10/11/2013 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Ed Miliband's on

the war path, over pay day loans, your energy bill and what he calls

the bedroom tax. His spinners say he's "resurgent",

though the polls do not show it. We will be talking to his right-hand

woman, Labour's Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman.

From resurgent to insurgent. Nigel Farage won an award this week for

being a political insurgent. We will be talking to the UKIP leader.

And Harriet hates, hates, hates Page three. She wants rid of it, but what

do you think? We sent Adam out with some balls. It is a better harmless.

What do you think of people who feel it is a exploitive?

And on Sunday Politics Scotland... As BAE announce job losses from its

yards at Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth, we ask could this be the way

ahead for the shipbuilding industry in Scotland?

Kenobi and R2D2. Congratulations on your new jobs. We'll miss you. Nick

Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh. First, the talks with Iran in

Geneva. They ended last night without agreement despite hopes of a

breakthrough. America and its allies didn't think Iran was prepared to go

far enough to freeze its nuclear programme. But some progress has

been made and there's to be another meeting in ten days' time, though at

a lower level. The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, had this

to say a little earlier. On the question of, or will it happen in

the next few weeks? There is a good chance of that. We will be trying

again on 20th, 21st of November and negotiators will be trying again. We

will keep an enormous amount of energy and persistence behind

solving this. Will that be a deal which will please everyone? No, it

will not. Compromises will need to be made. I had discussions with

Israeli ministers yesterday and put the case for the kind of deal we are

looking the case for the kind of deal we are

interests of the whole world, including

interests of the whole world, the world, to reach a diplomatic

agreement we can be confident in in this issue. This otherwise will

threaten the world with nuclear proliferation and conflict in the

future. The interesting thing about this is that it seems

future. The interesting thing about prepared to go far enough over the

Iraq heavy water plutonium reactor it is building. The people who took

the toughest line - the French. France has always had a pretty tough

line on Iran. They see it as a disruptive influence in Lebanon. I

am reasonably optimistic a deal will be done later this month when the

talks reconvene. Western economic sanctions have had such an impact on

Iran domestic league. They have pushed inflation up to 40%.

Dashes-macro domestically. The new president had a campaign pledge

saying, I will deal with sanctions. I actually think, by the end of this

year, we will see progress in these talks. Should we be optimistic? The

year, we will see progress in these next round of talks will be at

official level. The place to watch will be Israel. The language which

has been coming out of there is still incredibly angry, incredibly

defensive. They do not want a deal at all. Presumably John Kerry has to

go away and tried to get Israel to be quiet about it, even if they

cannot be happy about it. They cannot agree to a deal which allows

the Iraq reactor with plutonium heavy water. You do not need that

with a peaceful nuclear power programme will stop that is why the

Israelis are so nervous. If there is an international deal, Israel could

still bomb that but it would be impossible. The French tactics are

interesting. It says the French blocked it in part because they are

trying to carry favour with Israel but also the Gulf Arab states, who

are really nervous about and Iranians nuclear capability. Who is

that? Saudi Arabia. Newsnight had a story saying that Pakistan is

prepared to provide them with nuclear weapons. You are right about

Saudi Arabia. They are much more against this deal than Israel. Who

is Herman van Rompuy's favourite MEP? It is probably not Nigel

Farage. He plummeted to the bottom of the EU president's Christmas card

list after comparing him to a bank clerk with the charisma of a damp

rag. And he's been at it again this week. Have a look. Today is November

the 5th, a big celebration festival day in England. That was an attempt

to blow up the Houses of Parliament with dynamite and destroy the

Constitution. You have taken the Dahl, technocratic approach to all

of these things. What you and your colleagues save time and again - you

talk about initiatives and what you are going to do about unemployment.

The reality is nothing in this union is getting better. The accounts have

not been signed off for 18 years. I am now told it is 19 and you are

doing your best to tone down any criticism. Whatever growth figures

you may have, they are anaemic. Youth unemployment in the

Mediterranean is over 50% in several states. You will notice there is a

rise in opposition dashed real opposition. Much of it ugly

opposition, not stuff that I would want to link hands with. And Nigel

Farage joins me now. Let me put to you what the editor of the Sun had

to say. He says, UKIP will peak at the European election and then it

will begin to get marginalised as we get closer to 2015 because there is

now that clear blue water between Labour and the Tories. What do you

say to that? There may be layered blue water on energy pricing but on

Eastern Europe, there is no difference at all. When Ed Miliband

offers the referendum to match Cameron, even that argument on

Europe will be gone. The one thing that will keep UKIP strong, heading

towards 2015, is if people think in some constituencies we can win. I

cannot sit here right now and say that will be the case. If we get

over the hurdle of the European elections clearly, I think there

will be grounds to say that UKIP can win seats in Westminster. You are

going to run? Without a shadow of a doubt. I do not know which

constituency. The welcome I got in Edinburgh was not that friendly.

Edinburgh is not everything in Scotland. I think we have a

realistic chance of winning those elections. If we do that, we will

have the momentum behind us. You might be the biggest party after the

May elections. The National front is likely to do very well in France as

well. They have won the crucial by-election in the South of France.

Have you talked about joining full season in Parliament? The leader has

tried to take the movement into a different direction than her father.

