09/03/2014 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

He's a man on a mission. But is it mission impossible? Iain Duncan

Smith has started the radical reform of our welfare state. No tall order.

And not everything's going to plan. We'll be talking to the man himself.

Nick Clegg is hosting his party's Spring Conference in York. He is

getting pretty cosy with the party faithful. Not so cosy, though, with

his Coalition partners. In fact, things are getting a wee bit nasty.

We'll be talking to his right-hand man, Danny Alexander.

And are all politicians self-obsessed? Don't all shout at

once. We'll be examining the art of the political selfie.

And coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland, we'll look at how UKIP is

performing in Scotland after some supporters demand a rerun of the

ballot to select their European parliament candidate.

And with me, as always, three of the best and the brightest political

panel in the business. At least that's what it says in the Sunday

Politics template. Back from the Oscars empty handed, Helen Lewis,

Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin. Yes, three camera-shy hacks, who've never

taken a selfie in their life. We'll be coming to that later. They just

like to tweet. And they'll be doing so throughout the programme.

Welcome. Now, first this morning, the Liberal

Democrat Spring Conference in York. I know you speak of nothing else!

The Yorkshire spring sunshine hasn't made the Lib Dems think any more

kindly of their Coalition partners. Indeed, Tory bashing is now the Lib

Dem default position. Here's Danny Alexander speaking yesterday.

Repairing the economy on its own isn't enough. We have to do it

fairly. isn't enough. We have to do it

the agenda a decision to cut taxes, income taxes, for working people.

Now, conference, note that word - forced. We have had to fight for

this at the last election and at every budget and at every Autumn

Statement since 2010 and what a fight it has been.

Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we going to have to suffer 14 months of

you and your colleagues desperately trying to distance yourself from the

Tories? It's not about distancing ourselves. It's about saying, " this

is what we as a party have achieved in government together with the

Conservatives". And saying, " this is what our agenda is for the

future" . It's not just about the fact that this April we reach that

?10,000 income tax allowance that we promised in our manifesto in 2010

but also that we want to go further in the next parliament and live that

to ?12,500, getting that over a 2-term Liberal Democrat government.

It's very important for all parties to set out their own agenda, ideas

and vision for the future, whilst also celebrating what we're

achieving jointly in this Coalition, particularly around the fact that we

are, having taken very difficult decisions, seeing the economy

improving and seeing jobs creation in this country, which is something

I'm personally very proud and, as the Coalition, we have achieved and

wouldn't have if it hadn't been for the decisions of the Liberal

Democrats. Lets try and move on. You've made that point about 50

times on this show alone. You now seem more interested in Rowling with

each other than running the country, don't you? -- rowing with each

other. I think we are making sure we take the decisions, particularly

about getting our economy on the right track. Of course, there are

lots of things where the Conservatives have one view of the

future and we have a different view and it's quite proper that we should

set those things out. There are big differences between the Liberal

Democrats and the Conservatives, just as there were big differences

between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. I believe we're

the only party that can marry that commitment delivering a strong

economy, which Labour can't do, and that commitment to delivering a

fairer society, which the Tories can't be trusted to do by

themselves. You are going out of your way to pick fights with the

Tories at the moment. It's a bit like American wrestling. It is all

show. Nobody is really getting hurt. I've been compared to many things

but an American wrestler is a first! I don't see it like that. It

is right for us as a party to set out what we've achieved and show

people that what we promised on 2010 on income tax cuts is what this

government is delivering. But nobody seems convinced by these

manufactured rows with the Tories. You've just come last in a council

by-election with 56 votes. You were even bitten by an Elvis

impersonator! Yes, that is true. -- beaten. I could equally well quote

council by-elections that we've won recently, beating Conservatives, the

Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on that is pretty good. You can always

pick one that shows one or other party in a poor light. Our party is

having real traction with the electric and the places where we

have a real chance of winning. If you're not an American wrestler,

maybe you should be an Elvis impersonator! You told your spring

forum... You don't want to hear me sing! You want to raise the personal

allowance to ?12,500 in the next Parliament. Will you refuse to enter

into Coalition with any party that won't agree to that? What I said

yesterday is that this will be something which is a very high

priority for the Liberal Democrats. It's something that we will very

much seek to achieve if we are involved... We know that - will it

be a red line? If you are a number in 2010, on the front page of our

manifesto, we highlighted four policies... I know all that. Will it

be a red line? It will be something that is a very high priority for the

Liberal Democrats to deliver. For the fifth time, will it be a red

line? It will be, as I said, a very high priority for the Liberal

Democrats in the next Parliament. That's my language. We did that in

the next election. The number-1 promise on our manifesto with a

?10,000 threshold and we've delivered that in this Parliament.

People can see that when we say something is a top priority, we

deliver it. Is it your claim... Are you claiming that the Tories would

not have raised the starting point of income tax if it hadn't been for

the Liberal Democrats? If you remember back in the leaders'

