18/09/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland

Jeremy Corbyn insists he can re-unite the Labour Party if he wins

the leadership contest next week, but, as threats to deselect MPs

opposed to Mr Corbyn come to light, is Labour heading for meltdown?

She won the Ukip leadership on Friday, and by Saturday

was facing internecine spats and calls for her to ditch

So how can Diane James pull her party together,

and what's the point of Ukip post-Brexit?

Theresa May insists she doesn't need to call a fresh election,

so will she deliver every promise made in the 2015

We've updated our Manifesto Tracker to check how much of it

Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland: I'll be talking

referendums with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

And John Swinney tells us some government money may soon go direct

it all over for the Lib Dems in the capital?

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

panel in the business - Tim Shipman, Helen Lewis

and Isabel Oakeshott, who'll be tweeting throughout

the programme using the hashtag #BBCSP.

By this time next week we'll know whether Jeremy Corbyn

will remain Labour leader, or if his challenger, Owen Smith,

Whoever wins, they face a big challenge to reunite the party

after months of hostilities between Corbyn supporters

in the grassroots and the majority of Labour MPs.

Tomorrow, two television documentaries are scheduled to air -

on BBC One and Channel 4 - which report on the

Speaking to the BBC's deputy political editor John Pienaar

for Panorama, Len McClusky, general secretary of the Unite

union, said opponents of Mr Corbyn need to get back

Some of the MPs have behaved absolutely despicably

and disgracefully, and they've not shown any respect

So those vocal dissidents who do not show the respect

to the leader that you describe, when it comes to deselection

they would simply be asking for it, you say?

I think they would, I think anybody who behaves in a way

that is totally disrespectful, and outwith the culture

of the Labour Party, is basically asking to be

Meanwhile, Channel 4's Dispatches programme secretly filmed a meeting

of Momentum activists in London - that's the organisation set up

to support Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, where the former

chairman of the Brighton Labour Party set out his views

on opponents of Corbyn, including the local

And we've been joined by the Labour MP for Hove, Peter Kyle.

Are you nervous about your future? I have seen that clip for the first

time now. I made three promises when I was up for selection, that I would

be the hardest working candidate, bring politics back to the high

street and engage with the public in a way that they never had in the

constituency before, and beat the Tories, and I have done all three of

those things. I have been incredibly hard-working with my team to make

sure politics is driven deeper and wider into the local constituency

than it ever has been before. We are more inclusive than any point before

and more hard-working... I want to ask you another question... If they

want to get me out of that seat, they have to work hard to do so. Is

there an organised campaign to remove you? You have just seen the

chair of my local party talking in a secret meeting somewhere to have me

ousted, so clearly there is a movement locally. I have been a

member of the Labour Party my whole life, there are people who have

fought for other parties their whole lives who have joined in the last

few weeks and are trying to beat the Labour Party in a different way, by

getting rid of me. I am going to carry on doing my job. They are

trying to get rid of you, aren't they? They are trying to

get rid of the only Labour seat for a 200 mile stretch of coastline.

That is extraordinary, we are surrounded down there by Tories and

they are aiming fire at a Labour MP working harder than any other down

there, trying to solve problems of the rail, the health service,

hosting a debate last week about abuse in the family Court against

women, all of these core issues for the Labour Party and that is what

they are aiming fire act. It does not seem to make any difference of

Mr Sandall, who was the head of the constituency, who was once

suspended, he says he does not -- you do not represent them any more?

He said I did not support the doctors, I did, I took the line

given by Heidi Alexander at the time, which was not to go to the

particular picket line. I have held round tables with doctors, spoken in

the chamber about doctors. He said a list of different areas where I have

not supported the Labour socialist left line, every one of them he is

absolutely categorically wrong. On rail renationalisation, I have never

spoken against it. I said it cannot happen for ten years so in the

meantime I am making sure I can make people's journeys home from work

better than the journey to work, which is what people expect. Who

will have the support, you all the people who want to get wood of you?