The man she beat, to become leader, actually attended the BNP

conference. The problem she has with her party and we have with her party

is that anti-Semitism is too deep and we will not be doing a deal with

the French national government. You can guarantee you will not be

joining such groups. I can guarantee that. Let's move on to Europe. Let's

accept that the pro-Europeans exaggerate the loss of jobs that

would follow the departure of Britain from the UK. Is there no

risk of jobs whatsoever? No risk whatsoever. There is no risk at all.

There have been some weak and lazy arguments put around about this. We

will go on doing business - go on doing trade with Europe. We will

have increased opportunities to do trade deals with the rest of the

world and they will create jobs. The head of Nissan, the head of Hitachi

and CBI many other voices in British business, when they all expressed

concern about the potential loss of jobs and incoming investment, we

should just ignore them. With Nissan, the BBC News is making this

a huge story. The boss did not say what was reported. He said there was

a potential danger to his future investment. They have already made

the investments. They have built the plant in Sunderland, which they say

is operating well. We should be careful of what bosses of big

businesses say. This man said they may have two leaves Sunderland if we

did not join the euro. I do not take that seriously. As for the CBI, they

wanted us to join the euro and now they do not. Even within the CBI,

there is a significant minority saying, we do not agree with what

the CBI director-general is saying. The former boss of the organisation

is saying we need a referendum and we need a referendum soon. It

depends on the renegotiation. There is not the uniformity. What we are

beginning to see in the world, is, manufacturing and small businesses

are a lot more voices saying, the costs of membership outweigh any

potential benefit. If you look at the polls, if Mr Cameron does

repatriate some powers and he joins with Labour, the Lib Dems, the

Nationalists in Scotland and Wales, most of business, all of the unions

to say we should stay in, you are going to lose, aren't you? In 1975,

the circumstances were exactly the same. Mr Wilson promised a

renegotiation and he got very little. The establishment gathered

around him and they voted for us to stay in. I do not think that will

happen now. The scales have fallen. We do not want to be governed by

Herman Van Rompuy and these people. These people are Eurosceptic but

they do not seem to feel strongly enough about it that they are going

to defy all the major parties they vote for, companies that employ

them, unions they are members of. I am absolutely confident there will

be a lot voices in business saying, we need to take this opportunity to

break free, give ourselves a chance of a low regulation lowball trader.

-- global trade. In 1970 53 small publications said to vote yes. I am

not contemplating losing. The most important thing is to get the

referendum. If UKIP is not strong, there will not be a referendum.

Earlier in the year, your party issued a leaflet about the remaining

sample parents being able to come to this country. The EU will allow 29

million Bulgarians and remaining is to come to the UK. That is

technically correct but we both know that is not the case. It is an open

door to these people. Why take the risk? By make out there are 29

million people? I stand by that verdict. It is an open door. 29

million are not going to come. They can if they want. Also 29 million

people from France can come. After these countries have joined, we will

do another leaflet saying that Mr Cameron wants to open the door to 70

million people from Turkey. That is scaremongering. I would not say

that. We have a million young British workers between 16 and 74

without work. A lot of them want work and we do not need another

massive oversupply in the unskilled labour market. Why did you have such

a bad time on question Time this week? The folk that did not buy your

anti-immigration stick. Do you think that group of people in the room was

representative of the voters of Boston? What would make you think it

was unrepresentative? When the county council elections took place

this year in Boston, of the seven seats, UKIP won five and almost won

the other two. I don't think that audience reflected that, but that

doesn't matter. How an audience is put together, how a panel is put

together, on one programme, it doesn't mean much at all. It shows

that your anti-immigrant measure doesn't fly as easily as you hoped

it would? The opinion polls which will be launched on Monday that we

are conducting and nearing completion, they show two things.

Firstly, an astonishing number of people who think it's irresponsible

and wrong to open the doer to Romania and Bulgaria, secondly and

crucially, a number of people whose vote in the European elections and

subsequent general elections may be determined by the immigration

issues. This does matter. It would be the perfect run group the

European elections in May for you if a lot of Bulgarians and remainians

flooded in. You would like that to happen? I think it will happen.

Whether I like it or not, it will happen. You think it will be good

for you, it will stir things up? If you say to people in poor countries,

you can come here, get a job, have a safety net of a benefits system,

claim child allowance for your kids in Bucharest, people will come You

are ready with the arguments already? You will be disappointed if

only ten turn up? Whether lots come or not we should. Taking the risk

and yes, we are going to make it a major issue in the European

election. Let's leave it there. Thank you very much, Nigel Farage.

The summer of 2013 was not good for Ed Miliband, with questions over his

leadership, low ratings and complaints about no policies. He

bounced back with a vengeance at the Labour Conference in September,

delivering a speech which this week won the spectator political speech

of the year aword. In that speech he focussed on the cost-of-living and

promised a temporary freeze on energy prices. Even said this. The

next election isn't just going to be about policy. It's going to be about

how we lead and the character we show. I've got a message for the

Tories today. If they want to have a debate, about leadership and

character, be my guest And if you want to know the difference between

me and David Cameron, here is an easy way to remember it. When it was

Murdoch v the McCanns, he took the side of Murdoch. When it was the

tobacco lobby versus the cancer charities, he took the side of the

tobacco lobby. When the millionaires wanted a tax cut as people pay the

bedroom tax, he took the side of the millionaires. A come to think of it,

here is an easier way to remember it. David Cameron was a Prime

Minister who introduced the bedroom tax. I'll be the Prime Minister who

repeals the bedroom tax There we go, that will go down with the party

faithful on Tuesday. There will be a debate on the bedroom tax. Labour's

Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, joints me now. Let's begin with the

bedroom tax or bedroom subsidy. Nearly 11% of people who've come off

Housing Benefits all together after their spare room subsidy was

stopped, isn't that proof that reform was necessary? No. I think

that the whole way that the bet room tax has been attempted to be

justified is completely wrong. What it's said is that it will actually

help take people off the waiting lists by putting them into homes

that have been vacated by people who've downsized by being

incentivised by the bedroom tax, so basically if you are a council

tenant or Housing Association tenant in a property with spare bedrooms,

then because the penalty is imposed, you will move to a smaller property.

