AQ: Douglas Alexander MP, Miles Briggs, Stephen Flynn MP, Gillian Mackay

BBC Sounds, music radio podcasts. Hello and welcome to Edinburgh, a city that needs little introduction. Scotland's capital built on volcanic rock. It has the greatest concentration of listed buildings in the country, as well as 50 conservation areas, a city that's both old and new, where history and modern culture seep from its streets. We are at the parish church of St Cuthbert, surrounded by trees and sitting in the shadow of Edinburgh Castle, right in the city centre. The present church, some of it in the style of the Italian Renaissance, was built in the late 1800s. But this is recognised as the oldest continually occupied site of Christian worship in Edinburgh, and legend has it that St Cuthbert himself founded a chapel here in the 7th century. It was also on Sean Connery's milk round. He used to deliver milk for the St Cuthbert's cooperative, which took its name from this parish, and Agatha Christie got married in this very church to her second husband in 1930. Joining me here is Douglas Alexander, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Labour MP for Lothian East. Douglas is a Labour Party veteran, having served in the governments of Blair and Brown during his first stint as an MP before losing his seat in 2015. He returned to Westminster at the last general election, having spent his time away from politics as a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School and as a visiting professor at King's College London. Stephen Flynn is the SNP MP for Aberdeen South, and the party's leader at Westminster. He's been an MP since 2019 and has quickly risen through the party ranks. Before being elected to the House of Commons, he worked as a political researcher for the SNP, and he was a city councillor in Aberdeen. Miles Briggs has been the Scottish Conservative MSP for the Lothian region since 2016, and he's the Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. Miles also has spoken for the party on local government, housing, social justice and health, and before being elected, Miles spent 10 years as a political adviser to MSPs. And Gillian Mackay is the co-leader of the Scottish Green Party, and since 2021 has been the MSP for Central Scotland region. She's also her party's spokesperson on health, social care and sport. Gillian studied marine biodiversity and biotechnology at university here in Edinburgh, and she used to be a researcher in the Scottish Parliament. Edinburgh, please welcome your Any Questions panel. It is the case as it is every week that our panellists do not know the questions before they are read out live on air. We'll get them going with our first. It comes from Dai Willis. Dai, hi. Hi. My question is, has Iran won the war? Has Iran won the war? As we're speaking, there is a very tentative ceasefire that's been a great agreement between Iran and the US. There are talks scheduled to take place in Pakistan over the weekend, but Iran has said they will only take place if that ceasefire also applies to Lebanon. Has Iran won the war? Douglas Alexander. Well, as we speak, Vice President JD Vance is on his way to Islamabad. We all have to hope that this is the point at which the 40 days of conflict give way to two weeks of diplomacy, but frankly, nobody knows. We're in a position where the parties are still pretty far apart. You've got the Iranians who have produced their own 10-point plan. The Americans have produced their own 15-point plan. If you compare those plans, they're about as far apart of the straits of Hormuz, and that's 21 miles wide. So if we need inspiration, we should perhaps remember that it was exactly 27 years ago today that the Good Friday Agreement was signed. That is the evidence that with goodwill and determination, you can leave behind troubled conflicts, but the reality is there is a huge equity for all of us in these talks succeeding. The Pakistani government and others deserve a lot of credit for bringing the parties together. All of us want to see not just the Straits of Hormuz reopened. That accounts for about 20 percent of global oil supplies, but it involves delivering fertilizer to Africa, delivers oil to Asia, and it is critical to international maritime law. So we have a huge interest here at home, not just in terms of peace and stability, but also in terms of the impact on our own economy. So truthfully, none of us can be certain what happens when JD Vance arrives in Islamabad, but all of us should have an interest and a determination to try and see diplomacy take the place of the conflict we have seen over the last 40 days. And can you clear why that conflict took place in the first place? Well, it is not Britain's war, and we were very clear at the outset that we disagreed fundamentally with the approach that was taken. We do not want to be and have not been drawn into the offensive action or the wider conflict in Iran. We have taken actions to protect UK citizens in the Gulf and indeed to support our allies in the Gulf, but it is for the Americans to account for the action that they have taken, and indeed along with the Israelis. And incidentally, the other point I would make strongly in relation to these talks in Islamabad is that we want Lebanon to be part of the peace process, and we want to make sure that the very temporary ceasefire that is not yet even fully being adhered to between the United States and Iran is actually extended to Israel in relation to Lebanon. The reality is we don't have peace at the moment. We simply have a pause, but that pause opens the door for diplomacy. We need a ceasefire in relation to Lebanon. We need diplomacy to take the place of conflict, and we need to be ensuring that we do whatever we can to support that process. Stephen Flynn. I actually think that the only person who's won anything in this conflict is Vladimir Putin, because he's been able to ensure that there's money flowing back into the Russian economy to help fund his destructive war in Europe against the very brave and noble Ukrainian people who continue to defend their territory. I think the biggest loser has been, unfortunately, the credibility of the United States of America because of the illegal actions of their current president, a man who saw fit to bomb a nation to such extent that oil was raining from the skies, sewers were exploding, and little children