27/10/2013 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Hope you enjoyed

the extra hour in bed and that you've realise it's not quarter to

one. It's quarter to 12! It's getting stormy outside. But

they're already battening down the hatches at Number ten because

coalition splits are back, with bust-ups over free schools and power

bills. We'll speak to the Lib Dems and ask Labour who's conning whom

over energy. EU leaders have been meeting in

Brussels. But how's David Cameron getting on with that plan to change

our relationship with Europe. We were there to ask him.

Have we got any powers back yet? Foreign companies own everything

from our energy companies to our railways. Does it matter who owns

our businesses? Union boss Bob Crow and venture capitalist Julie Meyer

go head to head. And here on Sunday Politics

Scotland. More on the questions surrounding the role unions play in

today's workforce - could this week's events at Grangemouth signal

a sea change? pace?

And with me, three journalists who've bravely agreed to hunker down

in the studio while Britain braces itself for massive storm winds,

tweeting their political forecasts with all the accuracy of Michael

Fish on hurricane watch. Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt.

Now, sometimes coalition splits are over-egged, or dare we say even

occasionally stage-managed. But this week, we've seen what looks like the

genuine article. It turns out Nick Clegg has his doubts about the

coalition's flagship free schools policy. David Cameron doesn't much

like the green levies on our energy bills championed by the Lib Dems.

Neither of them seems to have bothered to tell the other that they

had their doubts. Who better to discuss these flare-ups than Lib Dem

Deputy Leader Simon Hughes? He joins me now. Welcome. Good morning. The

Lib Dems spent three years of sticking up for the coalition when

times were grim. Explain to me the logic of splitting from them when

times look better. We will stick with it for five years. It is

working arrangement, but not surprisingly, where there right

areas on which we disagree over where to go next, we will stand up.

It is going to be hard enough for the Lib Dems to get any credit for

the recovery, what ever it is. It will be even harder if you seem to

be semidetached and picky. The coalition has led on economic

policy, some of which were entirely from our stable. The one you have

heard about most often, a Lib Dem initiative, was to take people on

blowing comes out of tax. The recovery would not have happened,

there would not have been confidence in Britain, had there not been a

coalition government with us in it, making sure the same policies

produced fair outcomes. We are not going to leave the credit for any

growth - and there has been very good news this week. We have played

a part in that, and without us, it would not have happened. Does it not

underline the trust problem you have? You promised to abolish

tuition fees. You oppose nuclear power, now you are cheerleading the

first multi-billion pounds investment in nuclear generation.

You are dying out on your enthusiasm on green levies, and now they are up

for renegotiation. Why should we trust a word you say? In relation to

green levies, as you well know, just under 10% is to do with helping

energy and helping people. Unless there is continuing investment in

renewables, we will not have the British produced energy at cheaper

cost to keep those bills down in the future. At cheaper cost? Explain

that to me. Off-shore energy is twice the market rate. The costs of

renewables will increasingly come down. We have fantastic capacity to

produce the energy and deliver lots of jobs in the process. The parts of

the energy bill that may be up for renegotiation seems to be the part

where we subsidise to help either poor people pay less, or where we do

other things. Too insulated the homes? Are you up to putting that to

general taxation? Wouldn't that be progressive? I would. It would be

progressive. I would like to do for energy bills what the Chancellor has

done for road traffic users, drivers, which is too fuelled motor

fuel -- to freeze new to fall. That would mean there would be an

immediate relief this year, not waiting for the election. So there

is a deal to be done there? Yes. We understand we have to take the

burden off the consumer, and also deal with the energy companies, who

look as if they are not paying all the tax they should be, and the

regulator, which doesn't regulate quickly enough to deal with the

issues coming down the track. We can toughen the regulator, and I hope

that the Chancellor, in the Autumn statement, was signalled that energy

companies will not be allowed to get away with not paying the taxes they

should. And this deal will allow energy prices to come down? Yes. How

could David Laws, one of your ministers, proudly defend the record

of unqualified teachers working in free schools, and then stand

side-by-side with Mr Clegg, as he says he is against them? David Laws

was not proudly defending the fact that it is unqualified teachers. He

said that some of the new, unqualified teachers in free schools

are doing a superb job. But you want to get rid of them? We want to make

sure that everybody coming into a free school ends up being qualified.

Ends up? Goes through a process that means they have qualifications. Just

as we said very clearly at the last election that the manifesto

curriculum in free schools should be the same as other schools. It looks

like Mr Clegg is picking a fight just for the sake of it. Mr Clegg

was taught by people who didn't have teaching qualifications in one of

the greatest schools in the land, if not the world. It didn't seem to do

him any harm. What is the problem? If you pay to go to a school, you

know what you're getting. But that is what a free school is. No, you

don't pay fees. A free school is parents taking the decisions, not

you, the politicians. We believe they would expect to guarantee is,

firstly that the minimum curriculum taught across the country is taught

in the free schools, and secondly, that the teachers there are

qualified. Someone who send their kids to private schools took a

decision to take -- to send their children there, even if the teachers

were unqualified, because they are experts in their field. Someone who

send their kids to free schools is because -- is their decision, not

yours. Because some of the free schools are new, and have never been

there before, parents need a guarantee that there are some basics

in place, whatever sort of school. So they need you to hold their hand?

