07/02/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland

Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:

on the fiscal framework is "within reach".

So, with goodwill flowing, will this week bring agreement?

And joining me as always, three journalists who've got more

opinions than the campaign to leave the EU has splinter groups.

Yes, it's Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.

We'll see if they're still on speaking terms by the end

Let's start today by talking about what the Government in England

is or isn't going to do about a sugar tax.

Health experts have been calling for one, to tackle

is a crisis in child obesity - but so far ministers

Well, this morning the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver said

to "get ninja" to force the Government to act.

Here's the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, responding

on The Andrew Marr Show this morning.

It has to be a game changing moment, a robust strategy.

The issue here is, do what it takes to make sure

that children consume less sugar, because we have got

We are the most obese nation in the EU

Well, we are going to be announcing in due course -

David Cameron has said, if it isn't a sugar tax,

it needs to be something that is equally robust.

But he hasn't taken a sugar tax off the table.

Will there be a sugar tax? His instinct is to say no, I do not want

to run the nanny state that Jeremy Hunt says his one-year-old daughter,

by the time she is an adult, one third of the population will be

clinically obese and Public Health England shows if you introduce a

sugar tax, you will reduce that some Jeremy Hunt is in favour but the

Prime Minister is inching towards some decision, whether that is a

sugar tax or not... Regional and devolved governments, Wales has been

very keen on that. I feel I am at liberty to say this but Scotland

also has greater tax-raising powers so he could get outflanked. Or wait

and see how it does in Scotland and Wales and then decide to follow?