I don't think about that for a second, my job is to represent the

people who elected me. There is a 34% increase in the Labour vote in

Hove because of the way that my team ran the campaign. But they know all

that and they still want rid of you. Clive Lewis, fellow Labour MP, said

to the BBC this morning it is democratic selection. There is

nothing democratic about what they are doing,

there is nothing reaching out about what they are doing. Jeremy is the

first person I have come across who uses an olive branch as a weapon to

beat people with. On the same day they hold out an olive branch, they

released a list of MPs who they say hate Jeremy. This is not the kind of

inclusive leadership I would expect. If you face a battle to hold your

seat, you don't expect any help from Jeremy Corbyn? He has come down to

Brighton and said he would not stand in the way of my deselection. I am

100% focused on delivering for the people he elected me and I

represent, that is what I am in politics for, so if they want to

defeat me they have to work harder than me for the constituency, just

like the Tories would have to do. You have made that point several

times. You talk about being one of the few Labour seats in a sea of

Conservative seats in what in McLeod used to call the deep South, he did

that for a reason, but isn't your Brighton and Hove Labour party a bit

of a basket case? There have been examples of abusive behaviour, in

ballot, the NEC suspended it in July, it is a bit of a mess. When I

go out campaigning, which is every weekend, I have a massive team

around me, I am part of an incredible movement in Brighton and

Hove, and the vast majority of people in the Labour Party in

Brighton and nationwide want to do the right thing, they care about

social values and delivering it. We just have to win the argument but we

have to be more electable and Jeremy is not showing the calibre of

leadership that the official opposition needs, the

Labour Party needs, and the country needs to look to if we are going to

make the leap from opposition into power. Thank you for being with us

this morning. Later in the programme we hope to be joined by James

Schneider of Momentum. Allen, how typical is this

situation? Are a number of Labour MPs now going to face deselection

challenges? I think lots of people in the PLP are worried, more of them

are women than men, I don't know if that is coincidence or speaks to

something broader, but the boundary changes give golden opportunity for

some rethinking, Jeremy Corbyn is talking about selection. The idea if

you have a boundary change, if you have 40%, your steak on the seat is

the same but anybody not in that situation has to play a game of

the same but anybody not in that musical chairs and that is seen as a

good chance to reconfigure the party. It is good this is coming out

into the open because we have heard for months from Jeremy Corbyn's team

that this is a terrible smear but it seems to be something that people

like Len McCluskey, very close to the Labour leadership, want to

happen. It has been denied, but we had Len McCluskey now saying he is

up for the changes, particularly for people who have been very rude about

Mr Corbyn, Clive Lewis talking it -- calling it democratic selection,

Momentum, as we have seen from the film, clearly organising to move in

on a number of MPs, it is going to happen? Yes, I think it is, the

phrase Clive Lewis used this morning is a natural churn, are turn of

phrase which suggest the label -- upheaval. People are saying that

Jeremy Corbyn will reach out to all of these people, ask what he has

done wrong and bring everybody back together. The people on the other

side think that is a chance to line up loyalty pledges. Meanwhile we

hear this morning in the newspapers that Corbyn and the people around

him had a meeting in a country house a month ago in which they are not

just planning to go after MPs but also the leadership of the Labour

Party itself in terms of the staffing, the Management, the

general secretary is for the high jump, we hear, and the guy they are

thinking of lining up for that is one of Mr Paloschi -- Len

McCluskey's friends at Unite, you cannot imagine they would put too

many barriers in his way. That appears to be what is going on

behind the scenes. At every single stage where the moderates say this

is the worst thing that could happen, the Corbynistas said, oh,

no, it isn't, and you find out something worse is going on. If Mr

Corbyn is re-elected comfortably, perhaps by even more of a majority

than he was last time, isn't it only natural that they should then work

for the MPs to reflect more the views of the new membership? One of

the interesting aspects of what is going on it it seems to be the new

MPs like Peter Kyle who we have just had on who were under so much threat

here, and the reason is because they have not got that hinterland with

their party association, they have not built up that long-term trust.

One of the things that is furious about this party leadership contest

is that normally once a leadership contest is over, it is a cue for a

period of stability and calm, it brings things to

ahead everybody settles down and falls into line. I think the

opposite will happen here. There is absolutely no sign that Jeremy

Corbyn's return, as we expect to happen, to the leadership will in

some ways take the steam out of this thing. They do have a plan, I think,

at the moment, to give the Parliamentary party some more power

over the selection of the Shadow Cabinet, and that could be a way of

trying to work together better, but I can't see it working. We will talk

more about this later. Let's move on to the Conservatives.

Theresa May insists her Government will be markedly different

from David Cameron's, but doesn't appear to want

an early general election to provide her with a new mandate.

So, does that mean she'll stick by everything in Conservatives'

We've been busy crawling through the promises

made by David Cameron, and updated our Manifesto Tracker

to check which policies are being pursued and which have been ditched.

It's been an eventful period since we launched

Britain has voted to leave the EU and a new Prime

Minister is in place, but the Conservative Government

under Theresa May will still be held to the promises it made ahead

of the 2015 general election in their manifesto, and a few other

big commitments made during the campaign.

And this is how we are keeping track of their progress.

We have identified 161 pledges and loaded them into

We grouped them into categories covering all the major areas

of Government policy, from the constitution

And we have given each of the promises a colour rating.

Red means little or no progress so far.

Amber means the Government has made some progress.

While green is for delivered pledges.

Let's start by looking at one here in foreign affairs and defence,

The promise to hold a referendum on our EU membership.

We have changed that to green, as the Government did deliver

in June, even if it didn't get the result it wanted.

Many of the promises made while David Cameron was leader

were based around what he hoped he could achieve in his

renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, particularly

The manifesto said that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits

and child benefits must live here and contribute

The deal offered to David Cameron by the rest of the EU was a much

weaker version of the pledge, which, like the rest

of the renegotiation, was rejected by the voters

So we have given this a red, although it is possible

the Government could deliver on it once we have left the EU.

The same goes for the promise that if a child of an EU migrant

is living abroad, they should receive no child benefit

David Cameron's renegotiation failed to secure this policy

in full and it would be up to Theresa May's Government if it

The vote to leave has had big implications for manifesto

commitments in other areas, like here in the economy.

One of the central promises made by David Cameron

and George Osborne was this one, to eliminate the deficit and start

But after the Brexit vote, Theresa May confirmed that

while the Government aims to achieve a budget surplus,

it has dropped the target of doing so by the end

Now, those are some areas where the Government has made little

Well, it fought a major battle in Parliament to tighten the rules

This promise, which said strike action can only be called

when at least half the eligible workforce have voted, is now law,

As does this one, meaning that strikes affecting essential public

services like health, education, fire and transport,

will need the backing of at least 40% of those eligible to vote.

We have marked the majority of policies as amber,

meaning at least some progress is being made.

Here in welfare, for example, we have got the Government's

flagship reform, universal credit, which has been rolled out

for some job-seekers, although the timetable for full

delivery has been pushed back repeatedly and is currently

And another here, under the environment.

That's the promise to create a so-called bluebelt of protected

conservation zones in the water around the UK's coast.

That has been given amber, as the programme still

Now let's see how the Government is doing overall.

Out of 161 election commitments, the number of commitments we have

The number marked amber falls to 90, and the number of green or delivered

We will be returning to the Manifesto Tracker again,

but in the meantime you can find all of the data on the politics

And you can see the full details of our Manifesto Tracker

on the BBC website - that's bbc.co.uk/news.

I'm joined by the Conservative Cabinet minister, the leader

of the House of Commons, David Lidington.

