 I think that we get the measures, Mr Mackay, so they can contact in tendures. We now move to First Minister's questions. Question number one, Johann Lamont. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what engagements he's planned for the rest of the day. First Minister. Engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Johann Lamont. Thank you. Could the First Minister give me an honest assessment of how our schools are doing? First Minister. It's probably better to give the assessment of the Account Commission on Attainment, say, page 6. Performance has improved against all 10 of the attainment measures we examined over the last decade, or page 18 of the report. Attainment improved by 4 per cent for the measures S4 level between 2004 and 2013. S5 and S6 levels, attainment improved between 5 and 10 per cent. The vast majority of the improvements in attainment have been made in the last five years. I think that seems a pretty fair summary. Johann Lamont. I'm glad that the First Minister mentioned that report because I think we should look at it in some detail. The Audit Scotland report does paint a slightly different picture from what the First Minister has said. It said that international comparisons show that the academic performance of Scotland's pupils is static at best and in relative decline to others at worst. The report said that, in recent years, international attainment surveys have provided evidence that Scotland's educational attainment levels relative to some other countries are falling. To emphasise the point, later on in the report it repeated, Scotland's performance levels relative to some other countries are also falling. Can the First Minister confirm that that is what Audit Scotland said about our schools and tell us what he's doing about it? I can confirm. You see the two quotes that I gave from the report because let's talk about it in some detail. The one that says that attainment improved by 4 per cent S4 and S5 and S6 has been 5 and 10 per cent. It then goes on to say that the vast majority of the improvements in attainment have been made in the last five years. Of course, the reason for saying that is that the last internationally recognised study is the PISA study and we had the 2012 figures. Unlike the previous PISA study, over the previous few years of when the Labour Party was in power, when Scotland's international position was declining across all of the ranges, the last study showed that Scotland's position had remained the same. That is the first time that decline under Labour has been reversed in the attainment to the PISA study. That is why I suspect the Account Commission report pointed out that the vast majority of improvements in attainments have been over the last five years. I don't know if John Lamont finds it at all embarrassing that the international comparisons that she cite show that Scotland's position was declining when the Labour Party was in power, but that report shows that now, over the last five years in particular, attainment levels are improving. Is it not a substantial credit to pupils and teachers of Scotland, their commitment to our school system under the most difficult circumstances of Westminster-induced austerity that they have managed to bring on such a performance? Rwy'n dechomb이 i ddweud, gan maen nhw i chi'n ddweud, wrth gan eich oeddem y chyfnodau i'r cyfrif Secondly, ond nid oedd gennym i ddim gyd. Arnau'r cyfan dda, bydd e'n unrhyw, a mae'n mynd i byw rhai o'r Roddodd Sculleriaith. Ond dyna dros i ddwygnidig, mae'n fawr o'r Roddodd Sculleriaith yn eich ddweud o'r rhaid. Roddodd Sculleriaith, ddim ddwyno, i hynny, ein cyfloglithau o'r brod maen nhw i'n with other countries in the UK identifies a much slower pace of improvement for Scotland. The report went on and I quote,"The pace of improvement remains slow as overall levels of attainment have only improved marginally." Why could that be? The report says, between 2010-11 and 2012-13, education revenue spending reduced by £184 million in real terms—5 per cent. Can the First Minister confirm that that is what Audit Scotland said about our schools and tell us what he is doing about it? First Minister? Before we slip away from the reality that the international performance was declining when Labour was in power and has now the attainment that has been improving, particularly over the last five years with the SNP in power, let's not slip away from that rather important point that I know the Labour benches want to see re-emphasised. Now let's turn to the finance that's available. It's certainly true that real spending on education has declined in the years of the three years of the study and they put the decline at 5 per cent. That is hardly surprising is it because real spending available to Scotland from Westminster declined over revenue by 4.1 per cent over that period of time. If you exclude health where we believe you've got to protect the real health budget for very obvious reasons because our commitment to the national health service, then the decline in Scotland's spending is much greater than 5 per cent, significantly greater than 5 per cent. Does Johann Lamont not realise that the declines in spending are the reality of Scotland's fate under the austerity measures first pursued by the Labour Party and continued by her colleagues as she put it yesterday in the Conservative Party? Johann Lamont, those are the colleagues who supported the SNP's budget between 2007 and 2011. A budget that the late lamented David McLeachy said was the next best thing to a Tory budget