Yes. I want to make the liberal case against this but that ship has

sailed decades ago, we tax alcohol and tobacco and this is more like a

revenue raiser because that isn't -- a justifiable cause, we have a

population with a sweet tooth that you can hit the revenue. That is the

reasoning to deal with rather than the more censorious reason of

monitoring behaviour. And junior doctors, scheduled to be back on

strike on Wednesday in England, which means that some of the talks

so far have failed? There is bad feeling but as Andrew Marr was

saying, the turnout on the vote was very high, and the 8%. The

government is really struggling to shake this debate and it is

interesting with that interview, Jeremy Hunt has said until now that

the cost of the new contract would be revenue neutral, he now admits

there would not only be a transitional cost but longer term

and the government is really struggling on this. It is not affect

emergency services this time. It was a big week for

David Cameron's renegotiation He once promised a fundamental

change in that relationship as a condition for backing

the campaign to stay in. Well, there are changes -

but perhaps not quite as fundamental And what he has achieved still needs

to be agreed by EU leaders at a summit in a fortnight's

time, where it could be But Mr Cameron says what he's

achieved is so significant that if Britain was not an EU member,

this would make him want to join. Here he is speaking

earlier in the week. I can say, hand on heart,

I've delivered the commitments that I made in my manifesto,

and I think the whole country knows that if you, for instance,

pay people ?5,000, ?10,000 additional to their wages,

then that is a draw to Britain, and that's one of

the reasons why we've seen such high levels

of migration and movement. So David Cameron says it lives up

to everything that was promised in the Conservative

election manifesto. I'm joined by former Cabinet

minister Eric Pickles. Welcome back. You said this week the

Prime Minister has kept to the letter and spirit of his manifesto

promise. Let us look letter and spirit of his manifesto

promise. The manifesto said we will insist that EU migrants who want to

claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to the

economy for a minimum of four years. The emergency rig on tax credits

does not achieve The emergency rig on tax credits

must bear in mind the things we can The emergency rig on tax credits

do through domestic law, a job-seeker from Europe

do through domestic law, a find a job within six

do through domestic law, a are obliged to leave and that has

been achieved through domestic law. The manifesto promised no in work

benefits until The manifesto promised no in work

for four years. The reality is graduated, they rise, and after four

years you get the full benefit? That is not unreasonable. After four

years to get full benefit but we know that the criteria for putting

on the brake for four years has already been passed and the largest

political party in the EU agrees that has happened and we should have

this in place after the next referendum. It will have to be

approved by the European Parliament and the other 27 members and what

constitution, emergency, the cost to migrants is five billion pounds

every year, we are 1.6 5 trillion economy, public spending is 750

billion pounds. Why is ?500 million and emergency, only 1.6% of the

bill? My earlier answer was, we already know the political leader of

the largest political party in the Parliament of Europe has said it is

the fact that we have arrived at those conditions and an emergency

brake will be placed. What emergency? It is an emergency in the

views of the European partners, they have accrued -- agreed to this

emergency brake but in terms have the mechanism of Britain future for

other countries, that will be decided over the next two weeks but

what we do know as far as the UK is concerned, we will get that

emergency brake. If a migrant Eilidh Child lives abroad, they should

receive no child tax credit or benefit, no matter how long they

have worked in the UK or how much tax they have paid. There it is. The

sentiment does not deliver on that either? What it does deliver is

harmonisation of benefits so the level of benefits will be exactly

the same as it would be in their own country. You are going to have 28

different levels of child benefit! In many cases it can be as much as

the quarter. And in some cases, more? Not many people to pay the

same level that we don't but the point I was making is that in Poland

it is a quarter of the level as it is here. You promised no child

benefit for migrants and you're delivering index linked child

benefit for migrants? It is a big improvement on the current

situation. When you go into negotiation, but do precisely that

and I think it is within the spirit of what we said. The manifesto said

that you will control migration from the European Union by reforming

welfare rolls and Mr Cameron at one stage said that reducing immigration

from the European Union would be at the heart of this. Can you give us

an idea of how much these changes will reduce European Union

migration? I am not part of the negotiating team so all I can go

wrong is what I have seen in newspapers and given that we know

that in work benefits, 40% of new arrivals are supported by that and

given that the average is ?6,000 in addition and can be as much as

?10,000, it will have an effect. You said 40% but that is not the figure,

we know from the Freedom of Information release that if there

had been any emergency brake in the last four years it would have

affected 84,000 families. That is it, not 40%. I said that 40% of the

new immigrants that, in, new migrants, claiming in work benefit,

you are comparing apples and pears? I am not. 80,000 families is nowhere

near 40%. Last year, 180,000 net migration from the EU. Do you have

any idea by how much the figure will be reduced as a result of the

settlement? Were not trying to prevent people living inside the

European Union, we are trying to stop people coming for something for

nothing, to claim from our innovative system and secondly, to

ensure there is an equalisation inside the market of people coming

here just because of our in work benefits. Since this will apply only

to new migrants and not those that are already here, is unlikely to be

a rush to come in before these restrictions in? And the figure

could rise? As part of the negotiations we have to ensure that

doesn't happen. We would have two ask as part of the negotiation... To

ensure that there isn't this new influx. In the manifesto you also

said that we want national partners to be able to work together to block

unwanted European legislation. In the Lisbon Treaty there is an orange

card system that does that and we have the red card with Mr Cameron,

is this an improvement? The Orange card has been used twice. That was

yellow, orange has never been used. I beg your pardon. It is confusing!

How many different cards? Three, yellow and orange and this red card.

In what way would the red card be any improvement on the existing

Orange card, which means 51% of national parliaments can make the

commission rethink? We can move much quicker in terms of trying to knock

out any deal between European Parliaments and secondly, national

parliaments are becoming much more assertive in terms of their session

and that is a massively important step in the re-establishment in the

importance of national parliaments. It is not just our Parliament, we

would need to get 56% of national parliaments, at least 15 others, and

in many cases we would only have 12 weeks to ask them to vote against

the policy of their own national government. That is not credible? Of

course it is. I think this is a very important step on the way of

ensuring national parliaments are much more assertive and don't

forget, read this in line of stopping them moving towards ever

closer union and protecting sterling. Let us look at that. It

was meant to be one of the big wins for the Prime Minister, Donald Tusk,

the President of the Council, says we have always had that, it need not

mean integration for Britain, the settlement confirms only the status

quo. It is very interesting for him to

say that but on every programme that I've ever been on, it has been this

drift towards ever closer union, political union, that has been

important. If it means we have now re-established that it is about give

and take and cooperation, that is a great thing. Given how little the

prime and this has achieved -- the Prime Minister has achieved, would

his position not be undermined, or become untenable, if this draft

settlement was further undermined before being finally agreed? I'm

very confident, given that this Prime Minister is the only Prime

Minister ever to take powers back from Europe, that it will be

successful. But could you stomach of further watering down? It would

depend what the overall position is but my position comes not from any

enthusiasm for Europe. It's just a lack of any decent ideas that we

would be better off outside. To come back to this business of the

European Parliament, there are number of areas in which the

European Parliament has to approve this settlement, including the work

benefits, child benefit element, perhaps even the red card. What

guarantees can you give, because the European Parliament won't to do

this, if it does it at all, until after the referendum... So how can

you guarantee that we will vote to stay in and the European Parliament

will not pass the legislation? We've had indications from the European

Parliament that they will do precisely that. What I would hope...

Where? Just a second. The leader of the largest party has said that. I

think what we would want to see over the next couple of weeks are more

codification in terms of how this would come to operate, not just for

us but for other parties. But if the European Parliament doesn't pass

this, it is not legally binding. The Prime Minister has told us that. It

can only be eagerly binding under the existing treaties with

legislation through the European Parliament. You are asking the

British people to vote blind, to vote yes, without really knowing

what the European Parliament might do down the road in the autumn at

the end of the year. I'm very confident that will be the case. --

won't be the case. It will be an appalling abuse of trust and would

undermine the European Union, were it not to do so. But sooner or

later, we are going to have to go on to discuss, what would the

consequences be thus leaving? Because that would not be a

pain-free experience. I really want the guarantees for those that want

us to leave to say that my constituents and my constituents'

children will be materially better off by leaving. Not just the same

but better off by leaving. Eric Pickles, thanks for being with us

this morning. Thank you. In recent weeks we've been debating

some of the big issues at the heart We've covered immigration

and the economy. Today we're going to look

at Britain's sovereignty within the European Union and ask,

is the EU a democratic club There are about 500 million people

across the 28 member states Voters from these countries go

to the polls every five years to elect 751 members

of the European Parliament. The UK currently has

73 MEPs, who have some say over the EU budget

and new legislation. But it's the unelected Commission,

led by President Jean-Claude Juncker, that is responsible

for day-to-day management, plus proposing and

implementing new laws. Later this month, David Cameron

will attend a crucial meeting of the European Council

to press for his draft settlement, the outcome of his

efforts to renegotiate our terms The Council is made up of the 28

heads of state or government of EU members and decides

the Union's overall political But it's not to be confused with

the Council of the European Union, where ministers from each

country meet to discuss, There's always been

concern about a so-called democratic deficit and at the last

elections in 2014, turnout In the UK, where few people can

even name a local MEP, I'm joined now by former Respect

MP George Galloway - he's said this week he'll campaign

for Britain to leave the EU - and by the Labour MP

Stephen Kinnock, who wants Stephen Kinnock, let me come to you

first. Turnout at the last election was under 36%. Only 11% can name

their MEP. Richie Gray the EU has a massive democratic deficit and the

Cameron settlement does nothing to address it, does it? On the

democratic deficit, of course it would be good if more people voted

in democratic elections but let's not forget there is another

democratically elected institution in Brussels and that's the council

of the vistas and the European council. They are ministers. Our

Prime Minister, directly elected by the British people, going to

Brussels to exert influence for Britain. The democratic deficit

sometimes gets tied up with the European Parliament. That's an

element of it but the council is a major part. On the renegotiation, I

think the really important point is that this referendum is not about

David Cameron's renegotiation. This referendum is about the future of

the United Kingdom as a trading nation, as a proud nation in terms

of a diplomatic big player and where we are actually going in terms of

the long-term future of the country. It's not about the precise details

of David Cameron's renegotiation. Mr Cameron think that is important.

