22/11/2015 Sunday Politics Scotland

Could British war planes be in action over the skies of Syria

Later this week, David Cameron sets out his strategy

George Osborne says all Whitehall departments have agreed to cuts

as he gears up for his spending review this week.

We speak to one of his Conservative predecessors.

And it's been a pretty rough week for the Labour Party.

With his MPs in mutinous mood, how can Jeremy Corbyn steady the ship?

Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:

As the UN backs a resolution on tackling IS,

will the SNP and Labour support David Cameron's strategy here?

And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political

They pay me to say it, so I am happy to do so.

Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh - who'll be tweeting

Following the terror attacks in Paris, President Hollande has

embarked on putting together a Grand Coalition to defeat Islamic State in

Syria, involving the UN, America, Russia and, naturally, Britain.

The British Government is keen to join but faces the little problem

Later this week, David Cameron will present

his Syrian strategy to Parliament in the hope it will command a majority

Here's what the Chancellor had to say on the Marr Show earlier,

This week, we are going to step up our diplomatic efforts,

our humanitarian efforts, and make the case for a greater

The Prime Minister will seek support across Parliament

for strikes against that terrorist organisation in Syria and frankly

Britain has never been a country which stands on the sidelines

Nick, am I right in thinking that you can see now the makings, the

putting together, of majority for the Prime

putting together, of majority for in Syria? They are being reasonably

cautious that they are pretty in Syria? They are being reasonably

confident that, even now, they have the numbers. Three big things have

happened since three weeks ago when the Prime Minister was indicating he

was unlikely to have a vote. Paris has changed everything. Jeremy

Corbyn has had a challenging week. Thirdly, the Prime Minister has said

he will set out the comprehensive strategy. Labour MPs who said they

would like to support him have said they could not do it unless there

was a comprehensive strategy. It is also turning Tory MPs can lead by

Crispin Blunt, who would have voted against. He is now indicating he

possibly will vote for this. DUP, Nigel Dodds, who has eight MPs

possibly will vote for this. DUP, if the Prime Minister set this

out... It looks like the numbers are there. We did here this morning that

the BBC reported the DUP with back the Prime Minister if what he had to

say was credible. We are told the Tory rebels are about 15 and Labour

rebels thinking of voting with the Government or abstaining could be as

high as 50. What is your intelligence? A huge number, from

very senior people as well. Actually the number of senior people leaving,

exiting the Shadow Cabinet, I think a challenging week would be an

understatement. It is at a whole new level. There is only so much time

you can buy with free votes. Jeremy Corbyn opposes the party policy.

This time he would set his own policy but no 1 would come with him.

How many times can you play that trick before people say this is a

loose conglomeration of individuals and not a party? Do you think he

would go for a free vote? Maria Eagle has just published a paper

which is very hawkish. Hilary Benn has been making noises about this.

Who is there to support, apart from John McDonnell, in this position? He

is very isolated on this. The problem for the Prime Minister is,

in a sense he gets what he wishes for. We begin joining others in

bombing and things do not really changed in Syria. I do not think the

House of Commons is the primary obstacle facing David Cameron. I

think he will get the votes could not see much because of the case he

will make later this week but because what happened in the last

week. They focused on all necessary measures and use combat as a

metaphor, but a deliberate metaphor, I think. The biggest problem is not

the Parliamentary vote for David Cameron, it is the diplomatic

struggle to agree with Russia exactly how we go about this. Russia

are happy to bomb in Syria against Isil but they are not happy to do so

in a way which, in their words, destroys the statehood of Syria

which alludes to their traditional support for the existing Syrian

state and basher al-Assad. The politics is far more challenging

than the technical act of getting the votes together. That is the

problem. What is the endgame? Transition can sometimes take a long

time. A very long transition. On Wednesday, Chancellor Osborne

will announce the Government's Over the next five years, they

will total ?4 trillion. But even to stay within that barely

imaginable sum of money, Mr Osborne will have to continue to cut

departmental and welfare spending. Hence the mantra you will hear this

week of "a country that lives within its means" - in other words more of

a squeeze on many public services. The Chancellor wants government

departments to find a further ?20 billion worth

of savings between now and 2020. So, where could that money come

from? Welcome to our virtual Treasury

courtyard. Now, they don't have one of these

in the real courtyard but it represents everything the

Government is due to spend this year I'm going to start by highlighting

a few of the most significant parts You can see the ?217 billion

which goes on Social Security. That includes everything

from jobseeker's allowance to There is the ?35 billion

the UK is due to spend this year And George Osborne says that's

a figure he is determined to bring Now,

the focus of his statement is the money which goes on administering

and delivering public services. Here it is,

and you can see it's just under half We are going to delve into

the budgets of a few of the most It is the NHS which accounts

for the biggest chunk The Chancellor is not going to find

any of his savings here because he has promised to increase

NHS funding in England by ?10 The Government's also promised

a real terms increase That is part of its commitment to

meeting the Nato target of spending The Government is also committed to

spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid - meaning that

budget is also protected. So, the Chancellor is not going to

find any of his ?20 billion of savings he says he needs to make

from either health, defence or aid. So, where could it come from

instead? What about

from the education budget? That is a big part of what the

state spends on public services. Here

the Conservatives have promised a That means savings

from here will be limited. Although the rest of the budget does

not have any guaranteed protection. Here is the money that goes

to English local authorities. This was one of the first

departments to agree to big savings Let's look at the Home Office whose

budget this year is ?10.6 billion. The single biggest thing

Theresa May's department spends money on is the grant it gives to

police forces in England and Wales. Although they also get some of their

money from other sources including And some of the other departments

which are going to have to find big savings over the next four years are

the departments of business, But let's go back to that big part

of government spending I mentioned Because

of course that is where a lot of the focus has been in the weeks

and months before this statement. Again here there is plenty

the Chancellor will not touch. The state pension is

a massive part of the budget. But the Government has

a long-standing promise not to cut it along with various pensioner

benefits. The other areas of big spending

the Government has had to look to are housing benefit, disability

benefits and incapacity benefits. And, you can see that big sum

of money, ?30 billion, which is due to be spent

on personal tax credits this year. So, the Chancellor faces some tricky

trade-offs on Wednesday Paul Johnson from the Institute

of Fiscal Studies has some ideas. Paul, welcome back to the programme.

