05/03/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

It's Sunday Morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

The Chancellor says that to embark on a spending spree

in Wednesday's Budget would be "reckless".

But will there be more money for social care and to ease

The UK terror threat is currently severe,

but where is that threat coming from?

We have the detailed picture from a vast new study of every

Islamist related terrorist offence committed over the last two decades.

What can we learn from these offences to thwart future attacks?

The government was defeated in the Lords on its

We'll ask the Leader of the House of Commons what he'll do if peers

And coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland.

The quiet Conservatives are finding their voice.

I'll be speaking to their Scottish Leader Ruth Davidson.

All that coming up in the next hour and a quarter.

Now, some of you might have read that intruders managed

to get into the BBC news studios this weekend.

Well three of them appear not to have been ejected yet,

so we might as well make use of them as our political panel.

Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

Philip Hammond will deliver his second financial

statement as Chancellor and the last Spring Budget

for a while at least - they are moving to the Autumn

There's been pressure on him to find more money

for the Health Service, social care, schools funding,

But this morning the Chancellor insisted that he will not be

using the proceeds of better than expected tax receipts to embark

What is being speculated on is whether we might not have borrowed

quite as much as we were forecast to borrow. You will see the numbers on

Wednesday. But if your bank increases your credit card limit, I

do not think you feel obliged to go out and spent every last penny of it

He is moving the budget to the autumn, he told us that in his

statement, so maybe on Wednesday it will be like a spring statement

rather than a full-blown budget. Tinkering pre-Brexit and in November

he will have a more clear idea of the impact of Brexit and I suspect

that will be the bigger event than this one. It looks as if there will

be a bit of money here and there, small amounts, not enough in my

view, for social care and so on, possibly a review of social care

policy. A familiar device which rarely get anywhere. I think he has

got a bit more space to do more if he wanted to do now because of the

politics. They are miles ahead in the polls, so he could do more, but

it is not in his character, he is cautious. So he keeps his powder dry

on most things, he does some things, but he keeps it dry until November.

But also, as Steve says, he will know just how strong the economy has

been this year by November and whether he needs to do some pump

priming or whether everything is fine. He said it is too early to

make those sorts of judgments now. What is striking is the amount of

concern there is an Number ten and in the Treasury about the tone of

this budget, so less about the actual figures and more about what

message this is sending out to the rest of the world. I think some

senior MPs are calling it a kind of treading water budget and Phil

Hammond has got quite a difficult act to perform because he is

instinctively rather cautious, or very cautious, and instinctively

slightly gloomy about Brexit. He wanted to remain. But he does not

want this budget to sounded downbeat and he will be mauled if he makes it

sound downbeat, so he has to inject a little bit of optimism and we may

see that in the infrastructure spending plans. He has got some room

to manoeuvre. The deficit by the financial year ending in April we

now know will not be as big as the OBR told us only three and a half

months ago that it would be. They added 12 billion on and they may

take most of that off again. He is under pressure from his own side to

do something on social care and business rates and I bet some Tory

backbenchers would not mind a little bit more money for the NHS as well.

He is on a huge pressure to do a whole lot on a whole load, not just

social care. There is also how on earth do we pay for so many old

people? There is the NHS, defence spending, everything. But his words

this morning, which is I am not going to spend potentially an extra

30 billion I might have by 2020 because of improved economic growth

was interesting. You need to hold something back because Brexit might

go back and he was a bit of a remain campaign person. If you think

Britain is going to curl up into a corner and hideaway licking its

wounds, you have got another think coming. That 30 billion he might

have extra in his pocket could be worth deploying on building up

Britain with huge tax cuts in case there is no deal, a war chest if you

like. He will have more than 27 billion. He may decide 27 billion in

the statement, the margin by which he tries to get the structural

deficit down, he will still have 27 billion. If the receipts are better

than they are forecast, some people are saying he will have a war chest

of 60 billion. That money, as Mr Osborne found out, can disappear. He

clearly is planning not to go on a spending spree this Wednesday. It is

interesting in the FTB and the day, David Laws who was chief Secretary

for five minutes, was also enthusiastic about the original

George Osborne austerity programme and he said, we have reached the

limits to what is socially possible with this and a consensus is

beginning to emerge that he will have to spend more money than he

plans to this Wednesday. This is not just from Labour MPs, but from a lot

of Conservative MPs as well. People will wonder when this austerity will

end because it seems to be going on for ever. We will have more on the

budget later in the programme. Now, the government was defeated

last week in the House of Lords. Peers amended the bill that

will allow Theresa May to trigger Brexit to guarantee the rights of EU

nationals currently in the UK. The government says it will remove

the amendment when the bill returns But today a report from

the Common's Brexit committee also calls for the Government to make

a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU

nationals living here. If the worst happened,

are we actually going to say to 3 million Europeans here,

who are nurses, doctors, serving us tea and coffee in restaurants,

giving lectures at Leeds University, picking and processing vegetables,

"Right, off you go"? No, of course we are not

going to say that. So, why not end the

uncertainty for them now? will help to create the climate

which will ensure everyone gets to say because that's

what all of us want. That is why we have unanimously

agreed this recommendation that the government should make unilateral

decision to say to EU citizens here, yes, you can stay, because we think

that is the right and fair thing to do.

And we're joined now from Buckinghamshire by the leader

of the House of Commons, David Lidington.

Welcome back to the programme. The House of Lords has amended the

Article 50 bill to allow the unilateral acceptance of EU

nationals' right to remain in the UK. Is it still the government was

my intention to remove that amendment in the comments? We have

always been clear that we think this bill is very straightforward, it

does nothing else except give the Prime Minister the authority that

the courts insist upon to start the Article 50 process of negotiating

with the other 27 EU countries. On the particular issue of EU citizens

here and British citizens overseas, the PM did suggest that the December

European summit last year that we do a pre-negotiation agreement on this.

