28/02/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

The Prime Minister rams home his claim that leaving

the European Union puts jobs, security, even

Many Tories don't like his arguments - or his tone.

David Cameron's mentor and former Tory leader Michael Howard will be

here to tell us why he thinks it's safe for Britain to leave,

and Labour big beast Alan Johnson will make the case for staying in.

Labour's not exactly united when it comes to renewing Trident.

That didn't stop Jeremy Corbyn telling protestors yesterday

that he believes in a nuclear-free Britain.

Following the death of young Conservative activist

Elliott Johnson amid allegations of bullying within the party,

we've spoken to one of those close to the centre of the story

Who are these people who aren't the lead or threatened? Nobody has come

forward and there is evidence I didn't do those things.

Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:

rally in London yesterday, the GMB challenges Labour to say

where the replacement jobs of its members will come from.

All that to come - and with me for the duration,

three journalists who show as much consensus on the big political

For balance I should say they fall out as often as Jeremy Corbyn's

It's Nick Watt, Isabel Oakshott and Janan Ganesh.

And speaking of cabinet unity, there's a distinct lack

of it in this morning's papers

of campaigning since David Cameron announced that a referendum

on Britain's EU membership will take place on the 23rd of June.

The Fleet Street hounds have caught the scent of a good old-fashioned

Conservative feud over Europe, and with the party and the cabinet

divided over whether Britain should stay or go, they're not

The Sunday Times says David Cameron has been warned

that he'll face a leadership challenge if he doesn't call a halt

to so-called 'blue on blue' attacks on fellow Conservatives.

The Sunday Telegraph reports on the 'battle of wills'

between the two sides with pieces by David Cameron

and Iain Duncan Smith, who says 'they can sack me

The Observer leads with Number 10's main message,

which is to say that a British exit would spark decades

And the Mail on Sunday says the Tory feud turned really

nasty after Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond had what it called

So it seems fair to say that relations between David Cameron

and eurosceptics in his party aren't exactly cordial.

The welfare secretary Iain Duncan Smith, he's one

of the cabinet ministers arguing to leave, was asked about it

You don't think the Prime Minister is much of a patriot, do you? This

is not about personalities. They in campaign's whole strategy seems to

be about, it is terrible, it is about saying that we are too small,

too inconsequential and we cannot do what we want. I don't know why

anybody would want to run a country like this. This country is the

greatest honour. I think probably the first time a cabinet minister

has been asked if the Prime Minister is a patriot and he does not reply

yes. Is Mr Cameron getting the tone and the content of this right? I

think he made a big mistake earlier this week when he lashed out at

Boris Johnson in the Commons. I think there was a degree of over

interpreting those comments, and I understand that there was a fuss

about whether or not he had slighted Boris Johnson's personal life with a

reference to knowing couples that had divorced. Mr Cameron thought he

had Boris in the bag. He was certainly bruised by that. The

comment on marriage went over Doris's aired, so there was a bit of

over interpreting by people on all sides. -- over progress's aired. But

if Cameron is being called to stop these attacks, he is the one who

started them. Europe is just another word for division in the Tory Party

but it almost seems like the manner and the tone of what the prime

ministers saying, he is almost going out of his way to upset those

opposed to him. I disagree. I think the grievances in the papers today

are spurious. It has not been a blue on blue campaign so far, not a huge

amount of animosity and poison so far although it is early days. Do

they expect him not to play the economic risk card? Do they expect

him to go through the next four mums using the single most devastating

line of attack he has against the other side, which is the unknown

economic has heard of taking a punt on Brexit? But that argument would

be true even if he had brought back the store from Brussels or brought

back nothing from Brussels. The economic argument is that this could

be a profound shock to the world economy. That is either true or not

true, regardless of the settlement. But that is not the given reason for

their frustration with him. At the moment they are focusing on the tone

and negativity. And you don't feel like they have the right to be

aggrieved? No. It would be bizarre Prime Minister to lead a campaign in

favour of staying in without deploying his most effective weapon.