That is the justification for it. But actually, something like 96% of

the people who're going to be hit by the bedroom tax, there isn't a

smaller property for them to move into. I understand that. Therefore

they are, like the people in my constituency, if they have got one

spare bedroom, they are hit by ?700 a year extra to pay and that is

completely unfair As a consequence of people losing the subsidy for

their spare room, they have decided to go out and get work and not

depend on Housing Benefit at all? 11% of them. What's wrong with that?

Well, they are going to review the way 2 the bedroom tax is working.

What is wrong with that? But that's not working. That's the result of

Freedom of Information, 141 councils provided the figures, 25,000 who've

come off benefits, of the 233,000 affected, it's about 11%. These

people were clearly able to get a job was having the Housing Benefit

in the first place? But of course the people who're on the benefits

who're not in work are always looking for work and many of them

will find work which is a good thing, but for those who don't find

work, or who find work where it's low-paid and need help with their

rent, it's wrong to penalise them on the basis of the fact that their

family might have grown up and moved away and so you have either got to

move out of your home, away from your family and your neighbourhood,

or you've got to stay where you are and, despite the fact that you are

low-paid or unemployed, you have got to find an extra ?700 a year because

of your rent. So it's very unfair The Government that was

commissioning independent research on the impact of this work change

and welfare policy, particularly on the impact on the most vulnerable,

some of which you have been talking about there, shouldn't they have

waited until you have got the independent research, that

independent investigation before determining your policy? No. In

fact, the Government should have waited until they'd have done their

independent research before they bought into effect something and

imposed it on people in a way which is really unfair. They could have

known. Why didn't you wait? What they could have done is, they could

have asked councils, are people going to be able to Manifest into

smaller homes if we impose the bedroom tax and the answer from

councils and Housing Associations would have been no, they can't move

into smaller homes because which haven't got them there. They should

have done the evaluation before they introduced the policy. We are

absolutely clear and you can see the evidence, people are falling into

rent arrears. Many people, it's a terrifying thing to find that you

can't pay your rent, and some of the people go to payday loan companies

to get loans to pay their rent. It is very, very unfair. The

justification for it, which is people will move, is completely

bogus. There aren't places for them to go. On the wider issue of welfare

reform, a call for the TUC showed that voters support the Government's

welfare reforms, including a majority of Labour voters. Why are

you so out of touch on welfare issues, even with your own

supporters? Nobody wants to see people who could be in a job

actually living at the taxpayers' expense. That's why we have said

that we'll introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee, so that if you are a

young person who's been unemployed for a year, you will have to take a

job absolutely have to take a job, and if you have been unemployed as

somebody over 25, there'll be a compulsory thing after two years of

unemployment. So if you have been on welfare two years? So the main issue

about the welfare bill actually is people who're in retirement who need

support. We have said for the richest pensioners, they shouldn't

have to pay their winter fuel allowance. My point wasn't abouts

the sub stance, it's about how you don't reflect public opinion --

substance. The Parliamentary aid said the political backlog of

benefits and social security is "not yet one that we have won. Labour

must accept that they are not convincing on these matters,". Well,

redo have to convince people and explain the policies we have got and

the view we take. So, for example, for pensioners, who're well off, we

are saying they don't need the Winter Fuel Payment that. 's me

saying to you and us saying to people in this country, we do think

that there should be that tightening. For young people, who've

been unemployed, they should be offered jobs but they've got to take

them. So yes, we have to make our case. OK. The energy freeze which we

showed there, on the speech, as popular. The living wage proseles

have been going down well as well. Why is Labour's lead oaf the

Conservatives being cut to 6% in the latest polls? Ed Miliband's own

personal approval rating's gotten worse. Why is that? I'm not going to

disdues ins and outs of weekly opinion polls with you or anybody

else because I'm not a political commentator, but let me say to you

the facts of what's happened since Ed Miliband's been leader of the

Labour Party. We have got 1,950 New Labour councillors, all of those...

But you're... All those who've won their seats against the

Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats and no, Andrew you don't

always get that in opposition. In 1997 after Tony Blair was elected,

the Tories carried on losing council seats. Exceptional circumstances and

these days Mr Blair was 25% ahead in the polls. You were six. The economy

grew at an annual rate of 3% in the third quarter just gone. Everybody,

private and public forecasters now saying that Britain in this coming

year will grow faster than France, Italy, Spain, even Germany will grow

faster. Your poll ratings are average when the economy was

flatlining, what happens to them when the economy starts to grow?