That was not acceptable to all of the other 27 because they took the

view that you cannot have any kind of negotiation and to Article 50 has

been triggered. That is where we are. I hope with goodwill and

national self interest on all sides we can tackle this is right that the

start of those negotiations. But it is not just the Lords. We have now

got the cross-party Commons Brexit committee saying you should now make

the unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals in the

UK. Even Michael go, Peter Lilley, John Whittington, agree. So why are

you so stubborn on this issue? I think this is a complex issue that

goes beyond the rise of presidents, but about things like the rights of

access to health care, to pension ratings and benefits and so on...

But you could settle back. It is also, Andrew, because you have got

to look at it from the point of view of the British citizens, well over 1

million living elsewhere in Europe. If we make the unilateral gesture,

it might make us feel good for Britain and it would help in the

short term those EU citizens who are here, but you have got those British

citizens overseas who would then be potential bargaining chips in the

hands of any of the 27 other governments. We do not know who will

be in office during the negotiations and they may have completely

extraneous reasons to hold up the agreement on the rights of British

citizens. The sensible way to deal with this is 28 mature democracies

getting around the table starting the negotiations and to agree to

something that is fair to all sides and is reciprocal. What countries

might take on UK nationals living in the EU? What countries are you

frightened of? The one thing that I know from my own experience in the

past of being involved in European negotiations is that issues come up

that maybe have nothing to do with British nationals, but another issue

that matters a huge amount to a particular government, it may not be

a government yet in office, and they decide we can get something out of

this, so let's hold up the agreement on British citizens until the

British move in the direction we want on issue X. I hope it does not

come to that. I think the messages I have had from EU ambassadors in

London and from those it my former Europe colleague ministers is that

we want this to be a done deal as quickly as possible. That is the

British Government's very clear intention. We hope that we can get a

reciprocal deal agreed before the Article 50 process. That was not

possible. I understand that, you have said that already. But even if

there is no reciprocal deal being done, is it really credible that EU

nationals already here would lose their right to live and work and

face deportation? You know that is not credible, that will not happen.

We have already under our own system law whereby some people who have

been lawfully resident and working here for five years can apply for

permanent residency, but it is not just about residents. It is about

whether residency carries with it certain rights of access to health

care. I understand that, but have made this point. But the point is

the right to live and work here that worries them at the moment. The Home

Secretary has said there can be no change in their status without a

vote in parliament. Could you ever imagine the British Parliament

voting to remove their right to live and work here? I think the British

Parliament will want to be very fair to EU citizens, as Hilary Benn and

others rightly say they have been overwhelmingly been here working

hard and paying taxes and contributing to our society. They

were equally want to make sure there is a fair deal for our own citizens,

more than a million, elsewhere in Europe. You cannot disentangle the

issue of residence from those things that go with residents. Is the

Article 50 timetabled to be triggered before the end of this

month, is it threatened by these amendments in the Lords? I sincerely

hope not because the House of Lords is a perfectly respectable

constitutional role to look again at bills sent up by the House of

commons. But they also have understood traditionally that as an

unelected house they have to give primacy to the elected Commons at

the end of the day. In this case it is not just the elected Commons that

sent the bill to be amended, but the referendum that lies behind that. It

is not possible? We are confident we can get Article 50 triggered by the

end of the month. One of the other Lords amendments

will be to have a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal when it is done at