It is not about holding hands, it is about having a minimum guarantee.

Our party made clear at our conference that this is a priority

for us. Nick Clegg reflects the view of the party, and I believe it is an

entirely rational thing to do. Nick Clegg complained that the Prime

Minister gave him only 30 minutes notice on the Prime Minister Buzz 's

U-turn on green levies. That is almost as little time as Nick Clegg

gave the Prime Minister on his U-turn on free schools. Aren't you

supposed to be partners? Green levies were under discussion in the

ministerial group before Wednesday, because we identified this as an

issue. We do that in a practical way. Sometimes there is only half an

hour's notice. We had even less than half an hour this morning! Simon

Hughes, thank you. So the price of energy is the big

battle ground in politics at the moment. 72% of people say that high

bills will influence the way they vote at the next election. Ed

Miliband has promised a price freeze after the next election, but will

the coalition turned the tables on Labour, with its proposal to roll

back green levies. Caroline Flint joins us from Sheffield. It looks

like the coalition will be able to take ?50 of energy bills, by

removing green levies. It is quite clear that different parts of the

government are running round waking up to the fact that the public feel

that this government has not done enough to listen to their concerns.

Last week, there was a classic case of the Prime Minister making up

policy literally at the dispatch box. Let's see what they say in the

autumn statement. The truth is, whatever the debate around green

levies, and I have always said we should look at value for money at

those green levies. Our argument is about acknowledging there is

something wrong with the way the market works, and the way those

companies are regulated. Behind our freeze for 20 months is a package of

proposals to reform this market. I understand that, but you cannot tell

as the details about that. I can. You cannot give us the details about

reforming the market. We are going to do three things, and I think I

said this last time I was on the programme. First, we are going to

separate out the generation side from the supply side within the big

six. Secondly, we will have a energy pool, or power exchange, where all

energy will have to be traded in that pool. Thirdly, we will

establish a tougher regulator, because Ofgem is increasingly being

seen as not doing the job right. I notice that you didn't mention any

reform of the current green and social taxes on the energy bill. Is

it Labour's policy to maintain the existing green levies? In 2011, the

government chose to get rid of warm front, which was the publicly funded

through tracks a scheme to support new installation. When they got rid

of that, it was the first time we had a government since the 70s that

didn't have such a policy. What is your policy? We voted against that

because we believe it is wrong. We believe that the eco-scheme, a

government intervention which is ?47 of the ?112 on our bills each year,

is expensive, bureaucratic and isn't going to the fuel poor. I am up for

a debate on these issues. I am up for a discussion on what the

government should do and what these energy companies should do. We

cannot let Cameron all the energy companies off the hook from the way

in which they organise their businesses, and expect us to pay

ever increasing rises in our bills. There is ?112 of green levies on our

bills at the moment. Did you vote against any of them? We didn't, but

what I would say ease these were government imposed levies. When they

got rid of the government funded programme, Warm Front, they

introduced the eco-scheme. The eco-project is one of the ones where

the energy companies are saying, it's too bureaucratic, and it is

proving more expensive than government estimates, apparently

doubled the amount the government thought. These things are all worth

looking at, but don't go to the heart of the issue. According to

official figures, on current plans, which you support, which you voted

for, households will be paying 41% more per unit of electricity by

2030. It puts your temporary freeze as just a blip. You support a 41%

rise in our bills. I support making sure we secure for the future access

to energy that we can grow here in the UK, whether it is through

nuclear, wind or solar, or other technologies yet to be developed. We

should protect ourselves against energy costs we cannot control. The

truth is, it is every fair for you to put that point across, and I

accept that, but we need to hear the other side about the cost for bill

payers if we didn't invest in new, indigenous sources of energy supply

for the future, which, in the long run, will be cheaper and more

secure, and create the jobs we need. I think it is important to

have a debate about these issues, but they have to be seen in the

right context. If we stay stuck in the past, we will pay more and we

will not create jobs. How can you criticise the coalition's plans for

a new nuclear station, when jeering 13 years of a Labour government, you

did not invest in a single nuclear plant? You sold off all our nuclear

technology to foreign companies. Energy provision was put out to

private hands and there has been no obstacle in British law against

ownership outside the UK. Part of this is looking ahead. Because your

previous track record is so bad? What we did decide under the

previous government, we came to the view, and there were discussions in

our party about this, that we did need to support a nuclear future.

At the time of that, David Cameron was one of those saying that

nuclear power should be a last resort. And as you said, the

Liberals did not support it. We stood up for that. We set in train

the green light of 10 sites, including Hinkley Point, for

nuclear development. I am glad to see that is making progress and we

should make more progress over the years ahead. We took a tough

decision when other governments had not done. You did not build a new

nuclear station. When you get back into power, will you build HS2?