Let's start with this tricky question of tax credits. What is the

Chancellor, in your view, most likely to do? He has two big

choices. He can decide not to make any cuts, or much in the wake of

cuts, next April. That is what all of the bus has been about, the cuts

that will come in next April. -- the fuss. Most of the savings will come

in the long run full he has also announced the new universal credit

system will be much less generous than he was originally intending. In

five or ten years time, even if he does not put the cut scene he was

planning in April, he will still make much the same level of saving

for them if he does that, his spending in 2016 on welfare benefits

will be ?4 billion or so higher than he was planning and he will bust his

own welfare cap, the cap he has legislated, which assumes he will

make those savings. That is one option. The other option is

make those savings. That is one maybe reduce the cuts to tax credits

that have some savings and maybe reduce the cuts to tax credits

elsewhere in the welfare budget to make up the rest of the savings.

elsewhere in the welfare budget to cost money, certainly in the short

run. His deficit cost money, certainly in the short

the ship is already in some trouble. He faces huge pressures to

spend more on everything from health to Social Security. -- for this year

is already in some trouble. The first thing to

is already in some trouble. The surplus in 2020, there is a

is already in some trouble. The amount of uncertainty about where we

will be. Forecasting these things by view ad is an extreme you tricky and

uncertain business. Ignoring that, assuming the whole world moves as he

expects over the next few years, he will require cuts of about 25% in

those unprotected apartments we have just heard about the Home Office,

local government, and so on, on top of the cuts that happened during the

last parliament will Boyd -- involve really sharp cuts between 2010 and

2020. They are big changes to the way which we will deliver local

Gottman and the way we will be delivering police force, the way we

will be delivering further education and so on. Those areas of government

will change fundamentally over the decade. Let me get these right. When

you add up all the cuts, those made in those about to happen, between

20102020, major departments, the unprotected ones, will face cuts of

up to 40%. -- between 2010-2020. Is it doable? That is a good question.

It may not turn up that badly if the economy does better than expected

all the Chancellor finds some additional savings in Social

Security, or he does not aim for the 10 million surplus and goes for a 1

billion surplus. -- 10 billion. If he does go down that route, it will

be more difficult than it was in the last parliament. If there were easy

cuts to have made, they will have been made already. Do not forget one

of the biggest bits of public spending goes on the pay of people

who work in the public sector, the pay of nurses, teachers and civil

servants and so on. That was quite easy to hold down over the last

parliament. Pay in the private sector was doing so badly. We

expect, almost economists now expect that pay in the private sector will

rise well to be strongly. In that world it will be quite hard to hold

down pay right across the public sector, as he said he would do back

in the July budget. Joining me now Nigel Lawson,

Margaret Thatcher's longest serving Welcome back to the programme. Thank

you, I enjoyed your rant the other day. It was not a rant, it was a

carefully scripted commentary but thank you for your remarks. Let me

take an overall review on the Chancellor 's position. The

borrowing figures for October were pretty bad, looks like he will

overshoot this year 's borrowing. Is the austerity programme in trouble

again? It is difficult, he has a difficult time because of these

ridiculous protected programmes which should not exist. Aid is going

up again and again, the Nobel Prize for economics has been given to an

English economist, he is Scottish in fact, and one of his principal

findings, he is a great expert on global poverty and one of his major

findings is that overseas aid although well-intentioned does more

harm than good. Yet that is going up and up. He has got a tough time but

it can be done. When I was Chancellor I was able to balance the

budget and get it into surplus and he has to do it as well. He has huge

pressure on security, the police, the NHS, we were just talking about

mitigating cuts on the tax credit side, these are all hard to resist

in the current atmosphere. It is going to be very difficult and

although I suspect it will mainly be cuts in savings in public spending I

think he will have to do more on the tax side than he would have liked.

There is some logic in that, for example it looks as if, Paul Johnson

was seeing, or maybe it was you, but he is likely to some extent to defer

the cutting of the tax credits. It's quite right to take a knife to the

tax credits, they have grown far too much and are undesirable in their

present size. But nonetheless what he did propose originally was a bit

too much for some and therefore he has got to delay it a bit. But when

he presented, he presented a package including raising income tax

threshold. He could, as part of the package delay that a little bit and

help on the tax side. The government has always said it will do all the

heavy lifting, the heavy lifting will be done by cuts in spending

rather than increasing taxes. Will he now have to look at increasing

some taxes are hats at a time of low oil prices on fuel duty? I think

that's a good suggestion and it is sensible to do that. But defer a

reduction which he might find less... Yes but might he have to

look at some tax rises? I think you should look at the fuel duty, yes.

President Hollande has said that national security comes before

deficit reduction, he has sidelined the fiscal pact he has with the rest

of Europe. He plans a huge increase in security spending, 17,000 more

police and border guards and other security personnel. Will the British

be looking at George Osborne to do something similar next week?

President Hollande has never been keen on deficit-reduction in the

first place. It's not unconnected with the fact as well that the

French economy, and I live in France, the French economy is in a

bad way. We are doing much better. Security is important but the

government has said very clearly that it is going to be keeping to

the 2% target, 2% of GDP on defence spending, something France is not

doing even though it has considerable defence expenditure.