the end of the process, what is your view on that? What would you

understand by a meaningful vote? The Government has already said there is

going to be a meaningful vote at the end of the process. What do you mean

by a meaningful vote? The parliament will get the opportunity to vote on

the deal before it finishes the EU level process of going to

consideration by the European Parliament. Parliament will be given

a choice, as I understand, for either a vote for the deal you have

negotiated or we leave on WTO rules and crash out anyway, is that what

you mean by a meaningful choice? Parliament will get the choice to

vote on the deal, but I think you have put your finger on the problem

with trying to write something into the bill because any idea that the

PM's freedom to negotiate is limited, any idea that if the EU 27

were to play hardball, that somehow that means parliament would take

fright, reverse the referendum verdict and set aside the views of

the British people, that would almost guarantee that it would be

much more difficult to get the sort of ambitious mutually beneficial

deal for us and the EU 27. Your idea of a meaningful vote in parliament

is the choices either to vote to accept this deal or we leave anyway,

that is your idea of a meaningful vote. The Article 50 process is

straightforward. There is the position of both parties in the

recent Supreme Court case that the Article 50 process once triggered is

irrevocable. That is in the EU Treaty already but we are saying

very clearly that Parliament will get that right to debate and vote. I

think the problem with what some in the House of Lords are proposing, I

hope it is not a majority, is that the amendments they would seek to

insert would tie the Prime Minister's hands, limit and

negotiating freedom and put her in a more difficult position to negotiate

on behalf of this country than should be the case. One year ago you

said it could take six to eight years to agree a free-trade deal

with the EU. Now you think you can do it in two, what's changed your

mind? There is a very strong passionate supporter of Remain, as

you know. I hope very much we are able to conclude not just the terms

of the exit deal but the agreement that we are seeking on the long-term

trade relationship... I understand that, but I'm trying to work out,

what makes you think you can do it in two years when only a year ago

you said it would take up to wait? The referendum clearly makes a big

difference, and I think that there is an understanding amongst real the

other 27 governments now that it is in everybody's interests to sort

this shared challenge out of negotiating a new relationship

between the EU 27 and the UK because European countries, those in and

those who will be out of the EU, share the need to face up to massive

challenges like terrorism and technological change. All of that

was pretty obvious one year ago but we will see what happens. Thank you,

David Lidington. Now, the Sunday Politics has had

sight of a major new report The thousand-page study,

which researchers say is the most comprehensive ever produced,

analyses all 269 Islamist telated terrorist offences

committed between 1998-2015. Most planned attacks were,

thankfully, thwarted, but what can we learn

from those offences? For the police and the intelligence

agencies to fight terror, Researchers at the security think

tank The Henry Jackson Society gave us early access to their huge

new report which analyses every Islamism related attack

and prosecution in the UK since 1998, that's 269 cases

involving 253 perpetrators. With issues as sensitive

as counterterrorism and counter radicalisation, it is really

important to have an evidence base from which you draw

policy and policing, This isn't my opinion,

this the facts. This chart shows the number

of cases each year combined with a small number

of successful suicide attacks. Notice the peak in the middle

of the last decade around the time of the 7/7 bombings

in London in 2005. Offences tailed off,

before rising again from 2010, when a three-year period accounted

for a third of all the terrorism cases since the researchers

started counting. What we are seeing is a combination

of both more offending, in terms of the threat increasing,

we know that from the security services and police statements,

but also I believe we are getting more efficient in terms

of our policing and we are actually A third of people were found to have

facilitated terrorism, that's providing encouragement,

documents, money. About 18% of people

were aspirational terrorists, 12% of convictions were related

to travel, to training And 37% of people were convicted

of planning attacks, although the methods have

changed over time. Five or six years ago,

we saw lots of people planning or attempting pipe bombs and most

of the time they had Inspire magazine in their possession,

that's a magazine, an Al-Qaeda English-language online

magazine that had specific More recently we have seen

Islamic State encouraging people to engage in lower tech knife

beheading, stabbings attacks and I think that's why we have

seen that more recently. Shasta Khan plotted with her

husband to bomb the Jewish In 2012 she received

an eight-year prison sentence. She's one of an increasing

number of women convicted of an Islamism related offence

although it is still overwhelmingly a crime carried out

by men in their 20s. Despite fears of foreign terrorists,

a report says the vast Most have their home in London,

around 43% of them. 18% lived in the West Midlands,

particularly in Birmingham, and the north-west is another

hotspot with around 10% Richard Dart lived in Weymouth

and tried to attend a terrorist He was a convert to Islam, as were

60% of the people in this report. He was a convert to Islam, as were

16% of the people in this report. Like the majority of cases,

he had a family, network. What's particularly interesting

is how different each story is in many ways,

but then within those differences So your angry young men,

in the one sense inspired to travel, seek training and combat experience

abroad, and then the older, recruiter father-figure types,

the fundraising facilitator types. There are types within

this terrorism picture, but the range of backgrounds

and experiences is huge. And three quarters of those

convicted of Islamist terrorism were on the radar of the authorities

because they had a previous criminal record, they had

made their extremism public, or because MI5 had them

under surveillance. To discuss the findings of this

report are the former Security Minister Pauline Neville-Jones,

Talha Ahmad from the Muslim Council of Britain, and Adam Deen

from the anti-extremist group The report finds the most segregated

Muslim community is, the more likely it is to incubate Islamist

terrorists, what is the MCB doing to encourage more integrated

communities? Its track record on calling for reaching out to the

wider society and having a more integrated and cohesive society I

think is a pretty strong one, so one thing we are doing for example very

recently I've seen we had this visit my mosque initiative, the idea was

that mosques become open to inviting people of other faiths and their

neighbours to come so we were encouraged to see so many

participating. It is one step forward. Is it a good thing or a bad

thing that in a number of Muslim communities, the Muslim population

is over 60% of the community? I personally and the council would

prefer to have more mixed communities but one of the reason

they are heavily concentrated is not so much because they prefer to but

often because the socio- economic reality forces them to. But you

would like to see less segregation? Absolutely, we would prefer more

diverse communities around the country. What is your reaction to

that? Will need more diverse communities but one of the

challenges we have right now with certain organisations is this

pushback against the Government, with its attempts to help young

Muslims not go down this journey of extremism. One of those things is

the Prevent strategy and we often hear organisations like the MCB

attacking the strategy which is counter-productive. What do you say

to that? Do we support the Government have initiatives to

counteract terrorism, of course we do. Do you support the Prevent

strategy? We don't because it scapegoats an entire community. The

report shows that contrary to a lot of lone wolf theories and people

being radicalised in their bedrooms on the Internet that 80% of those

convicted had connections with the extremist groups. Indeed 25% willing

to Al-Muhajiroun. I think this report, which is a thorough piece of

work, charts a long period and it is probably true to say that in the

earlier stages these organisations were very important, of course

subsequently we have had direct recruiting by IS one to one over the

Internet so we have a mixed picture of how people are recruited but

there's no doubt these organisations are recruiting sergeants. You were

once a member of one of these organisations, are we doing enough

to thwart them? If we just focus on these organisations, we will fail.

We -- the question is are we doing enough to neutralise them? The

Government strategy is in the right place, but where we need to focus on

is the Muslim community or communities. The Muslim community

must realise that these violent extremists are fringe but they share

ideas, a broad spectrum of ideas that penetrate deeply within Muslim

communities and we need to tackle those ideas because that is where it

all begins. Are you in favour of banning groups like Al-Muhajiroun?