That has not had a blank cheque from the Labour Party. I am in

favour of good infrastructure. Are you in favour of?, answer the

question? I have answered the question. It does not have a blank

cheque. If the prices are too high, we will review the decision when we

come back to vote on it. We will be looking at it closely. We have to

look for value for money and how it benefits the country. Have you

stocked up on jumpers this winter? I am perfectly all right with my

clothing. What is important, it is ridiculous for the Government to

suggest that the answer to the loss of trust in the energy companies is

to put on another jumper. The coalition has taken a long time

to come up with anything that can trump Ed Miliband's simple freezing

energy prices, vote for us. Are they on the brink of doing so? I do

not think so. They have had a problem that has dominated the

debate, talking about GDP, the figures came out on Friday and said,

well, and went back to talking about energy. My problem with what

David Cameron proposes is he agrees with the analysis that the Big Six

make too many profits. He wants to move the green levies into general

taxation, so that he looks like he is protecting the profits of the

energy companies. If the coalition can say they will take money off

the bills, does that change the game? I do not think the Liberal

Democrats are an obstacle to unwinding the green levies. I think

Nick Clegg is open to doing a deal, but the real obstacle is the carbon

reduction targets that we signed up to during the boom years. They were

ambitious I thought at the time. From that we have the taxes and

clocking up of the supply-side of the economy. Unless he will revise

that, and build from first principles a new strategy, he

cannot do more than put a dent into green levies. He might say as I

have got to ?50 now and if you voters in in an overall majority, I

will look up what we have done in the better times and give you more.

I am sure he will do that. It might be ?50 of the Bill, but it will be

?50 on your general taxation bill, which would be more progressive.

They will find it. We will never see it in general taxation. The

problem for the Coalition on what Ed Miliband has done is that it is

five weeks since he made that speech and it is all we are talking

about. David Cameron spent those five weeks trying to work out

whether Ed Miliband is a Marxist or whether he is connected to Middle

Britain. That is why Ed Miliband set the agenda. The coalition are

squabbling among themselves, looking petulant, on energy, and on

schools. Nobody is taking notice of the fact the economy is under way,

the recovery is under way. Ed Miliband has made the weather on

this. It UK has a relaxed attitude about

selling off assets based -- to companies based abroad. But this

week we have seen the Swiss owner of one of Scotland's largest

industrial sites, Grangemouth, come within a whisker of closing part of

it down. So should we care whether British assets have foreign owners?

Britain might be a nation of homeowners, but we appear to have

lost our taste for owning some of our biggest businesses. These are

among the crown jewels sold off in the past three decades to companies

based abroad. Roughly half of Britain's essential services have

overseas owners. The airport owner, British Airports Authority, is

owned by a Spanish company. Britain's largest water company,

Thames, is owned by a consortium led by an Australian bank. Four out

of six of Britain's biggest energy companies are owned by overseas

giants, and one of these, EDF Energy, which is owned by the

French state, is building Britain's first nuclear power plant in a

generation, backed by Chinese investors. It's a similar story for

train operator Arriva, bought by a company owned by the German state.

So part of the railways privatised by the British government was

effectively re-nationalised by the German government. But does it

matter who owns these companies, as long as the lights stay on, the

trains run on time, and we can still eat Cadbury's Dairy Milk?

We are joined by the general secretary of the RMT, Bob Crow, and

by venture capitalist Julie Meyer. They go head to head.

Have we seen the consequences of relying for essential services to

be foreign-owned? Four of the Big Six energy companies, Grangemouth,

owned by a tax exile in Switzerland. It is not good. I do not think

there is a cause and effect relationship between foreign

ownership and consumer prices. That is not the right comparison. We

need to be concerned about businesses represented the future,

businesses we are good at innovating for example in financial

services and the UK has a history of building businesses, such as

Monotypes. If we were not creating businesses here -- Monotise. Like

so many businesses creating products and services and creating

the shareholders. Should we allow hour essential services to be in

foreign ownership? It was demonstrated this week at

Grangemouth. If you do not own the industry, you do not own it. The

MPs of this country and the politicians in Scotland have no say,

they were consultants. Multinationals decide whether to

shut a company down. If that had been Unite union, they are the ones

who saved the jobs. They capitulated. They will come back,

like they have for the past 150 years, and capture again what they

lost. If it had closed, they would have lost their jobs for ever. If

the union had called the members up without a ballot for strike action,

there would have been uproar. This person in Switzerland can decide to

shut the entire industry down. The coalition, the Labour Party, as

well, when Labour was in government, they played a role of allowing

industries to go abroad, and it should be returned to public

ownership. Nestor. It has demonstrated that the Net comes

from new businesses. We must not be... When Daly motion was stopped

by the French government to be sold, it was an arrow to the heart of

French entrepreneurs. We must not create that culture in the UK.

Every train running in France is built in France. 90% of the trains

running in Germany are built in Germany. In Japan, it has to be

built in that country, and now an energy company in France is

reducing its nuclear capability in its own country and wants to make

profits out of the British industry to put back into it state industry.

That happened with the railway industry. They want to make money

at the expense of their own state companies. We sold off energy

production. How did we end up in a position where our nuclear capacity

will be built by a company owned by a socialist date, France, and

funded by a communist one, China, for vital infrastructure? I am not

suggesting that is in the national interest. I am saying we can pick

any one example and say it is a shame. The simple matter of the

fact is the owners are having to make decisions. Not just

Grangemouth, businesses are making decisions about what is the common

good. Not just in the shareholders' interest. For employees, customers.