And what Mr Osborne is doing with this argument is have one very

simple, crude argument in the general election, that Labour was

not credible, and in this campaign that it is a leap in the dark. He

needs to be careful. The idea that the world economy is going to tank

because Britain leaves the European Union, that Britain leaving the

union is up there with the Chinese fall in growth, it is absurd. What

did George Osborne do? Equalled the G20 finance ministers to write that

into their conclusions. Yes, it will be a challenge for the British

economy if we leave the European Union, but the idea that it is up

there as a global risk that will lead to some great world economic

depression, I think he needs to be careful. He has to ensure that what

he does has credibility and I am not sure that passes the test. What

annoys a lot of the Tories is that they are using arguments about

staying in which I've always been true, regardless of whether or not

the settlement makes any difference. To say that if we came out, there

would be a profound economic shock, that is true regardless of the

settlement. I think that is what annoys the Eurosceptics. They are

using arguments that were true six months ago. And many of the

arguments are very thin. David Cameron has written for the

Telegraph today saying that he can describe exactly what people will be

voting for if they vote to stay in. It is the status quo, it is not very

difficult to describe that. It is very frustrating for Eurosceptics

that there is this constant spurious claim by the In campaign that they

cannot describe what Out looks like. They describe what it looks like

everyday. The problem is that it is under article 50 of the Lisbon

Treaty that exit people cannot guarantee the deal. They can say it

might be this or that but they cannot guarantee it because we are

out of the European Council the moment we press the button. You

wonder whether either side can guarantee what the country will be

like whether we stay in or come out. We have a pretty good idea of who

will be fighting on which site. Both the Leave and the Remain camps

have their own big figures, and they wasted little time

in putting aside old loyalties Let's have a look at some of the big

moments of the week. I have known a number of couples

who have begun divorce proceedings but I do not know any who have begun

divorce proceedings in order This open border does not allow us

to check and control people who may come and we have seen what has

happened in Paris where they spent ages planning and plotting

so who is to say it is not beyond the wit of man that those

might already be thinking about it? Today almost 200 of Britain's

biggest firms including 36 on the FTSE 100 index published

a letter warning that so-called Brexit would put

the economy at risk. We have a great opportunity now

to strike new deals for Britain to be the hub of new trading

arrangements around the world and to have a fantastic new future

so that is what I am going for. In my judgment as Chancellor leaving

the EU would represent a profound economic shock for our country,

for all of us and I am going to do everything I can to

prevent that happening. The European Court of Justice

interprets the European Union treaties and until this agreement

is embodied in treaty change then the European Court of Justice is not

bound by this agreement. You saw there a few of

the Conservative allies David Cameron has failed to persuade

of the case for remaining in the EU, and now I'm joined by another one -

the former party leader, Tory peer and leave

campaign Michael Howard. Welcome to the programme. Let's

start on this idea of a second referendum. You have indicated that

a vote to leave could jolt the rest of the EU into giving us a better

and bigger and more compounds of deal. That could trigger a second

referendum. Mr Cameron says that is fiction and Boris Johnson now says

the same. Are you sticking to that? Yes. I cannot guarantee that would

happen but it is a possibility. Everybody who wants us to vote

Remain is going to say it is for the birds, and I understand that. There

want us to vote to remain. Mr Johnson is saying that, too. And I

don't agree with him. We have reached the same conclusion by

different routes. The European Union has form on this. They have done it

before in relation to Ireland and has form on this. They have done it

Denmark. The very things that make it certain that we would thrive as

an independent country, the fact that we are the fifth biggest

economy in the world, the strongest military power in Europe, the fact

that we are the second-biggest contributor to the European Union

budget, those things would mean that we would be sorely missed if we left

and that is why I think the countries in Europe, the European

leaders would say that if we voted to leave, let's have some more talks

and let's think again. Would they? Brexit, I think, if it happens would

happen at a time of what is clearly crisis for the EU, perhaps the worst

crisis in its history. If it responded by giving us everything

that the Eurosceptics wanted, there could be a rush to the door by other

countries. Why would the EU risk that? The very fact they are in a

crisis means they need us all the more. I cannot guarantee that they

would. It is an unknown. There is a chance of that but if they don't

come back, if all we are left with is the current under formed European

Union, I think we are better out than in. OK. Turning to the

economics. Last week we saw some of Britain's biggest companies,

household names, warning against the dangers of leaving the EU for jobs

and investment. Why should the British people not listen to them?

First of all, they were a minority even of the bosses of the FTSE 100

companies. Moore did not sign them signed. Secondly, don't take it from

me, take it from someone with real authority, someone like Mervyn King,

the former governor of the Bank of England, who pointed out yesterday

that we ought to take what these people say with a pinch of salt.

Many of them were strong adherence of us joining the euro and predicted

economic disaster for us if we did not. But not all of them. How many

FTSE 100 chief executives are on your side? I don't know. But many

business people are, particularly small business people. And

particularly business people who do most of their business with

countries outside of the EU and who are very hampered in doing so by the

rules to which we are in thrall. The kind of people who signed this

letter saying we should stay in, they are also the same kind of

people who signed the same kind of letters backing the Tories come

election time. If you want us to listen to them, when it suits you,

but not when they don't agree with you? They can be right about one

thing without being right about another. He wants to pick them up

when it suits you and disparage them when it doesn't. Can I make a point

about this? I think we are in danger of looking at these issues through

the wrong end of the telescope. If we leave, there are some things that

I can absolutely guarantee. Number one, we will have our democracy

restored, our courts and our Parliament will no longer be

subservient to the European Union. Number two, as part of that, we will

recover control of our borders and Number two, as part of that, we will

we will have control over who comes in and who doesn't. Number three, we

will no longer have to contribute billions of pounds a year to the

EU's budget. Those are certainties, indisputable. The onus is on those

who wish us to remain 2.2 similar indisputable arguments which

outweigh those and so far I have not seen them. But does it not worry you

that all of our allies in the G20 want us to stay in. Only President

Putin among world leaders once asked to leave? Does that not cause you

concerned? The British people are the best people to decide what is in

our interest. You could also site the Attorney General of the United

States, who said that of the European Union was undermining the

intelligence sharing that is so crucial in our fight against

terrorism and crime. So now, it is the British people who are the best

people to decide what is in our interest. The Prime Minister says

there are 3 million jobs that depend in some way on our trade in the

European Union. He says we would not go training -- we would go on

trading with the EU, if we left, but would the trade be at the same

level? How many of these jobs would be truly safe? Can you answer that

question? They want to continue trading with us and we are the

biggest export market for the rest of the European Union. And we run a

great deficit on trade with them so it is very much in their interest to

continue to trade with us. We could do some jobs, couldn't wake Umax --

we could lose. I do not think the Germans would not continue selling

as BMWs, or the French wine. If they want to continue to have access to

our market, we need to make sure we have access to theirs. It is in our

mutual interest. You say that all 3 million jobs are guaranteed? I

cannot offer you any guarantees and neither can the banister. The great

arts profit of integration as he did very well, when he said that if the

British do not want to sign up to further integration in the European

Union, we can have a very friendly relationship with them, we can sign

up to a free-trade agreement with them and that would be the way

forward. Let me show you what the current

Home Secretary who is the longest serving Home Secretary says:

I have great respect for her, I don't quite know why she says that.

