 fyddwch i gweithio llwyddaeth a chawdd, ac i fynd i'r ffairgth Saturday, oedd y nidio uneddaeth ymddell, yn cyfan. That ends General Questions time. We now move to First Minister's question. Question 1. Johann Lamont. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. Now we're getting into the afternoon. Can I ask the First Minister what engagements he's planned for the rest of the day? Can I take the opportunity, since this is the First Minister's question since, to thank the people of Glasgow, every member of Team Scotland, all of their support staff, our wonderful Clyde Siders for all of their efforts in making the Commonwealth Games a magnificent show for the people of Scotland, and measures to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland? Of course, as someone who has lived and breathed the Commonwealth Games for the last 10 years, both as a family member and a citizen of Glasgow, I would join with the First Minister in endorsing everything that he has said about what a wonderful, a wonderful spectacle Glasgow and Scotland put on for the rest of the Commonwealth and the world. In the increasingly unlikely event that Scotland votes yes, and in the likely event that the First Minister is unable to agree a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom, could the First Minister tell the people of Scotland what is plan B? The First Minister will find the answer on page 110, and page 111 of the white paper will be taken forward to the people of Scotland. I say to Johann Lamont that the reason we are keeping the pound in a currency union and the reason we are so unambiguous about it is because we are appealing to the greatest authority of all, that is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland. After a yes vote in the referendum, I am sure that Johann Lamont will be among those who accept that sovereign will of the people of Scotland. It is Scotland's pound, it does not belong to George Osborne, it does not belong to Ed Balls, it is Scotland's pound and we are keeping it. I do not know what Nicola Sturgeon made of that answer, but I dare say that I shall read what she thought from her unnamed source in tomorrow's papers. Let me try again. Maybe I shall have more success than Alistair Darling in this regard. The First Minister has said on many occasions that he has a plan B, C, D, E and F if there is not a currency union. It is clear then that he has at least entertained the possibility that the currency union might not happen, so he claims to have a range of other options. Please share with us what is plan B. The options are on page 110 of the white paper. Those are for the euro that we do not support, a fixed or flexible exchange rate policy—perfectly viable but not as good as keeping sterling—and it also points out that we cannot be stopped from keeping the pound because it is an internationally tradable currency. Now that I have had to inform Johann Lamont of the page 110 of the white paper, will she not accept that the reason that the white paper puts forward the view of keeping sterling in a formal currency union is best for Scotland, is best for the rest of the United Kingdom, is our pound and we are keeping it? Johann Lamont might convince your back benches that it will not convince anybody who lives in the real world. Of course, the First Minister talks about his sovereign mandate. He talks about Scotland's sovereign mandate, but the Prime Minister of the rest of the United Kingdom will have a sovereign mandate to say no. It is not. It is not. It is not. Order, let us hear Ms Lamont. It is not for the First Minister. No matter how limitless he thinks his powers are to determine what is in the national interest of another country, that is not within his gift to decide. The First Minister has been told by all the relevant UK politicians and the civil servant running the treasury that there will not be a currency union. The First Minister has said that he has a range of other options. I do hope that the currency is not like the EU legal advice that he said he had when in fact he didn't. Let us take the First Minister at his word when he said that he had a plan B. Can he please just share with us and tell us what it is? First Minister, I just listed the four options of the white paper. I was interested John Lamont citing the Prime Minister of the nation saying, no, but isn't that exactly what Gordon Brown the previous Prime Minister warned about in the daily record of 2 June? He said, if the only propaganda that comes from the Conservatives is Britain says no, it is bound to have a reaction in Scotland. It is bound to make people feel they are talking down to us or are not taking seriously or are trying to bully us. So perhaps John Lamont should take the advice of the previous Prime Minister as opposed taking this better together, no alliance and citing David Cameron, the Tory Prime Minister. I think that there are three reasons why what the Prime Minister and George Osborne and Ed Balls say now and what they say the day after a yes vote in the referendum are two entirely different things. Firstly, there is the sovereign will of the Scottish people and many people will respect that sovereign will of the Scottish people. Secondly, this plan is in the best interests of Scotland, but it is also in the best interests of the rest of the United Kingdom. Businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom will not want to pay £600 million in transaction costs. Thirdly, Osborne Balls and the Prime Minister are not saying that they can stop us using the pound. They are saying now that they want to keep for themselves the asset of the Bank of England, nationalised in 1946, an asset and a bank that holds some 26 per