George Galloway, you said you believe in a union of the peoples of

Europe but surely the only realistic way to achieve that is to work for a

reformed EU. Anything else is just rhetoric. No, because I think it is

in the Brits of the EU. You pointed to the visibility of the European

Parliament, its credibility and standing but you didn't add that the

European Parliament itself, even if AT the centre people were turning

out to vote for it, has almost no power. The power lies in this

council of ministers and in a bureaucracy well entrenched, very

lavishly funded, which has meant of its own. I could answer your

question in two words - Catherine Ashton. Never heard of her? No. Ever

elected to? No. She was the European Foreign Minister, dictating to other

countries outside the world with no democratic mandate of any kind. I

think we have to be more sensible about the way we talk about these

things. There is a process of co-decision which is enshrined in

the treaties of the European Union. The vast majority of the legislation

which goes through has to be agreed by both the European Parliament and

by the European council on the basis of proposals from the European

Commission. Not necessarily all the council. Politics is the art of the

possible and when you are part of a system of pooled sovereignty is,

when we come together as nation states because we believe our

sovereignty is actually strengthened through cooperation, of course you

have to make compromises. You don't win absolutely 100% of everything

that you go for but actually, I believe that through corporation and

pulling our sovereignty our sovereignty is strengthened. There

has been a lot of talk by the Prime Minister about asserting the

sovereignty of Parliament. It seems to be one of the carrots to attract

Mr Boris Johnson to come onside. But surely you have to accept that in

many areas, the EU and the European Court of Justice, they are sovereign

and Parliament has to recognise that sovereignty or we have to leave. I

think that we have to also look at the likes of Google or the big

multinational companies. They don't recognise the concept of

sovereignty. For people on the left, such as George and myself, the key

point of the European Union is, it's a transnational body that regulating

transnational business. Not very well. It is not regulating them very

well. Much better than we could do them alone. I don't think so. The

bottom line is... And this is to be, on the left. Mr Kinnock senior and I

shared many platforms on this, as well as the late Mr Benn, the late

Mr foot. This was commonplace on the left. We don't want to be dictated

to by other countries. We want our people to choose our government and

thus our direction. And I'd rather take my chance with changing things

in Britain than waiting for a change in Bulgaria or in Poland. But you

are nationalists and doesn't but inevitably involve some kind of

pooling sovereignty? The whole basis of the European Union... As we

always said from 1975 onwards, on the left, the European Community,

now the EU, is actually built on neoliberal economic principles,

which are ironclad and unchangeable. However people want to vote. Are you

comfortable with the manner in which Greece's sovereignty was overturned

by the European institutions and above all by companies -- countries

like Germany? We live in a highly globalised, interdependent world and

the idea that the UK alone can exert influence and regulate the big

multinationals on its own is absurd. The other key point on Greece is,

how would we help the people of Greece by leaving the EU? Our

principles are about solidarity, a key value on which European Union is

founded, which is a value of the left. What was the solidarity that

the EU showed Greece? I think what we need is a Labour Prime Minister

in Brussels arguing against the politics of austerity. We are not

part of the eurozone. This was a eurozone argument. We can still

exert our influence. What many would think is your natural allies on the

European left, so reads the increase, and a party in Spain, want

to stay in the EU. Why are you right and your comrades wrong? The people

of Greece were crushed underfoot by this neoliberal consensus on which

the EU and administrations are built. Portugal actually had an

election and elected a majority of left-wing MPs and we're told by the

European Union, the president of Portugal was told, you mustn't

summon these people to your palace to allow them to form a government.

This is unconscionable. It's not because I love the people of Greece,

though I do, or the people of Spain. I don't want us to face the same

fate as them. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonell's economic policies, which

I believe in and which are badly needed, are illegal under the EU. If

we were to save our steel industry, for example, we would be acting out

with the European Union's legal framework. You've been closely

involved in the steel industry. What do you say to that? I fail to see

how our principles of solidarity and reaching out to our brothers and

sisters in other parts of the year are helped by the idea that we

suddenly leave. But to me seems to be going against the founding value

of the Labour Party, which is solidarity. On steel, this is a

classic example but it is up to your member state government to play the

game properly. Unfortunately, we have a government that has been

asleep at the wheel on steel for four or five years. An energy

compensation package should have been put in place years ago. The

government has done nothing about it. The massive flooding of Chinese

steel into the British market has only been happening over the last

four years. That could only be done by Europe, not Britain. It took them

for years to get the stated clearance because nobody was

knocking on the door properly in Brussels and because we are cosying

up to Beijing. Cameron and Osborne seem to be putting the interests of

our relationship with China ahead of British industry. We are allowing

them to damp massive amounts of Chinese steel in the market. The

European Court of Justice is preventing us from deporting

Moroccan citizen, the daughter-in-law of Abu Hamza, Abu

Hamza himself convicted of 11 terrorist offences. She has done

time, too, for a terrorist elated offence. We still can't deport her.

That is a pretty serious intrusion of our sovereignty. I don't know the

details of that case but I do know we live in a very interdependent

world... You said that. What people want to know is if we can deport

foreign citizens who have terrorist criminal convictions. We did manage

to do it with Abu Hamza, so there are ways. The EU is a rules -based

organisation. It sets the rules of the game. It's up to the member

states to play that game properly. Unfortunately, we have a government

that has failed to build alliances and coalitions in Brussels. That's

one of the reasons we have a difficult relationship with the EU

now. When you look at this leave site and the various factions of the

time they seem to be spending more time knocking lumps out of each

other, does that make you happy you joined? I campaigned against

breaking up Britain and for a no vote in the Scottish referendum.

That didn't mean I was with the Tories, didn't mean I was with the

Orange order. So are you solo again? There used to be a commonplace view

from the 1970s, and still standing now, for a democratic future for

Britain. We decide how many immigrants we have, who we deport,

what our levels of taxation are and what our foreign policy should be.