I believe that we can continue to have a very good and constructive

working relationship with the member states of the EU on security matters

if we leave. The reason I say that is simply this, we contribute a

great deal to that relationship, our intelligence services are the best

in Europe. They want the help we can give them and so there is absolutely

no reason whatsoever why we should not continue to have a close

relationship with them on these matters on an intergovernmental

basis. The declaration of the European Council, which I know you

have read as carefully as I have, says in terms, national security is

our responsibility of the nation states. One thing we would not have

access to is the European arrest warrant. We could come to an

agreement on that. Let's say what you said on that:

it wouldn't be if we left. It could, because we could easily reach an

agreement with the Europeans that the essentials of the European

arrest warrant continued in force. Not all my friends on the leading

side with that that I think it would be possible to reach such an

agreement. No other non-EU member has use of the arrest warrant. No

relationship as we are. We don't relationship as we are. We don't

know. It was used to bring back one of the failed London bombers from

Italy and it came back quickly and the arrest warrant. He is now in

jail, how would we do that? That is why I was in favour of it at the

time and I think because we offer so much to our European neighbours in

terms of the capacity which we bring to these issues they would be keen

to continue in that sort of arrangement with us if we left the

European Union. Let me show you what Rob Wainwright, the head of Europe

all -- Europol said. The head of Europol, British, the longest

serving Home Secretary, both think that our security would be more at

risk. And the Attorney General of the United States accuses the

European Union of undermining the fight against terrorism and I think

in all of these issues we need to have some self confidence and self

belief. We are a big country, an important country and we have a huge

amount to offer in terms of cooperation with our neighbours. It

is in the interest to continue to cooperate with us and I have no

doubt we could reach perfectly satisfactory arrangements with them

if we voted to leave. Finally, Mr Cameron was once your special

adviser, you were his mentor and you told his mother one day that he

would be Prime Minister, what did he say when you told him you are

joining the league side? We had a difficult conversation, I find it

difficult to be on the opposite side of the argument to David Cameron. He

was very disappointed I had come to this conclusion and I understand and

respect that. Michael Howard, thank you for being with

So that's the case for leaving put by an elder statesman

Let's turn now to an elder statesman of the Labour Party -

although he's a fresh-faced one - it's Alan Johnson and he is leading

the Labour In for Britain Group, and he's in Hull.

Your side of the argument stresses the risks and uncertainties of

leaving the EU, do you accept there are risks and uncertainties with

staying? No. Not in the sense that Michael Howard was suggesting. I

thought what he said was wrong, he said he could guarantee we would not

be contributing to the European Union and could guarantee there

would not be free movement but he cannot. If we take the Norway option

which many of those on the leading site promote then we would indeed be

paying them, Norway is the 10th biggest contributor. They have free

movement. Why would we have to follow what Norway does? They are a

small economy and we are the second largest in Europe? I am just saying

that there are other options, the Swiss option once again. Michael

cannot guarantee it. We are the fifth biggest economy, we were the

fourth when we were in government, but people say that only leaving

side but they do not equate it at all with 41 years of membership of

the EU. Part of that economic strength, I am in Hull where there

is the biggest investment any where in the world by Siemens, billions of

pounds and 1000 jobs. They are building wind turbines for offshore

Britain. It was fierce competition, if you take... They are building

stuff Britain, why would they not do it here? If you take Britain outside

the EU you have all kinds of uncertainties and all kinds of

possible barriers. The Society of motor manufacturers point out that

whilst sales to China and Russia have declined their sales to Europe

are up by 10% because we don't pay any tariffs to export into Europe.

The other point I wanted to mention was that Michael was part of a

government which opted out of something called the social chapter,

basic protection for workers. In this huge market, the biggest

commercial market, bigger than China and America, there are protections

for workers. Michael opted out of those and I believe that he and many

others think that is good to not have those protections. We opted

back in. For us those protections for workers, to avoid this country

becoming a race to the bottom, anything goes kind of free-market

experiment, are very important. Hold on, why couldn't the British

government, why wouldn't a British government outside the EU replicate

these rights if it was so minded, what would stop us from doing that

if the government got the democratic will of the British people? The

first point is as I have explained that a British government chose not

to do that. That was Alex Goode British government. The British

government that we were part of opted into those arrangements. There

is nothing to suggest in the history of Conservative government that if

we left the EU that they would opt into all this. That would be a

matter for the British people to choose if they wanted that

government. If we let the EU at the next election Labour would promise

four weeks paid leave, rights for workers, paid maternity at the next

election and if that is what the British people want they will vote

for you? The people who want us to leave, the argument I am making, is

that the people who want us to leave consider all of that to be red tape.

They consider all of that to be bureaucracy. We believe in that kind

of market that there has to be protection for consumers, for the

environment and for workers. That is an important part of what Europe

gives us. Non-EU countries, Norway, Australia, Canada, Iceland, they all

score highly even on the trade unionist global workers rights

index. Why wouldn't an independent UK, if voters were so minded to do

so and I don't see any mainstream politician saying they would want to

take away four weeks paid leave, why politician saying they would want to

does it need Europe to do it? That's a very good question. In this

country alone, it is a political consensus in countries like Norway

and Sweden that there should be decent basic rights for workers. In

this country it is an election issue. Why shouldn't it be an

election issue? I believe if you are trading into this huge market and

have got all those opportunities to trade then one aspect of that must

be that you don't undercut each other on the basis of terms and

conditions. I believe it's an essential part of being in Europe

and that is why it is an important part of our campaign to maintain

those rights and protections. Moving on to immigration, people are

concerned about the scale of it, is there anything in the settlement of

David Cameron that'll make a material difference to immigration

from the EU? Yes there is, it is very underrated nice to. Two points

which were negotiated by Theresa May that were not in the package that we

saw in the Donald Tusk exchange were very important. First of all

tackling sham marriages and secondly to say that people coming into this

country who we suspect might be engaged in the future in activities

we would find criminal or perhaps terrorism, that we can stop them

coming in. That is important, at the moment it is based on what we know,

not on what we predict. Sham marriages with their largely to the

subcontinent and is very little to do with Europe. You asked me for two

things... I don't know what difference it would make to the

numbers, it is about 100 is to 5000 per year net migration coming to

this country and it will continue at that level if we stay in want it?