were blown up in their primary schools. The damage that that does to Western credibility and diplomacy and the threat that it poses to NATO and its significance in the world is absolutely enormous. Where I would take issue with Douglas is his assertion that the UK is not involved. The UK is involved, whether it likes it or not, because US bombers are utilizing UK basis to take part in what they describe and they determine as defensive action. And I don't know about anyone in this audience right now, but I don't feel very confident that Pete Hesgess, JD Vance nor Donald Trump can differentiate between offensive and defensive action in the same way that we can. And Douglas, is that right? Have you set parameters for the US? Well, this issue is much bigger and much more fundamentally serious than partisan politics. The reality is, it is a matter of record that the Prime Minister took a very different and very publicly different view from the President of the United States. In relation to Diego Garcia and Fairford, the two air bases, we have sought and continued to receive specific assurances from the United States that the only action that is taking place from those bases are defensive actions. And I think it all behoves you to try and score cheap points on an issue where fundamentally lives are at risk and all of us recognise the seriousness of the issues. Okay, Stephen? Douglas, it's simply a statement of fact. And look, if you want to believe what Pete Hesgess, JD Vance and Donald Trump are telling you, then that's on you. That's on nobody else. Julian McKay. Ultimately, we need to stop the death that is happening to innocent civilians in Iran. And we need to stand up to what is a hostile US government on the global stage. We should all be at the moment standing up for peace across the region, across the world. There are other conflicts happening in other places that absolutely need resolved as well. I hope the ceasefire holds for as long as possible. There are clearly people who are injured, who are lacking basic sanitation and food at the moment that need to be able to have time to sort that. But any use of air bases, whether that is the UK's or actually the US military, de facto using Prestwick as well, has to be put, has to be stopped. Because it will only be after one of these actions is taken as an offensive action that we will find out and then have to be sorry about that as a result. And I don't think it's good enough to rely on the good will of a rogue president who has taken illegal action after illegal action, willing to bomb civilians to get his point across, that we're going to take him on his word that he's not going to do anything that we wouldn't want him to do without infrastructure. Miles Briggs. So clearly this ceasefire is welcome, but how sustainable it is, I think we will all have to see in the coming hours, days and weeks, and whether or not the Americans feel they have met their outcomes and objectives of the actions they've taken. If it has done one thing, I think all of us will need to reflect on this, it has demonstrated just how vulnerable our supply chains are. And a couple of hustings I've actually had this week talking to food industry are already pointing towards a 10% increase. This will have come Christmas. And we need to really be aware of that and where we are now putting ourselves into a position where our energy security is being compromised. And this election, I think this will become a significant issue for people in Scotland. Hold that thought because we might come onto it, but just coming back to the central point of this question, you mentioned there that you hope the ceasefire holds, but the question is whether America's met its objectives. Are you clear what those objectives were? So clearly regime change was at the heart of this at the beginning. Now whether or not they feel the actions they've taken has produced that and whether or not the people who are now involved at the table are people they will feel they can do business with, we will have to see. But I would be concerned going forward what we see is not sustainable currently. But Miles, do you accept that in retrospect, Kenny Badenok's position of supporting the United States before it was even clear what those objectives were or indeed if those objectives were regime change was actually a blunder and a misstep? We can't be in a position where we should be outsourcing our foreign policy to another country right or wrong. Do you accept that on probably the biggest single call of this parliament, she and Nigel Farage jumped too soon All right, Miles Briggs? No, I don't. And I think you've already touched upon this Douglas, because our bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia have been attacked by Iran. So you know, we need to actually step up and look towards where we were calling on Kirstammer to protect British interests by deploying military assets to the region. And that's not the same thing as participating in strikes in Iran. It's protecting our troops who are in these areas. So Stephen Flynn? I think we're going to have an agreement between myself and Douglas very early on here. Maybe the first and last of this program? We'll find out. We'll find out. But Kenny Badenok did call for us to get heavily involved straight away, as did Nigel Farage. As indeed, Kenny Badenok made the wrong call on Greenland when she sought to be submissive to President Trump when the rest of Europe was saying, don't be daft. But Miles was right to bring up the UK's defensive capabilities, because I think all of us have seen firsthand that the UK's military is in a terrible state. And I've got a list of warships in front of me, whether that's the Queen Elizabeth, the Ion Duke, HMS Kent, HMS Somerset, HMS Richmond, HMS Lyman Bay, none of whom are in operation. And then we look at HMS Dragon, which took weeks to get to our point to defend troops from these aisles, including of course people from Scotland. And now it's out of commission again. What a shameful state of affairs. And you know, maybe Scotland should be defending itself in the future. Stephen, you literally want to abolish the Royal Navy and to unilaterally nuclear disarm at the same time as we've seen only this week by the declassification of advice received by John Healy, that the Russians are seeking to track and map undersea cables of Scotland. The