What is in the common good when prices go up by 10% and the reason

is that 20 years ago they shut every coal pit down in this country,

the Germans kept theirs open and subsidised it and now we have the

Germans doing away with nuclear power and they have coal. Under the

Labour government, in 2008, the climate change Act was passed. Well

before that, and you know yourself, they shut down the coal mines to

smash the National Union of Mineworkers because they dared to

stand up for people in their community. Even if we wanted to

reopen the coalmines, it would be pointless. Under the 2008 Act, we

are not meant to burn more coal. The can, as if you spent some of

the profits, you could have carbon catch up. That does not exist on a

massive scale. You are arguing the case, Julie Meyer, for

entrepreneurs to come to this country. Even Bob Crow is not

against that. We are trying to argue, should essential services be

in foreign hands? Not those in Silicon round about doing start-ups.

I am trying to draw a broader principle than just energy.

Something like broadband services, also important to the functioning

of the economy. I believe in the UK's ability to innovate. When we

have businesses that play off broadband companies to get the best

prices for consumers. These new businesses and business models are

the best way. Not to control, but to influence. It will be a disaster.

Prices will go up and up as a result. Nissan in Sunderland, a

Japanese factory, some of the best cars and productivity. You want

that to be nationalised and bring it down to the standard of British

Leyland? It is not bring it down to the standard. The car manufacturing

base in this country has been wrecked. We make more cars now for

20 years -- than in 20 years. Ford's Dagenham produced some of

the best cars in the world. Did you buy one? I cannot drive. They moved

their plants to other countries, where it was cheaper labour. Would

you nationalise Nissan? There should be one car industry that

produces cars for people. This week the EU summit was about Angela

Merkel's mobile phone being tapped, they call it a handy. We sent Adam

to Brussels and told him to ignore the business about phone-tapping

and investigate the Prime Minister's policy on Europe instead.

I have come to my first EU summit to see how David Cameron is getting on

with his strategy to claim power was back from Brussels. Got any powers

back yet? Yes! Which ones? Sadly, his fellow leaders were not as

forthcoming. Chancellor, are you going to give any powers back to

Britain? Has David Cameron asked you for any powers back? The president

of the commission just laughed, and listen to the Lithuanian President.

How is David Cameron's renegotiation strategy going? What's that? He

wants powers back for Britain. No one knows what powers David Cameron

actually wants. Even our usual allies, like Sweden, are bit

baffled. We actually don't know yet what is going through the UK

membership. We will await the finalisation of that first. You

should ask him, and then tell us! Here is someone who must know, the

Dutch Prime Minister, he is doing what we are doing, carrying out a

review of the EU powers, known as competencies in the jargon, before

negotiating to get some back. Have you had any negotiations with David

Cameron over what powers you can bring back from Brussels? That is

not on the agenda of this summit. Have you talked to him about it?

This is not on the schedule for this summit.

David Cameron's advises tummy it is because he is playing the long game.

-- David Cameron's advisers tell me. At this summit, there was a task

force discussing how to cut EU red tape. Just how long this game is was

explained to me outside the summit, by the leader of the Conservatives

in the European Parliament. I think the behind-the-scenes negotiations

will start happening when the new commissioner is appointed later next

year. I think the detailed negotiations will start to happen

bubbly after the UK general election. That is when we will start

getting all of the detail of the horse trading, and real, Lake night

negotiations. Angela Merkel seems keen to rewrite the EU's main

treaties to deal with changes in the Eurozone, and that is the mechanism

David Cameron would use to renegotiate our membership. Everyone

here says his relationship with the German Chancellor is strong. So

after days in this building, here is how it looks. David Cameron has a

mountain to climb. It is climbable, but he isn't even in the foothills

yet. Has he even started packing his bags for the trip?

Joining us now, a man who knows a thing or two about the difficulties

Prime Minister 's face in Europe. Former Deputy Prime Minister,

Michael Heseltine. We are nine months from David Cameron's defining

speech on EU renegotiation. Can you think of one area of progress? I

don't know. And you don't know. And that's a good thing. Why is it a

good thing? Because the real progress goes on behind closed

doors. And only the most naive, because the real progress goes on

behind You are much better off making

progress the best you can in the privacy. It is a long journey ahead.

Do you have a clear sense of the destination? No. I have a clear

sense of the destination which is the victor the key will win to stay

inside the European community. I of course have total support for that.

If he is incapable of getting any tangible sign of the negotiation and

is able to do only what Harold Wilson don't in 1975 which is

getting a couple of talking changes, he goes on to the referendum without

much to answer for, doesn't he? He has everything to argue for. He has

Britain's vital role as a major contributor and beneficiary. He has

the vital role of the city of London. He could argue for that now.

He doesn't want to have a referendum now and I have no doubt he will come

back with something to talk about. It may be slightly different to what

his critics, the UK isolationists, want. He may have found allies

within the community want change as well. He may secure changes the way

the community works, which would be a significant argument within the

referendum campaign. As an example, I happen to think it is a scandal

the European commission do not secure the auditing of some of the

accounts. Perhaps that could be on the agenda. He might find a lot of

contributing countries, like Germany and Holland, might be very keen. We

saw the other day he vetoed the increase in the European budget and

he had a lot of allies, so working within Europe or the things the

people want is fertile ground in my view.