itself, so we don't need any lectures in that regard. The First Minister has ignored the comments that I identified in that report. Of course, the excerpts that I have just read out were in Audit Scotland's original report, and that was before the Scottish Government got their hands on it. In the final report, those criticisms disappear because the Scottish Government didn't want the public to know. The decline in standards taken out, the fact that the rest of the UK is improving faster than Scotland, is taken out. In the draft report, the truth about our schools was in them, but in the final report, it was watered down. We have got entitled to know who took that decision. Is it not the case that the first casualty of this Government is truth, and is it not the case that, just as with everything else, the First Minister does not trust the people of Scotland with the truth? The most remarkable decline in standards is the decline in the standards of Johann Lamont's questioning. We are now at the stage where we have to impugn the integrity of Audit Scotland from Johann Lamont to try and make a point. The problem for Johann Lamont is that the comparisons with the Labour Party do not rely just on the Audit Scotland report, an organisation of integrity and outstanding integrity, whose report it was, the account commission published today. It relies on the PISA statistics. The PISA statistics show that Scotland's performance was declining when Johann Lamont was a minister. I do not hold her personally responsible, but she is jointly and severally liable for that decline, and the attainment has improved since the SNP came to power. That is a substantial achievement under the circumstances of austerity. Johann Lamont does not seem to like the fact that she described the Tories as her colleagues. If she does not like it, then why did she say it yesterday? Or even more important, not just what she says, the problem for Johann Lamont is that she is standing shoulder to shoulder, hand in glove with the Conservative Party. There is no point in trying to complain when people point out that she says that her colleagues next thing you know should be calling them comrades in the Conservative Party. I say to the Labour benches the price that they will pay for their association with their colleagues will be a high one indeed, and it will be one of the arguments that will take Scotland forward to a yes vote this coming September. Let us hear Ms Davidson to ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. First Minister. No plans in the near future, but I think that the comrades' outfit just sums up the question. Ruth Davidson, I take compliments wherever they are preferred. I do not get many, but I will take them when I get them. In committee last week, the Scottish Government's chief economic adviser was asked by my colleague Murdo Fraser if his office had done any additional work on setup costs of an independent Scotland beyond the white paper, and the answer was no. Can the First Minister answer the same question this week? Has any further work been done by the Scottish Government on how much it would cost to set up any newly independent Scottish state? What was said in committee is absolutely correct. Our work was contained in chapter 6 and chapter 10 of the white paper. That is the situation, and I will be happy if Ruth Davidson wants to pursue the point to look at some of the calculations that were made in chapter 6 and chapter 10 of the white paper and explain the basis on which they were made. Perhaps the more elucidation of that point, the less—what was the Treasury permanent set to call it—the less mis-briefing. That was his word in the Sunday Post. They had mis-briefed a case statistic, so the more elucidation from the white paper, the better, because the white paper, once Ruth Davidson gets round to reading it, provides the answers that she seeks. Of course, nobody in the First Minister's office would ever misbrief. But let's sum up where we are on this issue, because we know from the finance secretary in 2012 that he ordered work to, and I quote, build a comprehensive overview of the institutions, costs and staff numbers required in the event of independence. Just last year, the Deputy First Minister confirmed that work was under way, telling a commons committee, and I quote, that we are doing a substantial piece of work on some of this just now. Suffice to say, it covers not just running costs, but it covers the issues around set-up. But then last month, the First Minister's official spokesman said that there was no overview, no documents, just and I quote again, emails and jottings. Then this morning, a week after the chief economic adviser said that he'd done no work, we read reports that the Government is now rushing out figures to paper over the cracks. The people at the top of this Government tell us that work has been commissioned, then they say that it hasn't. They say that the work is substantial, but then they say that it isn't. They say that it will be published before the referendum, but then they say that it won't be. The people of Scotland have to know what is going on. What is going on is that Ruth Davidson is waving the daily telegraph and pretending that it is an independent publication. I did describe the daily telegraph as the house journal of the Labour Party, but of course, as we now know, it is a joint house journal of the comrades. Just to give an illustration of just how far-fetched that report was, the daily telegraph said on page 4. It was interesting that it was on page 4. I