reality is our nuclear deterrent and our Royal Navy keeps us safer. And you would have landed me your Putin, frankly, cheating in Moscow if you were ever to prevail in your central idea of breaking up the United Kingdom. Stephen Flynn. Douglas, I've just read out of lists of the UK's Navy vessels that can't operate right now. And in fact, the UK had to rely upon a German naval ship to fulfill its own NATO commitments. But if you want to talk about the UK's nuclear deterrent, it is, of course, a Labour MP who's been in the headlines lately. And they've had to change security and increase security at Faslan as a result of the actions of a Labour MP, not a Scottish National Party MP, but a Labour MP. And I'm sure Douglas can provide us with a little bit of additional clarity around her behaviours. In relation to NATO, it is inherent in being part of an alliance that involves thirty two different countries and has kept us safe for 77 years that we work collectively to uphold our security. I think it is a matter of pride that we are working with the Germans, with the Norwegians, with a range of other countries in the high north where we're being challenged by the Russians. The fact is, your party wouldn't even put support behind training welders in Glasgow so that we can have the ships that you're complaining are not operational. Okay, brief. Why didn't you support the welding centre? Douglas, Douglas, Douglas, I I hate to go back to this, but you're saying that you're comfortable with the fact that the UK are having to rely upon someone else in order to meet its own NATO commitments because the things that you are in control of through UK defence policy are all sitting in dry dock and every one of them that I've listed there isn't working. That's the nature of NATO that we rely on each other. Okay. That's why your party has only recently come to a position of supporting NATO, but still don't understand it's a nuclear alliance. Hang on, hang on. Hold that thought because we might be exploring it, but I just want to offer a bit of clarity because you referenced the Labour MP. Some people might know who you're referring to, so the sake of clarity, I should spell out what the situation is. It's the Labour MP, Joni Reed, who has suspended herself from the Labour Party. Now that followed the fact her husband was arrested on allegations that he was spying for China. She has said that she has not been under investigation by the police. She has done nothing wrong, but while those investigations are being carried out, she's stepped back from the Labour Party. Yeah, but there's a little bit more to it than that in terms of her liaisons, as I understand from the newspapers and respect of two of the captains of our nuclear fleet. Let me give you the clarity around that again, just because Joni Reed isn't on the panel to defend herself, so I'm sure you'd all want me to do the same if somebody made such suggestions about you. It was reported that a senior naval officer that was investigated last year over allegations of an appropriate relationship with Joni Reed is under the naval officer commanded a nuclear armed submarine based at Faslane. A Royal Navy spokesperson said the security of the nuclear deterrents are highest priority. We have robust processes in place to protect the security of our people and capabilities. We will not comment on individual cases. The BBC did approach Joni Reed for comment. Let's carry on with the substance of this discussion by moving on to question two, which comes from David Land. Has NATO got a future? We've touched upon it. Let's pick it up. Has NATO got a future? Gillian Mackay? So as a party, we don't believe that a first strike nuclear deterrent should be the option that any country wants. Anybody, no country in the world would want it used on themselves. So why we have one to use, so even countenance using it on other people, I think, is awful. What we could do with the money to replace Trident, the number of children we could lift out of poverty with it, I think would make a massive difference across the country. And actually, I'd like to see diplomacy and those sorts of engagements with other countries take much more of a precedent on the world stage rather than having to have something just in case someone else decides to use theirs. Is it just in case when it comes to NATO though? Because if you look, for example, at Russian aggression in Ukraine, the global instability that the UK and other countries are facing at the moment, do you not think there is a value in having an alliance with allies, a collective defence alliance, for example? I think the value in that alliance has been massively undermined by the work of Donald Trump in recent months across the world. He's gone after NATO allies in different countries, both in terms of trying to, for example, annex Greenland, but also in the way he has treated various countries with his approach to Iran. I think there is definitely a place to work with other countries. I'd like to see us working closely on a diplomatic level with other European countries, but that first strike deterrent does not have to be a part of that. Miles Briggs has NATO got a future. We've certainly heard from the US president this week who's been again critical of NATO. Do you think that it's got a future? Yes, absolutely. And we need it to. And I think most importantly, we need to, as a country, put that out there, that we want to make sure that it is strengthened, that our security across the EU is something we need to really understand. NATO needs to take the lead on. You know, thinking about countries like Finland and Poland, they are now on a war footing. Let's face it, they are investing in protecting their borders against the aggression which we are seeing from Russia. So clearly, we need to look towards NATO taking the lead and where we can strengthen that. Politicians like Donald Trump will come and go, but we need to make sure NATO is sustainable for our future security. And I think that's something we don't need to look for divisions on this panel around. We need to actually make sure that that's something we should all be agreeing on. I think it's disappointing that we've seen Ukraine slip down the news agenda. Let's face it. That is a war which people are still fighting against Russian aggression, and we need to make sure that we continue to bride the