debates in the 2010 election campaign, Nick Clegg was rightly

championing this idea and David Cameron said it couldn't be

afforded. Each step of the way in the Coalition negotiations within

government, we've had to fight for that. The covert overtures have

other priorities. -- the Conservatives. I don't want to go

back into history. I'd like to get to the present. Have the

Conservatives resisted every effort to raise the starting point of

income tax? As I said, we promised this in 2010, they said it couldn't

be done. We've made sure it was delivered in the Coalition. Have

they resisted it? We've argued for big steps along the way and forced

it on to the agenda. They've wanted to deliver other things are so we've

had to fight for our priority... Did the Conservatives resist every

attempt? It has been resisted, overall the things I'm talking

about, by Conservatives, because they have wanted to deliver other

things and, of course, in a Coalition you negotiate. Both

parties have their priorities. Our priority has been a very consistent

one. Last year, they were arguing about tax breaks for married

couples. They were arguing in 2010 for tax cuts for millionaires. Our

priority in all these discussions has been a consistent one, which is

to say we want cutbacks for working people. -- we want to cut tax for

working people. That has been delivered by both parties in the

Coalition government full top So what do you think when the Tories

take credit for it? I understand why they want to try to do that. Most

people understand what we have just said. Not if the polls are to be

believed... You're under 10%. This is one of the things, when I talk to

people, but I find they know that the Lib Dems have delivered in

government. People know we promised it in 2010 and we're the ones who

forced this idea onto the agenda in our election manifesto. You've said

that five times in this interview alone. The reality is, this is now a

squabbling, loveless marriage. We're getting bored with all your tests,

the voters. Why don't you just divorced? -- all your arguments. I

don't accept that. On a lot of policy areas, the Coalition

government has worked very well together. We're delivering an awful

lot of things that matter to this country. Most importantly, the mess

that Labour made of the economy we are sorting out. We are getting our

finances on the right track, making our economy more competitive,

creating jobs up and down this country, supporting businesses to

invest in growth. That is what this Coalition was set up to do, what it

is delivering, and both myself and George Osborne are proud to have

worked together to deliver that record. Danny Alexander, thanks for

that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is anybody listening? I do worry that

another 40 months of this might drive voter apathy up to record

levels. There is a simple answer to why they don't divorced - it's the

agreement that Parliament will last until 2015. MPs are bouncing around

Westminster with very little to do. They are looking for things to put

in the Queen's Speech and we are going to have rocks basically the 40

months and very little substantial difference in policies. Do you

believe Danny Alexander when he says there would have been no rise in the

starting rate of income tax if not for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the

lily. If you look back at papers are written in 2001 suggesting precisely

this policy, written by a Tory peer, you see there are plenty of Tories

which suggest there would have been this kind of move. I can see why

Danny Alexander needs to do this and they need to show they've achieved

something in government because they are below 10% in the polls and

finding it incredibly difficult to get any traction at all. The other

leg of this Lib Dem repositioning is now to be explicitly the party of

Europe and to be the vanguard of the fight to be all things pro-Europe.

Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel Farage in the run-up to the European

elections. If, despite that, the Lib Dems come last of the major parties,

doesn't it show how out of touch different. They are targeting a

section of the electorate who are a bit more amenable to their views

than the rest. They wouldn't get 20% of the vote. They are targeting that

one section. They have to do disproportionately well amongst

those and it will payoff and they will end up with something like 15%.

How many seats will the Lib Dems losing the next election? Ten. 20.

15. Triangulation! We'll keep that on tape and see what actually

happens! The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain

Duncan Smith is a man on a mission. He's undertaken the biggest overhaul

in our welfare state since it was invented way back in the

black-and-white days of the late 1940s. A committed Roman Catholic,

he's said he has a moral vision to reverse the previous welfare system,

which he believes didn't create enough incentive for people to work.

But are his reforms working? Are they fair? As he bitten off more

than he can chew? In a moment, we'll speak to the man himself but first,

here's Adam. Hackney in north London and we're on

the road with the man who might just be the most ambitious welfare

secretary there's ever been. It's a journey that started in the wind and

rain on a Glasgow council estate 12 years ago when he was Tory leader.

He came face-to-face with what it meant to be poor. A selection of

teddy bears. It's where he discovered his recipe for reform,

according to one of the advisers who was with him. There are things that

if you do get a job, keep your family together, stay off drugs and

alcohol, make sure you have a proper skill - that's what keeps you of

poverty. He, very ambitiously, wants to redefine the nature of what it

means to be poor and how you get away from poverty. Back in north

London, he's come to congratulate the troops on some good news. In

this borough, the number of people on job-seeker's allowance has gone

down by 29% in the last year, up from around 1700 to around 1200. But

the picture in his wider changes to the welfare state is a bit more

mixed. A cap on the total amount of benefits a family can get, of

?26,000 a year, is hugely popular but there have been howls of protest

over cuts to housing benefit, labelled the bedroom tax by some.

Protests, too, about assessments for people on disability benefits,

inherited from the previous government. Iain Duncan Smith has

been accused of being heartless and the company doing them, Atos, has

pulled out. And then the big one - and universal credit, a plan to roll

six benefits into one monthly payment, in a way designed to ensure

that work always pays. Some of the IT has been written off and the

timetable seems to be slipping. Outside the bubble of the

stage-managed ministerial trip, a local Labour MP reckons he's bitten

off more than he can chew. The great desire is to say, " let's have one

simple one size fits all approach" . And there isn't one size of person

or family out there. People need to change and they can challenge on the

turn of a penny almost. One minute they are doing the right thing,

working hard. Next minute, they need a level of support and if this

simple system doesn't deliver that for them, they're in a difficult

position. And that's the flying visit to the front line finished. He

does not like to hang about and just as well do - his overhaul of the

entire benefits system still has quite a long way to go. And Iain

Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I come onto the interview on welfare

reform, is Danny Alexander right when he claims the Lib Dems had to

fight to get the Tories to raise the income tax threshold? That is not my

recollection of what happened. These debates took place in the

Coalition. The Conservatives are in favour of reducing the overall

burden of taxation, so the question was how best do we do it? The

conversation took place, they were keen on raising the threshold, there

were also other ways of doing it but it is clear from the Conservatives

that we always wanted to improve the quality of life of those at the

bottom so raising the threshold fit within the overall plan. If it was a

row, it was the kind of row you have over a cup of tea round the

breakfast table. We have got a lot to cover. There are two criticisms

mainly of what you are doing - will they work, and will they be fair?

Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers, wants to know why so much has

already been written off due to failures of the universal credit

system even though it has been barely introduced. Relatively it has

been a ?2 billion investment project, in the private sector

programmes are written off regularly at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we

are improving as we go along, the key thing is to keep your eye on the

parts that don't work and make sure they don't create a problem for the

programme. 140 million has been wasted! The 40 million that was

written off was just do with security IT, and I took that

decision over a year and a half ago so the programme continued to roll

out. Those figures include the standard right down, the aggregation

of cost over a period of time. The of cost over a period of time. The

computers were written down years ago but they continue to work now.

Universal credit is rolling out, we are doing the Pathfinders and

learning a lot but I will not ever do this again like the last

government, big band launches, you should do it phrase by phrase. Even

your colleague Francis Maude says the implementation of universal

credit has been pretty lamentable. He was referring back to the time

when I stopped that element of the process and I agreed with that. I

intervened to make the changes. The key point is that it is rolling out

and I invite anyone to look at where it is being rolled out to. You were

predicting that a million people would be an universal credit, this

is the new welfare credit which rolls up six existing welfare

benefits and you were predicting a million people would be on it by

April, well it is March and only 3200 are on it. I changed the way we

rolled it out and there was a reason for that. Under the advice of

someone we brought from outside, he said that you are better rolling it

out slower and gaining momentum later on. On the timetables for

rolling out we are pretty clear that it will roll out within the

timescale is originally set. We will roll it out into the Northwest so

that we replicate the north and the Northwest, recognise how it works

properly. You will not hit 1 million by April. I have no intention of

claiming that, and it is quite deliberate because that is the wrong

thing to do. We want to roll it out carefully so we make sure everything

about it works. There are lots of variables in this process but if you

do it that way, you will not end up with the kind of debacle where in

the past something like ?28 billion worth of IT programmes were written

off. ?38 billion of net benefits, which is exactly what the N a O Z,

so it is worth getting it right. William Grant wants to know, when

will the universal credit cover the whole country? By 2016, everybody

who is claiming one of those six benefits will be claiming universal

credit. Some and sickness benefits will take longer to come on because

it is more difficult. Many of them have no work expectations on them,

but for those on working tax credits, on things like job-seeker's

allowance, they will be making claims on universal credit. Many of

them are already doing that now, there are 200,000 people around the

country already on universal credit. You cannot give me a date as to when

everybody will be on it? 2016 is when everybody claiming this benefit

will be on, then you have to bring others and take them slower.

Universal credit is a big and important reform, not an IT reform.

The important point is that it will be a massive cultural reform. Right

now somebody has to go to work and there is a small job out there. They

won't take that because the way their benefits are withdrawn, it

will mean it is not worth doing it. Under the way we have got it in the

Pathfinders, the change is dramatic. A job-seeker can take a

small part time job while they are looking for work and it means

flexibility for business so it is a big change. Lets see if that is true

because universal credit is meant to make work pay, that is your mantra.

Let me show you a quote Minister in the last

-- in the last Tory conference. It has only come down to 76%. Actually

form own parents, before they get to the tax bracket it is well below

that. That is a decision the Government takes about the

withdrawal rate so you can lower that rate or raise it. And do your

reforms, some of the poorest people, if they burn an extra

pound, will pay a marginal rate of 76%. -- if they earn an extra pound.