cent of UK debt. But if you keep all of the assets of the United Kingdom, you end up with all of the liabilities of the United Kingdom, which amount after the work of George Osborne and Alistair Darling, amount to £1.3 trillion of debt. So we are expecting to believe that next year in the UK general election, George Osborne and Ed Balls are going to campaign round England and say that the people of Scotland want to take their share of that liability, but we want to keep the Bank of England. We want to give them a present of £5 billion a year. That is why the best interests of Scotland, the sovereign will of the Scottish people, will prevail. It is our pound and we are keeping it. I am not surprised that the First Minister is quoting from the daily record in June, rather than the daily record this morning. Three times today, and for many many times in the last two years, I have asked the First Minister about his plans for the currency. It is a serious matter for the people of Scotland. Each time, I get a response but never an answer to the question that people are asking. It is clear that the First Minister has a strategy to get Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, but what is becoming increasingly clear is that he does not have a plan for Scotland. For those of us who remember what the First Minister used to say, once the pound was a millstone round Scotland's neck, then the euro was Scotland's choice. His former deputy, Jim Sillers, says that we should have a separate Scottish currency and that the First Minister's plan is stupidity on stilts. The First Minister says that he is a range of options and a plan B, C, D, E and F. Do not the people of Scotland deserve to know which one it will be? If he does not tell us, which one will it be? If he does not tell us, is it not clear that, although he may have a plan to break up the United Kingdom, he does not have a plan for Scotland or the future of families across this country? I did point out that the options were contained in page 110 of the white paper. I pointed out that it was the euro. I answered this question two questions ago. I pointed out that it was the euro, which we do not support. I pointed out the fixed or flexible exchange rate, which are perfectly viable but not as good as keeping sterling in a formal currency union. I pointed out that you cannot be stopped from using our own currency. That is not even the position of the Conservative Party. You cannot be stopped from using sterling. All of these things—not just that I have done twice today—are in page 110 of the white paper. We are putting forward the position that we are appealing to the people of Scotland and their sovereign will in a referendum, which is why we are unambiguous. We think that the best position for Scotland, the best position for the rest of the United Kingdom, is to have a formal currency union. Therefore, it is our pound and we are keeping it in the interests of the Scottish people. I add the heartfelt thanks of myself and my party to those of the First Minister, to everyone who helped put on such fantastic Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. I add also to those mentioned all of the police and the armed forces that help to keep Scots and visitors safe throughout the duration of the Games. Can I ask the First Minister when he will like to meet the Prime Minister? The First Minister is trying to lead the Scottish public up the garden path here. He is trying to pretend to people that he can deliver a currency union with the rest of the UK if there were to be independence, and he knows that he can't. The First Minister often likes to pretend that he speaks for all of Scotland, but he is now claiming to speak for all of England, all of Wales and all of Northern Ireland, too. Can we all just take a step back and can he admit to the people of Scotland in this chamber right now that if there were to be a yes vote, a currency union is not in his gift to give? First Minister. I have just set out the reasons why I think what is said the day after a yes vote in the referendum is different from what has been said now. I accept that, apparently, George Osborne and the Prime Minister have drawn a line in the sand on this matter, but, as Ruth Davidson well knows, lines in the sand have a habit of being washed away. Therefore, I welcomed Ruth Davidson's revelation in the 15th of June this year, in the Sunday Post, that she will back a currency union in the event of a yes vote if that is what is best for Scotland. I can only assume that Ruth Davidson is responding, as Johann Lamont did not seem to, that she would accept the sovereign will of the Scottish people. Mind you, there is less enthusiasm than there is from the deputy leader Jackson Carlaw sitting alongside her. On 21 February, he said after a yes vote, he would man the barricades for the pound after independence. Can I say to Ruth Davidson and to Jackson Carlaw, I will be there on the barricades with the Conservative party? Ruth Davidson, a slightly kamikaze approach to be quoting newspapers today, First Minister. We can all trade quotes, but you are so predictable that I have the reference that you are referring to. In June, I think that we have got to look at what is best for Scotland. I think that monetary union we have is the best option for Scotland, which is why I am fighting to keep it as part of the United Kingdom. That was the actual quote that I gave. The First Minister's answer is to settle down, Ms Davidson. So far, we have had a nonsense on skills argument that a sovereign will will make this happen. If the First Minister's preferred option was a link with the dollar, a yes vote from Scotland does not mean that Barack Obama has to