Well, I've just said to you, I'm not a political commentator or a pundit

on opinion polls. We are putting policies forward and we are holding

the Government to account for what they are doing and we think that

what they did opt economy pulled the plugs from the economy, delayed the

recovery, made it stagnate and we have had three years lost growth. I

understand that, but it's now starting to grow. Indeed. If you are

no political commentator, let me ask you this, you anticipated the

growth, so you switched your line to no growth to this is growth and

living standards are rising. If the economy does grow up towards 3% next

year, I would suggest that living standards probably will start to

rise with that amount of growth. What do you do then? We have not

switched our line because the economy started to grow. All the way

along, we said the economy will recover, but it's been delayed and

we have had stagnation for far too long because of the economic

policies. We have been absolutely right to understand the concerns

people have and recognise that they are struggling with the

cost-of-living. Sure. And we are right to do that. What kind of

living standards stuck to rise next year? -- start to rise next year. I

hope they will. For 40 months of David Cameron's Prime Ministership,

for 39 of those, wages have risen slower than prices, so people are

worse off. I understand that. You will know that the broader

measurement, real household disposable income doesn't show that

decline because it takes everything into account. Going around the

country, people feel it. They say where's the recovery for me. Living

standards now start to rise? If that happens, what is your next line?

There is a set of arguments about living standards, the National

Health Service, about the problems Health Service, about the problems

that there is in A, which caused -- are caused by the organisation. I

can put forward other lines. All right. Let me ask you one other

question If no newspapers have signed up to the Government-backed

Labour-backed Royal Charter on press regular lace by 2015 and it looks

like the way things are going none will have, if you are in power, will

a Labour Government legislate to make them? They don't have to sign

up to the Royal Charter, that's not the system. What the Royal Charter

does is create a recogniser and basically says it's for the

newspapers to set up their own regulator. They are doing that. My

question is... Let me finish. If they decide to have nothing to do

with the Royal Charter that was decided in Miliband's office in the

wee small hours, will you pass legislation to make them? The

newspapers are currently setting up what they call... I know that,

Harriet Harman. Just let me finish. OK. Because the newspapers are

setting up the independent Press Standards Organisation. Right. If it

is independent, as they say it is, then the recogniser will simply say,

we recognise that this is independent and the whole point is

that, in the past when there's been skaen deals a tend press have really

turned people's lives upside down and the press have said OK we'll

sort things out, leave it to us, then they have sorted things out but

a few years later they have slipped back, all this recogniser will do is

check it once every three years and say yes, you have got an independent

system and it's remained independent and therefore that is the guarantee

things won't slip back. Very interesting. Thank you for that.

That's really interesting that if they get their act right, you won't

force the alternative on them. We want the system as set forward by

Leveson which is not statute and direct regulation. I want to stick

with the press because I want to ask, is this a British institution

or an out-of-date image for a by gone age. The Sun's Page 3 has been

dividing the nation since it first appeared way back in 1970. That's 43

years ago. Harriet Harman's called for it to be removed, so we sent

Adam out to ask whether the topless photographs should stay or go. We

have asked people if page three should stay or go. Page three. What

do you think? Nothing wrong with it at all. I think it is cheap and

exploits women. It is a family newspaper. Should it stay or go? Go.

I will look like the bad guy. It should go. You have changed your

mind. It is free choice. Girls do not have to be photographed. Old men

get the paper just for that. Know when your age does that? Not really.

Dashes-macro know what your age. Page three girls, should they stay

or go? I am not bothered. There are other ways of getting noticed. Page

or go? I am not bothered. There are three of the Sun newspaper every

day, there is a woman with no top on. We got rid of that about 40

years ago in Australia. I am not in favour of censorship. It has been

long enough. It can stay there. What is wrong with it? We want to

encourage children to read the newspapers. I do not want my

children to look at that. It is degrading. Do you think we will see

the day when they get rid of it? Yes, I do. I am wondering if I can

turn this into some kind of a shelter. It is tipping it down. I

think the council should do something about their car parks!

Mother nature, the human body. It should stay. Is some people like it,

that is fine. I have nothing against it. You know what has surprised me,

lots of women saying In Maginot my grandfather opening

the Palin seen media. What do you think about people who

say it should be banned? They are idiots. The Ph.D. On Friday was from

Bedford. What you think of our decision to be on page three? Did

she make Bedford proud? I think it would be pretty hard to make Bedford

Road! So, easily victory for those who think it should stay. Most

people do not appear to clear. I have not argued for it to be

banned. I have disapproved of it since the 1970s. I do not think the

content of newspapers should be subject to subject to anything out

with the laws of the land. However, as someone from outer space arrived

in the 21st-century and saw that as the depiction of women, they would

think that they did not have much of a role in society to play. But the

newspaper does not longer have the political importance of the seals

that it had. Are people not just voting with their feet enemy, the

marketers sorting this out? Until such time as they do not have this

any more, I am entitled to my view that it is outdated and wrong. I am

happy to establish you do not want to ban it, although I think some of

your words many years ago did imply that, but do you think people should

boycott the newspaper? No, I have never said it should be banned. I

have not cold for an official boycott either. The women's

movement, of which I am part of, this is not about a politician

trying to suppress the press, we see that women can do better than taking

their clothes off and flashing their knickers in the newspaper. Why do

you not do something about it? I am, by speaking out about it and

supporting the campaign is for it to be got rid of. To viewers, would you

like to say to them, as long as this is in the newspaper, you should not

buy it. I am not arguing about a boycott of the newspaper. I am

saying to them, wake up to the role of women in society, which you

should be doing. They have changed it industrially, which is where

Ripper murder came from, why can they not in this country? -- report

Murdoch. Good afternoon and welcome to Sunday

Politics Scotland. Coming up on the programme...