Yes, it was the right thing to do and I can tell you the community has

moved a long way, Al-Muhajiroun does not have support. Do you agree with

that? Yes, but it is very simplistic attacking Al-Muhajiroun. ISIS didn't

bring about extremism, extremism brought about ISIS, ISIS is just the

brand and if we don't deal with the ideological ideas we will have other

organisations popping up. The report suggests that almost a quarter of

Islamist the latest offences were committed by individuals previous

unknown to the security services. And this is on the rise, these

numbers. This would seem to make an already difficult task for our

intelligence services almost impossible. Two points. It is over

80% I think were known, but it shows the intelligence services and police

have got their eyes open. But the trend has been towards more not on

the radar. That has been because the nature of the recruitment has also

changed and you have much more ISIS inspired go out and do it yourself,

get a knife, do something simple, so we have fewer of the big

spectaculars that ISIS organised. Now you have got locally organised

people, two or three people get together, do something together,

very much harder actually to get forewarning of that. That is where

intelligence inside the community, the community coming to the police

say I'm worried about my friend, this is how you get ahead of that

kind of attack. Should people in the Muslim community who are worried

about individuals being radicalised, perhaps going down the terrorist

route, should they bring in the police? Absolutely and we have been

consistent on telling the community that wherever they suspect someone

has been involved in terrorism or any kind of criminal activity, they

should call the police and cooperate. As the so-called

caliphate collapses in the Middle East, how worried should we be about

fighters returning here? Extremely worried. They fall into

three categories. You have ones who are disillusioned about Islamic

State. You have ones who are disturbed, and then you have the

dangerous who have not disavowed their ideas and who will have great

reasons to perform attacks. What do we do? Anyone who comes back, there

should be evidence looked into if they committed any crimes. But all

those categories should all be be radicalised. You cannot leave them

alone. Will we be sure if we know when they come back? That is

difficult to say. They could come in and we might not know. There is a

watch list so you have got a better chance. And you can identify them?

This is where working with other countries is absolutely crucial and

our border controls need to be good as well. I am not saying and the

government is not saying that anyone would ever slip through, but it is

our ability to know when somebody is coming through and to stop them at

the border has improved. An important question. Given your

experience, how prepared are away for a Paris style attack in a

medium-size, provincial city? The government has exercised this one.

It started when I was security minister and it has been taken

seriously. The single biggest challenge that the police and the

Army says will be one of those mobile, roving attacks. You have to

take it seriously and the government does. All right, we will leave it

Now, Brexit may have swept austerity from the front pages,

but the deficit hasn't gone away and the government is still

Just this week Whitehall announced that government departments have

been told to find another ?3.5bn worth of savings by 2020.

Last November the Independent office for Budget Responsibility

said the budget deficit would be ?68 billion in the current

It would still be ?17 billion by 2021-22.

On Wednesday the Chancellor is expected to announce

that the 2016-17 deficit has come in much lower than the OBR forecast.

Even so, the government is still aiming for the lowest level

of public spending as a percentage of national income since 2003-4,

coupled with an increase in the tax burden to its highest

So spending cuts will continue with reductions in day-to-day

government spending accelerating, producing a real terms cut of over

But capital spending, investment on infrastructure

like roads, hospitals, housing, is projected to grow,

producing a 16 billion real terms increase by 2021-22.

The Chancellor's task on Wednesday is to keep these fiscal targets

while finding some more money for areas under serious

pressure such as the NHS, social care and business rates.

We're joined now by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Welcome back to the programme. In last March's budget the OBR

predicted just over 2% economic growth for this year. By the Autumn

Statement in the wake of the Brexit vote it downgraded back to 1.4%. It

is now expected to revise that back around to 2% as the Bank of England

has again. It is speculated on the future. It looks like we will get a

growth forecast for this year not very different from where it was a

year ago. What the bank did was upgrade its forecast for the next

year or so, but not change very much. It was thinking about three or

four years' time, which is what really matters. It looked like the

OBR made a mistake in downgrading the growth in the Autumn Statement

three months ago. It was more optimistic than nearly all the other

forecasters and the Bank of England. It was wrong, but not as wrong as

everybody else. We don't know, but if it significantly upgraded its

growth forecast for the next three or four years, I would be surprised.

It also added 12 billion to the deficit for the current financial

year in the Autumn Statement, compared with March. It looks like

that deficit will probably be cut again by about 12 billion compared

to the last OBR forecast. It is quite difficult to make economic

policy on the basis of changes of that skill every couple of months.

That is one of the problems about having these two economic event so

close together. My guess is the number will come out somewhere

between the budget and the Autumn number will come out somewhere

Statement numbers. There was a nice surprise for the Chancellor last

Statement numbers. There was a nice month which looked like tax revenues

were coming in a lot more strongly than he expected. But again the real

question is how much is this making a difference in the medium run? Is

this a one-off thing all good news for the next several years? If

growth and revenues are stronger, perhaps not as strong as the good

news last month, but if they are stronger than had been forecast in

the Autumn Statement, what does that mean for planned spending cuts? It

probably does not mean very much. Let's not forget the best possible

outcome of this budget will be that for the next couple of years things

look no worse than they did a year ago and in four years out they will

still look a bit worse, and in addition Philip Hammond did increase

his spending plans in November. However good the numbers look in a

couple of days' time, we will still be borrowing at least 20 billion

more by 2020 than we were forecasting a year ago. Still quite

constrained. George Osborne wanted to get us to budget surplus by 2019.

