:00:13. > :00:17.Tonight in Newsnight Scotland, could you be prosecuted for making
:00:17. > :00:26.the sign of the Cross, or singing Rule Britannia? The government gets
:00:26. > :00:31.itself into a right bother trying to define itself. How many separate
:00:31. > :00:34.police forces does Scotland need? Good evening. The Government is
:00:34. > :00:41.rushing anti-sectarian measures through Parliament in order to get
:00:41. > :00:46.it onto the statute book before next season. You think that -- you
:00:46. > :00:53.would think that politicians would know what it was about. But MSPs
:00:53. > :00:59.are more than a touch confused, as our political Correspondent reports.
:00:59. > :01:05.At times, the Justice Minister looked a touch frustrated on string
:01:05. > :01:11.MSPs questions. Roseanna Cunningham has been given a tough job of
:01:11. > :01:21.eradicating sectarianism. He -- she is rushing north through policies -
:01:21. > :01:24.
:01:24. > :01:32.- parliament. She was asked some devilish questions. We have the
:01:32. > :01:36.various acts. There is a sufficiency of powers available for
:01:36. > :01:43.the enforcement of prosecution of the kinds of conduct that you have
:01:43. > :01:52.reservations about. I do not know how much longer in Scotland we can
:01:52. > :01:56.continue to review and discussed and not take any action. People are
:01:56. > :02:02.criticised. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. You are
:02:02. > :02:08.not tackling the issue. You have acknowledged that this is a problem
:02:08. > :02:12.that this is a problem that has gone on for some time. All of the
:02:12. > :02:14.written submissions express concern about the speed. Surely it is worth
:02:14. > :02:18.another month or two to get it right could buy but it would not
:02:18. > :02:22.just be another month or two. would be halfway through the next
:02:22. > :02:27.football season before we are in any position to put any of this
:02:27. > :02:32.into operation. I know as a politician, and I think you know as
:02:32. > :02:40.a politician, that if the new season picked up where the last
:02:40. > :02:43.season left off, and we were left with the same sort of scenes being
:02:43. > :02:49.repeated, politicians would be in front of microphones saying what
:02:49. > :02:54.have we not acted? You will be familiar with the songs Flower of
:02:54. > :03:01.Scotland and the British national anthem. Could you see the singing
:03:01. > :03:09.of any of these songs be an offence under the Act? The play but answer
:03:09. > :03:14.to that is no, not at all. But we are not going to define what
:03:14. > :03:19.songs... Because it is a matter of the facts and circumstances of the
:03:19. > :03:25.case whether it is offensive or not. I have seen hundreds of Celtic fans
:03:25. > :03:31.in a manner that I can only describe as aggressive, making
:03:31. > :03:39.signs of the cross, gesticulating across an open area took Rangers
:03:39. > :03:43.fans. A sign of the Cross is not, in itself, offensive. But I suppose
:03:43. > :03:48.in certain -- circumstances such as Celtic and Rangers fans beating
:03:48. > :03:53.each other on a crowd, it could be construed as offensive. The Bill
:03:53. > :04:03.will finish its passage through Parliament next week. Lawyers are
:04:03. > :04:06.
:04:06. > :04:11.warning that the minister is acting We did ask for an interview with
:04:12. > :04:20.Roseanna Cunningham, but she was unavailable. I can speak to
:04:20. > :04:29.Labour's Jane Kelly, and the SNP Minister and former police officer.
:04:29. > :04:37.This could be offensive. I think that trivialises what is a very
:04:37. > :04:42.important issue. The anthems are not in themselves a pensive.
:04:42. > :04:46.Unacceptable behaviour is offensive. But they could include singing Rule
:04:46. > :04:52.Britannia are all making the sign of the cross. It is up to the
:04:52. > :04:57.police officers to act on the information. We have heard from the
:04:57. > :05:02.Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, and collectively,
:05:02. > :05:09.they represent 99 % of police officers. They did noises as
:05:09. > :05:12.filling a gap that exists. It is fair enough making the sign of the
:05:12. > :05:17.cross because policemen don't mind? That trivialises what isn't
:05:17. > :05:22.important issue. What is unacceptable is a continuation of
:05:22. > :05:27.last season. That cannot be allowed to happen, and that is why we have
:05:27. > :05:31.these two proposals before us. is your problem with this? It is
:05:31. > :05:36.disappointing that the minister did not come to the studio to light up
:05:36. > :05:42.that such a confusing performance in front of the committee. The SNP
:05:42. > :05:49.should be creating consensus to get this through Parliament, and the
:05:49. > :05:56.minister's performance was poor. She was badly briefed. Let's get to
:05:56. > :06:00.the hub of the issue. They have created a law which is unspecific.