think that if there is a bit more confidence, it might have been one of their big headlines. They knew that Scottish Government officials had met Professor Patrick Dunleavy. I met Professor Patrick Dunleavy last week. Do you think that if the daily telegraph had real information that they could display to the public, they would say that officials had met? I met Professor Patrick Dunleavy. Do you know why that is not a surprise? Two weeks ago, at question time, in answer to Ruth Davidson, I said that Professor Patrick Dunleavy is a man that I want to meet. I did it. I now know exactly why the Treasury was engaged in the misbriefing of Professor Patrick Dunleavy's work. The best way to describe it as he described to me was the three problems that he puts with the Treasury figures. Firstly, all 180 public bodies, they said, would be major departments, which they are not. Second, several of them already exist in Scotland and would simply need to be enlarged. Third, his estimate was applied to the chaotic way in which the last Labour Government established new departments. None of us would want to have the chaos of the Labour Party visited on an independent Scotland. That is why Professor Dunleavy accused the Treasury of being bizarrely inaccurate and misplacing his work and overstating it by a factor of 12. It may be that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury describes bizarrely inaccurate and exaggeration by a factor of 12 as a misbriefing of a key statistic. I think that the people of Scotland will look at that and draw their conclusions that the Unionist cabal, the comrades, is engaged in a campaign of trying to exaggerate the cost of an independent Scotland, because they are aware that, wake by wake, the yes campaign is gaining ground and will carry us to victory this coming September. Thank you very much. In the coming weeks, Glasgow stands ready to welcome the world, so we were all being concerned yesterday to see the BBC reports about so-called phantom accommodation advertised on online booking sites. What assurances can the First Minister offer that public agencies will do everything possible to ensure that no games visitors are defrodded in this way and that those responsible will be subject to the full force of the law? Those matters are already under investigation, as the member will appreciate. More broadly, measures have been taken to ensure that the offering of accommodation to the many visitors we are going to have received from around the world is as we would like it to be in terms of the charging system. That is a separate matter, as he will understand from defroding, but none the less an important matter in terms of Scotland's reputation. He can be assured that ourselves, our colleagues in Glasgow Council and the Games Organising Committee are fully aware of the dangers to reputation and are taking the appropriate action to make sure that they do not come to pass. I would say that, on the range of preparation for the games, those games in Glasgow and Scotland are the best prepared, hopefully going to be the best run games certainly in recent history, perhaps in overall history of the Commonwealth Games. We are working our hardest to make sure that those games will be remembered and appreciated from people across the Commonwealth as an engagement in the greatest sporting and cultural festival that the Commonwealth has ever staged. 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. Willie Rennie That goes from bad to worse, I have to say. The First Minister has been able to estimate the cost of his policies that he likes down to the last three decimal places, but on set-up costs he can't even give us a quarter of a billion either way. Is he actually confirming today that there is nothing in the telegraph report that is true about his decision to set up a report on the cost of setting up independence? Is that the case? Nothing in the telegraph is true about that report being commissioned? The First Minister Willie Rennie, my strong advice—somebody says the weather forecast, I didn't read the weather forecast. I'll have to go back and have a look at the horoscope as well, but Willie Rennie shouldn't get to his feet and his first words that come out are, this goes from bad to worse. That's no way to announce your question, First Minister's question. The Daily Telegraph report has one snippet of truth in it. It says that officials met Professor Patrick Dunleavy. Yes, they did. They were with me. I met them and they were also officials. The reason I pointed this out to Ruth Davidson is that Willie Rennie, who knows the Daily Telegraph, or at least is getting to know it as part of this unionist campaign, knows the Daily Telegraph. If the Daily Telegraph had an insight into the meeting with Professor Dunleavy and had actually known what had gone on, it would know that I was there. Do you think that the Daily Telegraph would have suppressed the information that I was at a meeting if they had the slightest idea of what they were talking about? The word nonsense was used by Willie Rennie. That's a very good word to use as far as that report is concerned, and indeed some would say more generally excluding the weather forecast as far as the Daily Telegraph is concerned. Willie Rennie. This is exactly why the people of Scotland are worried that this Scottish Government is refusing to look at the downsides of independence. That's why they are concerned. The First Minister still doesn't have a clue about set-up costs. On the radio, John Swinney had 13 attempts and still couldn't answer