One year to indyref: the full Alex Salmond Q&A

The people who give that kind of stuff play will give it play, the Express, the Mail, the Telegraph -  those with a vested interest. Ashcroft has an axe to grind. The mistakes in it are manifest. Polling started in June is not as significant as polling started in September.

Every poll can have something said about it. I think YouGov's polls on the constitutional question are deeply suspect because they have a preamble that talks about leaving the United Kingdom, which was perhaps defensible before the question we are to put to the people was set, but now you should just ask the question.

The other thing is that I don't think you should say 'how would you vote tomorrow'. People aren't being asked to vote tomorrow. It should say how are you going to vote on September 18 next year. 

But a Panelbase poll for the SNP got a favourable result for you by asking mood-setting preamble questions?

My view is you take the polls as you find them. The argument you would have about the Panelbase poll is it tells you what can happen, whereas the Ashcroft poll, if it tells you anything, tells you what would have happened last June, which is not of any great interest.

A poll that tells you what might happen in the future if certain conditions apply is more interesting. The Panelbase preamble questions tell you that if the Yes campaign is successful in placing the debate in the context whether Scotland can become a successful independent country then it's likely that people will vote yes next year.

I suspect Lord Ashcroft probably knows next to nothing about the debate on Scottish self-government in the last five years, never mind the last 100 years. This is a very familiar argument for those of us who remember the devolution debates. Right through those debates we were told that because when people were asked what things they wanted, they would say, depending on the circumstances, low unemployment, low inflation, and a decent National Health Service, and right through the devolution debate they very rarely said devolution was the thing they wanted. It was usually about seventh or eighth or ninth on that list.

The No campaign against devolution assumed that meant that devolution and a Scottish Parliament was not a priority for people. They were eventually really upset that people kept asking for it and in 1997 they voted for it so decisively. They couldn't understand why.

The reason is that a constitutional change is not just desirable in itself, it's also desirable as a means to an end, so if you stick it in a line with other objectives it's not a proper comparison. I doubt, very frankly, if Lord Ashcroft about the history of the constitutional debate at all. This is something that is new to him.

The idea of the No campaign - and Ashcroft asked these questions because this is a preoccupation of the No campaign who want to say independence is a fascination of the Scottish National Party or of Alex Salmond, as opposed to something that is desired by a huge number of people in Scotland - it really does belittle the debate to talk in these terms.

The self-government movement in Scotland, of which independence is the culmination, has been running in democratic terms for over a century, ever since the Scottish Home Rule Association and before the SNP was formed as a political party. In its various forms and guises and campaigns it's been a running thread through Scottish political history. The idea that this is something that has been dreamed up by me or even the SNP is ridiculous.

This is about a nation seeking self-determination, of which many of us would argue the point of conclusion is independence, as opposed to a passing fad. The cause of independence has been articulated since before the grandfathers of the teenage bloggers of the No campaign were born.

Before Scotland intruded into Lord Ashcroft's consciousness this was a debate of extremely long standing and deep resonance. It's about the noblest objective of all, about the search of a country for a means of expressing its identity and its politics. To demean it by suggesting this is something that has been dreamed up as a passing fad is to fundamentally misunderstand the flow of Scottish politics, so whatever the result is, this is a big debate about a big issue, an issue I suspect is too big for the proponents of the No campaign, and certainly for Lord Ashcroft.

What do you make of the Red Paper argument for radical reform within a federal Britain?

As has been well versed, I would have been very comfortable with having more than one option on the ballot paper but that is not the choice that the UK Government presented Scotland with, and therefore the referendum was placed in such a way as to put it beyond legal challenge and to be accepted in the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement.

To those who say wouldn't federalism be a nice idea, their timing is slightly late. We're going to put the matter to the touch on September 18 next year. Scotland will be able to frame its independence in whichever way it chooses in terms of its constitutional relationship with the other countries in these islands and I have made quite clear what the SNP's view on that is.

Other views are perfectly legitimate, but that will be Scotland's choice to make. And also in terms of the nature of the social and economic policies that Scotland wishes to pursue. That is also Scotland's choice to make.

But these are choices that can only be made if we claim the sovereignty of an independent country. If we don't do that then these choices are not for us but for others, and the best we can do in these circumstances is attempt to ameliorate policies that we fundamentally disapprove of. 

What do you say to critics of your Indy-lite, "don't-scare-the-horses" approach. Should you have been more adventurous in order to be a little bit more inspiring?

I don't think it's a difficulty because we make it clear that we put forward a range of policy choices that are those of the SNP, but also that other choices are equally legitimate to be asked of the people what their view is. The point about independence which I have always made, and which the White Paper will certainly make, is that it places the choices in the hands of the people of Scotland who will have the Government that they elect, one of the essential points.