There is nothing we can do about net EU migration at that level.

Absolutely. I have said that before. It was David Cameron's package. In

fairness of people making contributions before taking

working-class tax credits but I never thought this was a draw for

people to come -- taking working tax credits. We can do something to stop

the expectation and we don't need the rest of Europe to do that, I

think David Cameron was right, you are right about free movement within

the European Union but people are worried about movement coming from

outside the European Union and outside the European Union ourselves

I think we would be weaker. Not just because we'll would the protection

of the Dublin accord -- not just because we will lose. The most

honourable point is Calais to Dover and that operation of the Border

Force moving to Calais, the mayor comes over and says teacher border

backed every couple of months. That is between France and Britain, it is

nothing to do with the European Union. This is the point and I think

this is what Michael missed, if we wrench ourselves away from the

European Union after 41 years of membership, does anyone think there

will be huge goodwill out there for Britain? Here is another point about

French politics, the French presidential right wing campaigns

who might well win next year are saying they will get rid of it even

if we stay in the European Union. There you are. So what is the point?

Nothing to do with the EU. I don't think anybody doubt that if we left

the EU it would seriously bring into jeopardy that arrangement and that

is the most vulnerable entry point. Jeremy Corbyn believes we should not

look upon immigration as a problem. Jeremy Corbyn believes we should not

Do you agree in the context of this debate about Europe? Only in the

sense that it is not the driving force, people don't come here, they

come here to work by and large, they don't come here to claim benefits.

In that respect I do. I think as Jeremy accepts the exploitation

which comes with it needs to be addressed. So to be clear the scale

of immigration if we stay in the EU does not change. It might do. I will

tell you why it might do, I was Home Secretary before Theresa May, the

net migration figure was around 165,000, very low. Because we had

just gone through the collapse of Liman brothers and the economy was

doing badly. If we come out of the EU and are in such a state as far as

our economy is concerned it might stop people wanting to come here.