support they need. But NATO also take that lead in making sure that that country keeps its independence. Stephen Flynn. Yeah, look, NATO is essential for so many reasons. Many of the operations which they undertake obviously includes much of Scotland's geographical boundaries, particularly in the high north. And we know this through the likes of the Jeff that there's some sterling work going on with our partners within NATO and across Europe. The expeditionary forces. Yeah, yeah, yeah, sorry. I should have used the full term. I was just trying to work out the acronym before I... I know, it's my bad. But when I look at when I look at some NATO members like Finland, Miles is rightly highlighted there. And of course, they share a border with Russia. They have defences, part of everything that they do is a population. They don't have nuclear weapons, but they invest very heavily in their domestic security. I think that's a blueprint for where Scotland could and perhaps should be. But because of the fact that Donald Trump is seeking to proactively undermine NATO for a variety of reasons, I think it reaffirms in my mind just how important European solidarity is, how stupid it was to leave the European Union was and how utterly ridiculous it was that the current Labour government had the opportunity to bid into EU defence contracts last year and chose not to do so. They chose not to do so. And I'm sure Douglas can explain why. Douglas Alexander? Well, incidentally, if you're a big fan of unions, I don't know why you think it's such a good idea to leave the United Kingdom, a 300 year old union. But consistency has never been the hallmark of SNP defence policy. But let's try and elevate the debate and take a different perspective. The reality is a lot of smart people after the end of the Cold War thought that we were witnessing the end of history. It was Mark Kearney just a couple of months back at Davos who talked about a rupture in the world order. And that's not just because we've witnessed a global pandemic or the war in Ukraine that's already been referenced and now war tragically in the Middle East. It's that in a world where we're witnessing China's rise, where we have unequivocally witnessed Russia's return to Europe and a lurching unpredictability in US foreign policy, we need NATO because we're in a much less forgiving and much more demanding world than we've experienced even during the Cold War or certainly since the Cold War. Over the last 77 years, what we have seen in NATO is probably the strongest defence alliance anywhere in the world. We are being heavily criticised at the moment by the US President for NATO not being engaged and involved in the actions in the Middle East. But that is to misunderstand the character of what is an essentially defensive alliance. That is why our commitment as a government to NATO is unshakable. It was founded under a Labour government after 1945 and we do therefore unequivocally believe it is the foundation stone on which British defence will be built in the future. It's fine for Stephen to talk about his support for NATO, but let's remember NATO is a nuclear alliance and his party supports unilateral nuclear disarmament. The reality is we don't get to choose the circumstances in which we're called to govern and to keep the country safe. The reality is NATO helps keep this country safe and that's why we continue to support it. Douglass, given you've just sought to give us all a very eloquent history lesson on NATO, you would have been wise to know that numerous NATO members don't have nuclear weapons. Indeed, the one I just referenced, Finland, who have a border with Russia. So it's not a prerequisite. As you know it is not a prerequisite. But what I want to know is why did you not seek to access EU defence funds? So do you accept that an independent Scotland where that to happen would shelter under a US nuclear umbrella as part of NATO? Do you accept that? Douglass, I understand the premise of NATO and the way that you do, but what I want to know is why through the EU defence procurement last year you chose not to take part in that? Let's just on that for a bit of explanation. So as I understood it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Douglass, but there were some prolonged negotiations, but ultimately the UK couldn't work it out with the EU. So it didn't sign up to what it had hoped to. And one of the things that Stephen doesn't seem to understand is even after Brexit, there are politics on both sides of the channel. So the fact is we have to find what's in the best interest both of the United Kingdom and of the European Union. But frankly, after a government and if you like a clown show of a decade where we saw the devastation of trust between the United Kingdom and Europe, it's a matter of pride to me that within days of labour being elected in July 2024, we saw at Blenheim Palace a serious Prime Minister starting the serious work of re-engaging with Europe. We've had the first UK EU summit, we've already signed a trade deal with Europe, we have been clear and unequivocal, the Prime Minister rose when he was in the gulf this week, that we see strengthening and deepening our relationship with Europe as fundamental to the United Kingdom. I believe in unions, that's the difference between me and Stephen. Have your say, any answers 03700, 100444 is the number you need. Line's open at 12.30pm on Saturday. Anita Arnand is in the chair this week and I know she'd love to hear your thoughts. We move on to our next, it comes from Alison McDonald. Is there a case for allowing development of new oil and gas fields in Scottish waters, given the current incibilities? Alison, thank you for your question. A lot of discussion about this, particularly in light of the spike that we've seen in energy prices in the wake of the Iran war. Is there a case for allowing development of new oil and gas fields in Scottish waters? Miles Briggs, is there? Absolutely, and like you know, we've just been talking about, we need to understand that we are not in a situation where we can not go ahead with actually more exploration in the North Sea and also the opportunities we are missing out. I don't think anybody over the past few weeks think that we should be reliant on our supply of oil and gas and all that means from dictatorships around the world. Now there are a thousand jobs being