That might involve not being in Nato, not keeping the monarchy?

Let's take them in turn. We put forward the position that we will negotiate for Scotland, then Scotland will make its choice in the election, and yes, of course, Scotland could decide that it ought to negotiate its way out of Nato membership, in the same way the UK Government could if it so chose. Let's take the monarchy as another example...

I've always been puzzled by your support for the monarchy...

In that case you have been puzzled about something that has been SNP policy since 1934.

But your personal support for it, as someone on the Left, indeed someone who was once briefly thrown out of the party for membership of the 79 Group, being pro-monarchy?

I believe that is a satisfactory constitutional settlement for the Scottish people and I think that social and economic progress is obtained by political policies and the protection and articulation of rights under a written constitution. And as I recently argued in a speech a written constitution is not incompatible with a constitutional monarchy.

In fact, we are the only constitutional monarchy in the Commonwealth which doesn't have a written constitution. So for that reason I agree with the general sweep of SNP policy since 1934 and, incidentally did when I was in the 79 Group.

I have changed my mind on a whole range of issues in politics, as you should do, but that just doesn't happen to be one of them. But of course, the balance will be between putting forward the SNP view of the shape of an independent Scotland but by making it clear that key aspect is that this is a matter of choice for the people whose right to choose is the essential point of independence. But people expect us to have a vision on the shape of what this independent Scotland will be and therefore the SNP has an obligation to provide that position. 

Take another of your five Unions, the EU, whatever happens, Scotland's not going to get a seamless transition is it?

The position that we have articulated is that, on a vote for independence, there will be simultaneous negotiations with both the Westminster Parliament and the European Union and Scotland will notify its intention to remain as a member of the EU. So it will be seamless in the sense that there will be no point at which Scotland is not in the EU. Does anybody actually suggest there would be, incidentally? Most constitutional experts put forward the view that it would be incredible that Scotland would be ejected from the EU.

Surely this ceased to be an argument when Professor James Crawford, the UK Government's own chosen and presumably paid legal adviser - and presumably paid more than £100 that was at the centre of a so-called recent controversy among some of your colleagues - was asked whether 18 months was a reasonable time period to negotiate that position said yes it was.

Even the No campaign say things like "We're not saying Scotland won't be in the EU, we're just saying that the terms will be this, that and the next thing."

But you have always argued that all this is certain. It's not certain, is it?

If the supreme legal adviser to the Westminster Government says it's a reasonable proposition that you can negotiate your position within 18 months then who am I to gainsay someone paid by the UK Government to opine on these matters. There is no serious suggestion that Scotland will not be a member of the EU if it wishes to be so, and I believe it should wish to be so.

If it came to the point, someone could decide to veto it.

Who is this someone that's going to do it?

Perhaps Spain?

In the circumstances of 2014 to 2016, particularly after 2015, there are two potential propositions which could be running simultaneously. There would be Scotland negotiating its position as an EU member from within the EU and a UK Government negotiating with the possible endgame of withdrawing from the EU.

Which is the more certain outcome? I would have thought the more certain outcome involves the negotiations to stay in, as opposed to negotiation which could result in a referendum to come out. So in a world of many imponderables I would have thought the Scottish position was rather more certain than the UK Government's position.

Take the monetary union. Would you not be in a weak bargaining position?

I think we would be in the strongest position of all.

In what way? You don't have an alternative or fall-back position, do you?

The SNP's proposition is that sterling is as much our currency as it is the rest of the UK's. It's a joint monetary asset. We are as entitled to use sterling as the rest of the UK. That seems to me a pretty strong intellectual position.

The argument against it would be that the UK has the right to decide which assets Scotland is able to share and which it doesn't. If that is the case, then by logical extension by that argument the UK Government ends up with all the monetary liabilities, including gargantuan amounts of National Debt. All the Government debt is issued in the name of the Treasury.

If the UK Government says it controls the monetary assets, then they inherit the monetary liabilities as well as surely as night follows day. Therefore the UK Government will have to negotiate with an independent Scotland to accept a share of that National Debt. Obviously, the UK Government's position would be somewhat weaker if they tried to maintain a position that we are not entitled to a share of the monetary assets.

But what about the control the Bank of England has more generally? The argument is that if you stay in a sterling zone then your new independent Parliament won't be independent at all.

Well then that is an argument that could be placed against any countries that have been involved in a monetary union. Many, many countries around the world are in monetary unions but they are still considered to be independent countries. 