OK, you said we have the best lyrics, meaning your side, but we

are still struggling to put them to music, why can't you find the right

chin? What I meant by that is they have simplistic let's regain the

borders and regain our sovereign three and it's quite a complex

argument to say actually we have got the best of both worlds. Yes we have

some sovereign tree into Europe but that gives us influence over other

member states and gives us a louder voice and a more powerful voice in

the rest of the world. We will give you that, you love your music so we

will give you time to find a tune until we meet again. Alan Johnson,

thank you. Let's turn now to the bullying

allegations surrounding the death of young Conservative

activist Elliott Johnson. An inquest is due to open this week

after the 21-year-old was found dead It's thought he took his own life

weeks after raising allegations about the way he was being treated

in the Conservatives' youth wing. He left behind a suicide note naming

two other activists. Today, one of them, a man

called Andre Walker, speaks out about his relationship

with Elliott Johnson and the bullying allegations

for the first time. For nearly six months

a grieving family, friends, colleagues and the media have been

trying to fathom why a young conservative activist,

21-year-old Elliot Johnson, lay down on a railway line

and took his own life. The student vote

is really important. Just months before, he had been

an enthusiastic volunteer for Road We are going to be deciding

the general election. This was the brainchild of a former

Conservative candidate, Mark Clarke, that would bus young

conservatives around the country to campaign on doorsteps

during the 2015 general election. Are you going to help change

the future of our country? Since the death of Elliott,

lurid headlines have reported complaints

being made against Mr Clarke of bullying, sexual impropriety

and blackmail in relation All of which Mr Clarke

vigorously denies. Accusations of a Conservative

cover-up have led to the resignation of former party co-chairman

Grant Shapps, pressure on the current chairman

Lord Feldman, Mr Clarke banned from the party for life,

and an internal party investigation underway already widely criticised

by the Johnson family. Elliott left a note to be read

after his death directly accusing Mr Clarke of bullying him

and another person, The note was not all that Elliott

left, there was also a secret recording of a night at a pub

with all three of them in which Andre Walker appears

aggressive and threatening over an official complaint Elliott

was going to make about Mr Clarke. In the six months which have

followed, Andre Walker has been portrayed in the media

as Mr Clarke's henchmen, ready to strongarm those

who stood in his way. Now in his first interview Mr Walker

gives his side of events nature of his friendship

with Elliot Johnson. The Andre Walker that the public has

seen so far in relation to this story, is that an Andre

Walker you recognise? If I take you back to the day

that the covert recording took place, Elliott asked me to come

with him to meet with Mark Clarke which was a meeting that he wanted

to discuss the problems they had. I met Elliott beforehand and we went

to the pub together and met Mark. What you hear is me getting

frustrated partway through What you don't hear,

what wasn't released to most of the media was at the end Elliott

inviting me back to his place because I had missed the last train

and us leaving the pub together. If you look at that secret

recording, it sounds like you are some kind of hatchet

man for Mark Clarke. I think everyone who is fat

and from the North of England and involved in politics gets

accused of being a bruiser and it is something I never took

particularly seriously, I don't recognise the criticism

and I think the media has called almost everyone I have ever met

in politics and who are these people that I bullied

or threatened or harangued? Nobody has come forward,

in fact there is plenty of evidence that I didn't do any

of those things. What was the nature

of the relationship So, Mark Clarke introduced me

to Elliott because we both had We hit it off straightaway

and the relationship started It lasted until the day he died,

as far as I was concerned. The reason I have been coy

about that is I know that saying I'm very sorry about that

and it is not my intention to go out We have got to discuss this issue,

we have to discuss the issue of homophobia and why people,

even as close to him as me were not told about the mental

health problems. This is a reference

to a British Transport Police report prepared ahead of this weeks

inquest seen by Mr Walker. The Daily Mail has reported that it

suggests: But also that Elliot

Johnson had made previous health issues relating

to his being accepted as gay. Speaking to the BBC in response

to the story, his father denies It is not relevant, Elliott

took his life because he had been bullied and picked on generally

by certain persons and let down by other organisations around

the Conservative Party. He was treated badly,

that is why he took his life. He was treated appallingly by people

and organisations and we want to make sure that he receives

justice for what happened to him. Many of Andre Walker's old friends

have blamed him and shunned him. He says that has prevented him

from being able to grieve. I was not able to go

to the funeral service. Because of the things

which were said about me. That was very hurtful

because I would have liked Similarly I don't know where

Elliott's final resting place is, I would like to visit it,

whether that is going to be possible The one memorial service I was able

to go to somebody screamed at me and I was effectively thrown out

which has just made it impossible for me to pay my respects in the way

that I feel I ought to. How would you describe Elliott

as a person? He was great fun, we used to go out

and have a real laugh and I think that this sort of sad life

which people have characterised him as having in London where it was all

very depressing and he didn't have many friends and people

were bullying him on a day-to-day basis, to my mind is surely not him

at all and I think it is sad that It's just gone 11.35am,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now It's just gone 11:35pm.

You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now Good morning and welcome

to Sunday Politics Scotland. As anti-Trident protesters rallied

in London yesterday, the GMB union issued a challenge

to the Labour leadership over jobs. We'll speak to Labour MSP

Neil Findlay and the union's The Liberal Democrats claim

the party has punched We'll watch their leader

Willie Rennie float like a butterfly Professor Tom Devine was a prominent

Yes supporter during the referendum. We'll ask him if he's

changed his mind. When the Labour party elected

Jeremy Corbyn as its leader last September, you might have been

forgiven for thinking the big unions But on Thursday the GMB issued

a direct challenge to the Labour leader over the renewal of Trident,

accusing him of being irresponsible to talk about scrapping the nuclear

missile system without addressing the implications for

jobs and communities. The union, which represents

civilian defence workers, Yesterday, Mr Corbyn addressed

an anti-Trident protest The union, which represents

civilian defence workers, Yesterday, Mr Corbyn addressed

an anti-Trident protest in central London, along

with the First Minister, The Scottish Labour Party has also

rejected the renewal of Trident. Here is Neil Findlay speaking at

that time. I have opposed nuclear weapons all my life, I am a member

of CND and make the edition is clear. I want to see small

businesses around Faslane oppose Trident, I want nationalists,

liberals, Greens and I even want Tories to join the campaign against

Trident. I spoke to Neil Findlay in Grangemouth and began by asking if

it was right that the Labour feeder spoke at that anti-Trident rally.

Jeremy has had a long-standing queue on nuclear weapons since his first

logical thought, he has been very involved in the peace movement and

the campaign for nuclear disarmament. You argue against

Labour Party policy? Jeremy was consistent in putting across his

view, a QC has held for decades and you would be the first person to

criticise him had he not spoken out on an issue that he has campaigned

so passionately about over the years. A consistent line he has

taken but the party is having a big debate over the future of the

nuclear weapon system and many other people will express their views in

that debate, it is healthy and democratic, but other parties who do

not have healthy debate, they have a line given by the top and everybody

is supposed to fall into line. Is it OK for the deputy leader, Tom

Watson, to suggest he will back David Cameron and vote for the

renewal of Trident no matter what the Labour review decides? Lets see

what the review does decide and not pre-empt what that review is and

what comes out of that review. We should all indicate with that

debate, we encourage people to put across their Duke and I look forward

to that debate going on over the next while until we come up with a

position. That does not answer my question, you as a party have to

accept it is up to conscience which way we vote on nuclear weapons.