lost currently in the sector every single month and that's why we need to see both the UK Labour government and the SNP Scottish government change their tune on this and look towards supporting new licenses. I just don't think that when you look at the cost of shipping oil from different parts of the world, why we wouldn't actually drill our own oil and that's something I think increasingly the First Minister has started to say and he's also looking at this afresh. I also think we need to talk about our nuclear industry as well, not far from where we're sitting to an S-Para station sits. Now a country like Scotland should have two small-scale nuclear reactors, we don't because of SNP policy not to support them. Now I think this election is an opportunity for them hopefully to revisit that policy as well and we start to look towards energy security not just here in Scotland but across the UK. Julian McKay. So I don't think we should be opening any new oil and gas fields in the North Sea. It's very clear they are not compatible with the climate crisis that we're facing and they actually wouldn't do anything to lower people's bills. This is a globally traded commodity by global companies on a global market. The price of a barrel of oil whether it's taken out the North Sea or anywhere else is the price of a barrel of oil. It's not going to make any difference. We do need to see in the short term while this acute pressure is going on, support for people who are struggling on top of a cost of living crisis that's already biting really hard for families. Those particularly in remote and rural areas who are off mains gas, the price of filling up an oil tank has doubled in some places making sure there's support for them. Folks who are choosing between heating and eating obviously need support as well and it's up to both governments to do that. But what I think we should actually see is getting the electricity price decoupled from the price of gas in particular to make sure that we can insulate our fuel prices and how we heat our homes from these global shocks and actually really invest in renewables making sure that we can make that fair. I grew up in Grangemouth. We've seen what happens when an unjust transition happens. People lose their jobs. I was devastated when family friends and folk I've known since I was tiny lost their jobs there. We need to do that proper transitioning that doesn't rely on these global companies to do that for us. Make sure we invest in those renewables, that pipeline right along the piece and make sure that we can really lower people's bills for the long term. You've been in government as a party with the SNP and that just transition hasn't come about. So you're saying you feel sympathy for people. Where's that work been? Because the tap's been turned off thanks to you being in government with the SNP as well. The taps have not been turned off and I think in the recent history of Scotland, let me finish my lines, in the recent history of Scotland we've been in government for two years. This just transition planning should have been happening when I was in primary school, not now when we're in government. This needs to happen at pace. So we don't see any more jobs lost and make sure that we have those good jobs for the future. I just wondered, Gilliam, if you're talking about there the transition towards renewables, I just wonder what you would say to people that say while that transition is going on, oil and gas will remain part of the mix. So why not exploit the resources that we currently have rather than, for example, the carbon cost of shipping in liquefying natural gas? So those resources in the North Sea are getting more and more difficult to get to. They're getting more cost intensive to get to. And ultimately it's still in the hands of these global companies that are setting the price and trading it on that global market. I'd like to see his investment in Scottish startups, local businesses, put money into them for those long-term jobs, return it into those local economies and make sure that this energy really benefits Scotland rather than these global companies who are just paying money to shareholders. There was a report out on Friday from the Tony Blair Institute which suggested that the two new oil and gas fields, Jackdall and Rosebank, should be given the go ahead. Douglas Alexander, is he right? I've got a different Prime Minister these days. He's called Kier Stammer rather than Tony Blair. The reality is, if you look at the oil price this morning for a barrel of North Sea oil, for immediate sale it was trading about $147 a barrel. That's the highest it's been since the eve of the French oil crisis in 2008. So we have to consider this question in terms of what action should be taken in the immediate term and what action should be taken in the longer term. In the immediate term, we need to do everything we can to mitigate the crisis because about 20% of global supplies are stuck at the moment because the straights for moves are not open. That's why the Prime Minister was in the Gulf and why, as we've discussed already, there is such a focus globally on what happens in Pakistan over the coming days. It's also why here in Scotland, and as Sarwar launched a package yesterday, actually in East Lothian, making the case that in the first 100 days of a Scottish Labour government, he would commit £100 million worth of package to immediate support for families with energy costs. But we're also going to have to engage over the longer term in terms of what happens once we mitigate the immediate effects of this crisis. It is why, for example, oil and gas are going to be an absolutely central part of the energy mix, not just for Scotland but for the UK for decades to come. It's worth recognising, however, though, the reality of the geology. It is a mature basin. About 95% of the productive oil has already been extracted. We've been a net importer since 2003. In that sense, peak oil production, what was 20 years ago in Scotland, it is a mature basin facing particular challenges. There are key decisions that are upcoming for the UK government, particularly for the climate secretary in relation to Rosebank and Jackdaw. That is because, frankly, the last government made such a mess of that licensing procedure that a Scottish court made a decision under judicial review that those decisions had to