submit to the sovereign will to have a currency union there. His other argument has been that it is in the rest of the UK's interest to have a currency union. Let's look at this, because the vast majority of the people in England and Wales said in June that it is not in their interests. The First Minister of Wales has said that it is not in their interests. The permanent secretary of the treasury has said that it is not in England, Wales or Northern Ireland's interests. The chancellor, the shadow chancellor, the chief secretary to the treasury has said that it is not in their interests. The markets have said that it is not in their interests. But I didn't ask the First Minister to tell me anything about sovereign will or what's in the best interests of the rest of the UK. I asked him whether a currency union was in his gift. It's not, and all the wishing in the world doesn't make it so. So if he can't deliver, we are back where we started, needing a preferred plan B, not a range of options, a preferred plan B. He must have one, so what is it? I've listed the currency options twice to John Lamont for page 110 of the white paper. I can certainly do it again, but I've done it twice as the record will show. I'm talking about records. I think Ruth Davidson might come to regret only reading out that quote and not going a couple of lines down, because she was then asked what would happen if Scotland voted yes for independence, and she said that she would back a currency union if that is what was best for Scotland, a Sunday post 15th of June. Ruth Davidson is there, and the full quotation is there, as she very well knows what happened when she was then asked what would happen in the event of a yes vote. I anticipated that that was because she acknowledged the importance of the sovereign will of the Scottish people. I've also said that it's not as enthusiastic as manning the barricades with her deputy leader sitting alongside her, but nonetheless it's quite important. Ruth Davidson tries to give the impression that this argument, that it's best for the rest of the UK, is something that is held by myself alone, despite the very substantial arguments. I noticed a letter in the Financial Times from Jim Spout, who is the head of intelligent finance, Professor David Simpson, a highly distinguished Scottish economist, Angus Tullard, Michelle Thompson, Professor Sorddonald Mackay, 25 years adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland, Sir George Matheson and James Scott, former chief executive of Scottish financial exercise. He said that there's a positive outlook for the financial sector because the likelihood of a currency union is strong. It is not only in the best interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK but of our financial sector industry. I said earlier on that the issue was not whether Scotland could keep the pound. I assume that Ruth Davidson accepts, as I was telling him the other night, that it cannot be prevented from keeping the pound. We cannot be prevented from keeping an internationally tradable currency. I would like to say also that, in terms of the debt, there's no doubt now that the Treasury has accepted full liability for the debt but, presumably in reasonableness, the Conservative Party, the Unionist Coalition will accept if the Conservatives, if the Westminster Government tries to keep all of the assets of the United Kingdom, like the Bank of England, then they end up lumbered with the debt. The point that I was making seems to me incredible that Ed Balls and George Osburn will go round campaigning in a UK general election telling the people of England that they were offered up to £5 billion of debt interest payments as a reasonable proposition put forward by the people of Scotland, but they don't want it because they want to have exclusive control of the Bank of England. That is why what they say now and what they say the day after a yes vote are two entirely different things. That is why it's our pound and we are keeping it. The First Minister will be well aware that Sturco will be closing their call centre in Brorach and will make all 21 local workers redundant. This is a devastating blow to the small rural community with a population only 1,200. Will the First Minister agree to meet me and send a beacon of hope to all the affected families in the north? I will certainly arrange for that meeting. I saw the announcement. I know that Mr Swinney and his officials have been engaged already on those matters, but I will certainly meet David Stewart and his constituents. I agree with him that 21 jobs can be sound like a relatively small number. In a small rural community, proportionately, it is a huge number. I think that those matters have to be a real concern for companies when making such announcements. Therefore, we want to be sure that the views of David Stewart's constituents are fully taken into account as we discuss with Sturco how we can move forward on this issue. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Issues of importance to the people of Scotland. Will the First Minister accept that he has not been fair to people in Scotland? He says that he has an alternative currency plan, but yet the First Minister cannot even bring himself to describe the consequences. After a lifetime of campaigning for independence, when the big moment of truth came on Tuesday, he could not explain his currency plan in front of a million people. Surely he should have another go at an answer now. People in Scotland do not get another go in September, so please can he describe the consequences to Scotland of his alternative plan? I have laid out page 110 of the white paper that you could have the Euro that we do not support, although previously the Liberal Democrats and myself supported it. You can have a fixed and flexible exchange rate, perfectly viable but not as good as the option that is being put forward as plan A in the white paper. We cannot be prevented from using sterling, using the pound that is our currency and we cannot be prevented from keeping it. I have also pointed out that the reason why the white paper puts it forward in these terms is that we are looking for the sovereign will of the Scottish people to back the plan to keep sterling in that currency union. I know that, as a liberal democrat, Willie Rennie will be first if not to demand the barricades to accept that the sovereign will of the Scottish people should prevail. That is why it is in the white paper, that is why we are backing it and that is why it is our pound and we are keeping it. He knows those page numbers off by heart but he cannot give the answer to the question. The First Minister often refers to the fiscal commission, but I suspect that most people do not have a copy of the fiscal commission handy at home. Their names are not on the leaflets that are sent to every house. People do not know what they are recommending. They do not knock on the doors. The First Minister does. They are supposed to be his ideas. What are they and why can he bring himself to give us a description of the consequences of his alternative? Why can he give an answer? The First Minister? I am glad that Willie Rennie mentioned the fiscal commission, of course, to Nobel laureates, to highly distinguished economists, but I was not quoting from the fiscal commission, I was quoting from the white paper presented to the people of Scotland in page 110. If I remember right, Willie Rennie was complaining about the amount we were spending promoting the white paper and giving the information to the people of Scotland. How can he complain about it in the one hand and say that this information is not now available? On the consequences of other currency options, Professor David Bell, when he gave evidence to this Parliament's committee, pointed out that it is the UK debt, not the Scottish debt, and the UK has agreed that it will pay back the debt. That is the first thing to say. It might be extremely attractive for Scotland to be in a position where the UK sees the financial assets but is not prepared to accept that it means that it has the liabilities. It would be extremely attractive for Scotland to be debt-free and would be in balance of payments and budget surplus, but it is not a reasonable position to put forward. That is why in the white paper in the articulation that we are offering to pay our fair share of the massive liabilities built up by the likes of George Osborne is dependent, of course, and properly, on having a fair share of the assets as well. That is an entirely reasonable, responsible proposition. It is the proposition that is in the white paper. That is why, as part of a formal currency union, it is our pound and we intend to keep it. Aileen McLeod, to ask the First Minister what impact privatisation of the NHS in England will have on the budget that is available to the Scottish Government. Well, extremely serious. As people in this chamber will know, our budget for public services in Scotland is currently allocated as a relative proportion of the spending in England that is determined by the Barnett formula. The impact on the austerity and privatisation agenda being forced on the NHS in England will consequently see our budget eroded. For every £10 lost to the NHS in England, Scotland will lose approximately £1 in funding for public services. It is a serious question, a serious issue. Therefore, the idea that we can be immune from the privatisation agenda being pursued by the national health service by the Government in England is not reasonable in terms of how Scotland is financed. The way to defend the national health service is to have control of Scotland's finances and therefore not vulnerable to the privatisation and fragmentation carried forward in England. Does the First Minister therefore agree with me that the only way that we can protect Scotland's NHS from Westminster's on-going austerity cuts and privatisation agenda and ensure that it remains true to its founding principle of healthcare free at the point of need and remains firmly in public hands is by voting yes on 18 September. In terms of expressions of that, I think that Dr Philippa Whitford, somebody, as far as I know, has never been involved in politics before, but one of Scotland's prominent breast surgeons who has spoken out so articulately on this issue, exactly because she can see the danger to the national health service in Scotland, which is the consequence of privatisation south of the border. We are fortunate at Scotland that we have policy control of health. That has allowed us to protect our health service from the deeply damaging so-called reforms that Westminster Governments have made to the NHS in England, not just over the last two or three years, over the last 15 years. While devolution, we can set a different policy. Without independence, our budget will be beholden to the whims of a privatisation agenda. That is why, to protect Scotland's national public health service, we need independence and control of Scotland. Given that the Scottish Government has received £1.3 billion by its own admission in consequentials from Westminster, specifically for health in this Parliament alone, can the First Minister confirm when, during the summer recess, the Scottish Government's referendum advice became so desperate that ministers felt that their only recourse was to indulge in malicious, unsubstantiated, shameful and shabby spear-mongering