We will leave it there. Thank you both.

Labour says it faces losing more than a quarter of its funding,

thanks to Government plans to change the way the party gets money

from trade union members, along with moves to cut state

In a rare TV outing, the party's general secretary

Iain McNicol has told us just how damaging the changes could be.

In an in and is this have raised cash in the past. I started my

constituency in Bradford raising ?1000, and other constituencies

asked me to do the same thing. We have raised ?100,000. It is just as

well, because the Labour Party could be about to lose ?8 million of

funding if government plans to change the

funding if government plans to from trade union members goes

through. And they say it is no laughing matter. It is an affront on

British democracy. If you look at any previous agreement which

British democracy. If you look at the funding of a

British democracy. If you look at was done on a consensual cross-party

basis, and agreement because of the effect it had. Is this an

existential threat to the Labour Party? It would be very difficult

for the party. Around 30% Party? It would be very difficult

our funding would mean we would not be able to operate in the current

way that we do, holding the government to account

way that we do, holding the Majesty's opposition. It is unfair

and unjust. The cash goes towards staffing, reportedly around half its

costs, and campaigning. Things like party election broadcasts, battle

buses, and headstones. At the moment trade union members have to actively

opt out. In the future they would have to opt in, in writing, within

three months. Something Labour fear people will not get round to doing.

It also coincides with the 19% cat to so-called short money, cash given

to all parties to help with costs of Parliamentary business, a sort of

concession for not having the civil service like the government does.

But the man who used to be in charge of the civil service says the

Government's plans are at best partisan. It goes to this wider

question of what I would see as a worryingly authoritarian streak in

government that finds it difficult to live with and accept challenge.

And that is something the people of all parties, I'm a crossbencher, not

in any party, but I think whichever party you are in you should be

concerned about this. There is nothing authoritarian about having

something like in our manifesto, voted for in a majority government

and delivered on. If you are a Labour Party support the and you are

a member of the trade union, you actively choose to do it rather than

having it forced upon you. The Labour Party needs to get out and

convince members it is a good use of its money to give that money to the

Labour Party, just as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats

have to convince people to give money directly. We do not rely on

people accidentally giving us money. Back in Kentish Town, organisers say

a night like this is about raising awareness and morale as much as

raising cash. Jeremy Corbyn's leadership campaign relied on

grassroots support, and as funding dries up it could well need to rely

on people like this, people willing to come to a night about Jeremy

Corbyn that he himself is not even at. In fact, generally, may prefer

appealing to people like this rather than big donors, and number of whom

have already abandoned the party anyway. But fundraising and only 3%

of the income last year, and the spotlight, following her liver pays

its way in the future. We now say goodbye to viewers in Scotland to

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Talks on the fiscal framework resume tomorrow.

The Scottish Secretary says "both sides have done the dance,

And Labour puts its new candidates for the regional lists on show,

Looks like we're not going to get a deal before Valentine's Day

on the fiscal framework that'll sort out the flow of finance

between the Westminster and Scottish governments.

It's not clear if there's a mountain or a molehill in the way.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury Greg Hands

is in Edinburgh tomorrow for more talks with John Swinney,

If you're not a policy wonk the negotiations might seem highly

But there's been a warning that if they produce the wrong result

they could cost the Scottish Government billions of pounds.

We'll hear from both sides in a moment.

Spiderman. The Reverend John Cumming of Aberdeenshire. Today is Victory

in Europe Day. And Winston Churchill all said it, or something like it.

With great power comes great responsibility. Holyrood is soon to

get the power to collect around ?5 billion in income tax, newly ?3

billion in rates, as well as billions in council tax, meaning

that the block grant from Westminster will go down, but by how

much? And in case you were wondering, this really matters. The

fiscal framework in some respects is about very technical things, about

how to adjust budgets, but these have fundamental consequences for

the amount of money that a future Scottish Government will have at its

disposal, the amount of taxes that the population will be expected to

contribute, about the level of services that they can expect to be

provided. It has fundamental implications for the everyday things

that we expect a government to be able to deliver. Crucial to

negotiations, the no detriment rule, that is the promise that whatever

system is agreed it will not put Scotland at a disadvantage. The no

detriment principle can be modelled by economists in a number of

different ways, and there are billions of pounds at stake here in

terms of which model of the no detriment principle you prefer. It

was always going to be complex and difficult, but the complexity is

compounded by our political commitment to abide by the Barnett

formula for the duration of the current UK Parliament, until 2020,

squaring the Barnett formula with the no detriment principle and the

various commitments given by both governments in the Smith Commission

agreement and everything else is difficult and takes time. As

University of Basel alumnus Adam Smith looks on, a short seminar on

the rival systems that have been suggested for making this work. The

three options are per capita index deduction which eyes have supported,

which insulates Scotland against demographic risk, then this simple

index deduction method which simply looks at our attacks take relative

to the UK, and then there is the levels deduction method which

potentially actually is trying to do it Barnett on taxation which

actually erodes the Barnett formula even more. These are the three

methods, but per capita is the one that works best in terms of a fair

deal on both sides. And that is because you see the Scottish

population has distinct challenges that are different from the UK as a

whole, or England in particular. Our population will grow slower than the

rest of the UK because we do not have the powers to control that,

would not have a revision policy in our control. But the no detriment

principle cuts both ways, so the deal has to be fair to the taxpayers

and the rest of the UK as well. The Scottish Parliament has a tax policy

that generate additional income for Scotland, that is for Scotland, but

likewise if it generates or has a policy which generates less income

and why should taxpayers in the rest of the United Kingdom expected to be

allowed Scotland? With the increased powers that we see in the Smith

Commission agreement and the Scotland Bill come increased

responsibilities, and that is what the haggling is about. But for now

it seems like we might need someone with superpowers to get a deal done.

A short while ago I spoke to the Secretary of State

for Scotland David Mundell who came into our Edinburgh studio

and I began by asking him what was "ludicrous"

about the Scottish Government's demands.