be revisited. That's why that decision is heading towards the desk of the Secretary of State. But to pick up Miles' point, as well as heavily investing in renewables, which we are already doing, as well as investing in carbon capture and storage, I personally think that a critical part of the energy mix for Scotland going forward should be civil nuclear power. Just a few miles from here, we have the Tornes Nuclear Power Station that has delivered base load capability for Scotland for many decades. It provides really well-paid, good unionised jobs in East Lothian where I represent. Its sister station is in Hartlepool that has just had a major infusion of cash coming as a result of the willingness of people to invest in the future of nuclear power. And yet here in Scotland, effectively, we're shut for business because of the anti-science dogmatic opposition of the SNP. So my challenge to Stephen is, at what point are you going to accept nuclear power as a carbon-free energy source that can serve Scotland well and stop the anti-science dogmatic ban on nuclear power that's been a hallmark of SNP policy for the last 20 years? Well, I welcome back to that, but allow me to answer the question because I do think that's important. Energy security is national security, ultimately. And at the moment, we live all of us in a nation which, believe it or not, produces more energy than we consume. A lot more energy than we consume, whether that's through our oil and gas fields or whether that's through the renewables industry which the SNP Scottish government has allowed to grow and expand massively in Scotland, whether that's through onshore wind or the burgeoning, floating, and indeed fixed bottom offshore wind industry. And when I think of that and I realise and reflect upon the fact that Scotland produces more energy than it consumes, I get a little bit angry about the fact that each and every one of you and each and every person listening at home to this show, and indeed everyone far beyond, is suffering unnecessarily under extortionate energy bills. And that's happened under the watch of the Westminster Parliament. Our energy resources, £300 billion which has flowed to the Treasury and far beyond have been absolutely wasted in comparison to the likes of Norway. And we cannot allow that to happen again with our renewables potential. And this is quite personal for me because in Aberdeen, there is, as Miles said, about across the industry, about a thousand people a month losing their jobs in the oil and gas sector because we've proactively chosen to accelerate the decline of the North Sea, which means outsourcing jobs, it means outsourcing investment, it means outsourcing energy security. And of course it means outsourcing your climate responsibilities because liquefied natural gas is worse for the environment than gas in Scotland itself. So if we can get to a position where the climate compatibility checks that Douglas had rightly referred to, which were messed up by the Conservatives, which is why the Finch ruling on scope three emissions was required, then the UK Government will inevitably make a decision on respect of Rose Bank and Jackal. Steve, it's been very comfortable talking about Westminster, but you know closer to home, let's look at our Scottish Government record on this. The SNP sold the Scotland-Wing contracts for a fraction of what they are worth. We should be making more money out of these contracts for our public services for tackling fuel poverty in this country. But SNP ministers completely negligently sold these contracts off and we've lost billions of pounds because of that. But I think there's a really important question, maybe this election gives us an opportunity and Stephen if he is lucky enough to serve in the Scottish Parliament probably can take this to his boss John Swinney, is why if he is now talking about potentially allowing the drilling of oil to take place in other fields, why is he not looking again at the opportunity for us to have small scale reactors in Scotland, the jobs, the growth, the apprenticeships that can bring to our country. Stephen on that point because you've been put to you twice now. Yeah, no of course look, when I look at nuclear projects, look is it hunter, no it's size well C isn't it that's now up at £45 billion. I think it's being built primarily by the French, there's some Chinese equipment in there, I'm not entirely sure if we're in favour of against Chinese whether it's nuclear or newables, I forgot. But £45 billion for a single plant when Scotland's already sufficient energy resources, I would prefer that that money was spent on the Scottish people and their everyday lives in domestic infrastructure rather than spending it on those types of projects personally. So I saw Stephen that you studiously avoided answering the question that Miles asked you in relation to small modular reactors. The site at Tornness is two and a half times the size of the existing station, the owners EDF are very keen to see small modular reactors brought onto the site, it will bring jobs prosperity and guaranteed base load capacity for Scotland and yet the only reason that we're not benefiting from it as we will see in north Wales, as we will see in England is because of the SNP's opposition. Explain to us again what's your opposition to the new technology of small modular reactors. So I've explained my opposition to nuclear but what you need to explain is why you're in favour of that but yet there was a decision-making made in terms of Ming Yang at Ardyssey which would have created 1,500 jobs, billions of pounds for the Scottish economy to tap into the offshore renewables sector and your government have said that you will not allow that to go ahead, decimating a potential opportunity for Scotland to have a manufacturing base on the basis of national security when you've allowed Chinese infrastructure in your nuclear projects, China to have a base in the heart of London and Chinese cars to drive around every single city in the UK. It's because it's in Scotland isn't it? No, there's no depth to which you won't stoop Stephen in saying it's because it's in Scotland. The reality is the national security we speak about is the national security of the United Kingdom. You may not believe in the United Kingdom but when we had a vote on it 55% of us decided our best future was to be part of the