The Clyde shipyards are saved from closure, but what is the future for

an industry heavily dependent on military contracts? The politicians

say the shipbuilding industry must diversify to prosper. But how

realistic is that? And how much influence do you have

over politicians? A think tank says decision makers need to listen to a

wider range of opinions. If you have a small group just the elite of

society, making it policy on their own views, and do not engage with

the wider population, you get bad policy.

For shipyard workers on the Clyde and Rosyth and their families it has

been a difficult week. 800 of them will lose their jobs and, of course,

there has been furious debate about whether the contracts for the new

global combat ships will come here if there is a Yes vote in the

referendum. To help provide workers with future job certainty, there

have been calls to diversify the industry and emulate Norway's

renaissance in shipbuilding. With a look at whether that is realistic,

here is Andrew Kerr. The soul of the clay this week has been one of

realism, the other than the spear. -- this beer.

But what about the aspirational view of moving on and relying on

something other than just contracts from the Royal Navy? What

discussions has she had about diversification of work on the River

Clyde? We need to diversify, with nearly procurement as part of that,

but looking also at how we could improve exports. There are other

countries outwith Scotland to do this very well. The Conservative

leader asked what assistance there was for them to compete. Soon, we

may have do rely on contract out with the Royal Navy. If you wanted

to go into the civilian market, you need hundreds of millions of

investment to get the right tools into these yards. Secondly, you

require a very good cooperative relationship between unions and

management. Thirdly, you have to get the right kind of shape, which is

much more difficult. Even in its heyday, the industry went through

its ups and downs. It is certainly a while since big non-Navy vessels

were launched on the quiet. This is the last civilian shipbuilder on the

Clyde. It is hard to believe that the once powerful shipbuilding

industry had been reduced to just one yard. There have been civilian

shipping built here. There were two ferries built for Caledonian

MacBrayne. Unfortunately, the companies latest model is getting

built in Germany. We need shipyards which are resilient. When the market

is not in demand, they need to be able to be resilient in terms of

doing shipped rapier, ship maintenance and if you look at other

industries, the likes of wind farm installation. That is a big ask and

experts agree, but normally is being trumpeted as a place which Scotland

could emulate. 100 ships were built there last year. They have these

special is building oil supply vessels and a large customer base.

Could we do it? It is difficult. It is not something you could not do,

but it is difficult. It requires long-term planning. Shipbuilding

moves enlarge cycles, so there is a need for several different

measures, both from the government and from the private sector.

Professor Hagan said that determination to succeed means the

yards union and government must work together on a long-term plan. Eight

to claim 20 years. The Navy work may be sailing down the river, but

people here will have two cooperate here to recapture some of the past

glories of the Clyde. With me now in the studio is the

Labour MP for Glasgow South West, Ian Davidson and the SNP's Stewart

Maxwell. And from our Edinburgh studio, the Liberal Democrat leader,

Willie Rennie. This debate is now being seen through the prism of the

independence debate. The defence minister said exactly the opposite.

He said contracts could quite acceptably carry on in an

independent Scotland after a yes vote. Clearly, what Alistair Nichols

has been doing this week as scaremongering them into voting no,

on the false promise that this would offer job security. This was not a

word decision. This was the decision of the company along with the

government. The best place in the only place from 2014 on words to

build complex warships will be the Clyde. You have talked about a break

clause about the type 26 frigates if there is a yes vote. How does that

represent the best interests of your constituents? There has not been any

contract awarded. It would've been a great step forward of the ad been

awarded. Talks I have had with ministers and the Ministry of the

defence, they want to take the risk out of this. And this was discussed

with the unions when I put this forward, was to have a break

clause, that in the unlikely event of Scotland voting for separation,

they would be able to pool this back. You are giving comfort to

both. No contract has been awarded. Under my proposal, the shipyards in

Scotland would of had the contract, but the Ministry of Defence would

have the comfort of in the event of separation, they would have the

choice of pulling this back. You should be not representing the

Ministry of Defence, you should be representing Scottish workers. The

problem is that the MoD and the UK Government have quite deliberately

decided that the contract will not be awarded until after the

referendum decision is known. Quite clearly. Would you recommend a break

clause? We should get the design properly constructed before we award

the contract. That would not be until after the referendum. The 2014

referendum is not the date when independence would be declared,

though. But we would know when we were going. Whether we were going to

be an independent country or not. The rest of the UK could decide

whether to continue on its policy of building warships outside of its

entries. Would you encourage the MoD to continue building warships in

Scotland? If I was lucky enough to be a politician in an independent

Scotland, I would fight for Scotland. But I would be dealt a

very difficult hands. I would not be in a very strong position because

the UK does not build a warships outside of its boundary and never

has since the Second World War. Should Maxwell is wrong when he says

Portsmouth will be closed. It will not be closed until after the

referendum, so the shipbuilding capacity in England will remain and

could easily be built back up again. His approach is very complacent. It

is not serving the yards on the Clyde very well. The point is that

without this Article 346 exemption which is used by the Scottish

Government, the UK Government, to allow them to just build a big

warships in the UK, that those contracts would have to go out to

tender, which would be Scotland, Scotland Yard would have to

tender... That is not the case. It is shameful of politicians who are

trying to pretend that Article 346 says that you must build warships

exempt from this procurement build outside your boundaries. That is not

what it says. The decision would be for the UK Government in the

circumstances to decide where is the best place to build it. It does net

send you should now get in your own territory.