What I meant was that when we get a fiscal framework, and I am quite

confident that we will, it needs to be fair to people in Scotland than

30 people in the rest of the United Kingdom. And what that means is that

the Scottish Government as their part of the deal have to take the

risks that come with new responsibilities, but also if they

are able to grow the Scottish tax base they also get to keep that

money. So it is a balance of risk and responsibility, but it is not

just keeping the Barnett formula, keeping any additional revenue

raised in Scotland, having risk underwritten and maybe even getting

tax funding from the rest of the UK as well. That is the parameters of

our position. In your view, in what way was what John Swinney is arguing

for a ludicrous? What is he demanding that you find so

ludicrous? What John has said in the past is that he accepts that the

deal has to reflect the Scottish Government taking on risk for policy

choices, so that if they make good policy choices and raise additional

revenue they keep that revenue, but if they make a policy choices and

the revenue is less than anticipated then they have to bear the

consequences of that. And that is basically at the core of the

arrangement that I think we need to reach. And that we are capable of

reaching. We are at the position now, both sides have done the dance,

now we need to do the deal. Are you saying that the Scottish Government

is demanding a system which would mean that Scotland would not have to

bear responsibility for its own decisions? I think that some of the

public comment has suggested that the Scottish Government did not want

to take on the risk associated with their own policy choices. I think

that that was a clear part of what the Smith Commission wanted to see

in this arrangement, that you benefited from good policy choices

but you had to take the consequences of poor policy choices. We have

looked at it from a UK Government position, we have looked at the

issues and concerns that the Scottish Government have raised,

they have raised some legitimate issues that are legitimate issues

about population growth in Scotland, issues around the ageing population

and we have, and we are quite willing to look at accommodating

those within these discussions. But the Scottish Government will also

have significant levers to grow the population of Scotland if they get

the policy choices right. If they make Scotland an attractive place to

come to the tax regime, if they make it attractive to businesses. It is a

balance. There are institutional issues in relation to population

growth, but there are also issues that they can influence, and they

need to do that with proper policy choices. But again, I just want to

be clear, because the problem with this whole negotiation is that

partly it is being done in secret and partly that even if it was not

his fantastically complicated. The argument that John Swinney seems to

be putting forward is basically that the deduction from Scotland's grant

to compensate for the fact that Scotland is raising its own taxes

should be based on a per capita share rather than a straightforward

percentage share. Using that the new proposals would you have put on the

table accent that? The point about the per capita share is that it

would shield Scotland from the publishing growing slower than in

England. Using you have changed your proposals to compensate for that to

some extent? I am saying that we want to reach an agreement. We are

taking forward issues that the Scottish Government have raised in

relation to population, but it comes back to the point... But what is new

about what you are proposing? You have said this week there is a new

proposal on the table. What is new about it? We're not going to do the

negotiations on this programme. There is a meeting tomorrow with

John Swinney and the Treasury. I am asking you to tell me what is new.

We have moved, we are looking to move to ensure we can take on board

issues that have been raised about population growth, but getting that

balance, taking account of Scotland's ageing population on one

hand but on the other hand the Scottish Government and accepting

that they have the capacity with these new powers to grow the

population. They can make Scotland an attractive place to come to with

the tax regime, the regime for business, and I am sometimes quite

surprised how pessimistic the SNP seem about their ability to use

these new powers in a positive way. These are really significant powers

that can change Scotland's economy and the need to use them to do so.

They would say Scotland has no control over immigration policy, and

immigration is the most likely way to get the population to increase.

So if you have a system whereby Scotland loses out if its population

grows at a slower rate, that is not... May be at the margins with

the policies you're talking about Piggott have an influence, but with

no control over immigration policy Scotland could lose money through no

fault of its own, and that is the problem. You seem to be accepting

that they have a point. I do not accept that immigration is the only

way to grow the population. If you make your economy attractive, if you

make your tax regime attractive then people will come, and I don't accept

the immigration argument. What I find rather odd is that when the SNP

asked to just three months ago for full fiscal autonomy, that is an

arrangement which independent experts say would leave Scotland

with a ?10 billion annual black hole, they did not ask for

immigration powers along with full fiscal autonomy. They were quite

happy to take on board that huge gap in the Scottish budget without

asking for any of the so-called levers that they need in relation to

growing the economy. Are you suggesting that if the Scottish

Government went along with your... Again I don't want to comment index

reduction methods, that presumably is the basis of what you're

suggesting, that the British government would be prepared to

discuss giving Scotland powers over immigration. Is that what you're

suggesting? I am certainly not suggesting that. Immigration is one

of the reserve powers. It was not part of the Smith Commission

arrangement. What I am suggesting is that the two sides are really quite

close together. I am confident that our accommodating the various needs

that we both have and what the Smith Commission set out as the parameters

for a fiscal framework, that we can get that deal. I think people in

Scotland want to see us get that he'll because they want to see these

sweeping new powers in relation to tax and welfare coming to Scotland.