Your biggest manifesto fail to date is immigration, how are you ever

going to get net migration below 100,000? A number of different

measures and clearly the nature of the renegotiation now as we leave

the European Union will have a very important bearing on that, but one

thing the Prime Minister set out very clearly is that we remain

committed to getting the reduction in net migration that she has talked

about consistently, but there's no quick fixes. People come to this

country through a number of different routes, son to marry

citizens, some for work reasons, some for asylum claims, some of the

study, and we have got to look at each of those and work out how we

can make sure the numbers are managed and controlled in the way

people would expect. But you have been in power for six years and you

have been in control of non-EU migration for six years, and it is

still running at 190,000 net per year, even on the part of migration

you are on complete control, you are nowhere near the 100,000 target.

Why? Because in part our economy has been very sexual and other

universities have been successful in attracting people to come here. We

need to make sure that people, when they come here legitimately, to do a

university course or take out a work permit opportunity for a limited

period of time, do actually return home after they have completed that

time they are permitted here, that we, as we have done, cut the number

of bonus colleges... 190,000 net per year of non-EU, and you didn't say

we will cut it to 100,000 unless we run the economy well. There were no

ifs, no buts, was David Cameron's exact phrase. Can we get some

honesty here, this whole project is Mission impossible. The meteor

manifesto pledge, you would have to cut EU migration to below 50000 and

non-EU migration to below 50,000. It's not going to happen, is it? We

are committed to the ambitions, the object of the Prime Minister has set

out. I think the public accepts that people who come here bona fides as

tourists, workers to fill a skills gap we have got, that's fine but

they expect people then to go back after their term here. And they also

expect, which we are doing, to make sure school leavers have the

opportunity to be trained so they can take the jobs that are

available. They expect you to meet the promise you have made twice. He

made it in the 2010 manifesto and again in the 2015 manifesto. I think

many people watching this will say, why do you repeat a pledge you know

you cannot keep? I don't agree it cannot be kept, but what I have said

to you is that this is a complex challenge. There are no quick fixes

to this, this is something Theresa May has repeatedly said. But just as

we have introduced restrictions on access to benefits that we have

introduced a requirement for people coming to marry a British citizen to

speak English and reach a certain standard before they come here, we

need to look at that level of detail at each of the tracks that people

used to come here. Net migration is running at three times your target.

In the manifesto you said you would insist EU migrants would need to

live and work here for four years before they could claim welfare

benefits. The EU said no. Now we are leaving the EU, is that the minimum

we will insist on? Clearly anything to do with EU citizens already here

and prospective inward migration by EU citizens or British citizens to

other EU countries is part of the negotiation. Is that still a pledge?

That specific pledge was part of the last manifesto, it was actually

delivered in a number of different ways through the restrictions that

we did place upon, and are still in force, on EU migrants coming here

seeking work and getting access to out of work benefits. The big issue

at the renegotiation David Cameron lead was access to tax credits and

in work benefits. He came to a deal on that which limited it, but that

failed after the referendum. It wasn't that you don't get anything

unless you have been here for four years, your manifesto also promised

the required EU job seekers to leave if they haven't found a job within

six months. Will that be fulfilled pledge in this Parliament? That is

already a policy we have taken. How many EU citizens have you removed? I

think we can agree to close the norm. You have not kept that pledge,

EU job seekers are here, aren't they? That is one very important

part of the exit negotiation is now under way, but it wouldn't be

sensible to give a running commentary on the detail of that.

Post Brexit, it would be reasonable to think EU migrants still coming

here would be regarded more favourable than non-EU migrants? We

were part of the club for 40 years. What they get more favourable

treatment if they were EU citizens? That is speculation about what comes

out of the negotiation, and we will go into that with a range of

objectives, both in terms of control over migration by EU citizens, which

I think is what British people expected when they voted as they

did, but also with the objective of getting the best possible outcome

for British business. On tax and spend, one of the key promises in

the manifesto was to move to fiscal surplus from fiscal deficit by the

end of the decade, do you still intend to keep that? The PM said she

remains committed, but not by the end of the parliament. When you look

at the fact there is uncertainty in the world economy, clearly some

uncertainty in the aftermath of the referendum outcome, that was a

sensible, pragmatic decision to take. So do we have an idea of when

the target of surplus will be? The Chancellor will give his Autumn

Statement in the next few weeks, and will set out the Government's plan.

The pledge to start a move towards surplus in the 2018/19 manifesto, it

said we are set to move into surplus of them, that is now off the cards?

We are committed to it, but not with that timing. When you set out to a

destination, if the traffic conditions say you should take

different route, that's what you do. But we don't know if Brexit will be

as dire as people like you predicted, so until we do know that,

why ditch the planned to head the surplus that you promised the

British people? Because there is uncertainty in the world economy. It

seems sensible to make that adjustment, but the destination

still remains. You have no evidence anything has changed. You work on

the basis of evidence remains but Philip will be working on these

details in the Autumn Statement shortly. Will Theresa May's ferment

continued to implement the 2015 manifesto? Is she committed to it in

its entirety as much as David Cameron? Yes, she was very clear out

her first cabinet meeting that she wanted every departmental minister

to go back to the manifesto on which we were elected with a majority, and

to ensure that we were delivering on those objectives. I think your

tracker is a good idea. Just not when it comes to the surplus or

immigration? One point of the tracker is that it enables you and

the public to see where we are making progress, as we are for

example on getting more poorer people out of tax and into work and

so on, and where we have taken the decision to alter the course of it.