Is John Major right to call for a windfall tax on the energy

companies? Here's a very cautious Philip Hollobone does not say things

thinking about. -- -- cautious fellow. It is pretty difficult to

predict what the consequences would be. I am myself more interested in

the other part of his speech which was speaking about the need for the

Conservatives to seek a wider horizon and recognise what is

happening to the party and the way in which its membership is

shrinking. I take it you are not for a windfall tax? I am not in favour

of increasing taxes anywhere. Do you shear scepticism on Iain Duncan

Smith's ability to succeed with welfare reform? I think he is right

and I indeed wrote a pamphlet in the 1980s called no place for hostages

arguing for what he is now trying to do. -- ostriches. He is right to try

this and public opinion is behind him but it is not easy because on

the fringe of these issues, there are genuine hard luck stories and

these are the ones that become the focus for attention and it requires

a lot of political skill to negotiate through that. Is he right

to invoke the beverage principle that you should be expected to make

a contribution? -- Beveridge. We will let you get your Sunday lunch.

Good afternoon and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up on the

programme. Grangemouth over the past week has

captivated the country. We will be examining the future role of unions

in industrial relations. We'll weigh that up with a panel of people

who've discussed and debated the place of unions in Scotland for

several decades. And a win in Dunfermline for Scottish Labour -

we'll speak to their leader Johann Lamont about how the party plans to

capitalise on the victory. Scotland's biggest industrial

complex was close to collapse this week, saved at the eleventh hour by

the total capitulation of a once powerful, unionised workforce. There

were certainly echoes of the 1970s in the Grangemouth dispute, but

Unite the union was overwhelmed by the hardline tactics of 21st century

mobile capital. Politicians were virtually powerless too in the face

of this emerging phenomenon. As Andrew Kerr reports, industrial

relations may never be the same again.

The spear Grangemouth this week with 800 workers having to tell their

families they were probably out of a job. People will probably never

forget these events but there's a more positive outcome. A more

harmonious relationship has been re-established here at Grangemouth.

Really for the workers and now perhaps recriminations against the

union. They marched their members up to the top of the hell but had to

march back down again. Ineos wanted the other way and were prepared to

take the sanction. Those are the methods of multinationals playing a

global game. We want to see a long-term future for Grangemouth. We

should be talking about them about the levels of long-term investment.

Not just intent on a fight. The world has moved on from the 1970s.

It certainly has. Look at the deal struck if you can even call it that.

They agreed to a three-year pay freeze with no strikes, closure of

the final salary pension scheme and no full-time union conveners. The

union was over a barrel this week, a far cry from these days. There will

be no vandalism, there will be no bevvying! They were dealing with

Ineos this time. If they had watched what was happening over the years,

this is a business that has had to deal with international bankers and

won that round. It clearly was signalling there were problems and

we have not been listening hard enough to understand how important

it was to accept the changes which are facing most people in Scotland

today. Some Labour MPs have been defending the union but whether the

tactics were hardline and uncompromising. We can only

represent the members we are representing at that time. We had

our members faced with three days to make key decisions on really radical

changes to terms and conditions. That probably means an emasculated

union at Grangemouth but it seems there's still a for them and perhaps

one more powerful. Any union has an important part to play and has two

learn the lessons of what did not work but I imagine any management

would want to make sure of that as well because it is an easy and

powerful way to get through to the staff of what needs to happen. I

imagine they will want to make union relationships work as well. Jim

Ratcliffe has called for the UK to the former Labour relations. The

question now is how many other employers have been watching this

dispute with interest wondering how far they can now push the unions.