the question. Just last week, two cabinet ministers said that it was impossible. They have tried to tell us on those benches that never has a country been more prepared for the transition to state duty. Prepared on the costs of independence, he thought he could get away with it, but he's been caught red-handed. That's why the First Minister laughs, but the First Minister will not be laughing on the doorsteps when people ask him this question. They want to know the costs of setting up an independence. Is he going to give the answer? The First Minister? I think that a Liberal Democrat at the present moment should not talk to people about the reaction on the doorsteps. The fact that Willie Rennie's question received more resounding support from the Labour benches than the accorded to Johann Lamont, perhaps indicates a degree of desperation. Can I address the chapter 6 of the White Paper and commend it to Willie Rennie, because at some point he should go and read it, which looks in very substantial detail about the position of one of the four departments that Professor Dunleavy identified as having to be created in independent Scotland, and that is the foreign office and international relations department. As he will know, because I know he reads the White Paper, it looks in great detail about the 5,000 offices that the foreign office has internationally. We know from their recent statistics that they are worth £2.9 billion. That is in the foreign office recent accounts. Scotland will be entitled to an asset share of that asset. We identify in the White Paper and look at international comparisons of similar countries and estimate that 70 to 90 embosses will be required from independent Scotland and point out that the cost of acquiring the overseas properties will be more than met by our share of the foreign office assets and that the running costs on comparable examples will be less than our share that we contribute to the foreign office at the present moment. I am sorry that I have gone on to quote the detail, but it was the detail that Mr Rennie was asking for, and if he reads the White Paper, he will not have to ask me for it. To ask the First Minister how people in Scotland can benefit from a written constitution. First Minister, I think that a written constitution provides an underpinning on the basis for everyday life. I do not think that it should be regarded as something that is other than a fundamental importance. Every other country in the European Union and the Commonwealth either has a written constitution or a constitution act. Scotland should be no different from that modern practice. A written constitution can benefit the people of Scotland by embodying our values as a nation, regardless of which political party is in power, setting out and protecting the rights and aspirations of our citizens, and giving a firm underpinning to the fundamental principle that in Scotland the people are sovereign. I thank the First Minister for his answer and can I ask him how he views the contrast between the Scottish Government proposals for a written constitution for Scotland 100 per cent guaranteed by a yes vote with sovereignty lined with the people of Scotland, with the pig in a poke offering from the anti-independence party. I think that among the comrades we've got some secret yesers, because our Mr Carmichael said last week when he was summing up why he admitted that any additional powers—this is an exact quote from 12 June—are something that takes you into the realm of political debate, as opposed to the guarantee that the Scotland Act powers offered. The biggest problem for the anti-independence party is that, in spite of all that argument, there is not a single power that can guarantee that it will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament if there were to be a no vote. Given the track record of promises from the Conservative party of vote no and get a better deal, do they really think that anyone in Scotland is going to argue and support and believe the joint position of the comrades when the Alistair Cymru says that it can't even be guaranteed? Little wonder the new comradely alliance is in such shaky foundations. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government would introduce a local income tax in the event of independence. Well, as Sarah Boyack knows, the Scottish Government has been consistent in opposition to the unfair council tax and working with local government, we brought an end to the era of 50 per cent increases in council tax bills that occurred under previous administrations, Tory and Labour. We are committed to consulting with others later in this Parliament to develop a fairer and more progressive local tax based on the ability to pay. As we set out in a manifesto in 2011 that it is right that this consultation takes place following the referendum, once it is clear which tax powers the Scottish Parliament has at our disposal following a yes vote, to ensure our tax system at all levels is fair to taxpayers, stimulates the economy and supports Scotland's public services. It is an interesting answer, because he did not mention the local income tax, which he mentioned to newspapers in interviews and on radio. Does the First Minister still intend to set his local income tax rate at three pence? Well, what we said in the manifesto is that over the period of the next Parliament we will consult with others to use a fairer system based on the ability to pay to replace the council tax. We will put this to the people at the next election by which time Scotland