I'm glad you think the tracker is a good idea. Come back in the future

and we will talk more about it. She says Ukip is the official

opposition in waiting. But how can Ukip's new leader,

Diane James, stop the infighting and factionalism that's threatened

to destroy the party's And what's the point

of Ukip now that the UK Diane James joins me

live in just a moment. First, Ellie Price reports

from Ukip's party conference in Bournemouth, where the new leader

moved swiftly to put her stamp It is an absolute pleasure

to announce, with 8451 votes, the leader of the UK

Independence Party, Diane James! There you have it,

the biggest non-surprise in politics in years -

Diane James is the She's been the frontrunner in this

election campaign all summer. Of course, the challenge now

is going to be convincing this lot What I will be doing is stepping

into his leadership shoes, but I will be doing everything

to achieve the political success that he's handing over to me

and to you. But, as the new leader, Diane James

knows she has big shoes to fill. Nigel's a great almost wartime

leader, he said that during his speech, and I think

Diane's a different kind of leader. There's talk of war,

there's talk of peace times, but unfortunately there aren't peace

times within Ukip at the moment. I think this pretty much

settles the issue. Diane is strong on these

sorts of issues. In many ways, Nigel

was slightly weak, actually. There's really only about four

or five people who cause trouble in Ukip, and I'm pretty sure that's

the end of the story. But just before a live interview

with Ukip's Steven Woolfe, I was literally caught in the middle

of what you could describe You've seen and heard what was said

in the media, and so... The reason for Neil

Hamilton's anger? Diane James had rewritten the next

day's conference schedule It certainly seems like a quixotic

decision from somebody who an hour or two ago was talking

about the need for party unity. He was replaced by his rival

in Welsh Ukip. You said to me the other day

there would be a bloodbath, Is this the beginning

of the bloodbath? I think it's the beginning of Diane

putting her foot down, showing that she is the leader,

and that she wants the rest of the conference to go the way

that she wants it to go. We're fine, just

wondering who you are? That's Douglas Carswell,

by the way, the party's only MP. The now ex-leader thinks

he knows exactly who he is, and was using his new-found

freedom to explain. During the referendum campaign,

he's really done all he can But the new leader was there,

symbolically, to greet him. Damaging comments from

Mr Farage this morning, Lots of people in politics say

all sorts of things. Diane James was also

more than happy to share This conference ends

on a conciliatory note, and there are signs this

party is already moving And we've been joined by

the new leader of Ukip, Diane James. Good morning, thank you. What is the

point of Ukip? We are the only party 100% committed to Brexit, we have a

Tory Government that is still split, a Labour Party that has no idea

which direction it is going in. You have what is left of the Liberal

Democrats relying on their voice in Europe, their single voice in

Europe, to get their message across, and we are the one party that will

stand up for the over 17 million people that wanted to leave the

European Union, simple. Except that you are dysfunctional? No, we are

embarking on a brand-new era, as I said on a conference. I know you

will pick up on the changes I made to the programme but the new leader

has the prerogative to do that. I understand that, and leaders should

lead, but Paul Nuttall, the outgoing deputy leader, has spoken of a

cancer at the heart of the party that has led to leading light using

Ukip as a football. You have huge problems in Wales, its huge problems

with the NEC, an issue with Nathan Gill, with many favoured candidates

who ended up not standing, senior colleagues falling out, membership

and funding declining, which bit of that is not dysfunctional? Thank you

for reminding me of the issues I have got to tackle over the next few

weeks. I made it clear in my events around the country that I would have

a 100 day plan, focusing on precisely the sort of issues you

have outlined. I don't agree with one of them, by any means, but in

100 days I hope to be able to show that we are turning a corner and

that we are embarking on a new era. You claim you will be the real

opposition to Government but you only have one semidetached MP in

Westminster, it is delusional? No, it is not, look where we are at this

point, potentially four by-elections, we said we would not

stand in one out of respect to Jo Cox but three others, look at those

by-elections in the context of the dysfunctional position Labour is in,

and we are ripe to take those seats. Do you accept your only MP, Douglas

Carswell, is pretty semidetached at best? I would not call him

semidetached, I heard the speech he gave at the conference, the

endorsement he gave me and the endorsement he has given

subsequently, and I see him as being a member of the Ukip team going

forward. You have asked to move a Private members Bill to invoke

article 50, has he agreed? He stated he would do his level best. That is

not the same as agreeing. He made the point that there is another

option, to repeal the European communities act and instigate a

debate on that. We have an individual prepared to launch a two

pronged attack in the House of Commons and forced Theresa May into

doing something. A two pronged one-man attack. He told me on Friday

that Ukip should be, quote, a free-market Libertarian party. If

that your vision? If I can remind you, from my speech, my vision is

probably slightly different words, it is global, positive, outward

looking, enterprise building and making this country great again

outside of the EU control. But if it free-market and libertarian? That is

his vision, I am trying to work out the vision -- if the vision of your

only MP is the same as the new leader? OK, I will say it is the

same. So you are free-market and libertarianism? Yes, we are about

enterprise Britain... Given the leadership campaign was a policy

free zone, what will be the most distinctive policies Ukip will stand

for under Diane James? Certainly the issue of migration and immigration,

certainly the issue of defence, giving us back the ability to defend

this country... These are existing policies? No, these need a major

refresh out of EU control. The aspect of Homeland Security, the

aspect we have not got a functioning Border Force, we have not got a

functioning passport control system, we have even got a Home Secretary

continuing the project via aspect of we have even got a Home Secretary

a beaver charge for people going into Europe or coming to the UK.

Absolutely bizarre. I am just trying to find out what the policies will

be. The major one for me, given my background, the state that the NHS

is in, and if we can show a very clear vision and stand up to what

Jeremy Hunt is doing in terms of decimating the NHS, I will be

delighted. You will agree that is not a policy but an attitude...

It is a policy in terms of the NHS. We don't know about the policy

because you refused to debate with other candidates during the

leadership campaign and campaigned on a no policy platform, white? I

launched my own series of national events, nationwide, and I gave

members and activists, and, in fact, the press, the media, anybody who

wanted to come along, there was not a bar in terms of membership only,

to come along and interact with me for two hours. That gave

individuals, all of the members in the audience, a solid two hours to

scrutinise what I had to say. That was a much higher quality programme

that anything hustings would have given. But why not debate with your

rivals? Because there was no need, we were not fighting a general

election, we were fighting, if you wish to use the phrase, to elect the

new leader of Ukip, and I chose to go direct to the members, to

interact with them directly and give them quality time with me and

respond to all of their questions. Many think Ukip's best chance is to

win over disaffected working-class Labour voters in the north, so how

does the epitome of the Home Counties bourgeoisie do that? You

tell me! It is not my job. I have never heard such convoluted

language! Can you simplify that so we know what you are talking about?