The 98% he is talking about is a specific area to do with lone

parents but there are specific compound areas in the process that

mean people are better off staying at home then going to work. They

will be able to identify how much they are better off without needing

to have a maths degree to figure it out. They are all taken away at

different rates at the moment, it is complex and chaotic. Under universal

credit that won't happen, and they will always be better off than they

are now. Would you work that bit harder if the Government was going

to take away that portion of what you learned? At the moment you are

going to tax poor people at the same rate the French government taxes

billionaires. Millions will be better off under this system of

universal credit, I promise you, and that level of withdrawal then

becomes something governments have to publicly discussed as to whether

they lower or raise it. But George Osborne wouldn't give you the extra

money to allow for the taper, is that right? The moment somebody

crosses into work under the present system, there are huge cliff edges,

in other words the immediate withdrawal makes it worse for them

to go into work than otherwise. If he had given you more money, you

could have tapered it more gently? Of course, but the Chancellor can

always ultimately make that decision. These decisions are made

by chancellors like tax rates, but it would be much easier under this

system for the public to see what the Government chooses as its

priorities. At the moment nobody has any idea but in the future it will

be. Under the Pathfinders, we are finding people are going to work

faster, doing more job searches, and more likely to take work under

universal credit. Public Accounts Committee said this programme has

been worse than doing nothing, for the long-term credit. It has not

been a glorious success, has it? That is wrong. Right now the work

programme is succeeding, more people are going to work, somewhere in the

order of 500,000 people have gone back into work as a result of the

programme. Around 280,000 people are in a sustained work over six

months. Many companies are well above it, and the whole point about

the work programme is that it is setup so that we make the private

sector, two things that are important, there is competition in

every area so that people can be sucked out of the programme and

others can move in. The important point here as well is this, that

actually they don't get paid unless they sustain somebody for six months

of employment. Under previous programmes under the last

government, they wasted millions paying companies who took the money

and didn't do enough to get people into work. The best performing

provider only moved 5% of people off benefit into work, the worst managed

only 2%. It is young people. That report was on the early first months

of the work programme, it is a two-year point we are now and I can

give you the figures for this. They are above the line, the improvement

has been dramatic and the work programme is better than any other

back to work programme under the last government. So why is long-term

unemployment rising? It is falling. We have the largest number of people

back in work, there is more women in work than ever before, more jobs

being created, 1.6 million new jobs being created. The work programme is

working, our back to work programmes are incredibly successful at below

cost so we are doing better than the last government ever did, and it

will continue to improve because this process is very important. The

competition is what drives up performance. We want the best

performers to take the biggest numbers of people. You are

practising Catholic, Archbishop Vincent Nichols has attached your

reforms -- attack to your reforms, saying they are becoming more

punitive to the most vulnerable in the land. What do you say? I don't

agree. It would have been good if you called me before making these

attacks because most are not correct.

For the poorest temper sent in their society, they are now spending, as a

percentage of their income, less than they did before. I'm not quite

sure what he thinks welfare is about. Welfare is about stabilising

people but most of all making sure that households can achieve what

they need through work. The number of workless households under

previous governments arose consistently. It has fallen for the

first time in 30 years by nearly 18%. Something like a quarter of a

million children were growing up in workless households and are now in

households with work and they are three times more likely to grow up

with work than they would have been in workless households. Let me come

into something that he may have had in mind as being punitive - some

other housing benefit changes. A year ago, the Prime Minister

announced that people with severely disabled children would be exempt

from the changes but that was only after your department fought a High

Court battle over children who couldn't share a bedroom because of

severe disabilities. Isn't that what the Archbishop means by punitive or,

some may describe it, heartless. We were originally going to appeal that

and I said no. You put it up for an appeal and I said no. We're talking

about families with disabled children. There are good reasons for

this. Children with conditions like that don't make decisions about

their household - their parents do - so I said we would exempt them. But

for adults with disabilities the courts have upheld all of our

decisions against complaints. But you did appeal it. It's just that,

having lost in the appeal court, you didn't then go to the Supreme Court.

You make decisions about this. My view was that it was right to exempt

them at that time. I made that decision, not the Prime Minister.

Let's get this right - the context of this is quite important. Housing

benefit under the last government doubled under the last ten years to

?20 billion. It was set to rise to another 25 billion, the fastest

rising of the benefits, it was out of control. We had to get it into

control. It wasn't easy but we haven't cut the overall rise in

housing. We've lowered it but we haven't cut housing benefit and

we've tried to do it carefully so that people get a fair crack. On the

spare room subsidy, which is what this complaint was about, the

reality is that there are a quarter of a million people living in

overcrowded accommodation. The last government left us with 1 million

people on a waiting list for housing and there were half a million people

sitting in houses with spare bedrooms they weren't using. As we

build more houses, yes we need more, but the reality is that councils and

others have to use their accommodation carefully so that they

actually improve the lot of those living in desperate situations in

overcrowded accommodation, and taxpayers are paying a lot of

money. This will help people get back to work. They're more likely to

go to work and more likely, therefore, to end up in the right

sort of housing. We've not got much time left. A centre-right think tank

that you've been associated with, on job-seeker's allowance, says 70,000

job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn unfairly. A viewer wants to know,

are these reforms too harsh and punitive? Those figures are not

correct. The Policy Exchange is wrong? Those figures are not correct

and we will be publishing corrected figures. The reality is... Some

people have lost their job-seeker benefits and been forced to go to

food backs and they shouldn't have. No, they're not. What he is

referring to is that we allowed an adviser to make a decision if some

but it is not cooperating. We now make people sign a contract, where

they agree these things. These are things we do for you and if you

don't do these things, you are likely to have your benefit

withdrawn on job-seeker's allowance. Some of this was an fairly

withdrawn. There are millions of these things that go through. This

is a There is an immediate review. Within

seven days they are able to get a hardship fund straightaway if there

is a problem. We have nearly ?1 billion to set up to help people

through hardship funds and crisis loans. We use that finance, giving

it to local authorities. This is not a nasty and vicious system. It is a

system which says, we ask you to do certain things, taxpayers pay this

money, you are out of work but you have an obligation to seek work.

Recently asked that you stick to doing those. The sanctions are there

for people who will not co-operate. I think it is fair to say to them,

this is a choice you make. You make choices all through your life. If

you refuse to go operate, this is what happens. Is child poverty

rising? No, it is falling. Can I show you these figures? These are

from the Institute for fiscal studies. That is a projection. It

also shows that it has gone up and will rise by 400,000 in this

Parliament under your government. But never mind the projection. It

will be 400,000 of when this Parliament ends compared to what

you've inherited. Child poverty is rising. That is their projection, we

will see where we are... That is the actual figures! The last figures

show that child poverty has fallen by some 300,000. The important point

is, if I can finish this point, child poverty is measured against

60% of median income. This is an issue about how we measure child

poverty. You want to change the measurements... We have been

discussing publicly the figures. We have still got more work to do on

them. There is a consensus that the way we measure child poverty right

now does not measure exactly what requires to be done. For example, a

family with an individual parents who may be drug addicted who gets

what we think is enough money to be just over the line, their children

may well be living in poverty, but they won't be measured, so the

reality is that we need to get a measurement that looks at poverty in

terms of how people live, not just in terms of the income levels they

have. You can see from that chart, 400,000 rise in child poverty by the

end of this Parliament. You are presiding an increase, that is why

you want to change the definition. Under the last woman, child poverty

rose consistently from 2004. They ended up throwing huge sums of money

into tax credits. Tax credits, in six years before the last election,

the last government spent 107 to ?5 billion chasing the poverty target

and they didn't achieve what they set out to achieve -- ?105 billion.