That has gone. Philip Hammond is quite happy with a big deficit and

is not interested in that. But what he is thinking to a large extent, as

you have made clear, there is a lot of uncertainty about the economic

reaction over the next three or four years. He says he wants some

headroom. If things go wrong, I do not want to announce more spending

cuts or more tax rises to keep the deficit down. I want to say things

have gone wrong for now and we will borrow. And I have got some money in

the kitty. He will not spend a lot of it now. I understand the

Chancellor is worried about the erosion of the tax base and it is

hard to put VAT up by more than 20%, millions have been taken out of

income tax, only 46% of people pay income tax, fuel duty is frozen for

ever, corporation tax has been cut, the growth in self-employed has

reduced revenues, is that a real concern? These are all worries for

him. We have as you said in the introduction to this, got a tax

burden which is rising very gradually, but it is rising to its

highest level since the mid-19 80s, but is not doing it through

straightforward increases to income tax. Lots of bits of pieces of

insurance premium tax is here and the apprenticeship levied there, and

that is higher personal allowance of income tax and a freeze fuel duty,

but at some point we will have to look at the tax system as a whole

and ask if we can carry on like this. We will have to start increase

fuel duties again, or look to those big but unpopular taxes to really

keep that money coming in to keep the challenges we will have over the

next 30 years. He is going to set up a commission on social care. He has

had quite a few commissions on social care. Thank you for being

with us. It's just gone 11.35,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. Good morning and welcome

to Sunday Politics Scotland. Finding their voice -

is the quiet Conservative I think conservatives are starting

to become more vocal and open, I think that is to do with the

detoxification of the Conservative brand.

I'll be speaking to the leader of the Scottish Conservatives,

Ruth Davidson, following their conference in Glasgow.

And is Scotland's education really bottom of the class?

Saying you're a Conservative out loud hasn't always been a popular

thing to do in Scotland, but are things changing?

The party's been winning new support from people who are opposed

to another independence referendum - and that was the key

message at this week's Scottish Conservative conference.

In a moment we'll be speaking to the party leader, Ruth Davidson,

but first, Andrew Black's been trying to find out if the phenomenon

known as the Shy Tory is becoming a thing of the past.

After years in the wilderness, the Scottish Conservative Party is now

having its most successful period in 60 years. More than doubled its

number of seats in the last Holyrood election, and thanks to a collapse

in the labour vote, it has now become the main opposition party.

However, being a Conservative voter has not always been fashionable,

especially in Scotland, which has given rise to the term Shy Tory, but

given the new-found success, does that mean its supporters are more

willing to talk about who the vote for? People were reluctant to say

that they were Tory, or that they would vote Conservative, but I

think, as you see, they are being more open about it. It is not a bad

thing, I have always admitted it to my friends and family. I am only 19

so I have only managed to vote Conservative ones, but they are

starting to become more vocal and open, I think that's maybe to do

with the detoxification of the Conservative brand after the dark

days, if you can call it that, of the New Labour Erath. Until recently

we were shy, retiring, heading behind-the-scenes supporters. Even

the word Tory, I shied from. And in Scotland it is very much seen as

elitist. I think that is why everyone is quite. But as you can

see from the conference there is a lot more younger people coming

through. Use of the end of the Shy Tory was welcomed by even some of

the party's strongest critics. Any politician who has the bottle to

publicly stop and put their position,... They had the courage to

come out and say, actually, these are my politics, these are the

issues we need to debate. But for the Conservative leadership, there

is more to it than that. The result of the EU referendum has caused

divisions in the party. And let us never stop making loudly and clearly

the positive, optimistic and passionate case for our precious

union of nations and of people. Then there is the Conservatives' ongoing

fight against the second independence referendum. Come the

party capitalise on recent election success? We will know after the

council elections in two months. The leader of the Scottish Conservatives

joins me now. Ruth Davidson, can I just ask you about something that

has come up this morning? There is a House of Commons cross-party

committee on Brexit, which produced a report saying the British

government should unilaterally safeguard the position of EU

nationals living in Britain. Is that something you would support? I have

said from the start I want to make sure people have the assurance they

need. That is why I was so pleased that the Prime Minister tried ahead

of Article 50 to get that agreement, not just for EU nationals here, but

for Brits living abroad as well. I thought it was a real shame that

other countries in the EU did not want to do that. But when the Prime

Minister laid out her 12 point plan, I was pleased she had it in there as

one of our key objectives and one she wanted to get done first. But do

you agree with the House of Commons cross-party committee that Britain

should unilaterally guarantee the position? I have not read the report

to which you are referring, so I am not sure what is in it. I am not in

the House of Commons. Sorry about that. I want to make sure we have

the insurance people need right here. I am pleased to have seen

David Davis has come out and said four people already living here, who

have been here for a number of years, the scaremongering that has

been going on that there may be some change to their circumstances, is

not true. And the query assurances that the Prime Minister has made,

wanting to get this done before Article 50, but it is also one of

the things she gets done first. Shortly after the referendum last

year you said you wanted guarantees for EU nationals living in Britain

and you wanted them, your phrase was, pretty quick. You still do not

have them. The Prime Minister started to get it -- try to get it

done ahead of Article 50. But the Lords are seeing that they want

Britain to just do it unilaterally. But I think a House of Commons

committee, I absolutely respect it, I have not read that report, I do

not sit in the House of Commons, but the Prime Minister has to look at

the 2.7 million Brits who live abroad and get assurances for them.

She wants to get it now, before the process starts. It is a real shame

that other countries said no to that. She also said it is at the top

of the 12 point plan to what she wants to get done first. It is a

shame that other countries said no to do this right now. It is

important that the UK Government has come out strongly to see those

people living here, do not listen to the scaremongering, it is not going

to change. The Scottish Government has submitted a paper of which the

British government is considering on Brexit and it proposes a mechanism

British government is considering on by which Scotland can stay in the

European free trade area, and therefore the European economic

area, and get access to the single market while remaining in the UK. Do

you think there is any merit on what they Scottish Government is

proposing? The Scottish Government paper had a number of

recommendations, and some of them made it into the 12 point plan. But

what about their preferred option? No in the Scottish Conservative

Party, we ordered an expert panel review looking at trade

specifically, and they came to a slightly different view on what they

thought was best because the most important issue for Scotland is

making sure we stay part of our biggest trading area. Again, I come

back to this point, if the Scottish Government's attempts at getting the

British government to agree and negotiate on its behalf the

particular deal they propose, do you think that is actually going to

happen or is the British government, in your view, or should they say no?