United Kingdom and we take our security seriously. These decisions are made on a case-by-case basis as you would rightly expect. It is a difficult and dangerous world out there and it demands grown-up politics. Thank you very much. Have your say. 03700, 10444 is the number you need for any answers but a reminder you're currently listening to any questions on BBC Radio 4 with Douglas Alexander from the Labour Party, Miles Briggs from the Conservative, Stephen Flynn from the Scottish National Party and Julia Mackay from the Scottish Green Party and you might have guessed it from the nature of the debate but we're currently in the middle of elections here in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK and over the course of the next few weeks we are having representatives from all of the parties on this programme including the Liberal Democrats and Reform UK. Right we move on to our next it comes from Robert Trotun. Robert, hi. Why is the welfare bill so big? Miles Briggs. So we have seen in Scotland the creation of a number of different benefits. We've also seen a new creation of an agency to administer that and the costs of spiraled out of control under the SNP's watch. I actually sat on the Social Justice Social Security Committee of the Parliament in the last session and have been concerned at the growing cost of our welfare bill. We are now projected as a nation to be spending £5 billion more on welfare. Now that's why at this election we've been quite clear that we need to get that under control. We need to look towards how we can make this affordable for all of us in this country and it is quite clear that SNP ministers haven't looked towards that long-term sustainability of our welfare system and that's something each and every one of us will have to pay for and the next parliament needs to get serious about this. We've been warning over the last five years ministers that this is going to become one of the biggest issues and we've not heard from anyone in the SNP what will be cut will it be our NHS budgets will it be education to pay for this but it is coming down the line quickly and this election this needs to be a big issue for people and one of the things that the Scottish Conservatives are proposing is to limit the Scottish child payment to two children. Now that Scottish child payment is credited for bringing down levels of child poverty in Scotland would you be prepared to put that at risk? So we are clear about fairness and I think that's where we have to look towards policies like that to actually bring down the cost of delivering this welfare system. Ministers can bring in different policies I think there's a number of policies I've supported in parliament which can make a difference but you cannot have a welfare system which is unsustainable which we just keep adding costs to. Scottish parliament has a fixed budget and the Scottish government are going to have to be honest about what will be cut if we're going to continue to have this level of welfare spending in our country and we just haven't heard that from John Swinney and we need that honesty because otherwise our country will be in even further financial problems. And Stephen Flynn the Fraser of Allander Institute did say the outlook for spending is tight do you accept the point from Miles that there are going to have to be difficult decisions? I think the only cut that's going to happen is the number of Tories getting returned to the Scottish Parliament after the election Miles I hate to say. Look when he's sorry when Miles is is talking about welfare in that context he is talking about the likes of the Scottish child payment which has as is rightly been highlighted led to child poverty in Scotland falling faster than anywhere else on these aisles and that benefit does not exist anywhere else on these aisles it was put in place by the SNP Scottish government because we believe it is a down payment on the next generation to come to have the same opportunities in life as everyone else and you know what I'm proud of the fact I'm proud of the fact that I'm part of a party who believes in Scotland's future and will make sure that our young people aren't growing up in poverty. I should just say on that the despite the fact that it is credited for bringing child poverty levels down the Scottish government is still on course to miss its own targets on child poverty but just back to the central point of the question there's a fundamental reason for that which I think is very important to discuss and that's because of the state of the economy because I don't know if anyone's noticed but the UK economy has been an absolute mess for pretty much my entire adult life whether that was austerity with these guys whether that was leaving the European Union with the Conservatives as well or whether that's the chaos that we've seen from the Labour Party over the course of the last two years so there's factors well out with the control of the Scottish government which should be in the control of the Scottish government. I wonder if you do accept the responsibility of the Scottish government and the choices it has made because you might defend them but it has made a choice to spend more on welfare and I've outlined exactly why we've done that because we believe in making a down payment on the future of the people of Scotland and that's incredibly valuable to me. Gillian McKay, do you think that the welfare bill should come down? So I think what we have to look at is actually how it supports people the number of people and the Tories have said this an awful lot about getting people back into work. The vast majority of people who are being supported by the social security system are in work. Work is not paying to support people at this point so that's what we should be focusing on is actually how we make sure that work pays people to be able to live. The Scottish child payment has been a huge step forward in tackling child poverty. We supported the upgrading of that as well. We need to look at it in terms of how that system is is humane and make sure that it does support people at a time when we've seen the UK government going after disabled people and other groups as well to try and bring those benefits down and in talking about how we fund that the top 2% of people in Scotland still hold more wealth than 50% of the rest of the population. It's not