There have been a number of leaders your party could have chosen, Paul

Nuttall, Steven Woolfe, who would have had a clear, more distinct

appeal to the north. Paul Michael chose not to stand. You need to ask

him his reason. I'm just asking how you will appeal to the North. Steven

Woolfe, a superb colleague of mine, regretfully there were issues in

terms of getting his information in in time. The point I have made

throughout my programme of events is that I want to have two chiefs of

staff, people who will ably assist me in developing our programme, our

policies, our strategy is to appeal both to the north and also the

policies, our strategy is to appeal south. What will you do about Wales,

where Ukip seems to be involved in civil war? I will ask Neil Hamilton

to focus on Welsh Assembly, on winning the elections in Wales, and

I will ask Nathan to continue doing a superb job he does in terms of

representing Wales in the European Union and Parliament, and in the

voting in Strasbourg. So you will have two Kings? No, Nathan has my

complete and utter support, he has had a huge legacy in terms of his

membership, a huge wealth of knowledge in terms of the issues

facing Wales if Mrs May does not action about to leave the European

Union. He has got my full support. Neil, I am asking you, step up to

the plate, but focus on Wales and the assembly. One of your party's

main funders was an errant banks, in the process of turning leave. EU

into a momentum of the right, to mirror the Jeremy Corbyn movement on

the left, do you have a problem with that? I have just been elected head

of a political party. If he wishes to support a political movement,

that is his decision. Other than Vladimir Putin, who is your main

political hero? Certainly not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I did not

ask who was not, who is? I cannot think of anybody apart from Margaret

Thatcher and Winston Churchill. think of anybody apart from Margaret

Putin, Churchill and Thatcher. We hope to see you again. Thank you.

It's just gone 11.40, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

The man charged with improving education in Scotland tells this

programme money may soon be sent directly to schools,

And I'll be asking the leader of the fifth largest party

in the Scottish Parliament if the Liberal Democrats can avoid

But first, it's two years to the day since the Independence referendum,

billed at the time by senior members of the SNP as a

Well, two years really is a long time in politics.

Since 2014 we've seen the return of a majority Conservative

government and Britain voting to leave the European Union.

Yes campaigners were out yesterday campaigning for another

No campaigners were also out, arguing against another referendum.

Well, I'm joined now by David Mundell,

He made a speech yesterday arguing another referendum is that last

Despite what you are arguing, Alex Salmond says the British Government

will mess up Brexit, and there will be another referendum within two

years. I think it is quite clear now that the SNP position is

independence at any cost. The pretence we had two years ago that

somehow independence would be economically beneficial, but it

would lead to prosperity in Scotland, has been abandoned. It is

clear that Mr Salmond and others just want independence. That is

quite clearly what they are obsessed about, regardless of the fact that

they signed the Edinburgh agreement to say that the result of the

referendum would be respected, despite saying immediately before

the referendum that it would be a once in a generation event. People

in Scotland have voted decisively to remain in the United Kingdom. We

need to respect that and get on with the other challenges we face, such

as the day-to-day business of taking forward the Scottish Government's

programme. We should be focusing on that. In terms of Brexit, we did to

come together, Scottish Government and UK Government, to get the best

possible deal for Scotland. In an article today in one of the

newspapers, Ruth Davidson says she agrees with Jim Sellers that the SNP

Government has no mandate for another referendum. But both Ruth

Davidson herself and indeed you yourself have said previously on

this programme that you think the British Government should not stop a

second referendum if the SNP Government wants to have one. Is

that still your position? Our position is quite clear. Of course

there could be another referendum. That is the sort of process issue

that the SNP want to get involved in. The argument is whether there

should be another referendum. And Ruth Davidson and I are absolutely

clear, as is Theresa May, as is the majority of people in Scotland, that

there should not be another referendum. There is an opinion poll

today that shows two thirds of people, even a significant number of

people who support independence, saying that they do not want to go

back to the division and divisiveness that the independence

referendum brought. We made the decision, it was supposed to be a

once in a generation decision, let's stick by that and move on. And let's

come together so that working together, the UK Government and

Scottish Government, can get the best possible deal for Scotland and

the UK out of these wrecks it negotiations. Later in this

programme we have an interview with the leader of the Scottish Liberal

Democrats, Willie Rennie, in that interview he says it would be

disgraceful if members of Parliament were not given a vote on the final

deal on Brexit. Is he right? I've made it clear that Parliament both

in Scotland and the UK will have a significant say over the

negotiations for leaving the EU. The parliament will not be a negotiating

the deal. It will be for the Government to negotiate the deal.