about the future of Scotland's wholly devolved NHS as a public service, to which every party in this Parliament is profoundly committed? We seem to have touched the raw nerve of the no campaign, and certainly we are going to take no lectures on scaremongering from a no campaign that is entirely best and scaremongering for the Scottish people. The position is clear, and Jackson Carlaw of all people, since he previously believed in fiscal autonomy for Scotland, understands it and understands it full well. He knows that every penny piece of consequentials for the health service has been passed on to the health service in Scotland. He also knows that the entire purpose of a privatisation agenda is to reduce expenditure, public expenditure, on the health service. Therefore, it follows. If expenditure is reduced in England and we are still part of the Barnett formula, then there will be less money available for public services in Scotland. That is why the threat to Scotland's public health service is real unless we control Scotland's finances in the way that he once believed in, and we believe in, and the people of Scotland will back on 18 September. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to First ScotRail being fined more than £2 million since 2011 for running too few coaches in a practice known as short-forming. It is a serious question, but we should remember that 99.7% of trains ran with the planned capacity this year, and 0.3% of the journeys did not meet capacity. In any of those terms, that is a strong performance. It is also a performance that is significantly better than when the previous administration was in charge. In 2007, for example, the penalties that Mark Griffin spoke about for not meeting capacity totaled more than £830,000. The figure now stands at £574,000, which is a drop of 31 per cent on the Labour record. I and everyone in the chamber would like to see that at 100 per cent, not at 99.7 per cent. In fairness, Mark Griffin should deflect that the record this year, which he is rightly concerned, is significantly better than when his party was in office. Does the First Minister agree that a publicly-owned rail operator within the interests of customers and services before profit would be best placed to address issues such as short-forming? Will he support proposals that were outlined originally in Scottish Labour's devolution commission, now adopted by the United Kingdom Labour Party, to allow publicly-owned companies to bid for the ScotRail franchise? Does he agree that it is a good example of a progressive Scotland working within the United Kingdom, leading to more progressive policies across Britain? The First Minister is a pity that he did not think of changing the law when he was in government in this chamber, but he will have noted that I have spoken out publicly that I think that the publicly-provided west coast service should be able to bid publicly for that line. It also should be noted that the rail network has a 90 per cent satisfaction rating among passengers that compares to 82 per cent for the rest of the UK. There is still a lot more to be done both in terms of what Mark Griffin has examined but also the investment in the rail network, including £430 million in new rolling stock to fund the 38 new-class free 80 trains. I know and understand Mark Griffin's concerns, but he will agree that there is a substantial reasonable level of satisfaction in the progress that is being made, albeit that there is still more progress to be made. Mr First Minister, what the Scottish Government's position is on the Credit Suisse Research Institute report on the success of small states? The report by Credit Suisse Research highlights the very strong performance of small independent countries across a whole range of social and economic measures. The importance of the UN human development index is that it does not just look at economic performance alone, it looks across the range of social and economic criteria to evaluate and say how states should be judged. However, the report adds to a great chorus of voices who agree that Scotland can be a successful independent nation. For example, Credit Suisse estimates in that report that Scotland would be ranked ahead of the UK on the UN development index. Thank you, First Minister, for that answer. Is it clear that two key findings in the report are that economies of scale for larger countries does not necessarily benefit their population and that it is less costly to fund public services in a small country rather than a large one? Does the First Minister agree that this report directly contradicts the scale mongering of the likes of Alistair Darling, who could not even bring himself to admit that Scotland could be a prosperous and successful independent nation? Of course that the report adds a great deal of strength to the view that there is a substantial body of evidence that small countries in Europe and beyond are extremely successful economically. I think that we are reaching a consensus in these matters. Are we not? We are reaching a consensus that Scotland can be a successful independent country. There is nobody in this chamber who surely is going to disagree with that point. If anybody is disagreeing with that point, they should speak up now that Scotland can be a successful independent country. What I take that is unanimity in this chamber. So let the message go out to the people of Scotland that now, if established, we can be the question to be answered on September 18, should we be? I think that it will be a yes answer. The next item of business is a member's debate. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly and I'll give a few moments to make sure that happens.