There are ongoing conversations. That paper had a number of

recommendations on it... But I am asking about the key one? The Welsh

government joined Labour... The review that came back last week for

us took a different course. Having read the work that has gone on, it

was led by a former ambassador, a chap that had run the fiscal

Association for the time, said there were more important things to look

after than what the Scottish Government has said. There is no

surprise to any of your viewers that Nicola Sturgeon and I have

disagreements about a number of things. Not least some of the things

she is asking the UK Government to consider. You have said before on

this programme that you accept the Scottish Government to hold another

independence referendum, but you do not think they should do it, and you

have also said the British government should not block the

Scottish Government for doing that. But I'm curious, do you think there

is a case for the British government to say you can have a referendum,

but not while we are negotiating Brexit, it might be in the interests

of everyone if you wait till we know what the Brexit deal is? When you

ask that question on a day when yet another poll shows that support for

the second independence referendum has fallen, today's poll says it is

only a quarter of Scots who would like to be dragged back to that

divisive situation. I think the question should be for Nicola

Sturgeon, are you going to stand question should be for Nicola

up... OK, we will talk to her on the occasion of her party conference. I

am asking you, you have a right to hold a referendum, but not while we

are negotiating a Brexit deal, do you think that is what the UK

Government should say? Myself and the Prime Minister have also agreed

and recognised and said the rate to self-determination, which is why in

2012 bid was that -- there was a clear mandate, and the process

happened. But the majority of the people in Scotland do not want this.

Again you're really not addressing... Nicola Sturgeon argues

she will be able to hold a referendum whenever she likes.

Should she? That is unfair to say I'm not answering the question.

There could be another referendum, but the question for the First

Minister is, should there be another referendum? At the moment, when she

has no clear mandate, she lost her majority, and the majority of Scots

do not want it she should not have another referendum. She argued she

should be able to have one whenever she likes. Should she? The power for

holding a referendum is held at she likes. Should she? The power for

Westminster, so in terms of whether a hypothetical referendum to happen,

she would still need the agreement for those powers to Passover, and if

she wants to change that she should have put that forward in this myth

report, to see that the Scottish Government should be in charge of

holding a future referendum. In terms of, am I going to try and help

the SNP do what they have been doing for the last nine months -- 12

months and make it seem another referendum is inevitable, and that

is not my job to do that, I am opposing this, I am on the side of

the majority of Scots. If she does try to hold one, she will take a

massive hit from it because Scots do not want dragged back there, they

have told us time and again they do not want dragged back. If she moves

against the public opinion, she will pay a heavy price. Can I assume you

would not be in favour of another referendum being held on the basis

of yes is pro-independence and no is to stay in the UK? My focus is to

stop rendering -- referendum to happen because we made a decision

three years angle, and we were told it would last a generation. I will

not start answering hypothetical questions about the wording of a

question I do not want asked is going to be. I am not playing that

game. One of the stipulations is that both

sides would respect the result. Do you Scottish Government and SNP have

breached that? I don't hear that respect of the result. I genuinely

do not. I think the first sign of just how the pursuit they were going

to do, just how cynical the pursuit was the second independence

referendum was going to be, we saw on the day after the Brexit vote.

Sturgeon stood up and the votes were still being counted and she said she

had already instructed civil servants in Scotland to draw up a

second Referendum Bill. She did want to thought of the public or listen

to them all come to Parliament, she had already instructed that before

people had even had their breakfasting on to work that day. It

is absolutely cynical and I think she'll pay heavy price for it.

There's a perception, not just amongst the SNP supporters of

independence, that the British Government has not been settled in

the way they've played this and that it could come to Scotland say, look,

you've got an interest in this and here is what we are proposing to

devolve to Scotland as part of the repatriation of power from Brussels.

I know you will say that is still up for grabs, but the perception is the

British Government is coming over and saying no. Do you think there

should be a bit more imaginative in making it much more difficult for

Nicola Sturgeon to call and the referendum by saying, look here is a

shed load of things we could be beat shed load of things we could be beat

-- repatriated and it's the interest the people of Scotland and let us

get your response to that? I think the way you've asked that question,

so the difference between the UK and the Scottish Government and the

narrow political dull that fronts and fuels everything the SNP do. And

that practical considerations are people working in Scotland and

trying to make a living here that the UK Government is trying to

protect. In the Prime Minister's speech, she said not a single power

being held in Government is going anywhere else. In the first

instance, power coming out Brussels go back to the member state and then

a mature happen about... We are out of time. Quick one word answers,

please. If there's another independence referendum, you have

said the SNP will take a hit. How much do you think this day side

would win by? The economic case... There is every opportunity. And you

will be the next First Minister? That is what we are working towards

in 2021. To be a proper, professional ten to Government, a

real choice for Scotland and one opposes businesses and people first

and not a narrow political ideology of independence first. What you

didn't say that was yes, I will be the First Minister! Well, come back

to the 2021. The hard work starts now, four and a half years out from

the election and we will be fits to fight for that election and we will

be a proper alternative Government for Scotland. Ruth Davidson, thank

you. Nicola Sturgeon said education

would be the defining mission But that mission came under pressure

at First Minister's Questions this week as opposition leader

after opposition leader had a pop at the First Minister

over Scotland's schools. She staked a reputational reforming

the schools of Scotland and what have we seen? Literacy standards

have slipped, numerous is standards also, curriculum for excellence is

failing and now we seen her Education Secretary stalling. She

keeps putting at the referendum on the front foot, but everyone else on

the back burner. Standardised assessments are being introduced in

teacher judgments and there is more data than ever before been published

so we can determine how well schools are doing and what more we need to

do to support those who work in the front line in our education system.