There is no way when you have your leader standing in a rally with

Nicola Sturgeon campaigning against Labour policy, should Labour decided

to be against nuclear weapons, you cannot argue individual members

should not vote for them. Let's see what comes out under review. This is

not about that, I am suggesting there is no way Labour can't demand

its own MPs vote in line with party policy no matter what the outcome of

your review. For some people that will be a conscience issue, it

always has been a conscience issue for some people and they may take

that decision but the party is in the process of having a review, it

will report and we will move forward on that basis. The Scottish

Secretary of the GMB said people like you are, and I quote,

professional poseurs and armchair generals playing their student

politics as they sip lactase in Hollywood and Islington. I don't

know what the last eight copies are alike in Grangemouth but you get the

point. -- lactase. I am not a big fan of those but Gary Smith is

entitled to defend members' positions. This is a serious debate

that is taking place, he is entitled to put across his views in that and

I welcome that but I think it is an unfortunate choice of language. Many

people involved in this debate have had decades of commitment to the

trade union movement and the greatest advocates of trade unionism

and that type of language is unhelpful. He would say, my language

may or may not be unhelpful, that is academic, you are threatening my

members' jobs. The jobs issue is critical in this debate and I said

so when I spoke at the Labour Party conference, the jobs issue is the

biggest issue we have to wrestle with because I am not in the

business of putting any one out at work, so we have to look at how we

maintain those skills and those jobs, highly skilled people in the

defence sector. You have no grounds to do that. Wait, how we keep them

in work and provide them with a future is a critical element. You

have no credible plan to do that. If we look at what happened in other

places, for example the US went naval bases closed there was a

diversification process that front on further employment and the ST UC

and others have advised a similar process. They would not be

advocating that type of process to put Gary Smith and the GMB members

to work, that is not the business we are in. On Europe, have you decided

which side you were on in the referendum? I am watching the debate

carefully. I've personally, since I came into politics have been

chronicled of the anti-democratic way the EU operates but at this

stage I have not made up my mind how to vote in the referendum, but I

would find it impossible to campaign alongside some of the characters who

are joining forces in this referendum, Nigel Farage and Boris

Johnson and people like that, I would find that impossible, and I

would be uncomfortable campaigning alongside David Cameron, so why do

not see myself taking an active role on either side of the campaign but I

will make my decision on how I vote nearer the time. But you must have

made up your mind. It is not as if nearer the time. But you must have

it is a sudden issue, we have been in the EU since 1973. We have, all

my life we have been in it but there are issues and in relation to what

Cameron has negotiated, some of which is appalling, but bigger

issues at stake about democracy, accountability and hope the EU

operates and I will take my time to make up my mind. We had Alan, sorry,

John Mills from Labour Leave on this programme saying he would organise a

Labour campaign to leave the EU, what if he asks you to join in? I

will listen to all sides in the debate but I do not think I will be

taking a front for centre role. I have more local issues to deal with,

the small matter of a Scottish election and that is concentrating

my mind and all my energies are being put into working hard in the

constituency where I am standing and that will be my focus.

Listening to that was Gary Smith, who is the Scottish organiser

You stand accused of unfortunate use of language. How would you recover

from that? This debate over Trident is an indulgent debate played by

people who were happy doing student politics. This position was hatched

in Islington and Holyrood and the whole Scottish political elite is in

direct confrontation with the organised working class. I would

rather see Labour politicians like Neil Findlay and Jeremy Corbyn

attacking Nicola Sturgeon and her government's record, thousands of

jobs being cut, services to the first Scots cut, unemployment

rising, no response to what is happening in oil and gas, no

opportunities for young people, these are the issues we should be

talking about rather than something they have no control over like

Trident. But I am not sure it is fair to call someone like Neil

Findlay a student politician. This is student politics, an indulgent

debate, these are the logical poseurs who rather than talk about

real issues and real concerns of working class communities are

happier on marches threatening to sack workers in Scotland, and the

workers who will go if Trident wasn't renewed or not just at the

low workload, it would be at BAE Systems. I had a member marching

when Rosyth was privatised by Dutch, Neil Findlay was on those marches

and I remember when John major tried to close it and now Labour

politicians, rather than challenging the nationalist record on jobs, are

marching to have these places closed because the workers on the Upper

Clyde will be redeployed to Baron Furnace and hundreds of them are

already there because they have big gaps in the work programme. This is

an infantile debate. There is something very odd going on

here because the readers wanted a left-wing Labour Party and now they

have got it they are accused of going on to student politicians. 1%

of the eligible trade union vote went to Jeremy Corbyn so this was

never an argument, it is not for me to comment on his leadership as an

entirety but this was never a working class movement, let's not

kid ourselves on. What we have now is in effect a middle-class elite or

that Holyrood and Islington going head-to-head with organised working

class because they are trying to head-to-head with organised working

throw our members out of jobs at the upper Clyde, precise and the lower

Clyde. If they do decide that the Labour Party to be against Trident

free new bull it seems possible even likely, is there anything you can do

about it? What is awful is we have the leader of the Labour Party

speaking against his own party policy. It is an inconvenient truth

for a meal and others that we have party policy. If they change the

Wallasey it will make no difference. What we have said through this whole

debate is Trident renewal is going ahead. It is happening, creating

jobs at the lower Clyde, we have hundreds of people already working

on the Spotlight side, it is good news for jobs on the Opera Clyde, it

will not make any change whatsoever and that is why Labour should be

concentrating on the issues of the day, John Swinney 's cuts budget.

Let me say this, Nicola Sturgeon says this will be able he can be

issued during the Scottish election while that is diversely politics and

I will be writing to Sturgeon tomorrow about workers from her own

constituency and down at Faslane and Coulport as well. If Labour were

down the coast as Jeremy Corbyn Monts, with that affect the union

support for the Labour Party? It would not make a difference in terms

of jobs which is the crucial issue for us. The union then of course

would take a decision on our relationship with the party but I

keep say this. You would not drop your readership of the Labour Party?

keep say this. You would not drop That would be an issue of debate.

Neal Finlay and others should be talking about the job crisis in

Scotland, the lack of opportunity for working people. You have heard

what he had to say about finding alternative jobs, what do you think

about that? They have not come alternative jobs, what do you think

with credible alternative employment and we have lost faith in demolition

and these politicians are now expecting us to trust them to find

alternative work? The only proposals that are an alternative to Trident

has come from Corbin saying we should build it without missiles and

Livingston saying let's invest the money instead in the arts. What are

they going to do? Get the ship rights to the waiters? Give them a

box of Koreans and a colouring in book? How are they going to feed

their families and keep a roof over their head? -- crayons. Obviously we

don't like to see people lose their jobs but weapons of mass disruption

is a bigger issue than that. It is not about whether the people who

make them more uninvolved with them lose their jobs but it is a much

bigger issue. You can have your principles but could also have

consequences and those against the Trident renewal programme either in

direct conflict with workers and working communities in Scotland.

Thank you, we will have to leave it there.