I am putting all my energy into getting a deal UK Government is, and

I am confident we can get one. If you cannot get a deal the SNP say

they will walk away. RU prepared to walk away? No. We will not walk

away. We will stay until a deal is done. You might not have much

choice. It takes two to reach a deal. We not walking away. I know

the people of Scotland want to see the Scottish Parliament have

extensive new powers over tax and welfare, come that powerhouse

parliament. We have seen the transformation already when the

Scottish Parliament is debating tax issues, the vitality that has come

into the political debate in Scotland. They do want to see that

continue and get even more coherent and relevant with these extensive

new tax powers. I'm not walking away, I want to get a deal,. What

about this deadline of February the 12th? There was not a deadline. That

is an arbitrary date. It is not even necessary for any Scottish

parliament process because the following Monday both the Scottish

Parliament and Westminster Parliament are in recess. We're not

working for any arbitrary date. We are working to get a deal. Of course

he won't that deal as we possibly have it. But I do not see the 12th

or the 14th as being a deadline. The economists who have looked at this,

very complicated formulae that are being bounced around, include that

part of the problem is the Barnett formula. Because the Barnett formula

is at the centre of this. We would not be better if we are going to

have some sort of quasi federal UK to get rid of any deadlines and just

put everything on the table? Perhaps get rid of the Barnett formula. If

it is the problem that causes of these complications, why not just

sit down over a period of months and some sort of constitutional

convention and say, let's work something out? Lots of other

countries do this, can we not do it? There have been various attempts in

the past to look at different funding mechanisms within the United

Kingdom at all the major PATCO parties went into the general

election committed to detain the Barnett formula. We are going to

work within the parameters of the Barnett formula. If it simplifies

matters, why not get rid of it? I am sure academics and economists and

others will continue to argue about the Barnett formula, those people

have to come up with something else. One of the reasons the Barnett

formula has stayed in place at is very easy to criticise it but

difficult to come up with a viable alternative. Argue very much for

joining us this morning. -- thank you very much.

Listening to that is SNP Deputy Leader Stewart Hosie who's

You heard David Mundell suggesting these new proposals the government

have put forward go some way to addressing this issue that Scotland

would lose out if the population did not grow as fast as England. What in

your view is about what he is opposing that is new? I have not

heard any new proposals in the same week David Mundell is not privy to

these negotiations neither am I, all we can talk about is what is in the

public domain and all that seems to be in the public domain at the

moment from the UK Government is a mechanism that would lead perhaps to

a ?7 billion loss to the Scottish block grant over a decade. That

clearly breaches the Smith commission principle of no detriment

and if that is where we are even with a little bit of tinkering, that

we clearly be unacceptable to size with because it does not adhere to

the principles upon which these powers were supposed to be

delivered. Yes, but the other principle that the British

government is understandably trying to protect is that they don't want,

for example, increases in taxation made at Westminster to fund schools

and hospitals in England to leak through to increased taxation

increased spending in Scotland when Scottish taxpayers haven't had to

pay any extra taxes on it. You presumably would accept that as a

legitimate concern for them to have? Indeed, the no detriment proposals

as you said in the package cup both ways. That is absolutely right.

Let's remember what is at the heart of this. There is a modest set of

taxes to be devolved. If the Scottish Government make the right

choices and that yield goes up we benefit from that. If they make the

wrong choices and dealers a shortfall in the Scottish Government

need to take responsibility for that. But the bulk of funding still

comes from the rock rant and that will still be driven by the Barnett

formula. That is what was agreed by all the parties in the Smith

commission so, if we accept that and everybody has in what we are arguing

about in essence is how the block grant is adjusted in the future to

take in the devolved taxes. What we are suggested that the academics are

proposing and again this was the package is that this is the clearest

and best way to do it that involves no detriment to side. Hang on. There

are other academics. The problem with, again I do not want to get

into much into the jargon but the per capita proposals that you are

putting forward is that they would protect Scotland if its population

grew more slowly than in England but it's better click -- perfectly

legitimate for the government to take some responsibility for that.

If you want more powers then if you are Scotland, in Scotland's

population grows slower than England you have to be some of the

responsibility. That is what you want more powers for. It is

precisely these things you want more control than Edinburgh. That is

right so what we want to do is use the powers we have and the modest

powers to be devolved in order to make Scotland even more attractive

than it is to grow the population. It is no issue with that at all. If

we broke the population income tax increases and the share of VAT

increases for example but we cannot have Unionist politicians running

around making an argument about growing the population when the Ark

resisting at every turn the devolution of immigration powers

which are the quickest way to grow the population. You heard David

Mundell the sea you never even asked for that. This is a UK Government,

Unionist political parties who are even proposed to a post study what

these so that people who work and study and learn in Scotland are able

to stay for a few years to contribute to the economy. They are

even saying no to that so I think this argument about population

growth is simply a smoke screen for the fact they are trying to embed

deeper cuts in the block grant than Scottish tax raising powers could

possibly deliver. That is detrimental to Scotland and clearly

breaches the Smith commission proposals. Yes, but the counter to

that is if you index this on a per capita basis Scotland is completely

shielded from its population growing at a slower rate so there is no

incentive for the Scottish Government to do anything about

that. But there is an incentive because as I have said if we grow

the population the income tax yield would increase and the assigned VAT

would increase and many other taxes would increase. It is a good thing

to do anyway. Economic activity would rise. We are not seeking to be

shielded from decisions we take. If we get a decision right in Scotland

and the devolved tax yield goes up we benefit. If we take a decision

and the devolved tax yield goes down we have two face the consequences.

What we are talking about here is the overall level of the block grant

which makes up the bulk of Scotland's funding is still supposed

to be delivered by Barnett. That is agreed by all parties and we cannot

have the UK Government seeking to undermine that and undermine

Scotland's block grant any systemic way we above anything any devolved

tax goods compensate for. That is wrong, it is unclear and beaches the

spirit of all the negotiations. You also heard David Mundell saying the

two sides in all this, taking the rhetoric away, art pretty close

together, is that your view? Now, from what I have seen, neither David

Mundell or myself are privy to these negotiations, but from what I have

seen publicly they've is a considerable distance to go. The

Scottish Government want to stick to the no detriment principle but the

UK Government want to stick to systemic funding. I think that is

quite a week ago and I hope a deal can be struck. What happens if the

is no deal? Well the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have

been absolutely clear, if we cannot get a deal that adheres to the no

detriment caused them a bill pull on the handbrake or rather they will

and they will not sign off a legislative consent motion for these

powers. That is the responsibility and the power of the Scottish

Parliament has and if they heart to wield that in those circumstances

against UK Government intransigence then the government will well

understand we are not prepared to sign of a deal that embeds cuts to

Scotland. Would you be happy as an SNP politician going into the May

election saying Scotland has been offered full control of income tax

but as you are the Nationalists party we have said no, we do not

want it best to mark the is a national party. We have been offered

the modest set of powers. I would like to see them but I am not

prepared to go into any election, any time, the mere legend

notwithstanding, and say we have signed up to a 7 million at in

Scotland's systemic funding over a decade will stop that would be

ridiculous in terms of what the Scottish Government was then able to

ridiculous in terms of what the find than do over the next ten

years. So, you were just say that is it an what? The discussions are

finished on until after the election or what? I hope we can get a deal

done within the time set. If the parties or governments are required

to negotiate a little longer let them negotiate a little longer but

what we cannot sign up to is the systemic factors Scotland's funding.