It is not a projection up to 2014. I put one final point to you. Again

and again you say it is your mission to make work pay, that people will

be better off if they work rather than living on welfare. More people

in poverty are now in working families than in workless families.

For them, work is not paying. Let me deal with those figures. They refer

to the last government's time in power. What is interesting about it

is up until 2010, under the last government, those in working

families rose by half a million, those in poverty. It has been flat

under this government. The only point I made about this, these

figures are from the last government. The truth is, even if

you are in poverty in a working family, your children, if you are in

a workless family, are three times more likely to be out of work and to

suffer real hardship. In other words, moving people up the scale

into work and then on into higher areas is important. What we are

doing now is changing the system so that you progress of woods and go

out of poverty through work and up beyond it. Those figures you are

referring to actually refer to the last government's tenure Tom and

they spent ?105 billion on a tax credit which still left people in

work in poverty. Even 20 minutes is not enough to go through all this!

There is much more I would like to talk about. I will come back. Thank

you very much. You are watching the Sunday

Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who now leave us for

Sunday Politics Scotland. Good morning and welcome to Sunday

Politics Scotland. Coming up on the programme, UKIP supporters in

Scotland demand a rerun of the selection process for their European

parliament candidate. The women from South Lanarkshire who fought and won

parity of pay at work. And the Liberal Democrats

I would just say, don't be scared and stand up for yourself. The time

is now and it has got to change. And the Lib Dems are poised to publish

their chance -- plans for further devolution. UKIP are on the march

down South and they're hoping for success here in Scotland at the

European parliamentary election in a couple of months.

They're confident of winning at least one seat. But the party's

perennial problem of in-fighting has reared its head here, with

long-standing members calling for a re-run of the ballot which selected

their MEP candidates for the May poll. Here's Andrew Kerr.

UKIP are standing out, seen by many as driving the Conservatives'

agenda, immigration and the UK's out -- relationship with Europe are

never far from the headlines. Neither is their leader Nigel

Farage. They are hoping to make news in Scotland in the European

elections in May. This is their number one candidate. We have a good

chance of getting at least one, possibly two, members of the

European. That will give us a good stepping stone to getting people in

to Westminster and into Holyrood. That is really our hope -- our

objective. It is an ambition that seems fairly realistic, according to

one political commentator. If you listen to UKIP, they feel they

already have one seat in the bag. Some people within UKIP are talking

about two seats. I think two an exaggeration. They might not get

that, but they might get one. They probably need 10%, 9% of the vote to

get a seat, a European seat in Scotland. That is within their

reach. Scotland's MEPs stack up like this. We have two labour, two SNP,

one conservative and one Lib Dems. Looking at UKIP's performance over

the last year, their share has not been impressive in the by-elections.

One recent poll did suggest support was at 7%, not far off what they

need for a seat. But infighting is always to the fore. UKIP's former

Scottish chairman received a 100 year ban from the party for speaking

to the press over concerns about the European candidate selection

process, which saw David Cockburn come out on top. The ban has been

lifted, and he is calling for the selection process to be rerun. We

have a ballot which is being taken place, which is skewed. We do not

know who is actually the number one candidate. We are simply calling for

a new ballot which we would run here in Scotland. We would actually

publish the votes, because we still don't know what the votes were cast

for whom, and we are the only region where that has not happened. UKIP

has had an interesting journey. Remember them, the referendum party?

This is from the 1997 general election. They paved the way for

UKIP with a fairly unique anti-European attitude. A new

Scottish UKIP MEP would fairly shake up the consensus amongst the current

crop. Wouldn't it? Yes, very much so. If you have been an MEP in

Scotland at any time in the past until now, you have been

pro-European. It has been a qualification for the job to like

Europe and the on side of the European Parliament. Now we have the

possibility of one of the Scottish MEPs, possibly more, coming into

that mix, who is defiantly anti-European. That will stir things

up. The Labour MEP David Martin agrees. He is critical of UKIP's

pager, dismissive of the right-wing parties with whom they choose to

sit, and of their work ethic, which she has been observing since 1999. I

stand to corrected, but I cannot -- I can only think of one campaign in

a 15 year appeared -- period on which they make any impact, which

was to do with Elektra next cigarette. Nigel Farage even did a

video promoting electronic cigarettes. There must have been

other major issues that they could have taken up in that time, but they

haven't. This is the video in question, with Nigel Farage leading

the charge as usual. UKIP success could tie in Scotland with the rest

of the UK. They are expected to do well overall, but UKIP failure would

highlight how diverging Scotland and England were on and perhaps impact

on the referendum debate. Joining me now is UKIP chairman

Steve Crowther who's in our Plymouth studio. Thank you for joining us.

Good afternoon. Will you rerun the ballot for your candidate? No. The

point about this if there are a small number of people who are

unhappy with the outcome and the way in which we did it. We did it

according to our rules, and David Cockburn came top of that process by

absolutely a fair and square process. By how many votes? I have

not released the vote of any of the ballot in any part of the UK. But

there are figures on your website for the part of the UK, but not for

Scotland. There was a situation where the National Executive

Committee decided that they wished to take over the approval of the

Scottish list, but I can tell you that David Cockburn came top of that

ballot, and I will absolutely confirm that. And will you receive

-- release the figures? No. Why not? The National Executive

Committee runs this process. It is its prerogative to do so and it has

fully backed the way in which it has been done. It has announced our list

are we to go. It is a strong list. David Cockburn has always been our

lead candidate from the time the ballot was run, and it is an

extremely strong team of people. Were you surprised that your London

chairman came out top on the ballot in Scotland? Not at all. He is a

very able politician. He is Glasgow born, Scottish to his fingertips, he

took part in the Scottish hustings during the process and he is

absolutely the best candidate. Is there a UKIP framework in Scotland?