I think fiscal policy has primacy. In terms of the things you want to do in society control of revenues and control of spending are the areas of discretion in economic policy. There are other areas of policy, of course - energy policy, competition policy, industrial policy, the very stuff of a modern society.

The exchange rate policy and monetary policy are an aspect that it would be difficult to say that countries have determination over, for two reasons: one, that the international market place often doesn't allow you determination and you can point to many instances in UK history where that clearly has been the place, otherwise Denis Healey would not have popped off to the IMF all those years ago; and secondly, in terms of the argument, because the Bank of England is already operationally independent in terms of its pursuit of monetary policy and was made so in 1997. So in that sense the UK Chancellor does not determine monetary policy

What about another of your unions, the defence union, Nato?

The Nato position is that other countries, I am certain, would wish Scotland to be in Nato and the policy adopted by the SNP is that it is the wish of our friends and neighbours that that be the case.

The condition we have, of course is to be a non-nuclear member of that alliance. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and its purpose would be somewhat weakened if a large part of the North Atlantic weren't in the organisation. Nor do I think other countries would have the slightest difficulty with Scotland being in membership. On the contrary they would be enthusiastic, I would think. It's much more an issue about being friendly and co-operative to our friends and neighbours. That's the purpose of the SNP's Nato position.

What do you mean by the social union?

In my speeches over the summer I have described the social union as something beyond governments and also beyond politics, in the sense that the social union between Scotland and England, and Ireland for that matter, exists regardless of the views and policies of governments. Why shouldn't it?

Well, because you have rolled into that the issue of the BBC. Would we keep the BBC? Would the BBC keep us?

That's an interesting way to put it. Would the BBC keep us? You have to remember the BBC broadcasts in lots of places. The key part of our broadcasting policy is that we want to have a public service broadcasting service in Scotland. We have no difficulty with keeping BBC programming and the range of BBC Services.

Why would Scotland get that? How would you pay for it?

I can get the exact figures for you but the licence fee generates far more than is spent on BBC Scotland. I am quite convinced that the BBC would have no difficulty broadcasting in an independent Scotland in the same way that you can watch the BBC in lots of places. When I was asked this question by Jeremy Paxman I pointed out to him that the last time I watched him interview someone I was sitting in Dublin. What's the suggestion? That the BBC would not wish to continue broadcasting here?

We are not diminishing the range of BBC programmes, either available to Scots or to anyone else. All we're doing is to make sure we have a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation with the ability to have a range of services that you would expect a normal country to have from its public service broadcaster, as opposed to being an opt-out station as we have at the present moment. 

So, an SBC with the ability to draw on programmes from the BBC?

An SBC with the ability to draw its programmes from a range of sources. Why wouldn't it? It would be a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation offering a full range of programmes but obviously every single programme that any broadcaster broadcasts, including the BBC, is not self-generated. They come from a range of sources.

My view of the social union is of people travelling here, there and everywhere - people from Scotland working in London, people from the North of England working in Scotland, people from Scotland visiting their granny in Newcastle, these inter-relationships.

George Osborne and a Treasury report recently argued that this was bound to diminish if you put in a state boundary.

John McLaren, former adviser to Donald Dewar, described that as - I don't think he actually said rubbish - but he said it was a pretty weak and flimsy argument. The phrase I would use is mince. An 80% decline in inter-trade between Scotland and England projected on Canadian-American borders is just nonsense. I think Scotland will get to the position over the next year that when we are presented with George Osborne reading out his latest bogeyman calculation people will just start to laugh uproariously at this total and utter nonsense.

If we take some of the things that are wrong with the argument, first of all Canada and the USA is not a good parallel for all sorts of reasons. But nonetheless what is the endgame in that argument? Should George Osborne, because of the incredible success of the economy he has administered, be sending the Governor of the Bank of England to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada, as opposed to taking the Governor of the Bank of Canada and making him Governor of the Bank of England?

Or should George Osborne go on a speaking tour of Canada saying that they must immediately give up their independence because he has worked out that inter-trade with the United States would be better if they were part of the USA? Or should he say to them the fact that they are the most successful performing economy in the OECD over the last six years they should ignore that fact because he knows that over the next 30 years the Treasury projections say something different.

This is bad bedtime stories for the children from the Treasury. It's stupid. Can I just say something about all these questions. Over the next year let's not let the context of the debate on Scottish independence be dictated by nonsense from the UK Treasury.

From where you are now in the polls, a year out, how do you win?

I'm quite happy to bat off suggestions Scotland won't be in the EU or we wouldn't be able to use sterling. That's not the essence of this debate. The reason for defining the unions, as you put it, is not to constrict the choices of the Scottish people have. If they choose to resume their sovereignty as a country they will have these and many more choices.