Joining me now in the studio to discuss the fall out from last weeks

events - former Falkirk West Labour MP and later, Independent MSP,

Dennis Canavan and Chris Bartter who was with Unison Scotland for 20

years. And in our Edinburgh studio, Alan Cochrane, Scottish Editor of

the Daily Telegraph. Good afternoon. As the dust settles,

who was to blame? Now was not the time for recriminations. I had the

privilege of representing the Falkirk area for over 30 years and

many of my former constituents are employed at Grangemouth. They are

not militant extremists. Where they misled? I do not like the way they

and the trade union movement have been demonised by certain elements

in the media and certain politicians. These people by and

large are responsible citizens and employees and trade unionists. I

think the officials of the trade union in retrospect could say things

should have been handled better. That is all well in hindsight but

they were up against a ruthless and intransigent employer who was not

coming clean with the workforce, and we are where all sorts of

allegations coming out. Jim Ratcliffe was saying they are to be

honest about the finances. That is what was lacking all along, the lack

of honesty and transparency on behalf of the employer, and I think

there would have been a better and there weren't, had we had there been

transparency. Was the union demonised? I was astonished when you

said this was a case when the union was overwhelmed by 20th-century

mobile capitalism. They were overwhelmed by a union that walked

straight into a trap. The management wanted to change these working

practices and instead of arguing about the practices, the union

decided to fight a stupid 1970s battle about political power way or

the convener, according to the evidence amassed, he was spending a

quarter of his time trying to organise or fix a constituency

Labour Party selection. That is nothing to do with trade unions as

we understand them now. What about wages and conditions? This is what

the union chose to fight. This was a unique situation in terms of

industrial relations what the company controlled by one powerful

man, so negotiation would be very different to what you would normally

expect? Probably most trade union negotiations traditionally have not

been done like this. They usually negotiate collectively but this was

not like that at all. I also have felt that the attitudes to the trade

unions over the last week or so has been quite disgraceful from some

quarters of the media. They are the victims here. Have they served their

members well when you look at the outcome? I think the situation with

the union is that you have to remember the union is its members in

this sense. They vote for strike action over the attacks on wages and

conditions was an 82% of vote on an 86% return. The decision to go back

and accept the ultimatum from Jim Ratcliffe was a workforce decision.

You are shaking your head? Everyone seems to be forgetting the initial

strike was called over speedy deans but I agree, this dispute shows

Scotland on both sides in a very bad light. -- Stevie Deans. I have

spoken to outsiders involved in these negotiations and they have all

been astonished by the level of personal animosity between the shop

floor and the management. It was poisonous. It was a stupid union

dealing with management levels which were impenetrable. They could not

work out what the management structure was and everything had to

go back to Jim Ratcliffe, but instead of fighting that battle,

they wanted to fight on deans. What does this tell us about union

relations going forward? The positive part of this outcome was

that thousands of jobs have been saved, although belatedly. The

negative part is the management and the order still seem intent on

victimising the workforce. -- and Jim Ratcliffe. They are now coming

up with suggestions that people that voted against the company proposal

should get a worse deal on pensions than people who voted for it. If

ever there is a way to continue the acrimony and bad industrial

relations, that is the way to do it. Scotland is light years behind some

other countries in terms of industrial democracy. Look at

Denmark and Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. Look at

Germany, even. Workers have more salient in planning and investment

decisions of their companies and instead of this silly confrontation,

you get more of a cooperation and better productivity. Looking for

work, what we need to say is it wasn't just the workforce, it was

also politicians and communities in Scotland that had the gun held to

his head. Would he not argue it is has money? He is going to borrow

money from here... He now has the UK government to give a loan guarantee.

If he defaults, it is us that had to pay it back, so he has actually

helped that loaded gun across the board to all of us and walked away.

I worry considerably that the 25 years future that was spoken of in

the press yesterday by the company and politicians will only last as

long as the next demand. It will work in Scotland, it will work only

if they give up this idea they can run political parties as well. Ed

Miliband is trying to distance himself, you cannot have the union

at a loss-making plant spending a quarter of its time fiddling a

selection conference. That is not the way to get worker representation

on board. These allegations have not been proven. We need to look at

governmental responsibility and taxpayers money going into these

companies. The UK government have put a loan guarantee of ?125

million, the Scottish government regional development assistance of

?9 million. That is a lot of taxpayers money, and in return I

think both governments should use that money is leveraged to ensure

that the company treats its workers in a more responsible way. Corporate

responsibility is something very lacking in companies like INEOS. If

there was more a responsibility to their workforce, I think the trade

unions would respond in a more responsible way. Thank you all for

coming in to speak to us today. Labour won the Scottish Parliament

by-election. A 7% swing from the Nationalists. What does this tell us

about the political education in Scotland? If it's just a blip for

Alex Salmond? Labour has been the dominant force

in Dunfermline since the creation of the Scottish parliament, but that

hold was broken in 2011 when Bill Walker secured a victory for the

SNP. This week's by-election was

triggered by his resignation after he was thrown out by his party and

jailed for domestic abuse. It was a campaign fought on local issues, not

least proposed school closures. The SNP had the best-known candidate and

focused on national policies like the council tax freeze. But mid-term

votes tend to be unkind to those in government, and so it was in

Dunfermline. The SNP's share of the vote fell by 7%, the Lib Dems were

down 8%. Labour's candidate, she claimed her victory reflected the

public's frustration with the referendum campaign.

I will repay your trust in me after the disgrace of Bill Walker,

Dunfermline deserves better and I will ensure that we will be far

better than what went before. Dunfermline has sent a message to

Alex Salmond, it is time for you to concentrate on the real priorities

of Scottish people not your constitutional obsession. That is a

sentiment shared by her party's leadership. But what does the

success mean for the bigger battles which lie ahead?

The leader of Scottish Labour is with me now. Let me ask you about

Grangemouth, as we were discussing that. How well did Scottish

ministers handle the situation? I was very pleased the Scottish and UK

government came together to solve this problem. At the very heart of

this was a workforce and community in shock and treated very badly. I

was very glad the government came together to secure the jobs for

those people and their families and the broader UK economy. If I was in

the privilege -- privileged position of government my focus would have

been on the implications for those families and the Scottish economy.