Education budgets are being cut to for years. Over 4000 teachers and a

thousand support staff. Pico 150,000 student places in our college. He

cut university budgets and slashed fronts for students as well. He now

faces the consequences of his own decisions. School league tables have

the information here. It is published by the Scottish

Government. Our own Government has published this information on

experimental information. National school league tables. She promised

that would never, ever happen. But that is exactly what is happening.

Those other politicians, but what are the issues facing education in

Scotland? Lindsay Paterson gave his views on some of the burning

questions. The problem in a sense is no one clearly knows, because the

problems are so immense. The fundamental thing that most changes

what looked -- what children are learning. All the evidence is that

things we've been trying to teach them for 15 years or more are

causing them to earn less than their counterparts in other countries. I

can understand why they've decided to postpone this bill, because being

a large number of responses to the consultations on it. On the other

hand, it is about the structures of education are not addressing the

fundamental point, which is the quality of the curriculum and an age

of the learning that the children are doing. The important reforms are

what is going to be done about the curriculum assessment and

attainment. All the evidence suggests the curriculum for

excellence is at the core of the problem and that is the reason why

we seen quite a drastic fall in the level of attainment of Scottish

children compared with a pastime compared with other countries now.

We know from lots of international research that the kind of curriculum

that curriculum for excellence is, that is an emphasis on skills rather

than knowledge, is ultimately quite bad and even disastrous for the

attainment of children. So, very quickly, it ought to be learned in

Scotland from these international studies. The whole point of this is

misconceived Amanita fundamentally revised what is being done. --

fundamentally revised what is being done. The attainment gap has never

been completely closed in any period since the beginning of the 20th

century. So the chance of Scotland, daily closing it is very small. But

what can be done is make progress toward that. You can provide more

opportunities, emphasise the things that would enable children are

living in poverty ought to circumstances to do better than they

have in the past. They can be some progress, but to set up targets of

completely ending the attainment gap is a realistic, unless of course,

there is to be a change in the quality of what is learned and the

criteria of what counts as having learnt it. In other words, dumbing

down rather making sure everyone learns the same kind of quality

things. Standardised assessments are the only way we can get object

things. Standardised assessments are neutral scientific evidence on what

is going on. They are not the owner of measuring progress, but without

them, any other way will be purely subjective and wouldn't get enough

hard evidence for policymakers. So standardised assessments of the way

in which education can achieve the same kind of objective, and

neutrality, that we would expect of a new scientific project. It has to

be that kind of evidence if we are not so just speculate on what

children are achieving rather than measuring it. League tables can

become controversial and if they are used purely for competitive

purposes, they are rather dangerous. But that's not the league tables as

such, but the ways in which they are used in public debate and in

newspapers, media and conversations amongst parents and so on. The

tables themselves or the publishing of information and the longer that

is complex and addresses all the different temperatures of education

and the set of context, there is no more reason to object to information

on schools than would be to object to informational universities. --

information on universities. Well, to disucss this,

earlier I spoke to James Dornan from the SNP, who's also convenor

of Holyrood's Education Committee, and Alex Cole-Hamilton

from the Lib Dems. Alex Cole-Hamilton, what you make of

the delay in the education bill? It is astonishing but not surprising.

We have local Government elections coming up and are a lot of questions

record on education. It isn't in the record on education. It isn't in the

-- Nicola Sturgeon said she wanted to be judged on, yet consistently,

this Government have failed the children in Scotland that they are

sliding down the international league tables as a result of the

scores that were announced earlier this year and it is a real millstone

around the neck of the SNP. So it's not surprising it has been delayed.

But were always demanded that politicians should think about

things and listen to what the people are saying to them, rather than just

coming up with snap headlines and John Swinney argues that it will be

perfectly sensible to say, I've got a response to this may change my

ideas on it, so I want a bit more time. That would have currency if

the SNP were listening. But if you look at the standardised assessments

they want to bring in, which is effectively national testing by any

other name, they are going people like the EIS who said it will crush

staff and pupils alike. Yes, if I believe the Education

Secretary was listening to professionals, then full marks to

him, but he is not. And I think national testing is a perfect

example of that. James Dornan, I assume you would not claim that the

record on education is anything other than pretty poor at the

moment. Do you think John Swinney is right to take a bit more time to

consider what to do about it? It is more important to get things right

than do things early. You take the time to make sure what is going to

come out in the bill is exactly what the Cabinet secretaries looking for

and that what the people of Scotland require. I heard Alec talking about

the fight the Tories are in favour of it doesn't necessarily mean it's

a bad thing, but he is part of a Government that spent... I was

wondering how long it will take you to mention that. It's more than to

sentences. That because I'm a gentleman thought I would

sentences. That because I'm a other point first. Of course the

Cabinet Secretary is right to take his time. But also, if we talk about

standardised assessments... Right, OK. They said in 2015 we needed a

robust system and had to learn about the learning in progress, so this is

the only way to do that. It has today standardised system right

across the whole of education. We have to know how children are doing.

Be that only works... What I have to know how children are doing.

still unclear about is that as you do tests and you produce the results

and publish them in whatever way, school by school or whatever, then

fine. But there was talk that these would not be raw results, but there

be mixed with teacher assessments, which makes the whole thing entirely

subjective. Which is to be? Which do you think it should be? The

important thing is that we get the information and we have the

information. It has to be that the information... We have to know how

different schools are doing. We have to have pupils are doing in terms of

where they are in the system. But my point is if you have an element of

teacher assessment in the results, then that is what you publish.