The purpose of doing that is to concentrate and focus on the union that won't continue, which is the political and economic union. Because I think the majority is there to be won over next year on that.

In other words, do we get the governments we vote for, do the political choices of Scotland result in the political direction we vote for?

And secondly, in the words of the previous question in that Panelbase poll, can Scotland be a successful independent country? Giving us the political and economic choices which the people of Scotland should have - that's how the independence referendum will be won.

But is that not lacking the vision needed to inspire the campaign?

I think the vision lies in the political and economic choices the country pursues. Political and economic choices is where we want to base this argument. In other words, are we better with governments we choose, which we vote for, or governments that we don't choose and don't vote for?

And secondly, can this country be a successful, independent country and also a more equal society. That is where the choice is going to lie and on that basis we will win this referendum. If we spend our time speaking about Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State, how many countries are in Nato and what currency we will use, these are legitimate choices the SNP will put forward, legitimate propositions, but these are not what is going to win this referendum. To win this referendum is to have a Government we can trust and vote for because it will pursue policies to put forward the Common Weal of Scotland.

You use the phrase Common Weal. What about the raft of radical policies being drawn up under that banner?

Yes, but it's also something that's deeply intrinsic to Scottish society. We are defining the ground on which we are going to fight this referendum. We are going to fight it on that territory. In my view the basis of this case for independence is a democratic one and a social and economic one. It's a case that through the resumption of Scottish sovereignty we can build a better society in Scotland, and that's because we will make different political and economic choices.

I intend to articulate what these different political and economic choices are. Now, when I do that I don't have an arbitrary authority over these things, a sole preserve. I am going to say quite openly that these are not the only political and economic choices the people of Scotland can take, but to have a choice we have to vote Yes.

I am basing my argument on the belief that the people of Scotland will vote Yes by a majority next year. That is an absolute belief of mine. For that to happen the Yes campaign has to pursue the right arguments in the right way, but if we pursue the right arguments in the right way we will win the referendum.

Nothing happens by itself. If it had been up to YouGov then I wouldn't be sitting here as First Minister, if I can gently remind the pollsters, and to be fair to Panelbase theirs was the first poll to detect the change in the wind two years ago at the Scottish election.

Why was there a change on the way? It was because people engaged with the argument. As they engaged with the argument, they saw that the SNP Government had a lot to be said for it.

As the election campaign unfolded that trickle to the SNP became a flood and if it had gone on for another week I don't know if there would have been anybody from the Labour Party left in the Scottish Parliament because we were gaining all the time through the campaign.

But there is a certain thing that those in politics or who write about politics may find an uncomfortable truth that nonetheless is there; most people don't engage in the political process until the point they have to.

Incidentally, it's one of the issues I've got with the framing of poll questions; a poll should never ask the question 'what are you going to do tomorrow'. It's not tomorrow. That's not the point. You ask 'what are you going to do next year?' or what you think you are going to do next year or what your expectation is of next year.

Never ask people today about tomorrow when they absolutely know that they will not be making that judgment. They will have to make that judgment when it's time to do so, when they have the information they want, when they are focussed on the campaign. Most reasonable, decent human beings have lots going on in their lives, outwith the political hemisphere.

I assumed that modern technology would enable us to enlarge that political world but in some ways the opposite is happening. Perhaps there will be the same engagement that has taken place across a range of other functions but technology has not engaged.

Such as?

Even if you don't like it, in terms of the interactivity of television entertainment programmes. Back in the fifties and sixties it was a received thing that somebody on the BBC dreamed up who was to be an acceptable act. That was what people would see.

Now the onus on television has been for people to choose which acts they want to see, and there is participation in wanting to do so. A lot of people don't like reality television but in terms of light entertainment it's been rather good, actually, with the essential democracy of choosing who's successful and who's not successful.

I'm not saying politics should be like that. I'm just saying that there hasn't been the same electronic enthusiasm for politics that there has been in other areas, but perhaps something can be done.

There is nothing, incidentally, to beat the town hall meetings like the ones we have been having over this summer. I promise you that if you polled the audiences going in and coming out you would have seen a very substantial shift towards Yes. I think that whenever people hear the arguments and get to ask their questions.

So you detect a shift?

Opinion will shift as the arguments engage. What's my evidence for that? Well you have these meetings, the tide is turning and the more people know about the argument the more they will vote Yes. In the 2011 election the first showing of the head was pretty late on, as people engaged with the argument. Will people engage more quickly than they do in a Scottish Election or General Election? They might well because of the nature of a referendum.