The leaked letter from one of the most senior police officers to the

Home Secretary says cuts to police budgets could reduce very

significantly the ability to respond to a Paris style attack. The

Chancellor is going to be under pressure to make security more

important than deficit-reduction. pressure to make security more

Certainly for the foreseeable future. Security is essential. It is

vital. But I think the police are complaining a little bit too much.

Look how much the police are spending now on chasing up often

unsubstantiated accusations of historic sex abuse. That has got

nothing to do with security. Those resources should be put where they

need is. I think also what the police need is not just money, and

the security services to, they need intelligence. I think it would make

a lot of sense and what I would like to see the government doing is to

expedite the passage of the investigatory Powers Bill which is

long overdue and badly needed. In this climate you accept that cutting

the top rate of income tax back to the 40% that you originally

introduced, that that is politically impossible for the foreseeable

future? It depends how far you can proceed. I would hope that during

this parliament it can be done. It is politically difficult but there

is no budgetary reason against it. When I cut it it increased revenue

and it would do so again. The cap which George Osborne has already

done in the last parliament from 50, 245 even though the Liberal

Democrats he did it and it raised money and didn't cost anything. To

be cutting police numbers, to be struggling to find money for the

NHS, to be doing something for the working poor on tax credits, making

life a bit more difficult for them but then to be cutting the top rate

of the highest earners? That is why I don't think you can be doing it

now that you were asking about the foreseeable future. You still think

he can do it before the end of this Parliament? Yes I do. On Europe, how

confident are you feeling about winning the referendum to withdraw?

Nobody can call a referendum. It is difficult enough sometimes to call a

general election and referendums are even harder to call. Logically I

don't think he will do it. Logically David Cameron ought to be

campaigning to leave because what he said at the beginning was he was

dissatisfied with the European Union as it is. He wanted a fundamental

reform to be enshrined in treaty change. Then stay in a reformed

European Union. There is not going to be a reformed European Union.

There will not be a treaty change. What the referendum is going to be

about is if you want to stay in or leave and an reform European Union.

So logically he ought to say leave and that is where I am because if it

in it. So even if the primer Mr was in it. So even if the primer Mr was

to get all his renegotiation demands such as we know them it would not

change your mind on coming out? No, if he demanded a lot more and got

it, major reforms which I have written about but I don't have time

to go into no, I think it would be welcomed right across the European

Union. This is not the view of the majority of the people, but we

cannot tell the rest of the countries what to do, all we can say

is what we are going to do. As we get closer to the referendum date,

we don't know when it will be but when we get closer to it being

announced, in terms of who seem to be the major figure who leads your

side of the referendum campaign, if not Nigel Farage, who? Certainly not

Nigel Farage. I think the people who want to stay in have put up a

businessman. Stewart draws. Not a particularly captivating

businessman. Who will be the equivalent? I have no idea, but we

will wait and see but it certainly won't be Nigel Farage. He will be an

important player. Why not? Because Ukip has just one member of

Parliament. We are a parliamentary democracy and the majority party is

the Conservative Party. Nigel Lawson, thank you for being with us.

Thank you. It's been a pretty torrid week

for the Labour Party. Splits on everything

from how to deal with terrorists to Trident, to Ken Livingstone,

culminating in a bizarre row about whether or not the Shadow

Chancellor wants to scrap MI5. John McDonnell insists Britain's

spies are safe in his hands, though he did admit that

his party has had a "rough week". It is the week that Jeremy Corbyn

and his party grappled with issues In the wake of the Paris attacks,

the Labour leader said he was not happy with the idea

of police officers shooting to kill on British streets, which led to

a very stormy party meeting, So, you tweeted, "please tell me it

is not true that Jeremy just said, faced with Kalashnikov-wielding

genocidal fascists, our security I,

along with millions of Labour voters in this country, were very concerned

by the interview that Jeremy gave. Thankfully, Hilary Benn, the Shadow

Foreign Secretary, clarified matters very quickly and restated support

for the use of lethal force and, support of the use of drone strikes,

which Jeremy had also questioned. Jeremy himself, thankfully,

a few hours later, also issued a clarification,

and I'm very pleased he did. A lot of Labour voters will

have been very relieved. Then came a row about the former

Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, being appointed to co-chair