:06:00. > :06:07.You can see in certain circumstances where at the Old Firm
:06:07. > :06:14.match, people making the signs of the cross would be a way of
:06:14. > :06:17.antagonising Rangers supporters. It is not unreasonable to arrest them?
:06:17. > :06:21.You do what want a situation where it civilised people who make the
:06:21. > :06:24.sign of the cross or singing the national anthem should be
:06:24. > :06:29.prosecuted. The past have -- the problem here is that this
:06:29. > :06:33.legislation has been rushed through Parliament, and when you rush
:06:33. > :06:43.legislation through, the definitions are lax. The
:06:43. > :06:49.consideration of the Bill is not relevant. The detail is not good
:06:49. > :06:57.for the police or the people. understand why the draft of the
:06:57. > :07:06.thing in -- why it was drafted in this way. But the point is that in
:07:06. > :07:12.some odd way, it asks what is a criminal offence, and what I should
:07:12. > :07:19.be offended by? That is not the case. With some race crime and high
:07:19. > :07:26.crime, the law is enforced by police officers exercising their
:07:26. > :07:36.judgment. Criminal intent is to play a part. So seeing Flower of
:07:36. > :07:36.
:07:36. > :07:43.Scotland and the British metal and foreign is trivialising it. -- the
:07:43. > :07:50.British national anthem. If we are not going to define what the
:07:50. > :07:53.definitions are, then under of your act as it is written, seeing the
:07:53. > :07:57.British national anthem would be a criminal offence. I do not accept
:07:57. > :08:03.that would be the case. Everything depends on the circumstances. We
:08:03. > :08:07.have been called on to undertake that legislation. The Association
:08:07. > :08:12.of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Scottish Police Federation
:08:12. > :08:16.dealing with the officers. They welcome the legislation as filling
:08:16. > :08:24.existing gaps. Are you saying that this is nonsense, or are you saying
:08:24. > :08:34.what? Are you saying this is nonsense? You can understand why
:08:34. > :08:35.
:08:35. > :08:42.they acted in this way? I am saying that Labour will stand shoulder to
:08:42. > :08:45.shoulder on the SNP on legislation to tackle this. We have been saying
:08:46. > :08:55.to the ministers for weeks that we need to provide appropriate
:08:55. > :09:00.clarification and definition of a sectarian offence. The way they
:09:00. > :09:07.have drafted this was for legal reasons to avoid giving lists of
:09:07. > :09:13.things you define as sectarian. That is the attention by that. --
:09:13. > :09:16.intention behind that. Why are you calling for definitions of what is
:09:16. > :09:21.a sectarian offence? Because you need appropriate definitions within
:09:21. > :09:25.the legislation in order that the public, the prosecutors and the
:09:25. > :09:31.police can take that forward. We have been asking the SNP to do this
:09:31. > :09:35.for the -- for weeks, and they have not been able to. There are
:09:35. > :09:41.libertarian objections to this. I can see why they have just -- after
:09:41. > :09:46.this. You could be guilty of something on the way to a football
:09:46. > :09:49.match. But then they want to get hold of fans travelling without
:09:49. > :09:54.tickets. It turns out that on your weight to a football match, you do
:09:54. > :09:59.not have any intention of attending the football match. The problem
:09:59. > :10:09.with that is that that can mean any one but the police could decide to
:10:09. > :10:13.
:10:13. > :10:18.We do not live in a police state. My point is this... The reality is
:10:18. > :10:21.that sectarianism is not going to be addressed, the scourge that has
:10:21. > :10:25.existed in this country for centuries, will not be restricted
:10:25. > :10:31.simply to football. This relates to football and the conduct of fans to
:10:31. > :10:35.and from matches is very important. The length and breadth of this
:10:35. > :10:40.country, people are we of the mayhem that is caused. Thank you
:10:40. > :10:44.both. How many separate police forces
:10:44. > :10:48.does one small nation need? At the moment we have aid, but the
:10:48. > :10:56.Government thinks it could save money by cutting the number twos 3,
:10:56. > :11:00.4, or one. They asked for their it fuse of interested p -- parties.