There was a time when the Liberal Democrats were big

The party has served in government at Westminster and Holyrood,

but more recently has suffered heavy losses at the hands

They used their spring conference in Edinburgh this weekend to attempt

to sell their message of fairness to the voters.

But with just a few months until the Scottish election,

will the public buy it, or are the Lib Dems still

Our reporter Andrew Black went to find out.

Politics, it's a brutal old game and that's a lesson the Lib Dems have

had to learn the lad -- hard way. Recently it seems the Scottish Lib

Dems haven't even fully reflect on public opinion. That hasn't always

been the case. After all, this was a party which used to be in power,

both in Holyrood and Westminster, it has now been reduced to one Scottish

MP and a handful of MSPs. Now the Lib Dems have done what every

political party does when it's on the ropes, launched a fightback. At

times signs of this fightback were always evident. That said, Lib Dem

leader, Willie Rennie, said his party, despite small numbers, has

helped the Scottish Government to account on key issues like policing.

That's the kind of record, he says, will stand the Lib Dem is in good

stead ahead of the Scottish election. We can be the best again

if we are bold, bright, liberal and green. If you want change, one thing

is to be better, if you want to get Scotland's fit for the future, if

you want Scotland to be the best again, that the Liberal Democrats.

That was a message which seemed to go down well with Lib Dem

supporters. Hard work to do. A lot of brothers and the a lot of teeth

in Willie Rennie, he is very, very popular. This is the first time the

Lib Dems have suffered since me but I think it is important to remember

that we can always come back. I I think it is important to remember

couldn't be anything else. I am liberal to my back on. So, how does

Willie Rennie reverses fortunes? One of his big ideas is to add a penny

to income tax, raising money to boost education. Holyrood is one

thing but Lib Dems in Scotland also have a role to play in aiding the

party revival across the UK. You deserve victory but you will not get

it by accident, only by fighting with passion, belief, discipline and

energy. Get out there, get on the doorsteps, rain, wind, maybe even

shine, victory is there to be one, Scotland meet you to win. So, can

the Scottish Liberal Democrats delivers some glitz to a brand once

more popular than it is now? All that, of course, is up to the

supporters. Willie Rennie joins me now

from our Edinburgh studio. Willie Rennie, we will talk about

the election any moment but I wanted to ask, the Lib Dems were critical

of the fiscal framework deal done this week, can you explain exactly

why? The real issue is that whilst there is a cash agreement for the

next five years we do not know what the arrangement is going to be after

that. The conditions might not be as favourable for Scotland at that

time. While she's also, in Nicola Sturgeon, has embedded the Treasury

model which she is very critical of fiscal part of the fiscal framework,

it is very difficult to get something out of a framework when it

has already been established in the framework that actually to have an

open blank sheet which we would have advocated. We would have preferred

to have the Treasury model out of the fiscal framework now rather than

having all the arguments again in five years' time. You are worried

she has sold the past as it were? Yes, I don't think it sets itself up

well for a debate in five years' time over this. It is good she

managed to get the cash agreement which was helpful for Scotland but

it is just this big argument in five years' time which I don't think

helps Scotland. You'd ideas for the election, pupil premium, you want to

have one in Scotland and it was a Lib Dem policy in England. Is there

any hard evidence it has made a blind bit of difference? It has. The

evidence has shown that the attainment gap has closed by five

centage points in just reuse. That is as a result of direct financial

support for extra tuition, on work support. The inspectors have shown

it's made a difference. Particularly in primary school. The evidence for

secondary is not as strong but for primary school it is strong. Can I

just read from a report from the National Audit Office in last year

it says the pupil premium has yet to have any identifiable effect and I

it says the pupil premium has yet to quote, since the attainment gap has

it says the pupil premium has yet to narrowed since 2011 it remains wide

and at this stage the significance of the improvements remains unclear.

He said it also had considerable potential to make a big impact.

Which is not the same thing is actually having had an effect. The

closure of the attainment gap is quite clear, others have identified

it has closed the attainment gap I providing direct support for

children who need extra help at school. Let me put you what the

dangers C. EU guv call last year found that less than half of

teachers. The pupil premium help disadvantaged children. A

considerable number thought it did help disadvantaged children is the

opposite side of that too so I think it is pretty clear to making a big

difference. Another point and you would have to concede that by some

measures, particularly on A-levels, the evidence is that the attainment

gap in England has actually increased over the past few years. I

except by wider measures it has closed slightly but by other

measures it has increased. I have already said the difference in

secondary is not the same of them primary. We have started this

programme in the last four years so we have yet to see the full benefit

of investing in primary school and in later years. It is at least

unbeatable? It is debatable but the evidence from a number of people has

shown that it has been a significant difference closing the attainment

gap in primary schools. That will feed through to the secondary

schools and make a big difference in later years. The problem is that if

it is debatable and not straightforward, the problem is you

want us all to pay more tax for it. This is part of what we want more

tax board. I would disagree with your description of the pupil

premium I think it is much more certain than that. If you want

people to pay more tax you must have witty uncontroversial evidence that

what they are to pay tax board will make a difference. It is providing

for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, you are say that will

cause a problem but I think investing in children when they need

it most is what we need to do to make a big difference to people in

Scotland. It is a massive cut to our education system, they have done it

to colleges already and have not been able to feed through to the

nursery education and now they are to slash budgets in schools and I

want to go in the opposite direction. Why do our taxes have to

go up? In the UK Government you did not put tax up to pay for it? You

had a much more difficult position in the UK in 2011 than you have in

Scotland now. We managed to find it in the south. There has been no

indication they are trying to find the money to invest in education and

therefore we will put our money where our mouth is. Why not find the

money somewhere else? Budgets and where our mouth is. Why not find the

incredibly tight, we believe it is cut to the core and we also believe

we should be reinvesting in children at this time and with a modest

increase of 1p on income tax we can have a big effect. Another thing

will be to end dressed in colleges, in nursery education. I do not

understand why you need to put tax in nursery education. I do not

up. You have conceded given the budget passed this year 17 slash 18

with the B time it would make a difference. Assuming you do it would

be 17/ 18. You could shuffle spending around, take money from

reserves, it is probably some flexibility by that time to transfer

some capital budgets to borrowing and to use the money to... For your

pupil premium. Why do you have to put people's taxes up? You made it

sound very easily that you can just shuffle a few things around and

magically create different call money but it does not work quite

that. The Conservatives are promoting massive cuts to the

Scottish budget and we want to do something about it. We have done

much more than when we were in government at Westminster. I want to

invest money and people agree with me.