like there's not money around to be able to then redistribute to those who really need it but ultimately what we have to do is make sure that work pays that there is a humane system that people can rely on to support them when they need it and that it does support those who need it the most and especially children and young people. Just briefly because we haven't got a huge amount of time but I suppose it's this same question. I mean do you see this through the prism of the size of the welfare bill or not and you might argue not. You might say I don't mind how high the welfare bill is if it's doing what you want it to do. Is that your position or do you accept that in a system of constrained public finances you have to make choices around that? I think it needs to support people properly but I come back to the point that work isn't paying people what they need to live at the moment. There's a massive cost of living crisis. Governments could step in in other ways to do that but it's through the benefits and welfare system at the moment that a lot of that support is coming. I think we should be putting pressure through our fair work strategies and how we give out government contracts to make sure that good living standards and good wages are a conditionality of those contracts that we're handing out to to make sure that money's going back into the system properly. Douglas Alexander of course the Westminster Government did attempt to reform the welfare system. It didn't go so well. Yeah no and there were lessons that need to be learned from that but let's start with some of the fundamentals. When we inherited our economy in July 2024 it was a low growth high inequality economy and we recognised the challenge of addressing both the level of growth and the level of inequality that still scars the United Kingdom today. Often when people talk about the welfare bill they ignore the fact that a significant portion of that is support for pensioners and actually what we've seen over recent decades is the relative position of in-work poverty compared with pensioner poverty shifting significantly. So actually we do have a huge and continuing challenge with in-work poverty. Now in relation to that one of the other challenges that we face is not just a demographic challenge of an aging population but a challenge we inherited after the pandemic which is a very significant uplift particularly amongst young people going on to sickness benefit rather than unemployment benefit. A large portion of those in relation to mental health rather than physical health. That makes us an outlier amongst the G7 economies and there's not much evidence that we have a significantly sicker population but we do have a significant challenge therefore in relation to the welfare bill. So I will not apologise for the fact that we need a social security system in this country that is there when any of us need it now and in the future but there is a challenge in relation to reform that's what Pat McFadden the work in pension secretary is focused on at the moment because when we think about our own kids none of us would want them living a life on welfare if they had the opportunity to be able to be contributing meaningfully through paid employment throughout their lives. And to be clear because this was the essence of Robert's question was about the welfare bill is it still the UK government's position that you want to bring the welfare bill down? That has to be judged dependent on the circumstances not just of the population but also of the economy. If we get the economy growing then our ability to support people in need goes up not down. The fact is for the decade preceding the financial crisis we were growing about two to two and a half percent since then we've struggled to achieve one percent growth over the last 15 years. And the grateful bus has just been downgraded this year. That makes the distributional choices between do you spend money on pensions or on child benefit or on defence or on all the issues we've been talking about a whole lot harder which is why the overriding priority of the government is to focus on getting the trend rate of growth up in the British economy. Stephen Flynn? Yeah look I've obviously sat in Westminster and watched the the UK government attempt to try to do things differently by taking money away the Labour government that is take money away from pensioners with a winter fuel payment cut which they you turned on and then watched them try to reform and advert commas the welfare state by saying to people who need help to go to the toilet that they need to get back into work and of course they you turned on that as well. So I'm not really sure what Douglas is position on but I can tell you for a second he will you turn on it in the next few months. So Stephen let me reply to you first of all there are 10,000 kids in Scotland today who don't have a place to call home so in relation to child poverty sort out the housing emergency. Secondly it was the first minister John Swinney who marked down working class kids during the pandemic and thirdly your government asked to be judged on closing the educational attainment gap. Education being the route out of poverty. And you know that it is and you know for a fact Douglas that there's been more homes built in Scotland under the SNP than anywhere else per head of population on these aisles. We know that Scotland is the only place on these aisles where our young people go to university and don't have to pay for tuition fees unlike in England where they're under the burden of debt. All right. Election anyone and let me tell you if you want to hear from all of the leaders of the party standing for election in Scotland then you can do because BBC Scotland is holding a leaders election debate. It's going to be on Sunday night. You can watch it on BBC Scotland but you can also catch it on BBC iPlayer and if you want to have your say on anything we've discussed during the course of this program then the way to do that is by phoning any answers. Anita Arnondas in the chair 03700 100 444 is the number that you need. Next week we will be in Hassex in Sussex the week after we will be in Cheshire but from here in Edinburgh we are out of time so it just leaves me to say thank you very much to our panel. Thank you very much to our audience and of course as ever thank you at home for listening.