But Parliament will have a say, and will inevitably be involved in the

legislative necessities which will follow from the exit from the EU. It

is wrong to suggest that argument will not be significantly involved

in scrutinising and having a say in the EU negotiations and the final

agreement. Will the British Parliament be able to vote yea or

nay on the final deal for leaving the European Union? Parliament will

be part of the process in terms of scrutinising that, holding the

be part of the process in terms of Government to account. But this was

a decision by the British public over the whole of the United Kingdom

that the United Kingdom should leave the EU, and that is the UK

Government's mandate for negotiating agreement. That agreement will

inevitably involve legal processes, probably legislation, to enable the

agreements to be implemented, and of course Parliament will have the

decisive say over that legislation. So Parliament will be able to say

yea or nay to the final deal on the So Parliament will be able to say

European Union common leaving, is that what you are saying? I think

I've explained twice that Parliament will be involved in the process. It

is already begun, both in Scotland and Westminster, where there have

been significant debates already. There have been questions,

scrutiny... You said this before, but... That process will continue

throughout. At the end of the process, what I've just said, is

that clearly legislation will inevitably flow from bidding

agreement into place, and Parliament will have the final say on that. But

Parliament will not have the final say on whether Britain leaves the

EU. The British people have made that decision, and the Government

will implement it. So you don't foresee the Government at some point

coming back to Parliament and saying, we have had negotiations

with the European Union, here is what the deal is, you can accept or

reject it? I expect that the Government will keep both

parliaments fully involved in the process as the negotiations

continue, and allow them to scrutinise the deal. But it will be

for the Government to determine the deal. The British people have

mandated them to do that through voting to leave the EU in our

referendum. Many people would argue that what you are saying, which is

that in effect there will be no chance for Parliament to reject a

final deal on leaving the European Union, is quite a fundamental

undermining of British Parliamentary democracy. We have had a referendum,

adding that referendum people across the UK voted to leave the EU. The

Government respects that verdict and will implement it. Just as, if two

years ago today, Scotland has voted to leave the United Kingdom. That

decision would have been implemented. And some of the very

people who are at the forefront of alleged outrage at Parliamentary

scrutiny of this deal would have been making absolute hay and call

them if they thought the UK Parliament could override the

referendum result. The referendum results are mandates to the

Government to carry out the wishes of the people, and that is what we

are doing. Can I ask, this idea that Parliament will not have a final

chance to reject a Brexit deal, whatever that deal should turn out,

is this something you have discussed in Cabinet? Is this the position of

the British Cabinet? The Government and to Reza may have made it quite

clear that Parliament -- Government and to Reza may have made it clear

that there will not be a second referendum to override the decision

to leave the youth. Parliament and indeed the Scottish Parliament will

be fully involved in scrutinising this process as negotiations

proceed, although there will not be a running commentary on

negotiations, and there will not be negotiation by Parliament, but

Parliament will be fully involved. As I explained in my previous

answers, Parliament will of course have to pass legislation in relation

to the likely process of except from the EU, and Parliament will have the

definitive say in relation to those arrangements. But what it won't be

able to do, it will not be able to override the will of the British

people to leave the EU. We will have to live there. David Mundell, thank

you for joining us. The Scottish Government has

made its defining mission for this Parliamentary term the closing

of the attainment gap It wants to turn around a schools

system which is failing pupils But critics fear this is just

a twin-pronged attack on councils, which are fiercely protective

of their pivotal role A little earlier I spoke to

the Eduction Secretary John Swinney. Before we talk about education, we

should mention the second anniversary of the independence

referendum. Alex Salmond has been saying another one in two years,

Nicola Sturgeon wrote a piece this morning she did not mention a time

frame. What is your view? I think the debate about independence is

still a dominant part of Scottish politics, because the events of the

last few months have brought all the issues of the democratic choice of

the people of Scotland into focus with the decision of the UK to leave

the European Union, against the wishes of the people of Scotland. So

I think the debate is very much alive. The First Minister has set

out clearly that our priority is to negotiate the protection of

Scotland's relationship with the EU, but that is not able to be achieved,

then the option of an independence referendum is highly likely as a

consequence. Within two years, Alex Salmond says. Do you agree? I think

it is dependent very much on the negotiations take a lease with the

UK Government and the European Union on the UK's exit from the European

Union. Those timescales are difficult to nail down at this

stage, but undoubtedly the approach the First Minister has taken off

saying that our priority is to protect our EU membership for

Scotland, even that that is what people voted for in the referendum

back in June, we have to prioritise that, and that is exactly what the

Government has been doing. It is why Mike Russell was in Europe during

the week taking four of those negotiations, and the outcome of

those negotiations will create the conditions as to whether there is

another independence referendum and when that might take place. In your

new job running education, you announced last week in review of the

way that schools are run, and you said you wanted to devolve

decision-making to schools. I am curious to get some examples of the

kind of thing where you want evolution to schools. What I have

started is a discussion with the whole of the public in Scotland, a

very wide and open consultation, based on the principle that I

believe it is in the best interests of the educational journey of young

people in Scotland if decisions about their education are taken as

close to those young people as possible, within schools. I want to

open up a debate about what are the right issues, the right questions,

the right decisions that should be taken close to young people in

schools, which decisions should be taken at another level. I understand

that, I am curious as to the sort of examples you may people together of

things that could be devolved to schools. It might be choices about

the commissioning of particular services to come into schools. To

give you an example, I visited a school the other week with a have a

particular challenge for primary children who have a vocabulary gap

when the primary children come to school in the first place, and the

school has taken decisions within the reports as available to them to

have a speech therapist available, not a referral, but in the classroom

all the time, helping young people to overcome challenges they face in

vocabulary. That is one practical example of where a headteacher is

able to take decisions about resources that are available to them

to take a very specific different course to ones that might be taken

in other schools. That is what the children in that school require the

most. It is decisions of that nature, decisions that will make a

difference to the educational achievement of young people. There

is some concern among local authorities that they may lose

power. Is it your intention that decisions which are present made by

local authorities should no longer be made by them? There may be some

decisions taken by local authorities that would be taken by schools

instead. For example, if further financial flexibility is devolved to

individual schools and they are able to take decisions about the way

resources are used within schools, then conceivably some of these

decisions would have been taken by local authorities in the past. That

would mean money going directly to schools and bypassing local

authorities. That is what we will consult about as part of the

governance review, it is an exercise that will be undertaken in March

next year. It is entirely conceivable that is what would

happen, because it would give schools the ability to take

decisions that relate directly to the educational opportunities for

young people in Scotland. But I have also made it clear that I want local

authorities to retain democratic control over education services

within Scotland, but that I want to encourage a much greater degree of

cooperation between local authorities in how the use their

services to add value to the educational experience of young

people. What would your reply Peter local authorities who would say, if

money is going to go directly from central Government to schools and

bypass local authorities as you have just said is quite conceivable under

what you're suggesting, they would say, that does erode, the democratic

accountability of schools to local authorities.