We would work to do whatever we could to make sure those jobs were

secure. As regards the situation which has emerged which started with

Stephen Denes and his role in the Falkirk selection. There is a

newspaper story today which said e-mails have been handed in to the

police suggesting dirty tricks in terms of getting people to withdraw

allegations, is it time for Ed Miliband to look into this again? I

have not seen the e-mails, but if they are serious allegations they

need to be looked at. I'm determined to make sure we look at an open

process for selection and select a candidate who will represent labour

and stand up for the people of Falkirk. That needs to be the focus

in the coming period. Where the process is wrong up until now? The

investigation by the party looked at the scale of the challenge. People

were expressing concerns about Falkirk, and I'm determined the

Labour Party is open and transparent. It is not a plaything

of individual groupings. The message for me is that if anyone believes

the big battle in the Labour Party is to get selected, they are sending

out the wrong message. You cannot presume people's support. I am

determined we are very clear, the main thing we do is go out to speak

to people, listen to their concerns and stand up for them. Any

presumption we take the voters for granted is entirely unacceptable.

You one in Dunfermline, but if that was replicated across Scotland you

still would not be able to overturn the SNP's majority. In your desire

to be First Minister and for your party to lead this country, do you

accept it might take two general elections to do that? There is this

recognition, even with a 7% swing, that perhaps we would almost be the

biggest party. It tells us that scale of the challenge ahead of us.

We have made very good progress from a very difficult stage. I said the

Labour Party would change, we would win back the support of the people

of Scotland. That is a work in progress. I am not complacent about

this. We will be credible and competitive, and Alex Salmond may,

through arithmetic, establish you doing OK. What he is doing is

ignoring the mesh -- the message being given to him. People are

concerned Alex Salmond is not representing and doing his job.

By-elections rarely changed anything, and the most recent poll

showed 57% support for the first in a strand the government in what they

are doing. Even at this stage they seem to be doing well in the eyes of

the public. It does not feel like that to me. The SNP have failed to

win any by-elections since 2012. The people of Scotland are saying to

Alex Salmond, do your day job. Tell us what you think about

independence, but at the same time, what can you do in terms of creating

economic opportunities? What can you be doing about making our education

system better? What can you do about the care situation with too many

people left isolated in their own home? Can people legitimately say of

you and your party, we know what you are against? You are against

independence, the bedroom tax, what are you for? We have a long process

to go through. It is about rebuilding trust. We do need to talk

much more positively about the kind of Scotland we want to see. What are

the issues you are for? Education and opportunity. The fact that too

many of our young people's life decisions are determined by a young

age. What is happening in terms of colleges and carer. These are big

issues we could be addressing cross party in Scottish Parliament right

now. Unfortunately everything is seen through the frame of

independence. As we come towards a 2016 election there will be very

specific things we will be talking about. What I am determined is that

my view and vision of Scotland have two relate to what people's lives

are alike. It will not be a trading of slogans, it will be how we make

sure our young people get the best education. How do we stop the

attacks on further education, and how do we ensure our health and

social care Airbuses mean people are treated with dignity. Given what use

said said in the past about universal benefits, people might

have been confused by the leaflet you put during the Dunfermline

by-election where you said you supported the scrapping of

prescription charges. Labour supports the free bus passes. Labour

supports the tax freeze. It is a reflection of the cartoon politics

we are living with that their SNP misrepresent what Labour has said. I

have never said that some people get something for nothing. I have said

you have to look both at what you spend money on and what are the

consequences of that. It is not acceptable to say free personal care

when people are living with the experience of less than 15 minute

visits. I want to sustain public services and we need to have a

debate about that. I am in the same place in that debate as many others,

as John Swinney himself said in private. How do you see the council

tax freeze? He is a respected academic. Do you agree with his

findings? We will of course look at the report. But your leaflet says

labour supports the council tax freeze, he says it is an inefficient

use of public funds. Up until 2017 local authorities made commitments

to have a council tax freeze. First of all, the council tax freeze is

underfunded. John Swinney has attacked local government then

condemns local government for making cuts. Secondly we know that the

council tax is discredited. I would hope that a cross-party we could

have a discussion about how we properly fund local government. Are

you talking about a change to the council tax? There is a huge

challenge. People do not want to pay their council tax. Is labour working

on an alternative? The prize cross-party is to understand that

people really care about their local services. We know the funding of

them is not sustainable. I want a discussion, not where the parties

get dividing lines between each other, but come together and address

the challenge of how do you properly build a confidence in the way in

which you raise taxes locally in order to ensure our schools are well

equipped and our young people are properly educated. Thank you for

joining us this afternoon. Still to come, a look at the week

ahead. You are watching Sunday Politics Scotland. Here is the news.

Good afternoon. Two former senior police officers have clashed over

security implications in independent Scotland. Graeme Pearson, former

head of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency there's effective

working is easier as part of the UK. Allan Burnett, he says a Scottish

intelligence agency could do better. Eight people have been rescued

following a fire in the East End of Glasgow. Emergency crews were called

to the Dennistoun area just before 1:30am. The residents, including two

children, were taken off the fifth floor by firefighters. A further 33

people were evacuated from the building, no one was injured.

Good afternoon, a rather wet look to the afternoon. Some places seeing

good spells, but a fair few showers across western parts. One or two

showers making it through eastwards. It will be quite windy across

central and southern parts of the wind following across northern areas

as the day progresses. Temperatures around 11-12dC at best.