the party's review of Trident, and the emergence of a letter from a

campaign group calling for MI5 to be disbanded that the Shadow

Chancellor, John McDonnell, seems And we found something else

interesting that John This Parliamentary motion he

proposed last October saying taxpayers who do not

like war should be able to opt out The military is where

the next battle may lie. If and

when the Government brings forward plans to extend British air strikes

from Iraq to Syria, some Labour MPs want to vote in favour, while

their leader is a committed One Labour figure is speaking out

for the first time. I think it would be wrong to suggest

there is a settled view on the People will bring

their own prejudices, which are from being instinctively

for intervention, to having long The only thing I would ask of all

of my colleagues is we look at this with an open mind,

examining the facts rather than seeing how it matches our

prejudices, and then reach a decision which is in the national

interest. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn

is able to do that? He has some very strongly held views

that we should not get involved He may have to come to

a point where he says, now that I'm not just a backbencher,

I am actually the Leader of There is an element

of national interest and that is For the young Corbynites at this

event about Labour's economic policy The only reason we look bad to

the general public, the only reason we do not look very strong at the

moment, is that we are not united. If you have criticisms with

the Leader, you should take it up It is not fitting to do these things

in the press, criticising people. Do you think there is a plot

against Jeremy Corbyn? If they are planning

a plot they should probably think about the fact Jeremy was elected

with 59.5% of the vote, I think. And we saw, from the beginning,

he went from the least likely person to get

in to the front runner, to the If people are plotting to get rid

of him, they really should listen The party should be based

around what the party members want. Unfortunately for them there will be

another flash point On Tuesday there will be a vote

in the House of Commons on Trident, Labour MPs have been

instructed not to turn up. We understand a bunch of them,

including some big names, are thinking about defying

their Leader and voting It would be a largely symbolic vote

but another visible symbol of I'm joined now from Doncaster

by the Labour MP Caroline Flint - she was a minister under Tony Blair

and Gordon Brown. Good morning, thank you for coming

back on the programme. Let me begin with a general question, it's been a

pretty terrible week for Labour, what is the mood now on the Labour

backbenches among your colleagues? It's not been a great week for

Labour, that is correct. I think part of the reason for that is we

haven't looked certain and confident on some of the big issues the nation

are worried about. What we have to have from the leadership, not just

Jeremy but those around him, is certainty about what we think about

what is happening in terms of the terrorist acts in Paris. But more

widely about what the certainty we can offer as Labour Party about how

we will support our national security. I think understandably

there have been concerns, I don't think just on the backbenches of the

Labour Party, but also amongst the Shadow Cabinet, that is clear, but

also more widely amongst the party membership as well. The news has

been dominated for a week now by these terrible events in Paris. Has

Jeremy Corbyn mishandled the Labour response to these events? I think

what is really important is that with leadership does come a massive

responsibility to with certainty about a whole number

of issues. But probably more than any other subject area if you like

national security demands that. Because at a time where we are all

reeling from what has happened in Paris, and there is no doubt Jeremy

Corbyn takes very, very seriously what has happened there and its

implication for the security of British people as well and others

allowing our pleas through the legal allowing our pleas through the legal

framework which already exists to take action when they are presented

with a terrorist in front of them but also on some of the other

matters about how we should move forward in a united way with other

matters about how we should move countries to tackle Isil, I think

that certainty has been wanting and not helped, I have to say, when

other members of the Shadow not helped, I have to say, when

cannot speak with one voice about not helped, I have to say, when

what the leader wants to do. I hope out of this week we will see some

what the leader wants to do. I hope clarity and certainty coming forward

and I think we already know, and I have heard more this morning, that

David Cameron will come back to the House of Commons this week. We do

need a plan, it can't just be about military action, it has to be more

than that and I hope we can be in a position to opportunity going

forward to tackle the threat of Isil which is the most major threat to

security around the world that we have at the moment.

If Mr Cameron comes form with that dashes forward with that kind of

If Mr Cameron comes form with that plan, would you back military action

in Syria? I believe there can be a case former literary action in

Syria. We are facing the most profoundly barbaric group of

Syria. We are facing the most terrorists I think I have ever

realised in my lifetime or thought about. -- military action. Also the

most resourced group of terrorists in the world. It is a different

situation to what we faced a few years ago where I voted against

military action when Cameron came back to Parliament to deal with

Assad. We have in this country and this region, a number of dangerous

groups. There are a number of -- there is a hierarchy of dangerous

groups and Isil is the top of that list. If it can be about, yes, what

sort of military action should take place, maybe the air strikes... Like

we are doing in Iraq, within that a wider plan as to how we will deal

with civil war in Syria and what else we need to do going forward.

That is something I feel I could support. You say there is no doubt

that the Labour leadership takes these matters seriously. Can I point

out, just before the election this year, the Shadow Chancellor penned

his name to a document supporting the abolition of MI5 and disarming

the police? Last year he supported people opting out of having their

taxes fund any kind of military activity. I do not think... I

suspect a lot of people will not think that is taking these issues

very seriously. Is Mr McConnell fit to hold the second most important

position within the Shadow Cabinet? One of the aspects of the leadership

campaign over the summer was a sense that Jeremy was authentic and very

clear about his views. And, you know, they may not be shared with

everybody, I may have some different views to Jeremy on that. Part of his

appeal was the authenticity, that it did not have any spin. He said he

did not realise what he do when he held that the letter and seemed to

support it. We had a leadership election. There was a massive surge

in our membership and Jeremy had an overwhelming mandate. Maybe, you

know, Jeremy and John McDonnell, have earned the right within that to

put forward their views. What is clear to me, I am a moderate

politician, but I am also a conviction politician. I do not say

one thing to one group of people and another to another group of people.