Union is there an organisation? Yes. Yelena we have had a 50% increase of

membership in Scotland over the last 12 months. To how many? Yelena

Geddes over 800. It does look like your party is in disarray when six

of your ninth European candidates pull out of the ballot. There was a

dispute, but we now have a list of approved candidates, and extremely

strong list. What is important is we are arriving in the polls at about

17% in Scotland. You said early on that we are on the march down South,

and rightly so. It is interesting to note that in a recent by-election,

the Lib Dems were beaten by ten -- by an Elvis party. We have a good

chance of getting our first seat, possibly two seats, in Scotland. But

looking at recent by-elections, you have fallen in numbers. There is a

clear explanation. The Scots are aware of democracy and sensitive to

it, and first past the post elections are always challenging for

small parties. In the European elections, proportional

representation elections, every vote counts. UKIP is the only party

offering a vote against the predations of the European Union.

But when David Cockburn says that ultimately you need representation

in Holyrood and Westminster, would you argue that ultimately that is

not going to happen? No. It is absolutely going to happen. We have

a tremendous momentum and what you were going to see in the European

elections is a strong move forward for UKIP and that will be a platform

for us to break into Westminster and Holyrood in the following year. But

there is no electoral evidence of this, is there? 610 votes in the

most recent by-election. As I said, there is the mention. But the

momentum is going in the wrong direction! I don't think it is. Down

South in the last year we have proved ourselves to be a viable

electoral concept. Our successes in the county council elections are

very close to success. The Scottish situation is essentially catching up

with that and we will see after the European elections where we will

make our breakthrough. The Scots will see that UKIP is a very viable

electoral proposition. But do you accept the issues of immigration, a

central plank of your policy, is different in Scotland? I dare say it

is different in Scotland, but many people in Scotland said they wanted

controls on immigration in Scotland and one third of people in Scotland

said they would vote out if we had a referendum on EU membership, so

clearly that momentum is in our direction. That when it comes to

balancing the economy in Scotland, immigration is an important part of

that, bringing in key workers. Is that something you could support?

Absolutely. Our policy is not to ban immigration wholesale, but to

control it. While we are in the EU, we are not capable of controlling

immigration because the free movement of labour of 500 million

people across Europe. We want to manage that situation, have people

come here and our people go elsewhere, but on a managed basis.

When people say there is a lack of professionalism in your party, does

the infighting we have seen recently back that up? I don't think that's

true. Political parties have strong minded people. It has been said that

your party is run by racists with extremist, right-wing views. That

comes from the man who used to run your party. Use the two, being the

operative word. -- Used to. There is an influx of members of young people

in Scotland. When you get comments like Glasgow is for -- Glasgow City

Council is for gays, Communist and Catholics, as quoted by one of your

members. He is an excellent chairman, making a comment within a

context, he comes from a mixed background himself and is a fine man

who works full-time for charity. You endorse those comments? I don't know

what that situation is. He was speaking in context about the

perception that persists about Glasgow City Council.

Thank you for joining us. Now to a long-running battle over

equal pay for women. You might think that belongs to the history books.

Well, you'd be wrong. In recent years, there have been several

claims against Scottish councils where women argued they were earning

less than men doing similar jobs. One long-running dispute involving

thousands of current and former workers in South Lanarkshire has

just been settled and the women affected will receive cash, but

other cases remain unresolved. Here's our local government

correspondent Jamie McIvor. This struggles for equality for women may

seem like the other from another era. As, the struggle for the boat

one century ago. Then the claim to outlaw sex discrimination was

finally won in the 1970s. The big battles were fought and won a while

ago, but skirmishes can still take place. One has been rumbling for

several years. That is all of us now. Fighting for equality. This

group of women are just a tiny number of the latest group to win a

victory. Perhaps getting some inspiration from Mrs Pankhurst. This

Museum respects the achievements of women in the past, but we are

delighted that women in the present are making equality and reality.

It has been a long-running and contributed dispute. At its root,

the overall pay package for certain jobs, once things like bonuses were

included. As a job mostly done by women, such as IKEA will -- such as

a care worker the same as a job done by men, such as a refuge collector.

It boils down to our jobs not being as regarded as equal. I couldn't

believe when I was told it was still happening in this day and age. I

just felt that we did work hard and I think they are entitled to the

same wage as the men were getting. Definitely the future generation

will be doing that type of work and people get equal pay. Don't be

scared and stand up for yourself. The time has come and has to

change. It is a victory for women. The battle is won by the

suffragettes were much more fundamental. They were about

changing the law and society. South Lanarkshire Council says it was

always committed to the principle of equal pay, but the exact details of

this latest settlement are confidential.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats are to outline the next step in their

plans for more powers early next week. The Campbell II report will

set out areas of common ground between parties on which further

powers could be devolved to Scotland. But first, here's what the

other parties are saying. Earlier this week, the Deputy First

Minister cautioned an audience in Glasgow that anything less than

independence would fall short of tackling the problems facing the

country. None of the parties against independents have produced

substantial proposals capable of meeting those national challenges.

There is no joint agreement or timescale. To vote now is to leave

Scotland's future in Westminster's hands. I believe it is time to take

Scotland's future into Scotland's hands.