That is it for the moment. In the moment we will be discussing

the events coming up at Holyrood. Almost half of Edinburgh's licensed

saunas are to close after reset city refused to grant them licences.

The closure of a chemical firm in Paisley.

The Scottish Housing regulator says housing arrears have increased since

the bedroom tax was abolished. A former Liberal Democrat MP has

taken his seat in the House of Lords. Jeremy Purvis will now set as

Lord Purvis of Tweed. The cost of fuel bills raised the

temperature in the House of Commons. I want better regulation

and deals for consumers. ScottishPower are one of the latest

firms to announce price rises. Finally, Jack Straw is to stand down

as an MP at the next general election.

So, if that was the week that was, let's turn our attention to the Week

Ahead. My guests today, Alan Roden,

Political Editor for the Daily Mail here in Scotland and the freelance

journalist Pennie Taylor. Let's take a look through a couple of the

stories in the newspapers. Lots of coverage of Grangemouth with the

Sunday Herald saying there are details of the secret deal done by

Alex Salmond to save Grangemouth. He had a secret meeting to see if

another company could purchase the plant. There seems to be praise for

the first Minister's handling of the situation. He is dealing with the

day-to-day issues of a crisis like this. He put the constitutional

argument on hold for a few days but was helped by the UK government in

this. This proves we are Better Together know with both sides coming

together to encourage this deal. Neither side was making political

points and seemed to be coming together for the national interest.

They definitely seems to have taken that decision to leave the

referendum to one side. Looking at the coverage in the papers today and

through the week, Alex Salmond has come out of it very much the vector,

the white hat, if you like. How did the workers come out of it? They are

immensely relieved and I find it personally astonishing that people

can say it is the media's fault that the union movement has come out of

this badly, because I think all the coverage through the week would

indicate that the Utah that the union made was one that the workers

wanted. -- U-turn. How do Ineos look at the end of this week? The union

where worse by far. The mess this up and let the workers almost over the

cliff and need to have a look at themselves and learn some lessons

because I do not think workers will thank the union for what has

happened. I would suggest the events of this week show more than ever

that we need a strong union movement in Scotland to represent the

interests of workers up against companies like Ineos but the

implication is we need intelligent union intervention and not the kind

of macho approach we have seen this layout. Dennis Canon felt the union

were working with one hand behind their back. -- Dennis Canavan. If

there's ever a time when you need a union that is level-headed, this was

then but instead they read from the 1970s textbook and went ahead with

the barnstorming approach that did not work out and have left the

workers in a much worse situation. Let me turn to the Sunday express or

have an interesting story saying the first Minister was the result of --

recipient of US phone bugging. The suggestion is that America seems to

know in advance of the announcement being made a couple of years ago

that Al-Megrahi was being released. I think if I was Alex Salmond I

would feel proud to be worthy of being bugged by the Americans. If

the new, what I don't understand is what difference it made to any

outcome, what is the point? Forewarned is forearmed but it seems

to be a widespread practice? There's some wishful thinking with the idea

that Alex Salmond is in the top 35 world leaders is ridiculous, but it

is going to dominate issues in Europe for the week ahead. A

brand-new MSP being sworn in on Thursday. What do you make of the

Rectory in Baz Luhrmann? -- victory in Dunfermline. It is the second

biggest majority Labour has in Hollywood now. They are undoubtedly

had the best campaign. The first Minister himself took to the streets

on the final day but they still lost heavily. There were special

circumstances surrounding this and it is always difficult to read too

much into a by-election. They always say you cannot draw a conclusion

about the referendum from a by-election result but I imagine

Grangemouth, not too far from Dunfermline, will have had in impact

on how people voted that day. The interesting impact for me was the

growth of UKIP. That causes me some pause for reflection. They got twice

as many votes as the Greens got. UKIP are not the political force in

Scotland as in England but they will dominate the agenda down south and

they could scrape in with an MEP in Scotland. They are on course to save

their deposit sometimes. The Liberal Democrat vote went down

substantially. It does not look as if there's any resurgence for them

any soon? They are going nowhere and Willie Rennie was very popular in

that area but it did not translate into votes. That seems to be the

picture, that people are still unhappy about being in coalition? I

think very much so, across Scotland, it is anecdotal that people who

voted Liberal Democrat are feeling pretty much betrayed.

What about the Conservatives? They will point to the vote going up by

1% with the turnout of 42%, which is not very many votes. Is there any

sign they are doing anything other than flat-lining? Ruth Davidson is

doing a decent job but they are going nowhere and are continuing.

Success for higher will be doubling the seats and going from one to two

but anything other than that will be a disaster. Do either of you get any

sense about what this can tell us about the referendum? It will be a

clash between the Scottish Titans. Although Labour are saying this was

partly a rejection of independence, it did not feel like that. The SNP,

who have a formidable election machine, they knew not to discuss

that. They talked about local schools which is a massive issue in

Dunfermline. They could have done a lot better.

Thank you to you both. That's all from us - I'll be back at the usual

time next week. Just before we go, a reminder of Newsnight Scotland's

special debate tomorrow with a look at higher education in the context

of the referendum. Goodbye.