion, faith and social cohesion. Everybody salutes the work of those who are going to the assistance of their fellow citizens, but are those on the yes side of this campaign do not believe that the huge growth in food banks in Scotland is a sign of Scotland becoming a normal European country? We seek an aspire to have a society where justice and fairness is at the centre of our social policy. We know that that will not be implemented from Westminster, not from the current Tory Government and certainly not from a Labour Party, which has already said that it will accept the Tory Party's spending plans. As the Labour Party is so far gone in this debate, you are prepared to defend the expansion of food banks as a sign of success of this union. Question 6, Liz Smith. To ask the First Minister how many two-year-olds from work-less families will receive free childcare at the start of the new school session. Around 3,400 two-year-olds from work-less families will take up their new entitlement to a free nursery place this month. Indeed, the first two-year-olds to benefit from this policy started in Renfisher nurseries on Tuesday of this week. In total, we expect more than 8,000 two-year-olds from work-less households will benefit from the free nursery place over the course of this year, giving them a better start to their education and their parents a much better chance of finding work. Thank you First Minister. I think that every political party in this chamber is on record supporting improved childcare provision. It is very clear that the Scottish Government has now had to admit that several local authorities cannot deliver the full commitment of two-year-olds from work-less families in the timescale that they were promised. Can I therefore ask what information process is being used to advise those parents who were expecting to access those places just now? I do not agree with Liz Smith. She said in her press release on 4 August that she claims significant problems in six councils, Edinburgh, South Lanarkshire, Angus, Aberdeen, Midlovia and Murray. In every one of those councils, there is not a lack of capacity. Edinburgh and South Lanarkshire have the capacity they need. Angus, Midlovia and Murray will be using private nurseries to deliver the places. Some councils have already done that. There is no requirement to use their own facility and Aberdeen is using family centres. Facilities, in my opinion, are perfectly suited in particular to vulnerable young children. Liz Smith has raised a number of issues concerning education and the role of a spokesperson for education. She said that the curriculum for excellence would be a curriculum for confusion. Two months later, the curriculum for excellence was successfully introduced. She doubted whether the examination diet this year would be a success. She wanted to have the two diets of exams running simultaneously. As she might have noticed, the exams went forward over this summer with some considerable success. I know that she has been replaced as education spokesman by Mary Scanlon's sunny optimism. We all welcome that replacement, but given that she was wrong about curriculum for excellence and the examination diet, is it not possible that she is also going to be wrong in her predictions about lack of nursery places? The councils of Scotland are working hard to fulfil their statutory responsibilities, and that is exactly what they will do. Let us welcome the significant substantial expansion of nursery places to the people of Scotland. That is our first question. We now move to members' business. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.