At its spring conference in Perth in two weeks' time, Scottish Labour is

preparing to unveil the recommendations of its internal

devolution commission. MP Douglas Alexander has urged them to act

boldly, transferring new powers on tax, elections and employment

schemes to Holyrood. The Scottish Conservatives have previously

resisted demands for further powers, but leader Ruth Davidson has now

appointed an expert commission to examine the issue. It will report in

May. So just how can the three pro-Unionist parties reach that

common ground and in what time frame? To answer this, Scottish

Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie joins me now along with

Professor John Curtice from Strathclyde University.

Willie Rennie, how can you outline a report that talks about common

ground when we have not had the reports from Labour and the

Conservatives? If you look at where we have come from since the report

was produced in 2012, where a substantial transfer of financial

and constitutional power was set out, there has been a massive shift

of gravity in this debate. We have had contributions from Douglas

Alexander and with Davidson, but we have also had Gordon Brown, and Jim

Murphy making substantial contributions. There has been a

major shift. It is inevitable that we will get more powers. What is

this new report say about these areas of common ground? What I have

tasked Sir Menzies Campbell with doing is to draw together the

different strands of the argument that have been put by people from

different parties, and he will set out a timescale, a route map for

more powers for the Scottish Parliament. What is that timescale?

We are told that if there is a yes in September's vote, we could reach

a point of independence in 18 months. Is this same true for

further powers for the parliament? I believe that to Sir Menzies

Campbell. He will set out in detail what we want to do for the next

stage. People like the Scottish parliament, but they know that

something is missing. And that is the ability to raise and set our own

taxes so that we not only decide how to cut up the cake, but the size of

the cake. But that is the very issue valuable find any consensus at all.

You are talking about what Gordon Murphy and Jim Murphy has said, that

there were disagreements within the Labour Party who are very unhappy

about the idea of devolving tax powers. And the Tories might look at

further devilish and, but corporation tax -- devolution max,

but corporation tax is not one area he would not concede. There are

significant senior figures in the Labour Party that are making a

strong case for more powers. I like Brian Taylor's comparison he talks

about living diagram where there is a considerable degree of overlap

between the different parties. I think it will become apparent as we

move forward as the other parties publish their proposals that

everybody is heading in the same direction. Is your message vote now

and you may get more powers? You cannot guarantee that those powers

will be delivered, it is down to the Westminster Parliament. I think it

is clear that the change, but shift in the centre of gravity in this

debate now means that we are going to get more powers. Of course there

will be discussions as to what those powers will be, but David Mundell

has said in an article, he has said they will not be the block that they

have been in the past. More is yet to come. Is Willie Rennie's optimism

well-placed? I think he is correct that there are movements both in

labour and the Conservatives towards more devolution. But getting an

agreed consensus between the parties may be more difficult than

constructing and then diagram -- a Venn diagram. The problem will not

be with the Conservatives, but the Labour Party. Ruth Davidson has been

arguing for more tax devolution. I think the Labour Party is more

reluctant to come to any agreement. If you look at the interim report

became with 12 months ago, the main area of disagreement was corporation

tax. They are looking forward to the prospect of a majority Labour

government in 2015 and they will then see the other party of

devolution and they will deliver. I think we will find that it is Labour

who will be reluctant to sign up to any agreement. We know that the

public like the idea of devo max, but how do you campaign on that in a

referendum when the parties are offering different propositions? One

of the difficulties of the no campaign is that they cannot paint

an agreed picture for their vision of their vision of -- an agreed

picture of their vision for a united kingdom. At the end of the day, it

is difficult to persuade the other three parties to agree on

substantive political policy. Insofar as they are struggling to

come up with an agreed vision of the powers of the Scottish Parliament,

they are potentially exposing themselves to risk. For the most

part, it looks as if the supporters of more devolution are going to vote

now rather than years and that is because the group still has

considerable reservations about whether independence is a good idea

for Scotland, but that is the potential soft underbelly of the no

vote. If I was campaigning for the no side, I would try to minimise

that risk. But all three parties are not only fighting for the

referendum, they are positioning themselves for the elections in 2015

and 2016. In terms of the margin of victory, one way or the other, if it

is a narrow no vote, does that... Will some people in England see

there is not another tape for change? If people want to continue

devolution max on if they vote for independence, they are ending that.

There is a danger that if you think you can vote yes in comfort that you

will not get independents and you will get more powers, it is a

dangerous game to play. Alex Salmond has written to the

Ministry of Defence and David Cameron about this radiation leak at

Dounreay. He is very angry that Scottish ministers were not told

about this for two years. This is a very serious issue. We need to make

sure that in the matter of nuclear power, we are abiding by all the

regulations very strictly. As far as I understand, the appropriate

environment agency, SEPA, was informed. Should ministers have been

followed -- informed? I believe the rules were followed.

You're watching Sunday Politics Scotland. Time now for the news from

Reporting Scotland with Andrew Kerr. Good afternoon. Alex Salmond has

written to the Prime Minister, demanding an apology after it

emerged Scottish ministers were not told about a radiation leak at

Dounreay two years ago. The Defence Secretary revealed details of the

incident for the first time on Thursday. Labour wants an inquiry,

saying public confidence has been damaged. The Ministry of Defence

says relevant agencies were kept informed.