If the leadership Is it not a danger that voters will

conclude that the Labour Party is not fit for purpose when it comes to

national security, not just economic security? When it comes to

leadership, as you know, Andrew, you may have your own views but you have

to be open to actually other views as well and that is why we are

having this debate. We are having that within our own party about what

we do next regarding Israel and Syria. Jeremy Corbyn has an

overwhelming mandate but with that comes responsibility of leadership

to show that the ideas that he puts forward and the answers to these

difficult questions whether it is on the economy or national security

reaches out beyond the Parliamentary Labour Party and to that matter, the

Labour Party and the British people and we the stand. -- Isil. Part of

leadership is to win the confidence of the people and that has not just

been the task of Jeremy Corbyn but it is the task of the Labour Party

and he has to show that he can do that. I think he wants to do that

and this morning they have said that they will have the full discussion,

the Shadow Cabinet, there will be discussions with the Parliamentary

Labour Party as well. Leadership requires that wider reaching

responsibility beyond our own party boundaries. I do not surprise that

in so many personal appointments, the Shadow Chancellor, John

McDonnell, Ken Morgenstern now on defence and so on, that Mr Corbyn

seems to have made no effort to reach out to the centre of your

party, much less the right of it. ? -- Ken Livingstone. All party

leaders and I have seen a few, sometimes around themselves not just

with the elected politicians but also the paid staffers that are part

of the group. For any party leader, whoever they are point, they must

show that they are going to work anyway that is not just fashioned by

their own particular background and experience and perhaps the own point

of view, because there is a wider responsibility here. The Labour

Party is not a pressure group, we exist to win elections in order to

put our platform into practice in government and therefore, the people

around Jeremy Corbyn that he has appointed, they must understand the

responsibilities of that and to the wider Labour Party, some people

within it who may not agree with him on everything, but at their heart,

we all want to win the next election. Most importantly, 400,000

people took part in the leadership election, amazing. We have had a

groundswell of people join our party and many of whom want to be active

in a very positive way and I welcome that. All right. But we must

convince millions of people to support us in the next general

election and in all of the general election is up to 2020. The Bidisha

and their team have the responsibility to show that we can

achieve that. Final question, as Mr Jeremy Corbyn continues in this week

that he has begun, will he meet your party into the 2020 election, does

he have any chance of winning? Look, we have had seven or eight weeks

since the leadership election, it has been rocky along the way. I

think we have made a significant impact when it came to the debate

around tax credits for working people. Will he read your party into

the next election? Last week was difficult. What Jeremy must do now

is focus on how he read our party right now, that will determine our

fortunes in the weeks and months, but also in 2020. -- lead our party.

Thank you for joining us, Caroline Flint.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who believe us now for

Sunday Politics Scotland. -- lead us now.

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

David Cameron backed a successful UN Security Council resolution to

"redouble" action against Islamic State, but will the SNP and Labour

With the prospect of joining Russia and others in air strikes on Syria,

Holyrood is on course to get new tax powers,

but can the Scottish Government and the UK Treasury agree on the

David Cameron is to set out his strategy for Syria's future

and tackling the Islamic State group in the region before MPs this week.

The cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee said last

month that British military action in Syria could not be extended

MPs voted against UK military action against the Syrian Government

in 2013, but did later approve British participation in air strikes

The SNP has said the UN resolution passed on Friday isn't enough and

The party's Deputy Leader, Stewart Hosie, can they be clear

firstly on what your position is on this? Nicola Sturgeon in an

interview with the BBC this week has said that she was prepared to listen

to whatever David Cameron had to see in justification of British

participation in Syria. Well, the position is extremely clear, the

First Minister has said that she will listen... So, you have made up

your mind? I will finish the first answer! We will listen to any cases

made. We have been clear throughout this that there may potentially be a

place for military action as part of a bigger solution, but we have been

extremely clear indeed. We have to have a chapter seven UN resolution

which actually permits military action so that it is legal. There

has to be confirmation of the effectiveness of the military

action, dropping a few bombs simply might not provide any help

whatsoever, and essentially, there must be a post-conflict plan, so

that we do not simply blunder in and create a bigger vacuum for Isil to

fill. Since that, President Putin and President Obama have been in

discussions. We have had the United outcome from the Vienna conference

last weekend, interesting of which Iran signed up as a major player. We

are sceptical that dropping a few more bombs will help at all. We have

to precisely see what the terms of David Cameron's plan is and then

take it from there once we have seen exactly what is on the table. There

will not be a chapter seven resolution from the United Nations

before David Cameron asks MPs to vote in favour of action in Serbia,

so what are you telling us, unless David Cameron's plan, what he

outlines his ICP can do is... David Cameron will see that Britain will

put in a chapter seven resolution, you will not support it unless that

happens? The position is that you have to have that. To gain from that

it is legal and you have international support. That in

itself is not Mrs Ali enough because we must conform that dropping more

bombs is part of a plan, not just to tackle Isil, you know, this is a

multifaceted Civil War. The point I make to you is that there is a UN

resolution but it is not a chapter seven resolution. As far as I am

aware, there is no plan for a chapter seven resolution, so when

you have said that you are prepared to hear what David Cameron has to

tell us, you are telling us that you will vote against because there will

not be a chapter seven resolution? We do not know, you do not know and

I do not know whether they Wallaby or not. So let us give the Prime

Minister the courtesy of hearing what he has to tell us. As he

confirms that there will be won and the plan is to seek one, that is

important, it is the position to ensure that what happens is legal,

for goodness sake. And in other aspects of what we have been talking

about, to insure the effectiveness of the intervention itself actually

helps and that we have a proper post-conflict plan so that we do not

end up in the position in which we were in and Libya. When we spent

twice on bombing -- twice as much on bombing as we did on rebuilding and

anarchy followed. It did not the SNP support that action in Libya? Yes,

absolutely, in hindsight it was the correct thing to do, but the whole

point is in the absence of a man that you end up in a situation when

frankly you can make matters worse. What would you reply B2 the point

that David Cameron made in the House of Commons this week in response to

Angus Robertson when he said that while he would like the UN

resolution, he was not prepared to let his judgments on the security of

the United Kingdom be hostage to decisions by China and by Russia,

both of whom have been big backers of President Assad, and is that not

the problem? If you have to have a chapter seven resolution, you are

effectively saying that this Chinese Communist Party and President Putin

are the deciding factors in the view of the SNP, not what it David

Cameron or anyone else in Britain decides? I think that was deflection

by the Prime Minister, to be brutally honest, precisely because

there was agreement at the Vienna conference last week, precisely

because there was a more general UN revolution accepted this week, I do

not think... I think that is a good case of the Prime Minister chooses

to go down that route, to seek a proper chapter seven resolution from

the United Nations, I think to suggest that he has been held

hostage by the beetle, that is an excuse for inaction... But your

position that you have outlined in some detail, it amounts to saying

that should China or Russia veto a chapter seven resolution, then you,

the SNP, would say to the British Prime Minister, the fact that they

have done that, deprive you of any reason to take military action in

Syria. I think when we have seen military action taking place in the

past in the absence of this, the illegal war in Iraq for example,

when there was not unanimous international agreement on the

course of action to be taken, that actually created a situation, a

massive vacuum, which was filled by the likes of Isil of this world and

what we are seeing is a civil war, huge destruction, a massive refugee

crisis in Europe as well, without at least the certainty of a legal

mandate from the UN, if we simply got a few more bombs along with all

the countries that are currently bombing, is hard to see how that in

itself helps the situation... But you still have not answered David

Cameron's point that effectively and you have said this several times, is

giving China and Russia a veto over what military action we might take

together with the Americans and the French in Syria. If the Chinese

decide to veto it, and the Russians as backers of President Assad might

agree to it, you are telling us that the SNP will not side with the

British and the Americans and the friends, we would rather go along

with what the Russians and the Chinese have done? That is an odd

argument given that Russia and France are already taking unilateral

action insights. -- France. The idea that we would seek to oppose the

United Nations approving action does strike me as a rather weak argument

is that is the 1 that the Prime Minister chose to deploy. From our

point of view, not just for the SNP, but for the whole of the UK, surely

we have learned the mistakes of Iraq and that the very least we should

not be blundering into another concept

# Conflict dropping yet more bombs into a place that is awash with

violence in the absence of the UN resolution that permits it. Thank

you very much for joining us, Stewart Hosie. Thank you.

Yesterday, in a speech in Bristol, Jeremy Corbyn warned of the dangers

of using force, and that it was too early to say if Labour would back

Joining us now from our Cardiff studio is Shadow Foreign Affairs

Good morning. Stephen Doughty, I do not know if you heard him, but we

have heard Stewart Hosie seeing that without a chapter seven resolution,

that is one that specifically authorises military force, from the

United Nations, the SNP will not back military action in Syria, is

that a position that you agree with? The first thing to say is we

do not have proposals on the table from David Cameron and the UK

Government and the only way to approach such a serious matter is

the deployment of force in Syria is to look at whatever proposals come

forward. There have been significant elements from the UN in recent days

and that is what we have been calling for, the UN resolution,

talks of other members of the Security Council. That is what

Jeremy Corbyn and others have set out. But until there is a proposal

on the Tabor, we are talking about hypotheticals here. -- table. The

SNP have made it clear that unless there is a chapter seven resolution,

they will not support military action, that is not a hypothetical,

that is asking if the Labour Party has the same position. I have

listened to what Stewart Hosie said, it is good this week that the SNP

have a range of views on this. It is only honest and admit that across

Parliament and the Labour Party, there are a range of views on this

complex situation. We are talking about a Civil War in Syria, we are

talking a lot Daesh and Isis controlling last amounts of land. We

are talking about innocent civilians getting caught up and the barbarous

activities of Daesh as well. There are a range of views on that but we

cannot comment until we have a proposal from the Government. The

SNP would say that they have a very consistent view on this and they are

not all over the place on this. Given that you have said there is a

range of views in the Labour Party, will you allow your MPs a free vote

on this? The Labour Party will have to have a discussion and an honest

discussion regards whatever the Hamas government puts on the table.

Hilary Benn has been clear that there are a series of tests that we

would want to consider in terms of a company heads of strategy around any

actions proposed, the legal basis, proportionality in relation to the

actions we are already taking in Iraq and elsewhere and until we have

a proposal on the table from the Government, it is difficult to

protect the position of the front bench and what working arrangements

there will be. I will take this matter extremely seriously as all

MPs do. This is about omitting troops to military action, our

military resources to action. It is what the Government wants to put

forward. We cannot quite tell you what we we will vote yet as a

result. So you are telling me that the Labour Party at the moment does

not have any position on whether or not Britain should get involved

militarily in Syria, and you appear to be digested it does not have any

position on whether or not Labour MPs should be given a free vote or

should be what to vote one way or another? That is not the case. That

is what you have just told me. We have set out a series of tests and

principles that we would want to see exam and after the proposal was put

on the table by the Government. These are very live matters, we have

seen a series of developments in recent days, not least the horrific

attacks on people then Beirut, Ankara and Paris, and the growing

threat in Belgium. This appears to be all surrounding Isil. There has

been a UN resolution passed in the last few hours which calls on member

states to use all necessary means, clearly this is a live debate. Until

the Government comes forward with a clear statement and a legal basis

for action, the nature of any action they are proposing, it is difficult

to hypothesise about what position we would take on that. It is only

right that these matters are concerned and looked at with the

utmost seriousness and openness in light of what has been going on.

Clearly as I am having difficulty understanding the policies and the

procedures of the Labour Party, perhaps you can mighty me on this.

The SNP will put forward this week emotion that- should not be renewed,

am I correct in thinking that it latest great political tactic of the

Labour Party is to tell your MPs not to Tom Pope to the debate in case

they vote for a way that you do not agree with? Let us be clear. The SNP

and other opposition parties often put forward motions which the Labour

Party does not take a condition on where we vote one way or another,

that is a common tactic. I understand the SNP have had

difficulties themselves establishing... But is it true that

you are asking your own members not to turn up? The motion has not been

cleared yet. We understand the SNP do not support the removal of

Trident rather than the renewal, so if they cannot get the workings of

their own emotions correct, we are in a very clear situation where

there are games being played. The SNP have had the attempts to put

down opposition motions in the last calendar year on which they have

used on Trident and one that they have used on the refugees, a serious

matter that must be considered, but they cannot get their own motion

right it is retro them to ask what our position is. Thank you for

talking to us, Stephen Doherty. -- Stephen Doherty.

Well, Syria is one of the threats facing

us, but just how does a government assess its defence and future

security priorities and adjust its policies and forces accordingly?

Tomorrow sees the publication of the Strategic Defence

Ministers will have to overcome a degree of scepticism

as to whether this latest SDSR is genuinely "strategic" or if it

matches Britain's global ambitions with the resources needed.