The reserve being held at the moment is just ?9 million. ?500 million of

cuts are coming to our schools and it will impact on every year, that

is not think schools can put up with when we are falling down the

international league tables of educational performance. We used to

have them best educational system in the world and now we're just above

average. That is not nearly good enough and that is why I want to

make Abe the Wallasey offer. It is important and you cannot just

dismiss it as shuffling around to magic of money. I didn't dismiss it,

I suggested there might be other ways of winding the money. There's

also a macro economic reason for not putting taxes up, every economist

says we are heading for a slowdown, surely the last thing you want to do

is take money out of the economy. You want to get the right talents of

tax and spend and you ignore the economic impact of investing in

education. There are massive skills gaps, businesses are crying out for

skilled workers. I am not ignorant that, the SMB say the art investing

in education, just not what you have come up with. They are slashing

budgets to colleges, they have butchered the college sector in

recent years and I want to put that right. We need business is with

skilled people to create jobs to pay the taxes that will keep the economy

on track. If we ignore that side of the balance sheet we will be in even

worse economic conditions than now. I want to ask you about Alistair

Carmichael, would you be happy for him to be a candidate for the

Liberal Democrats in a future election? We are sometime or from

that decision. Alistair will make his own might up but in the meantime

he is getting on with representing people. But the Liberal Democrats

pose as being the honest people, cleaner, straightforward, what you

see is what you get, but you have already experienced a new terminal

collapse of voters because of tuition fees and the Alistair

Carmichael situation isn't helping. It is not good in to say it is up to

Alistair Carmichael, it is up to the leader of the party that wants to be

different from other parties. I have an election campaign to fight in a

few weeks, I will discuss Alistair's future with him after that. The

election is four years away. I am trying to get on and grow the number

of Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament, we need strong Liberal

Democrats to stand up on education and mental health, issues that evil

are crying out for a proper political debate on and it is my job

to put that case so Scotland can be the best again. We will have that

discussion later. Willie Rennie, thank you.

I almost said retired historian that he is about to publish a new book.

was an outspoken supporter of the Yes side

Now he says that the SNP hasn't addressed the economic weaknesses

of its case to become an independent nation,

and that Brexit shouldn't be the catalyst

Well, he's here with me in the studio to answer that.

You haven't changed your mind, have you? Not on the principle of

independence, to change my mind after that after all the

soul-searching in 2014 would lack credibility. But you did say if

there was another one, let's say Britain voted to leave Europe and

there was another referendum, you said you would abstain. The

intellectual case for another referendum at the moment does not

stand up. My concern in terms of somebody who voted for independence

a couple of years ago is that such a move would be counter-productive,

and it might result in the parking of this major issue for the future

of this country for a very long time in the future because there is no

evidence at the moment, there may be in opinion polls to come, but there

is no evidence at the moment that there is yet the clear breakthrough

for the Yes vote that I think is necessary for a rerun of September

2014. But if they did have another referendum, to abstain is hardly

helpful to the cause. Abstain means, the reason I said that is because

they are not convinced there should be such a thing. If it comes to the

point and things seem to be changing as we go down that road, clearly I

will have to rethink my position, but we're a long way from that now

because all the signs are, despite the current league that the out

campaign has in England, I think it is highly likely there will be no

Brexit. If there was, if we did leave the EU, one of your points is

that you think from your research for your book that the European,

joining the EU was one of the things that bound England and Scotland were

loosely, so could the UK outside the EU actually re-forged the UK? It

could inflame and stimulate some of those elements of the border which

are totally opposed even to devilish and, because the elements south of

the border who were so extreme, your skip X, they have little time for

Scottish devolution, far less independence. What side are you

taking in the Brexit debate? Personally I want to stay in because

I think isolation in this particular juncture in world or European

history is not a good idea. Like most people I have major criticisms

to make of the huge and giving your rocker says. -- burgeoning

bureaucracies. But you clearly do not think people in Scotland feel

strongly enough that if the UK vote to leave, that would change the

odds. I think the issue of Scottish independence is more fundamental.

But you don't think people will say they will vote for independence

because written votes to leave Europe. The future is not my period

so to say that is speculation. At the moment there is no evidence that

forwards it would produce a huge surge of commitment to independence.

There seems to have been little discussion about the weaknesses in

the Yes campaign, for example the issue of currency. There has been no

debate since the referendum. Two reasons why I would urge caution in

terms of what Nicola Sturgeon said, that almost automatically Brexit

would result in another referendum on Scottish independence. The first

is what we have discussed, the electoral dynamic for independence,

a clear-cut majority over a period of time does not yet exist. That

second think this what you have just brought up, the intellectual

problem. The intellectual defence of the end of Hendon 's position has

not yet sorted out. There has been no one tent made that I am aware of

to address these major issues you talked about like that aren't say,

like future Scottish economic development, especially since the

fiscal position in this country has deteriorated since December 2014.

I'll be back at the same time next week.