There has to be democratic accountability in all aspects of our

public services, and part of the consultation is exploring exactly

how we can take that forward to ensure that we have that

relationship of accountability. But fundamentally the question that the

consultation is asking is how can we best structure Scottish education in

a way that ensures the key educational relationship between

teachers and pupils is enhanced and supported by the intervention of

other bodies and institutions? That is not just about local authorities,

that is about education in Scotland, the inspectorate, the involvement of

government, the involvement of a whole range of other players to make

sure we get the right balance to support and develop education within

Scotland. You have ruled out selective schools and grammar

schools in your review. But would it be possible for some schools to be

organised outside local authority control, for example by trusts

formed off parents and teachers? It is not part of my proposition or

make plans I have set out this week. What I am asking is how do we take

forward the best structuring of Scottish education within a system

of local democratic accountability, but by empowering schools to take

more decisions about the opportunities and challenges that

face young people in the education system? It does not form part of my

plans that such an approach would be taken because I believe that every

community in the country, young people should be entitled to go into

it a school and receive an education that will be delivered in an

atmosphere of excellence within that atmosphere of excellence within that

-- within an atmosphere of equity, where we can challenge the

attainment gap and close it, and where we can support young people to

achieve their potential, no matter where they enter the education

system in Scotland. The new regional education board, you have referred

to them already, will they have any formal role in the way schools are

run, or are they for exchanging ideas? The issue I am raising there

is about the quality and strength of the support service that can be

provided, principally on educational issues, to enhance educational

opportunities in individual schools. So what I want to encourage, and

this is largely a responds to the OECD report, to strengthen the

middle of Scottish education, to encourage local authorities to work

together, to strengthen the support services in place to develop

educational potential within Scottish schools, and make sure

young people are beneficiaries as a consequence. So the proposals at a

collaboration between local authorities. They are not an extra

level of authority, they are collaboration between authorities to

make sure support services to education are strengthened as a

consequence. Your main task and the task Nicola Sturgeon has set herself

is to reduce the so-called attainment gap. She wants to be

judge on that. This might sound like a really daft question, but what is

it we are measuring here? Because attainment gap could mean the

difference between the lowest performing pupils and the best

performing in each individual school, or the difference across

Scotland, or it could mean the number of students from lower income

backgrounds which end up going on to university. What is your definition

of the attainment gap? Firstly, there is nothing wrong with there

being a number of different measures of the attainment gap within

Scotland, because on almost all the measures you mentioned, they are all

legitimate measures to be measures you mentioned, they are all

considered. Essentially what we have to demonstrate its progress on a

number of fronts because the attainment gap could be measured as

the vocabulary gap of children who enter primary one. That could be one

major of the attainment gap, another major could be the proportion of

young people from deprived backgrounds going to higher

education compared to young people from more comfortable backgrounds.

So there is a variety of different measures. Presumably you will

publish benchmarks you want to attain so that we can judge whether

you have a paying them. We cannot do what Nicola Sturgeon wants to judge

her on this, unless we know what we are judging. That is precisely

correct, which is why the National improvement framework has been set

out and why we are gathering the information to inform the National

improvement framework and will publish some of this material later

this year which will show, essentially, one starting point for

that assessment, and then we will be able to look at comparative data

over the next few years to see how much progress has been made, then we

will be able to be judged on that. The clear point I would make is that

there are a number of specific measures of the attainment gap, and

that is not good enough to close one of them but not the others, we have

to close all elements of the attainment gap, which is why the

national improvement framework has been established, to gather the data

together, to publish it and have an open conversation about our

performance in tackling that, and to put in place the resources and

mechanisms to make sure we are successful.

Rate, I am now strapped into a seat so I cannot wonder about aimlessly!

In the space of five years they went from coalition government to having

In Holyrood, where once too they helped run the country,

they're now the fifth party behind the Greens.

So when the Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron claimed yesterday

that the party is now "stronger and more relevant than ever",

you'd be forgiven for thinking that all the pressure may have driven him

A little earlier I spoke to the Scottish Liberal Democrat's

Even the most optimistic Liberal Democrat standing in the sunshine

could not claim things were going well for the party at the moment.

How was this conference going to change things round? Well, 20,000

new members, games from the SNP in the Scottish elections, vibrancy

following the Brexit thought that we are the party that stands up for the

UK and the European Union together means that we're in the best we have

been for some time. So I am very optimistic and especially because we

are in the sunshine in Brighton. But you say that Europe is going to be

your big issue, that is the main thing you're going to focus on? That

is the big aspect that has divided the country. That, combined with

Nicola Sturgeon's clear determined effort to seek independence in the

middle of all this turmoil. I think what we should be doing is setting

forward a very clear message that Scotland is best placed in the

United Kingdom and also in the European Union, and Liberal

Democrats are unique in standing for that with a progressive platform, we

are united in that support. So the combination of all those issues

means we are rejecting the dismal prospect of the division that is

proposed by the SNP and the Tories on the constitution. You say there

is a divide between you and the SNP in Europe. The SNP Government here

is arguing for staying in the single market. You presumably would agree

with that? Of course we would agree that we should be in the single

market, but not for one minute do I believe Nicola Sturgeon is doing

this because she is pro-European, she is doing this because she wants

independence, that is what has driven her household -- driven her

whole elliptical life. I reject it. I do not believe her pronouncements

on the European Union because it is for her, all about independence.