You have said that. Let me put the point to you that I put to David

Mundell. The issue here, what makes this all so complicated as keeping

the Barnett formula. If you get rid of that it becomes much easier.

Wouldn't it be more sensible rather than politicians running around

setting arbitrary deadlines to have some sort of constitutional

convention where everybody sits down and says we want to reorganise the

way the UK is run let's think about this any rational week? What is the

judgment against doing it that way? We would love to see the finances of

these islands run in a rational way in the. If we took full

responsibility for everything and called it independence that would

make perfect sense but we lost that referendum. What the matter that was

the Smith commission and the Smith commission, all six parties signed

up to Barnett continuing to fund the block grant with the exception of

the devolved hours. That is where we are. That is what we are negotiating

about. Let's have unions politicians in the UK Government stick to some

of the promises they made and deliver this devolution on the

principle of no detriment to Scotland. Thank you for joining us

this morning, Stewart Hosie. The battle for second votes

in Holyrood's May election is ramping up as a recent poll

suggests that Labour will lose all of its 15 constituency seats,

meaning the party is reliant on the regional lists

to return MSPs. Insiders also reveal

that the Conservative will pour resources into a campaign for list

seats, as the gap between them Well, yesterday Labour released

the names of the candidates Joining me is former MP

and Public Affairs consultant, Are you beside yourself with

excitement when you look at Labour's list candidates? Yes, I am managing

to pick a calm face on it but it is hugely exciting. You explain to us

why. Well the Labour Party, Scottish Labour is any very difficult

position. You may have noticed were not exactly on the front food that

the party had a choice where we had the list candidates trying to bring

in new talent and I noticed Kezia Dugdale has been criticised in some

quarters for not doing that. The alternative was trying to secure

some of the more experienced and well known names. It could not do

both. It has gone for the latter option to secure the well-known

people. Many of whom have been here for a long time. I understand why

the party has done that. I do not think a Scottish Labour Party group

of MSPs in Holyrood without the likes of Johann Lamont and James

Kelly, people like that, I think it's good that they are likely,

likely to be back, we do not know yet. It does mean we had in the

position within is very little new talent. The new candidates have come

through our people who lost their seats from Westminster last May. The

problem, Kezia Dugdale bid talk about some idea of having new people

who had perhaps ever been involved in politics coming through to be

candidates and get into parliament and this would make the Labour Party

look like a completely different organisation. That is not going to

happen, is it? It is not. It is a very good aspiration and ambition to

have but it is incredibly difficult. If you're going to put the list of

candidates out to a ballot of members which is what has happened.

If you are the Labour Party candidate you are going to recognise

the name of someone who has served as an MSP for years rather than the

person who was an academic or the business person from another part of

society you are going to put the number one against the names of the

people you recognise which is why we have a list of people who have gone

the whole been here for some time. That is not necessarily a bad thing

because the next five years at Holyrood are going to be really

difficult for the Labour Party at Holyrood the going to need people

who had experience but the problem is without the new talent coming

through Wien in the same position the SNP was in in 1990 97 years ago.

That is a huge step back for the Labour Party. Perhaps the problem

was Kezia Dugdale saying this in the first place because it raised

expectations. The model I think she was using is the victory the SNP had

in the general election but they got so many MPs that they could have an

experienced hard-core and they could have fresh faces as well. Labour are

not quite in that situation. Fresh faces that they had appeared would

be replacing expedience. I think the problem goes back further than that.

There are two reasons. Nobody prepared for the succession to do

Donald Dewar. All led as an opposition, you let the convention

he was prime demolition and nobody prepared for who would take over

from Donald. More importantly the Scottish Labour Party has never had

a strategy on the list. The SNP has right from the very beginning and

worked it very well. Scottish Labour were so arrogantly thought they had

to do was pay attention to who won the first past the post seats. Now

we are reconciled to losing all, possibly all of the first past the

post seats and concentrating everything on the list. Frankly it

is doing everything 15 years too late. That is a strategy that should

have been put in position from the very birth of the Scottish

Parliament. In Deadwood. Do you think there will

be a change. In your view, will Labour look more dynamic at least?

Or is just the old, same old? I think what you had five years ago,

because the party paid so little attention to who was on the list,

you have some additional members, a very mixed bag. There were some

brilliant ones, there were others that frankly should not have been

there. You're being very polite. You mean because either did not expect

to lose so many constituency seats. A bunch of people that no one

thought would get got elected. Your words, not mine. But now the party

has concentrated on getting the best people at the top of the list. On

the whole that is what we have. Unfortunately we will have your

MSPs, but standard will be significantly higher, and it has to

be because will be fewer of them. significantly higher, and it has to

Tom Harris, thank to the campaign group

Scotland Stronger In Europe which will be launched

in Edinburgh this week. to gather support for Britain's

renegotiation of its relationship In Denmark, he won the backing

of the prime minister who said The Polish prime minister backed

Mr Cameron's proposals Here, there's been a mixed reaction

to the deal with MPs discussing I am not arguing and will never

argued that Britain could not survive outside the European Union.