You're not getting that data you are talking about, because... Be them as

a separation between both of those things. You have to have the actual

data. What is wrong with that? If you publish date of that kind in any

format that will invariably lead to a league tables, as we saw under the

Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher. The result of

that and if you listen to teaching unions and teachers, you can see

pressure on staff within primary schools and hot housing kids so that

they can make sure their school shows up favourably on the league

tables. I can see why some people in the trade unions may be against it

because it puts pressure on them if they are not performing well. I

cannot see that argument applied to they are not performing well. I

either the interests of the children or their parents. Why is it not

reasonable for parents to want to know how their children's School

compares against other similar schools? It is reasonable for

appearance to want to know how their children are getting on in class,

but you would also want to know that your children are not being

artificially hot housed to one single day of exams, when the

curriculum for excellence... Your argument would make sense if we

said, standardised tests are not the way to do this, this is our version

of how we will compare schools with others so we know which are

performing well and which badly, but you do not have any alternative

suggestion. Take Edinburgh, for example, there has been standardised

assessment in Edinburgh for a while, but that is not published in league

tables that invariably what the government are planning will be to,

but it gives educational authorities and schools and understanding -- and

understanding of what is happening within schools. So you're saying

that standardised testing is OK, and league tables ROK as long as the

secret? Not at all. This is a national framework. I am talking

about the way individually benchmark the progress of the individual

children within schools. This is not a secret. It is used within schools

to see what need certain classes and individual children have, but let us

remember the pressure we are putting our kids under. A charity which

deals with the mental health primary school children published a survey

which said 60% of primary seven children worried about something.

Mango I would suggest that it is a disaster, the system has been geared

to fail the children when the exact opposite is the case. We cannot talk

about pigeonholing children while at the same time having curriculum for

excellence in there. It makes no sense. But doesn't your idea of

standardised testing, the Conservatives are calling for the --

a review of curriculum for excellence. Arguably that has

already been implemented by John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon because

the standardised testing singles against the grain of curriculum for

excellence. Perhaps correctly, given the problems with it, but it is not

consistent with its. The whole thing was supposed to be about individual

assessment, there was even talk in primary schools of children taking

part in their own assessment. That not fit at all with standardised

testing in primary schools. Curriculum for excellence is about

giving the broader base and that easier way of learning for the

child. But we still have to know that insurgents subjects that

children are reaching specific benchmarks we can target resources

where they are required. Curriculum for excellence has proven to be a

great success and trendy schools, it is starting to show it can be a

great success in primary schools -- a great success in secondary

schools. We have to leave it there. Now time to look back

at the week gone by and ahead to the next seven

days, in The Week Ahead. This week, I'm joined

by the journalist Kathleen Nutt, who writes for the National among

others, and the political David, this referendum thing,

something has got to give. Theresa May says no, it should not happen,

and Nicola Sturgeon increasingly stridently saying yes, it will. What

gives? In two weeks Article 50 will be triggered, and we have the SNP

conference. It is unlikely that Nicola Sturgeon will use the

conference to formally call for another referendum, but she might

conference to formally call for request the power to do so, but

things do feel like they are coming to a head. There was an element of

doublespeak that the Scottish Tory conference which I find interesting.

Speaker after speaker said we will oppose a referendum, we will do

everything possible to stop a referendum, but every journalist

knows behind the scenes they are effectively saying they have no

choice to agree -- back to agree to one if it is requested, but they

will attach caveats. The caveats being to do with timing? Yes, timing

is the crucial thing. Some people think it should be after Brexit. I

think after Theresa May's speech on Friday, the chances of a second

independence referendum are much stronger now. I think she came up to

Scotland and gave the SNP a hard time for raising the issue of

constitutional politics,... I think it was not politically astute of her

to raise the prospect of power is coming back in devolved areas, that

these powers over agriculture, environment and fisheries would stay

with Westminster. Rather than coming up to Holyrood. This would be

interpreted as a weakening Scotland at a time when she wants to

strengthen the union, which I think will backfire on her. Conservatives

like Ruth Davidson and her colleagues, they say, it is not fair

to say that, when I say, could you not be a bit more imaginative about

that? Would it not be possible for the British government to say, this

is a fantastic opportunity, here is what we're proposing, and challenge

the Scottish Nationalists to reject it. Do you not think they could be

more imaginative? On the powers? On they could talk about immigration.

Politicians could always be what imaginative. They are coming over as

just seeing no. They are hamstrung by promises made by leave

campaigners, when they got carried away saying, there will be all these

amazing powers. Now they are pulling back slightly. I find it slightly

difficult to believe that a second independence referendum will turn on

agricultural and fishery subsidies. And the weakening of devolution. It

is more nuanced than that. It is more in the remake of shared powers,

and about a change of middleman, really. Now we're leaving the

European Union, the subsidies and so one... In truth it is fiendishly

difficult and can be interpreted in any way you like, obviously, but I

think for most voters, they will not be altogether interested. On the

other side, just some obvious examples, there might be a case for

the British government saying we have to have control over

agriculture for example in times of emergency we need food security.

There are also arguments about common standards across the UK,

which is in the interest of Scottish Parliament cos you are exposed

mainly to England. I think the SNP and Scottish Government would agree

with that, they will work together on the shared powers, but at the

same time, we're talking about an independence referendum. That does

not necessarily need to happen if Theresa May actually agreed to your

proposals, which would allow Scottish to remain. Can Nicola

Sturgeon backdown on a referendum? Scottish to remain. Can Nicola

She has made it very difficult for her to backdown. If she does, she

will lose a tremendous amount of face, like Gordon Brown in 2007 with

the election. I think the pressure is on balance for calling another

one. Can she backdown? If Theresa May promises to keep Scotland in the

single market, in a special Brexit deal, but otherwise no.

All right, we have to leave it there.

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

The thing that's so clear is that it's 100% honest.