will have more powers over income tax. That is a perfectly summary from the SNP manifesto. We tell what we are going to do. We explain the timescale for it. We intend to bring about a change to make sure that taxation in Scotland is based on the ability to pay. Of course, I think that I can count five positions from the Labour Party. Some people are saying six. I think that it depends on which sportsman is doing, on whether or not they support a council tax freeze or not. However, I am certain that, when we come to this consultation, the Labour Party will be forced to bring forward their ideas and contribute positively to the debate, knowing that with independence we will have the full range of powers that allows us to choose the best tax system for the Scottish people. Will the First Minister promise to keep the local income tax rate a secret until after the referendum? I promise that we will implement the manifesto commitment that we made, which has served us pretty well with the Scottish people, rather better than the Conservative party. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the Supporters Direct Scotland national football survey finding that 62 per cent of respondents were in favour of lifting the ban on alcohol at football matches. The 2014 national football survey, which is carried out by Supporters Direct Scotland on behalf of the SFA, covers several issues, including the ban of alcohol at football matches. The sessions on the matter are informed by Police Scotland, which confirm that they, at this stage, are not minded to seek a relaxation of the controls on alcohol at football matches, but are engaging with interested parties in reviewing the matter. I thank the First Minister for that answer. While everyone in Scotland would wish to ensure that football fans can continue to enjoy matches in a safe and pleasant atmosphere, is it not the case that Scotland has moved on significantly since the alcohol ban was imposed more than 30 years ago with all-seaters stadium? Is it not time that we reviewed the ban and would it not be possible to lift it on a trial basis and still maintain the good reputation of our national game? We are committed to working with all parties to help to improve the overall match day experience and also ensure that football fans enjoy our national sport in a safe and enjoyable environment. Measures such as the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Front and Communication in Scotland Act 2012 are having a positive effect on offensive behaviour at football, which was introduced by nearly a quarter from last year. In both the 2012-13 and 2013-14 reports on the act, police reports describe 27 per cent of the accused as being under the influence of alcohol. As I said, I understand that Police Scotland is not at this stage minded to seek any relaxation of the controls of alcohol at football matches, but they are engaging with interested parties. I know that the member will bear in mind that the figure of 27 per cent of the accused was under the influence of alcohol. I have written directly to every senior football club in Scotland on this issue, and I have also met the chief constable on this issue who I believe is an interested party in this. Given the stated open-mindedness that the First Minister has on this issue and the progression that we have seen in the many decades since the ban was first introduced, could I ask him to consider a pilot project at one ground with some of the protections that are in place in other countries around the world where this has been shown to work, so we can see if this is one way in which we can bring in revenue to the clubs that we have around the country of Scotland? I said to Ruth Davidson that I will describe exactly what my response was, which I said that Police Scotland is not at this stage minded to seek a relaxation. They are engaging with interested parties in reviewing this, and we will take the direction of the police. However, as I also pointed out to Jim Meady, who asked an identical question, that anyone arguing for this would have to take into account that, although the number of offences is falling, that is a welcome sign and I think has been contributed to that success because of the legislation that has been passed. Nonetheless, it is the case that 27 per cent of the offences were committed by people who were under the influence of alcohol. That figure should tell us that, wherever those discussions and reviews come up with, we have to have a approach that understands that alcohol is a major contribution to disorder in society and to disorder in offensive behaviour at football matches. That is why we take the police direction that, in their discussions with parties reviewing the matter, they have that in mind and will do absolutely nothing that would make the reputation of our game of football any less good than it is at the present moment. They would do nothing to render the experience of ordinary fans at football matches and subject them to an increase in offensive behaviour. We are making significant improvements and we have to bear those matters in mind as we move forward. Thank you. Before I end First Minister's questions, can I just point out to all members that the CPA Scotland branch annual general meeting will take place at 1pm today in committee room 2? You are all very welcome. Can I say that sandwiches will be available but it's too soon to have the honey? I look forward to seeing you there. We now move to members' business, members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.