Yes, but what you're seeing now is there is nothing to differentiate

the SNP on the issue of Europe itself, it is just that you do not

agree with independence. Yes, but what I would not trust is an SNP

leader who is driven by the desire to break up Britain rather than

having the best possible relationship with the European

Union. I want somebody who can aspire to have the best possible

solution, which is to be in the United Kingdom and the European

Union, and that is what Liberal Democrats are uniquely fighting for.

In the elections in May, we set forward a very progressive upbeat

platform on investing in mental health services, having the best

education system in the world, guaranteeing our civil liberties and

protecting the environment. We wanted that to be the focus over

this next political period. But as a result of the Tory chaos and the SNP

desire to return to the independence referendum... We want to get back on

with the day job of making Scotland one of the best countries in the

world again. What are you arguing for, another referendum, for a

parliamentary vote on the final deal, or what? We are very clear,

what we want is the British people to have a say on whatever deal the

Conservative government negotiate with the European Union. That means

a referendum? Yes. What we did not know on the 23rd of June was exactly

what Brexit would mean. I think when the detail becomes clear it would be

only right for the British people to have a say on what the final deal

is. It is the only democratic thing we should be doing, which is why we

would support another referendum, not to rerun the referendum on the

23rd of June, but to have a final say on the deal that is agreed.

There have been some suggestions that not only should there not be

another referendum, but that Parliament will not be able to vote

on a final deal, at least it won't be able to veto a final deal on

would your reaction be to that idea? would your reaction be to that idea?

-- what would your reaction be? There is a lot of discussion going

-- what would your reaction be? on, we will need to see what comes.

But what I think would be a disgrace would be if the Conservative

Government was to deny Parliament and the British people are final say

on the deal. They did not know the deal on the 23rd of June. When we do

know the deal, that is when we should have a say on future. We

should be arguing that we should be remaining in the European Union

because it is the best thing for Scotland and Britain. Thank you very

much indeed, Willie Rennie. Tend to look back to the events of

the past week, and see what's Here with me now are the journalist

David Torrance and the former Shadow Scottish Secretary Margaret

Curran. First of all, what David Mandel and

Willie Rennie were saying about this process of exactly how Brexit is

going to happen is becoming more mysterious. I think it is just

another illustration of just how little preparation those that were

arguing for a Brexit gave to the whole process and shows that a

referendum obviously does not -- some things doesn't solve a problem.

It is hard to argue that Parliament can have no say in how the final

policy evolves, whatever the final deal is. You need to have some

parliamentary scrutiny. You cannot overtime the national decision of a

referendum, but there must be some role to get into the detail. You

cannot like a Prime Minister and Boris Johnson make deals... That is

going to be a big argument has it all unravels. I think a lot of MPs

would probably accept that they will not be able to reverse the decision

of the referendum, but I suspect a lot of them think they will be able

to say yes or no to whatever the deal is? Yes, but obviously that

would come much further down the line, at 2019, assuming it is

triggered. But this is being disputed, if it will be triggered in

January or February. The European act in 1992 the way -- 1972, needs

to be repealed, and that cannot be done in parliament. I am not sure

how they will get round that. I am not sure it is straightforward.

Isn't the way round it in technical parliamentary terms the Vote Leave

the European Union is a simple repeal, and ideal on a new trade

relationship is actually a different piece of legislation? Referendum is

at advisory constitution is, and that cannot repeal legislation.

Bashley at advisory constitution only. Presumably there is a lot to

the place if you just come out, there is a lot of laws that have to

be addressed and presumably put on the agenda. I do not think David

Mandel was suggesting Parliament would not have a vote on that, but

the suggestion that there was no definitive vote on the final deal.

It will be interesting to see our Parliament works around that. There

is not a majority in both houses in London and Scotland for Brexit and

this could reflect a degree of nervousness about putting that to a

vote. Second anniversary of the independence referendum. And we're

still talking to each other! It is interesting some of the newspaper,

we have today about the independence referendum and back to independence

being the end of everything else we do, no place for any other

discussion. And I'm not sure. I don't think that will go down

terribly well with people. We cannot spend all their time talking about

Rexach, talking about another independence referendum on the

recent much work to be done in Scotland. And I think the kind of

momentum and energy that the Yes campaign understandably mobilised,

and you have to acknowledge that, I think that will dissipate over a

period of time. I think people are anxious for a real change. You were

watching John Swinney forensically, and you thought he was being... I

must admit I did not pick it up and I was talking to him, but you

thought he was being rather more cautious than he appeared to be on

the referendum. He repeated something which Nicola Sturgeon and

other Nationalists have suggested, that they don't see Article 50 as a

decision on another independence referendum. As I think I heard John

Swinney say, they would have to wait and see the final deal that emerges,

and that suggests that they will not make a decision about another

independence referendum until 2019, not 2018 as Alex Salmond and others

on the usual manoeuvres have suggested. So I think they are

playing the long game on this, and abetting that has emerged, all the

mood music, points to another independence referendum later rather

than sooner. Which you can understand from their point of view,

to some extent, because if you look at the back, it was the second

referendum that actually killed a lot of the momentum for

independence. So to lose a second one would be very difficult for the

independence movement. So they have to be very careful and calculated.

But I do think there is more mental moving. Lament in what direction? --

momentum in what direction? I think the captured desire for real change

and my side of the argument did not reach out to that. They did want

change, they wanted a different country. Politics became less about

what you're going to achieve and more the kind of people you are. You

think there is momentum for having another referendum? I think people

who voted Yes, a lot of people want that referendum, they want that

change. Reducing to be suggesting there was momentum to having another

one. Let me try to be clear. I think those that voted Yes in the

referendum are very keen to have another one so that they can create

that change. If you are trying to manage that in a longer-term

basis... And in the background, David Torrence, the opinion polls,

the suggestion earlier in the year was 60%. I think that has gone out

the window. It solves have said it is an unrealisable goal, it is much

too high a Pressel. They will be happy with opinion polls showing

51-52 I'll be back at the

same time next week.