# It does not say you should build it in your own territory. You cannot

guarantee that. There is nothing there that you can guarantee. I look

at the defenceman Mr Hu said this and Philip Hammond, the Secretary of

State for defence in the UK Government, who are repeatedly,

repeatedly on Westminster, would he cancel the order -- who was asked

repeatedly. He sensibly refused to say. Yellow like refused to say he

would cancel the order because he has not placed one. He has been

quite deliberate in placing it -- in not placing it. They refused to

place it. What we have to understand is that even if he waited be frowned

through the legalities of it, it is inconceivable that a UK Government,

the longer representing Scotland, would then actually placed orders in

Scotland. Why is it inconceivable? Scotland would not become a threat.

They would have responsibility to protect their own voters and

electorate. They spend money overseas, only when they have

decided that it is not something that they want as a sovereign

capability. The reality is that if the placed this order on the Clyde,

it would kill off Portsmouth. The UK would then have no further

capability for building complex warships. They have said that they

want to have that. The only way of having it is keeping the capability

by giving the type 26 contract to Portsmouth or indeed somewhere else

in the remaining United Kingdom. Is it time for cooperation between the

two governments to try to secure some kind of diversified future for

the shipyards? Absolutely. We must move to a plan B. We have to look at

the new future for the shipyards. This is a wake-up call for everybody

to say, what is the plan B? It is a long-term prospect, we have to put

one in place to ensure proper diversification. We have military

contracts but we also have other contracts that we can pursue. We can

diversified into the renewable and oil industry. There can be a bright

future for the shipyards but it cannot just be waiting on Ministry

of Defence contracts all the time. Is no way that beaten for shipyards?

It was in your piece before our interview. -- is no way the beaten

-- is Norway the beacon? They have companies that put their orders into

the Norwegian yards which helps Norway, so Norway is not necessarily

example we will be able to follow. Is it time for intergovernmental

cooperation to secure something of diversified future? Of course. There

has been much work and talk about diverse occasion. It is quite

difficult to actually match military capability with civilian

capability, it is not an easy thing to match together into one shipyard

and that is why the shipyards have found it incredibly difficult and at

last. The SNP's site the fuel tankers. But the British shipyards

did not even compete for that contract. It was Korea in a much

better position. -- ESN P cite the fuel tankers. The point that was

being made during the week was that it was the 40th anniversary of Margo

MacDonald winning the government by-election. At that .1 of the

issues was the future of the shipyards. That investigation of the

year does not seem to have worked. I have been involved with successive

management and union in the Clyde about the question of diversified

agent. It has never worked. It is important to look at Norway. When

Norway has got five frigates built in Spain, they have submarines built

and designed in Germany, they have just ordered a logistics ship from

Korea. The boots that the build in Norway, they are not really ships,

most of them are very small. Many could fit inside the studio. That is

not the scale of the shipbuilding industry and indeed the holes are

overwhelmingly built abroad and then taken to Norway. We are not

comparing like with like. I'd be that without a core MoD order book,

there will be little opportunity. -- and fear that without a core MoD

order bit. Joint procurement is the norm across the world. We could be

involved with that. That would be sensible, especially the type 26,

and MoD orders military hardware from all around the road. They spent

$3.5 billion in the last five years. The fact is, buying things abroad is

normal. Joint procurement is normal. The best ways to build ships in the

British Isles is in the Clyde and that should be the future. Thank you

very much for joining us. Here's a question - how much

influence do you feel you have over the decisions made by politicians?

Most local services are provided by councils, yet typically turnout in

elections for them are very low - around 32%. How much of that is down

to apathy, or is it a feeling that no matter who you vote for, your

ballot will make little difference to the decisions those elected will

take? Increasing participation in the decisions that affect our lives

has been occupying the thoughts of one think tank. So is this a problem

just for politicians or should it concern us all?

Scottish government plans to extend local democracy took a hit this week

after ministers announced that they were to abandon the idea of directly

elected health boards. The Health Secretary admitted that turnout for

the election in one area was only 10%. Yet the idea behind this team

was to give communities a greater say in how their health services are

organised. So when did this attempt to involve the local community feel?

How much say do voters in Scotland really want in the decisions? The

Jimmy Reid Foundation is one organisation evaluating local

democracy. It recently established a commission to look at how a wider

range of opinions and experiences can be taken into account when it

comes to policy-making decisions. A report from the commission, released

today, says access by citizens to the political decision-making

process is limited to the point of being nonexistent. Robert Mugabe

nine, director of the Jimmy Reid Foundation, says they have noticed a

worrying trend when it comes to who had influence in Scottish politics.