The Liberal Democrats will spell out their plans for getting more powers

for the Scottish Parliament tomorrow if independence is rejected. The

senior Lib Dem MP, Sir Menzies Campbell, has updated an earlier

report which looked at devolving new tax powers to Holyrood. Speaking on

this programme, the Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie said there had

been a massive shift in the stands of prounion parties to favour more

devolved powers. A yachtsman from Shetland is waiting

to be rescued by Chilean coastguards after his mast broke in a huge

storm. 54-year-old Andrew Halcrow was attempting to sail

single-handed, nonstop round the world. His wife said that he was

uninjured. Now let's take a look at the weather

with Judith. single-handed, nonstop round the

Good afternoon. A fairly cloudy afternoon and damp in nature.

Actually been and is for many parts of the country thanks to a weather

front sinking southwards. Drier conditions developing across the far

north-west. Quite a brisk wind here. Later when thes further south.

As we head into the evening, the wind returns to most places for our

time, but then it becomes drier overnight, turning colder.

That is it for now. I am joined by Robbie Dinwoodie, the

Herald's correspondent, and freelance journalist Anna Burnside.

The Ministry of Defence has been accused of deception over a

radioactive leak at Dounreay. Alex Salmond seems very angry about the

situation. There is a degree of manufactured outrage about this. The

most effective -- offensive thing was when Philip Hammond said that

all the relevant time -- authority said the -- authorities had been

informed. If you do not consider the Scottish Government to be a relevant

authority, there is something wrong. There has been no major league. I

think it would be wrong to talk this up into some massive environmental

story. He says that the way this has been handled is underhand and

disrespectful foot. As Robbie said, this is the kind of thing they have

been waiting for, an issue that everyone in Scotland can look at and

say, that is a piece of nonsense. But would you not expect Scottish

ministers to be insulted by this? Of course I would. I am not denying

that they are right to be making a fuss about this. It is nonsense that

it took two years for any of to find this out, but I think we can be

prepared for plenty more manufactured indignation. That's

talk about further powers for the Scottish parliament if there is a no

vote in the independence referendum. There is a strand of Labour thinking

that agrees with that. There is also a strand of Labour thinking that

disagrees with handing over powers, British elite -- particularly income

tax and welfare. The problem is not whether or not these are good or bad

ideas, the problem is that the party this is being pitched to is in

itself in disagreement. That disagreement is coming from MPs, not

exclusively, but quite a vocal number of MPs, and they are the ones

that will have to steer this through Westminster if it is to be

proposed. Yes, good look with that! There is much to commend in this

story. It makes a lot of sense, but will it ever be pulled together?

That is what would have to take the rain check on, I think. The Sunday

Herald is saying that the next chair of MPs, Michael McCann, has branded

Devo Max has not serious politics. This is another example of the way

this split goes. What was interesting recently about

interventions from Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy, they were clear

attempts to say it is not all MPs versus MSPs. It is not all hostile

down there. If you are going to talk about a partial boycott of their own

conference in protest at this, it is a sign of deep division. Do you get

the sense that Johann Lamont will be able to give -- bring all the sides

together? That would be a first. She has not got a strong track record.

Again, good luck. We will all be watching. Interesting story on the

front page of the Sunday Times. According to an EU law expert, Aidan

O'Neill, the First Minister acted illegally by denying exiled Scots

vote in the referendum. This is being challenged to allow Scots

living outside to actually vote in the referendum. Where do you see

this going? Is I am curious about the story. It comes from a complaint

from James Wallace, a lawyer living in London. Aidan O'Neill is

undoubtedly an EU expert, but he's the go to man for sceptics. If you

think same-sex marriage might reach European law, he is the money go to.

Fair enough, an interesting story, but if he is accusing the Scottish

Government of getting this Arab League wrong and ignoring EU law, he

is also accusing the UK government, because it is based on the Edinburgh

Agreement. A spokesperson for the Scottish Government has said that it

is full -- beyond question. Having worked at the Sunday Times, the

whole story had the air of, can we say about it. It felt like a

speculative story, and you have just identified one of the holes in

this. Would anybody actually pursue this? We watch with interest. The

Sunday Express has carried out a poll, and they extrapolate a

suggestion which says that more than 500,000 Scots have been abused or

threatened over their views on the referendum. They say that some

people are afraid to speak up. You get this business, afraid to speak

of. I don't see that in recent days! It is hard to prove. It

depends what level of threat there has been. Everyone is busy having

their say. I do not see much sign that people are being cowed into

silence. People are also suggesting that people have been writing the

newspapers writing to express a view, and men have received letters

expressing striding oppositional views. If that is happening, that is

wrong. That is not something I have been aware of. On Twitter, if you

put your head over the parapet, get your tin hat on, because the debate

is robust, to put it mildly. That is good! A range of people are involved

in this debate, the likes of which we have never seen before. It is the

roundabout and the swings. To go back to what we are going to get

from the Campbell II report, do you expect it will make much progress? I

think it will lay out more of the Lib Dem position, which is easy for

them, because they are the natural party of Home Rule. They do not have

internal divisions on this. They want a federal Britain. For then it

is easy. The problem is, they can say all they like, what influence

will they have left on the Labour Party and the Tories in the years to

come, because the perception appear if they are going to pay a heavy

price for being part of the Coalition in Westminster. We have

Gordon Brown making a speech, taking a greater role in this campaign

lately. I wonder if the SNP feel interventions from ministers at

Westminster are helpful to the yes campaign? Is the same view taken of

Gordon Brown? Yes, I would say so. That has been the second air punch

of the week after Dounreay. Extremely unpopular in Scotland. It

is treated with suspicion by quite a few people, so good news for them, I

would say. Thank you very much. That is all from us this week. The

programme is back at the same time next week. Until then, do enjoy what

is left of your. From everyone here, goodbye.