Malcolm Chalmers is director of UK defence policy at the

Royal United Services Institute and he joins us from our Leeds studio.

Please excuse me for asking before I ask about the SDSR, before the

bombing campaign in Syria has good been a substantial difference made?

I think there has been a difference. The dip Matic political tract has

been more important. There has been a positive impact in protecting the

Syrian Kurds without their support, Syrian Kurd populations in northern

Syria almost certainly would be overrun by Isil with all the

consequences of that sort that has even positive. It has helped ensure

that Isil populations in Iraq with the UK is bombing do not have the

safe haven across the border in Syria from we are to have the week

to resupply their forces. Even if we do get involved in UK military

operations in Syria it can make some positive difference. Ultimately it

is only part of a much wider picture. One of the things that

puzzles me about the bombing campaign in Syria is all the French

and Russians say they have in bombing oil installations because I

guess makes money from huge convoys of tankers taking oil away from

installations it controls. -- IS. This relatively campaign has going

on for months now, why on earth when the oil installations which are

physical things and arguably legitimate military targets, the

first thing that US and its allies to code? Until recently the United

States was a lot and to bomb oil facilities because of the potential

for civilian casualties. The people involved in these facilities in Isil

controlled territory are not themselves militaries are people try

to make a living through this trade. When Americans bombed oil tankers

the drop leaflets in advance to warn civilian drivers to get out of the

week before the bombs were dropped but here are an increase in the

likelihood of civilians being affected. He lives an increase in

the US and other countries being more prepared to take the risk of

civilian casualties. The defence review is becoming ever more

increasingly tied in with what we have just been talking about. It is

supposed to reorient Britain's Armed Forces to be able to deal precisely

with this sort of threat. It is clear there will be an increase in

money on six Unity agencies, he spoofs and the spies. The bit more

money for military equipment. Is it measuring up to what it is supposed

to do from what you are stealing? In many respects it is a steady issue

go review. There are some issues like cyber, the intelligence

agencies which have more money, other areas have less money, the

deadly concern about whether the Foreign Office will be maintained

even its importance in international security. What I think is a big

change compared with expect nations is that only four or five months ago

people were expecting the defence budget to get another they kept as

many defence departments will be getting in on the spending review,

education and social services and so on. The government has made it the

day will get defensive real terms increase of 0.5% each year. The MOD

will be able to avoid the big cuts and capabilities that people were

feeling and make some modest new investments. -- fearing. It takes a

big time to change plans and a lot of what we will have indeed 2024

structure, the Army, navy, air force, will look similar to what we

were predicting in 2010. It was symbolic when the aware reactions to

the attacks in Paris by despatching symbolic when the aware reactions to

an aircraft carrier stuffed with military aircraft in

an aircraft carrier stuffed with of the Gulf. We would not be able to

do that at the moment. We do not have an aircraft carrier and we do

not have any lanes to have an aircraft carrier and we do

aircraft carriers we do not have. have an aircraft carrier and we do

That's right but I think it will change by the early part of next

decade, perhaps 2022, because of the carriers now under construction. We

will have carriers now under construction. We

available at that time. It is important to remember the UK has

been lunching and strikes against Iraq and could potentially do so

against Syria from site was. We do not need an aircraft carrier to

launch strikes in that region because we have a sovereign race

area which no one can deny to us. because we have a sovereign race

is something other allies do not have. Aircraft carriers can make a

difference but make a difference in places like the fault was that you

do not have land leases. One of the things the SNP has been making a

fuss about now is the lack of things the SNP has been making a

reconnaissance and submarine capability in Britain. I right in

thinking that this note pretty much except that across the board and we

will see a change and the introduction of some sort of

maritime reconnaissance whether buying aircraft from America or

something else? This has been one of the most hotly contested issues

within government in this defence review. It is not about the

principle of having a maritime control aircraft capability but what

system to buy. The cost baby and and the capabilities of different art

forms VED. I have not seen the defence that is coming out tomorrow.

-- defence review. My gut feeling is we will end up with the cost

competition that will be flown out to competitive tendering. That

choice and the admits giving everyone the chance to make their

case. The minus side is that it will delay the capability for one or two

macro years longer. Those who wanted us to buy the best or most capable

aircraft will be disappointed. Thank you for joining us this morning.

Earlier this week, a House of Lords committee called for the Scotland

Bill to be put on hold until issues over the funding package that

The bill completed its journey through the House

of Commons earlier this month and is now with the Lords.

But agreement on the fiscal rules has yet to be reached

between the Scottish Government and the UK Treasury, and that framework

includes the adjustment which will have to be made to Scotland's block

Our reporter Andrew Black has been finding out what it means.