What we discovered was that the 70% of the population who live on

?25,000 or less per year only make up about the percent of the people

who are invited to sit in public bodies are giving advice to

parliamentary inquiries. This massive imbalance clearly suggested

there was a problem in who was getting to influence politics and

getting involved in the political process and so the commission is

attempting to question how we can improve this situation. Professor

Richard Crowley as an academic advisor to working group on

strengthening local democracy. He said there needs to be wider

engagement across layers of government. Review is that the

capacity for local people to make decisions about matters which are

specific to a given area is something that should be recognised,

that there are a range of services were variation is appropriate and

good and therefore we should recreate or create the opportunity

for that to occur through the decisions that councils and local

people make, maybe even at layers below local council but not that

central government level. But is there a happy medium where citizens

feel involved and politicians listen? Good Scotland pioneer a new

way of thinking? This report, if it was accepted, to be one of the most

radical changes in government we have seen in hundreds of years. The

idea that the government becomes something which is done by people

and not two people would be an enormous change in the way that we

think about and understand politics. Chair of the Commission on Fair

Access to Political Influence for the Jimmy Reid Foundation, Larry

Flanagan, joins me now. Good afternoon. It is a fairly weighty

book. You come to the inclusion that the political access to the decision

making process is limited to the point of being nonexistent. How do

you measure this? It is a general summary of the feedback we got from

a number of organisations. You mentioned in your introduction the

low level of participation in the election process. Robin mentioned a

number of people earning low wages who actually participate in

Parliament committees. When you gather the evidence, it is clear

that there is a fairly strong degree of disillusionment with people at

all process. If there is disillusionment and disengagement,

is that the same as seeing people are disinterested? Not at all. One

route points is that people are very interested in political issues and

political issues are important for people in terms of their daily

lives. What we have to try to do and we hope the report is a positive

contribution to the discussion, is we have to ensure that our path with

that enable ordinary people do feel that they can influence

decision-making and participate in the process. How sure are you that

people want to participate and they want a role? Isn't there are many

people in the population who say, we let these people to make the

decisions, get on with it. One of the things that the report

highlighted was that in other European countries there is a much

higher level of participation amongst the population. There is

nothing to suggest Scottish people somehow have a different approach to

decision-making about their lives. I think we have developed a process in

Scotland and to some extent the UK where people do feel

disenfranchised, they do feel impotent in the face of

decision-making processes. What we are suggesting in the report is a

number of ways of taking this forward. Some of them are relatively

small-scale, they might be about local decisions in the community.

Some of them will have an impact on our whole system. And if we can get

agreement to take some of these ideals forward, we will see a

groundswell of involvement and people participating. What is the

role of politicians in this lack of participation? Are some of them

reluctant to share power? At the most politicians become engaged in

politics for the best of motives. They want to see a fairer society. I

think the proposals we have in the commission report and around

involving more people in the consultation process, for example,

in terms of influencing budget decisions, I think that would be to

the benefit of politicians. We were told when the Scottish Parliament

was set up that it would do things differently from Westminster. I you

suggesting that has not happened? A lot of consultation goes on. The

Scottish Parliament is in the better placed than the UK Parliament. In

number of hopes and aspirations and the Scottish Parliament have

floundered. -- a number of hopes and aspirations. Party politics dominate

the Scottish Parliament. We had been hoping for a more consensual

approach. Robin highlighted the fact that we have the facility for

committees to hear evidence but that is for a elite section of people. It

is often not for the people who would be the main recipients of the

decision-making process. They might be well-organised which is why they

have access to the politicians in the first place. It is far harder to

canvass a lot of youth and come to a consensus rather than speaking to

organise groups. As things stand, it is difficult for politicians to have

that access will stop one of the ideas we suggest is people jury 's.

That would actually facilitate politicians. They would have access

to a broad range of opinion, that opinion would be supported. The

mechanisms here are not about attacking the current system, it is

about expanding the role of people in that decision-making process. Is

there a danger you could offer too much democracy? There is never late

year goes by when we do not have elections, whether it is for the

Council, Westminster, Scottish Parliament or Europe. Good people

just be a bit bored of the whole process? There is the danger of

election fatigue. There are different ways of influencing

thinking. The health boards are one aspect of that. But if you took some

of the health board decisions and used them, the idea of a

cross-section of the public being involved in it, you would be able to

justify these decisions, not by electoral process, but by

consultation. The would-be de-signed to encourage involvement by the

population. You want politicians to look at this is a new way of

thinking. If this idea that people are not engaged, will there be a

danger that everyone loses interest? There is always a danger of people

do not have faith in the democratic process. We have had riots in the

past in the United Kingdom and part of that was around the alienation of

young people. We need a society where people having gauged with

politics and trust politicians. Any surveys that commercial but

politicians, the level of trust accorded to them, is that an

all-time low. But this has to be real. People have to be involved in

the process. The current system is not working and we have suggested a

number of ways forward. We think they are is an opportune time no for

everyone to have a look at this. Thank you for coming in.

Coming up after the news, we will mull over the big news of the week

and what will make the headlines in the days to come with our guests,

Lucy Adams of The Herald and Spectator blogger Alex Massie.

You are watching Sunday Politics Scotland and the time is coming up

for 1.30pm. So, let us cross now for the news from Reporting Scotland,

with Andrew Kerr. Good afternoon. Thousands of people

across Scotland fell silent this morning to remember the dead of two

world wars and conflicts since. The First Minister and Secretary of

State for Scotland laid wreaths at the Stone of Remembrance in

Edinburgh. Meanwhile, hundreds of people also marked the two minutes'

silence in the ceremony at the Cenotaph in Glasgow.

Former Defence Secretary Lord Reid has warned that UK warships will not

be built in Scotland if there is a Yes vote in the referendum. Lord

Reid said the Type 26 vessels earmarked for the Glasgow yards

would not be built in "a foreign country". The Deputy First Minister

has rebuffed that, pointing out the Clyde will be the only place where

these ships can be built. A new idea to improve the dental

health of Scottish school children is being hailed as a success.

Glasgow University researchers found the Childsmile programme has saved

more than ?6 million in dental bills. The scheme involves staff at

every nursery offering free, supervised tooth-brushing each day.

Now, let us get the forecast with Gillian Smart.