Is there anything you would have done differently, for example the fight over EU legal advice?

I am not going to re-do an old song. The reason for giving the answer was that it was the answer that was true.

But you were fighting not to reveal evidence that didn't exist.

Yes, but that is the convention and that is still the convention, incidentally. And that wasn't what was suggested by anyone. I'm not going to get into what I see as the most extraordinary double standards of the media because that is not what is going to dictate the current referendum campaign. They might think they do.

If this was going to be a referendum campaign that was going to be decided by the volume of newsprint, then it would be extremely difficult. Luckily for us it's not going to be decided by the volume of newsprint.

The media have four papers who are part of the No campaign in a way that their copy has been totally sub-contracted. Luckily, that is not what dictates politics, if indeed it ever did. I am conscious of the fact that I became First Minister in an atmosphere in which almost every paper was campaigning against me. It certainly doesn't dictate it now. 

I was fascinated by the recent Yes Scotland issue. You had two issues running simultaneously - the question of a payment to an academic of £100, and the question of the potentially illegal hacking of an organisation's emails. Of which gravity are each of these issues? To most people looking in or trying to understand these matters, the question of the £100 payment, rather like the question of James Crawford's undisclosed payment, is an issue of relatively insignificant dimensions, not because it's £100 but because people get paid - that's what happens. You might say that's an issue of no great consequence.

The issue of potentially illegal hacking of people's communications in a campaign is the most enormous issue. It's the issue about which Leveson spent many months ruminating recently and brought the whole focus on the press. So one was an enormous issue, one is a relatively small issue. If you read the press in Scotland, the £100 issue assumed gigantic proportions and potentially illegal hacking was a mere inconvenience.

I don't thing the written media in Scotland will dictate the outcome of the referendum, and thank goodness.

Thanks for that . . .

In a world where the political climate and discussion is dictated by a means of information which is under the control of one side or other of a campaign - which has happened many times in human history - then for a period of time that position can be maintained by that control of the media.

We no longer live in that world, for two reasons. One is that there is a whole range of other sources of information, which also impact on what people say or do. But the second and most important thing with regard to a political campaign as conducted now, is that as the campaign transfers on to television and radio and to the campaign discussion on the streets, the context set by the written media becomes less and less important. People believe what they see, not what they read.

That's slightly bogus, though . . .

As you wish, but that's definitely my experience. You're looking for an explanation. If I were looking for an explanation or articulation of why the SNP went from 15% behind in most opinion polls to 15% in front on election day, then two things happened.

One, the people who set the context for the 15% behind became less important than what governs an election campaign, which is parity of broadcasting. And people were then able to see the case for the SNP Government as presented by me and the case for the opposition based on opposition leaders and make their judgment based on the merits of the cases.

Then you have the impact of street campaigning, of community campaigning and things that happen in an election campaign, so you have that shift. Also, people are receptive to hearing these messages because they know they have to make a choice.

So, the two things work together as part of political campaigning and that's why I believe that if you've got the best arguments then you win the election or the referendum. You ask me when it will happen. To a certain extent that choice is in the hands of the people. It's their choice when to engage, not a politician's choice.

I can't say, 'right you shall now pay attention." I'm Scottish First Minister, not the Scottish Dominie. People will decide as a community when they want to engage with this. At that point of engagement the Yes campaign will gain noticeable ground, a process that I judge from my summer campaign.

So would you have done anything different over the last year or two, or is it all down to the endgame?

Over the last two years it was necessary to build the Edinburgh Agreement. This was maybe a frustration but it was necessary. Over this year it has been necessary to build the framework for the White Paper to come. That is the platform. You can do what Catalonia is doing and have a referendum without an agreement, I suppose - I'm not diminishing or talking anyone else down -  but it was better to have an agreement that the referendum was going to be accepted.

Secondly, you have to decide what the framework of this debate is, what is the platform you are going to ask people to judge. We are putting forward the proposition. It's our responsibility to build that platform, nobody else's. Not the No campaign. They would like to define it but their platform refers to some strange world that they inhabit, where there is barbed wire at borders and people don't speak to us any more, where the man who couldn't forecast UK GDP in 30 months believes he can forecast Scottish GDP over the next 30 years.

They inhabit a strange world but the actual platform on which people will judge will be the platform that the SNP Government can construct. That is the White Paper, in the same way that Donald Dewar had his White Paper on devolution in 1997 and the people had to judge, not on what the No campaign had said what devolution was about, but on what that White Paper said that devolution was about.

That process, had it been followed in 1979, may well have produced a different result. That was part of Donald Dewar's genius in the handling of the 1997 campaign. I think that was a good model.