:11:00. > :11:03.This document, published today, does not make any conclusions or
:11:03. > :11:05.recommendations as to how the police force should look in the
:11:06. > :11:09.future but it does tell us their opinions of a wide range of
:11:09. > :11:14.interested groups like councils, charities, and the forces
:11:14. > :11:19.themselves. Those questions were asked which of the three options
:11:19. > :11:23.they preferred. Option one was a single Scottish police force. This
:11:23. > :11:28.second option was a regional force model, which would mean reducing
:11:28. > :11:33.the number of police forces from eight to three or four. The third
:11:33. > :11:37.option was to keep the current eight police forces, but with
:11:37. > :11:43.increased collaboration. Of the 219 groups and individuals who
:11:43. > :11:49.responded, only 22 supported the idea of a single police force. 45
:11:49. > :11:54.were in favour of the regional model and 59 supported that idea of
:11:54. > :11:58.the current set-up with increased collaboration. 77 respondents said
:11:58. > :12:02.they did not have enough information or evidence to make a
:12:02. > :12:12.decision. Judging by some of the responses, reforming the police
:12:12. > :12:19.force is going to be more How do you fight crime when police
:12:19. > :12:22.budgets are being cut? Getting rid of bobbies on the beat is no vote
:12:22. > :12:27.winner, so the concept of saving money through merging Scotland's
:12:27. > :12:30.eight a police forces into one is attempting what -- option. It is an
:12:30. > :12:34.idea the Government is leaning towards. It is seen as the best way
:12:34. > :12:41.to make the service more consistent, efficient and to introduce
:12:41. > :12:47.economies of scale. Do police organisations agree? There is no
:12:47. > :12:52.great enthusiasm for it. Since as a suspected all along would come out
:12:52. > :12:55.of this, there are mixed views are, they split and you cannot add them
:12:55. > :12:59.up. So it is clear that the proponents of a single force, there
:12:59. > :13:03.is not a great momentum. There is no doubt the status quo will have
:13:03. > :13:08.to change but those against a single force argue it could mean a
:13:08. > :13:15.less local service. Some forces working in rural areas fear they
:13:15. > :13:20.will lose services to the central belt. Others fear that more forces,
:13:20. > :13:26.not less. If you look at their history of the centralising and
:13:26. > :13:30.restructuring services, it has often ended up in very bureaucratic
:13:30. > :13:34.and administratively complex situations. If you look at
:13:34. > :13:37.nationalising industries, we were hardly efficient. All this
:13:37. > :13:42.structural change will cost money and the savings a single force
:13:42. > :13:46.claims to provide are yet to be Provan. The measure of back-up
:13:47. > :13:49.support and the cost of that he is a relatively small and light in
:13:50. > :13:54.terms of the claims that have been made about the savings that could
:13:54. > :14:00.be made. Some of the figures mentioned have been quite
:14:00. > :14:05.implausible. �200 million a year, I do not attach credibility to them.
:14:05. > :14:09.It is unlikely that Scotland's police forces will remain in a
:14:09. > :14:13.current form. The idea of a single force has failed to capture
:14:13. > :14:18.imaginations. That is through the middle ground of a three or four
:14:18. > :14:22.regional forces could end up being the most palatable option. One of
:14:22. > :14:26.the recurring themes of this report is and their opinion that reform
:14:26. > :14:31.cannot be considered on its own. Many of those consulted said it
:14:31. > :14:35.should be stuck -- part of a wider plan. Many other bodies, like the
:14:35. > :14:39.Crown Office, have pointed out that any changes to the police force
:14:39. > :14:44.will have cost implications for them as well. It looks right saving
:14:44. > :14:52.money could become a lengthy and expensive task.
:14:52. > :14:56.I am joined by eight Superintendent Niven Rennie and from Aberdeen by
:14:56. > :15:00.their chief of Grampian Police, Colin McKerracher. Niven Rennie,
:15:00. > :15:06.you think that this single police is is is quite a good idea, do you
:15:06. > :15:11.not? We have called for this for a number of years. The drive has been
:15:11. > :15:15.cost but we felt the current structure has been more accident
:15:15. > :15:20.and Demy -- design and is is not fit for policing Today.