We are the fifth largest economy in the world, the biggest defence

player in Europe with one of the most extensive and influential

diplomats ignored works on the planet. The question is not good

Britain succeed outside the European Union, it is how will we be most

successful. I will Britain be most prosperous. How we create the most

jobs. How we will have the most influence on the rules that shape

the global economy and affect us. How will we be most secure. And I've

always said the best answers to those questions can be found within

a reformed European Union. But let me say again, if we cannot secure

these changes are ruled out nothing. Second, even if we secured these

changes, you'll never hear me say that this is now fixed. Far from it.

There will be many things that remain to be reformed, and Britain

would continue to lead the way. For all the sound and fury, the prime

minister has ended up exactly where he knew he would be, making the case

to remain in Europe which is what he always intended despite

renegotiation spectacle choreographed for TV cameras over

the whole continent. As his own backbenchers to telling us, the

proposals from the European Council are simply tinkering around the

edges. They have little impact on what you delivers for workers in

Britain or British businesses. What is at stake is much bigger than his

recent discussions. is at stake is much bigger than his

whether we're in the is at stake is much bigger than his

that is what the debate is at stake is much bigger than his

UK will be in the run-up to the referendum. The timing of

UK will be in the run-up to the referendum really matters to the

electorate and the governments of Scotland, Wales

electorate and the governments of Ireland, as well

electorate and the governments of there are elections in May. How does

it help to try and fit a couple of emergency brakes that lie within the

control of the year and not as? Isn't the only way to get control

our borders, our tax and our welfare system to leave and be a good

European and let them get on with their political union?

Time now for a look at the week's big stories and what's coming

I'm joined by the Press Association's Scottish political

reporter Lynsey Bews, and by the Sunday Herald's Scottish

Tom, Europe, briefly. I sense something odd going on. All the

politicians on the yes side think they need to deal with the

Europeans, get on with that hand have a quick referendum, meanwhile

the opinion polls are going in the opposite direction. It is a very

interesting picture coming out at the moment. The public seems to have

a very certain opinion about what is happening, because if you look at

the campaigns, the no campaign, the out campaign, and the state

campaign, the embryonic and chaotic, particularly the Out campaign. It is

different either side of the border. It is largely for leaving site of

the border. But the public seemed to be making up their own minds

already. Do you think the Yes campaigners have something to worry

about? I think the Yes campaigners are benefiting at the moment, as Tom

said it is quite chaotic on the other side. They do not seem to have

a coherent... In England, the get out people are streaking ahead, even

when the no campaign is a model of how not to run a campaign. You

think, what could happen if they got their act together? Absolutely. I

think when it comes to the crunch, when you look at Scottish campaign,

the campaign for staying in is much stronger. If you look at it purely

from a Scottish perspective the campaign appear for staying in will

do very well. But what happened in Scotland will not determine the

result. Can you see the Mil people getting their act together? It may

not matter, because the body of opinion is already in favour of an

outlawed. If I were David Cameron, we saw reports in the newspapers

this morning about panic at number ten, I would be worried, because

despite the self sabotage of the Mill site, they are head. -- the

chaos in the No side. In the newspapers, we saw this. That was

John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor. It is clear what is

going on here with this new policy of decreasing tax, that Labour are

trying to stick some territory. Yes, they are trying to do a lot to

puncture the SNP's self mythologising that they are the new

party of the left, the anti-austerity party, and labour are

saying, this is not the case. Look at what they do in practice. They

are quite conservative, especially on tax. That might help Labour feel

good, but I think the public already know this is how the SNP are and the

support what they do. It might give Labour a warm glow but I do not

think it will bring them any more votes. Is that your view? Yes, I

think it was interesting the budget debate last week, Jackie Baillie

wanted to do about principle, the principle of salvaging public

services by making people pay more tax. She did not want to talk about

what John Swinney wanted to talk about which was the detail of how

you go about doing this. And Labour's plan for this ?100 rebate

which they do not seem to be able to explain exactly how it will work.

And the other problem for Labour, they have put this 1p on for every

year, not just the first year when the initial tax powers come forward,

but every year after that, when actually the SNP will properly come

forward with some proposals when they powers over rates and bands

come in. Liverpool have a problem looking at how this 1p rise across

the comes into that. -- Labour will have a problem. Some people say,

look, the 45%, as they like to call themselves, are written off for

Labour in this election. It is the 55% where they might have a chance

of inroads, and you will not win them over by seeing you will put up

taxes. It is more of a survival strategy for Labour. We were talking

about how perilous these elections look for them and how they are

turning to the list vote. They just have to get through these elections

were some sort of credibility on the far side, severe try feel robbed

their own base vote. They're trying to leech a few votes away from the

SNP, maybe people who voted yes because there's probably some sort

of left-wing Nirvana underwater pool those people back. But really it is

about trying to get through this election. Add line from the

Telegraph about 30. -- about Turkey. This is a refugee crisis on top of

the refugee crisis we have already because of what is happening in the

area around Aleppo. Yes, it is very worrying for people who are in Syria

and trying to escape from the atrocities and the attacks that are

going on, and again it serves to highlight what a mess that country

is in and how we collectively have failed to really make inroads to

addressing any of the issues that are going on. And other side of

this, of course, is that it is possible, perhaps not likely, but

possible that the Assad- Britain strategy could win outright. --

Assad-Vladimir Putin. If they take Aleppo, most of the urban areas will

be back under the control of the Syrian government. Possibly, but it

will not get our out of Syria or anything like that. Lindsay is

right. This is a terrible tragedy that is happening right now. One

could easily imagine Assad and Vladimir Putin getting that and

saying, we will turn our weapons on Isis, and you in the West who sit

around wringing your hands about how terrible it all is, we've done this

and we are now go to tackle IS, and you have done nothing. You are

braver man than I am because I would not like to predict. I'm not

predicting, it is just one scenario. Nothing is simple in that country.

And I hope we can avoid another tragedy in Aleppo, as I don't know

how it is going to pan out. There is pressure already on Turkey to open

its borders. Absolutely. And these people are in a perilous situation.

This is another humanitarian crisis on quite a large scale. I do both

very much indeed. I'll be back at the

same time next week.