Nicola Sturgeon is in an enviable position. As Scottish First Minister

she stands to have at heart disposal one of the world's most powerful

devolved parliaments. Also we are told that is because Holyrood is on

course to gain major new tax and welfare powers but right now that is

being overshadowed by concern about whether it can be done fairly. At

the moment Scotland was much ?30 billion annual budget is funded

totally by the UK Treasury known as the Loch grant. The amount of cash

which goes into the port is worked out by the Barnett formula. Once

Scotland gets its own powers to raise tax money the amount of cash

that comes north of the formula that order will be cut. The fiscal

framework is going to be tricky. The key issue is, how is the grand

adjusted in the second and subsequent years? That is the

essence of the argument about the fiscal framework. The final solution

is not supposed to route Scotland at a disadvantage order an advantage

but some argue that it's a near impossible task. At the moment it

will probably end up depending on the bargaining strength rather than

on the principle of the different methods. So, it is pretty difficult

to predict no and, you know, neither side will be entirely happy. One

will probably be more unhappy than the other that it is not clear which

we it will go and the is none that I would see is demonstrate bleak

superior. -- demonstrate bleak superior for Scotland. Some might be

advantageous and some more so. How could Scotland's block rank the

reworked? Some may be linking it to Scotland performance. If they manage

to grow tax revenues faster than in the rest of the UK it will be able

to expand its budget properly relative to the rest of the UK. If

it's tax revenues do not grow as fast then the likelihood is that the

Scottish budget will contract a bit and then did our arguments about

whether that should be adjusted for population, how it should be

adjusted on a yearly basis and so on. What is likely to happen? A

political compromise, it always is. There will be something in between

and they will give it a name like the Barnett formula. What they will

not do is go back to the drawing board as able have suggested and

work out what the basis for sharing resources should be some say we

should have a resource based upon need, what does Scotland need what

does we'll need ended as an element that reflects need but that has been

backed away from because they will ever find it easy to agree on what

that form should be. We will get a messy fudge, that is for sure. The

price of getting it wrong could be high. Economists and the Glasgow

University rentable this week warned a bad deal could leave Scotland

hundreds of millions of times worse off within a few years and this has

prompted a call from the House of lords which is currently poring over

the bill to deliver a new Holyrood powers body delay until the new

fiscal framework can be agreed. Until we know what the new rules are

we simply do not have a clue about how this will impact the government

of Scotland, the government of the rest of the UK and of course, the

people of the UK. The Scottish Government is not keen on that but

at the same time says it will not with anything that does not deliver

a fair deal. UK ministers say they are committed to exactly that and it

does not seem as though the funding talks will stop going on for a while

yet. Time to have a look back at

the events of this week and preview Scotland correspondent, Libby

Brooks, and by the political editor Libby Brooks, just on Syria and that

position, am I right in saying that Sweetie Colby subordinate clauses

out will the vote against? There did seem to be a lot of subordinate

clauses in the. We had Nicola Sturgeon say earlier we would be

listening to the case that was being made. They have two say that. Nicola

Sturgeon as leader of the third largest party in the UK now, it is a

do shift for them to be seen to listening to and responding to the

public mood. Obviously public mood has changed significantly,

particularly since the Paris attacks. There was public opinion

polling. I am not say it is the public mood at the Daily Telegraph

headline is that obviously the drums are beating as Britain prepares for

war. There was a UN resolution on Friday night but it was not a

chapter seven resolution which allows for conflict so I think they

are looking for that almost inevitably, that would bring in a

Russian veto so I do not see how it can happen. I think the SNP will not

be supporting air strikes on Syria however they are almost certain to

happen now, judging on what is going on elsewhere. Is that likely to be a

popular position for them to take? Obviously being against the Iraq war

did them an immense amount of good. I think public opinion has changed

after the massacre in Paris. That does not mean that the decision over

air strikes has changed, however. There was a clear vote at the SNP

conference a few weeks ago against military action in Syria. Members of

the SNP were against it. Air strikes can only be a useful weapon in a

conflict against IDS if things have changed on the ground. That is a

fair position for the SNP to take FA believe in that. Libby, do you agree

with David that Britain will take part? Yes, it seems inevitable now.

This vote will be incredibly important for David Cameron. He does

not want the same humiliation that he had previously and he does not

want just to win it, but when it significantly. It is interesting are

talking about the mood of the public... When you see

significantly, you mean that not only does he want to win over his

own party members, a few of which seem to be shifting, then an odd

sense, he also needs a whipping process to take place in the Labour

Party? That is correct, talking about party met in the Labour Party,

at the moment, it seems fairly shambolic. -- mood. But let us keep

in mind that the party membership voted overwhelmingly for Jeremy

Corbyn, they were highly supportive of his position against any military

intervention. It struck me, David Clegg, listening to Stephen

Doughty, and also Andrew Neil was speaking to Caroline Flint, I cannot

remember a party being in such a situation where a fairly prominent

people within the party and they all come on and tell you that there are

different views and they have not made up their minds and it is not

reasonable to ask them to make up their minds what they are in favour

of, it seems a bit extraordinary, does it not? Yes, they are all at

sea. There was concern from members of the Labour Party about a Jeremy

Corbyn but their main concern was foreign policy. They were concerned

his foreign policy views were wide of mainstream public opinion and the

fact that only a few weeks after a major firearms there is has erupted

in this way, it is particularly problematic for them and that is why

I think we will see a significant number of Labour MPs voting along

with the David Cameron when this is put on the table. Irrespective of

what the Phillips tell them to do? Yes. -- of what the temp -- of what

the whips tell them to do? Now about police cuts.

Yes, let us not forget that every government department, they are

fighting tooth and nail with each other and against these cuts, so it

is perhaps not that surprising that the police and the security chiefs

are making sure that the exploit what has happened in Paris and

again, there is this public mood that we are talking about. The

problem for George Osborne is because so many areas of public

spending have been protected, the health budget, education, schools in

England, the brunt of the cuts is bothering on a relatively small

number of departments but therefore they are huge cuts for those

departments and it might be difficult to say to the police, the

situation has changed, forget about it, because he has nowhere else to

go. Yes, the problem he has is that the political imperative in the week

of the last few weeks and going forward is that they will have to do

something to make it look as though they are investing in security, that

they are investing in military with the strategic defence review

tomorrow, but they do not have any money they do to do anything.

And he respond to the House of Lords on tax credits. That is correct, he

does not have the money to do these things. Certainly not with any

fiscal framework that he has set out. Libby, he does has a fiscal

framework which is extremely flexible if you want it to be! Yes,

it seems to be! It is an extraordinary model what has

happened with the Scotland Bill at the moment. -- muddle.

I am sorry, we will have to be that they are. That is all for this week.

Until next week, from everyone on the programme, goodbye.