Good afternoon. Some glorious spells of autumnal sunshine around. It was

a cold start, but that has no clear that it will be blue sky and

sunshine for most others. A bit more in the way of cloud across the

northern parts of the country. That will be the exception, because

elsewhere around the country ever be dry and bright with good spells of

sunshine. I temperature is of eight Celsius.

That is it for the moment. Our next update is at 6.10pm.

Now, in a moment, we will be discussing the big events coming up

this week at Holyrood, but first, let us take a look back at the Week

in Sixty Seconds. The row over alleged vote rigging and Falkirk

rumbled on. Alistair Darling said that if the police do not pursue the

matter, there should be a fresh enquiry, with results published.

Payday loan companies defended the policies in front of the committee

of MPs. Glasgow 2014 organisers said there has been a sensational demand

for tickets for the Commonwealth Games next year. Over 90% have

already been sold. The Scottish government published proposals about

revitalising the City centres. The Church of Scotland added its voice

for the armed forces to stop recruiting 16 and 17-year-olds and

plans to introduce gay marriage won the support of the equal

opportunities committee in Holyrood.

What is in store for the week ahead? And who is making the headlines

today? Let us take a look. My guests this week are Lucy Adams

of The Herald and The Spectator blogger Alex Massie. Let us start

with shipbuilding. We will find out the next couple of days how the job

losses will impact on the Clyde and Rosyth. In the Sunday Herald, there

is a piecing that a vote to leave the United Kingdom will put into

doubt we're ships will be built in the future. Nicola starred Jim hits

back. Does this move anything forward? No, both sides are claiming

a certainty over something which is uncertain. Uncertainty leads to

project fear and scaremongering that we hear the yes campaign accusing

opponents of. The honest answer of this from both sides as that we do

not know what is going to happen to Royal Navy ship contracts in the

event of Scotland being independent. Nicholas Dudgeon is correct to say

they probably could still be built in Glasgow, but there is a big

difference between good and probably would. I think it is more probable

they would not be built in Glasgow, but it is not impossible that they

could be. More importantly, this is the sort of thing that gets wrapped

into the independence campaign when it probably should not be. If you

are going to decide your vote on the basis of shipbuilding on the Clyde,

it is a narrow basis for you to make your mind up, unless you are a

worker in that industry. It is enormously emotive. We know that 800

jobs are going to go, regardless. This debate is raging around

politics. For the next two days, they will be a summit to discuss

what will happen to these people, how they may be redeployed. On the

bigger issue, the politicians are going to continue to grow about what

this means for the future and the referendum. At the end of the day,

these people have lost their jobs and for a lot of people, the word

jobs, referendum in future will go together and they will use that. But

when it came to Grangemouth, we saw cooperation between the two

governments. On the subject is shipbuilding, it appears to have led

to a political row. This is a different issue. Grangemouth was

about a single industry, a single client. Shipbuilding, because it is

much more in emotive, casts a greater shadow over the political

process, because it is redolent with the history of the Clyde. Much of

this has disappeared over the last 70 or 80 years. Because the

shipbuilding argument is also about the future, it is inevitable that a

gets dragged into the referendum debate. It is any one of these

isolated examples sees to me and insufficiently as to whether you

should cast your vote. Whether Scotland should be independent is

neither diminished or increased by whether the Royal Navy built

frigates on the Clyde or the Solent. We cared about the sad death of

Helen Eadie, the MSP for Cowdenbeath. We had a lot of tribute

about her. She was very well liked and admired. I dealt with her on a

number of occasions and always found her to be a real character and

someone who was very dedicated to her constituents. I think moving

tributes have been paid to her and she was just 66, tragically young.

This opens the prospect of a by-election. She had a majority of

just over 1,000. This will clearly probably be less contentious than

the one in Dunfermline. Yes, obviously be circumstances in which

the by-election has arisen are different. As you are seeing, with

some of the tributes to her, she had a reputation, it was against the

Russell Black brand view of politics that everyone is in it for

themselves. She proved to be the opposite of that. A lot of politics

is drudgery, it is painstaking work. A backbenchers casework is never

done. It does not make headlines, it is not sexy, because it does not

have a conflict drama for the newspapers. It is the popular in

cheap cynicism offered by the likes of Russell Brand. This report from

the foundation, about the role of engaging the public with the

politicians. They say there is a real divide. This is a long-standing

problem. The foundation said this could be addressed. As the ugly

political will to do that? It is an interesting report and it comes out

at an interesting time, and around up to the referendum. They highlight

some important issues, talking about people out with the Central Belt

time to do video conferences and been told it was not feasible. He

talks about an Edinburgh centric approach. Some of it is very focused

around that. You could see my improvements could easily be made.

Other points it makes are vague. It talks about appointments to public

boards and you heard about how health boards might or might not be

appointed locally. I think some of these points are more difficult to

address. It talks about civil servants having too much power in

who is appointed to these boards and the likes of social networks,

focused around an elite group, and some of those points are harder to

address, but obviously, Larry talked about the point that you could have

people Judy 's and maybe have a more diverse group of people giving

opinions to politicians and civil servants. Do you think the public

want to see these type of changes? I think given the opportunity and

reason to get involved, we see this on a single issue pieces, such as

wind farms. The problem with local democracy in Scotland are dated

neither of them local or democratic. This is a debate which will

continue. Thank you very much for coming in.

That is all from us this week. I will be back at the usual time of

11.30am next week. Until then, goodbye.