:15:20. > :15:25.practical terms, if you're a citizen -- what advantage will you
:15:25. > :15:30.have from having one police? You will lose local accountability. It
:15:30. > :15:35.is not obvious what the advantages are. We dispute that you would lose
:15:35. > :15:41.local accountability. You would have to provide local policing
:15:41. > :15:45.first. You would look at managing thereafter. It is more equitable
:15:45. > :15:49.distribution of policing, to make sure every community gets the same
:15:49. > :15:56.fire arms response and the same support is available and there is a
:15:56. > :15:59.level playing field. Does it, in any practical way, if you are
:15:59. > :16:04.trying to catch the criminal gang that might straddle police areas,
:16:04. > :16:08.is there any advantage to having a national police? That is an
:16:08. > :16:11.argument in itself. Criminals do not see boundaries, we do. We do
:16:11. > :16:16.not think there should be boundaries and we should work
:16:16. > :16:21.together and have the same computer systems. Colin McKerracher, you are
:16:21. > :16:26.not convinced. I am not convinced at all. To say that the current
:16:26. > :16:30.structure does not work is a lie. We currently have the most
:16:30. > :16:35.effective policing that Scotland has seen in the 40 years I have
:16:35. > :16:38.been in the service. That has been by evolution, by working better in
:16:38. > :16:44.partnership, by doing the very thing people say we do not do which
:16:44. > :16:49.is collaborating and using our resources very capably. This notion
:16:49. > :16:54.of every community needing the same fire arms response, again, it is
:16:54. > :17:01.very easy to suggest that is not the case, but in fact if you go to
:17:01. > :17:08.my own force in the North East of Scotland, their need for or some
:17:08. > :17:11.big is specialists to be there all the time is very rare. I think the
:17:11. > :17:15.packages we have in place have always allowed officers and
:17:15. > :17:20.specialist staff to move around the country very freely, from the
:17:20. > :17:24.Lockerbie bombing, to Glasgow footballing. This notion that
:17:24. > :17:27.something is broken is wrong. Arguments should be about what is
:17:27. > :17:32.the vision of policing for the future, rather than an argument
:17:32. > :17:38.over a number of forces. What about argument, Niven Rennie, that you
:17:38. > :17:42.believe it would save money? think in the current time, if you
:17:42. > :17:50.look in -- at Strathclyde Police which takes up half of Scotland,
:17:50. > :17:56.you should division has a number of... Some areas have less money
:17:56. > :18:01.than others. We think this is an argument in itself. If you are
:18:01. > :18:05.looking at cost terms anyway. if it is not one police force, that
:18:05. > :18:10.is an argument that, is it not, Colin McKerracher, at least in
:18:11. > :18:14.favour of merging some together? Again, I think there is much made
:18:14. > :18:20.of this management costs. In Scotland, in terms of Chief
:18:20. > :18:26.officers, there are less than 40 across the country. If you look at
:18:26. > :18:31.32 local authorities, the costs in they are much higher. Scotland is a
:18:31. > :18:36.very diverse country, small but diverse, one size fits all approach
:18:36. > :18:41.for policing is a real danger for Scotland. I have worked in the
:18:41. > :18:48.north for many years, I believe that their big force in Strathclyde,
:18:48. > :18:52.I now think that it area I work in, which is self-contained, the touch
:18:52. > :18:57.and feel of police in Scotland is very sensitive and keen. This move
:18:57. > :19:05.to a single force would destroy that. Just give me an example of
:19:05. > :19:14.that. In what way, if you were a policeman in Aberdeen, are you
:19:14. > :19:17.supposed to behave differently than if you are one in Edinburgh? I hope
:19:17. > :19:21.you do not behave differently, but the way the we structure policing
:19:21. > :19:25.and serve our communities is personalised into the communities
:19:25. > :19:31.that Yousef. A national police force would not stop that happening.
:19:31. > :19:39.The danger in al-Arab -- large, single organisation is that
:19:39. > :19:44.essential by the issue will start. -- centralisation will start. In my
:19:44. > :19:49.area we have managed to achieve efficiencies. We have a vested in
:19:49. > :19:57.more police officers. That has helped us to build our police model.
:19:57. > :20:02.It is being held -- heralded around as sustainable. That is our
:20:02. > :20:07.decision. I do not think you would get that in a single organisation.
:20:07. > :20:12.What is wrong with that argument? Of the only sustainable way to
:20:12. > :20:15.provide policing is to reform. From the survey results there are
:20:15. > :20:18.different views. This has been kicked about in the public domain
:20:18. > :20:23.for two years and it has been kicked to read private lake by
:20:23. > :20:33.police officers for a long time before that. It is time to make a
:20:33. > :20:41.political decision as to how we go ahead. We will deliver. What about
:20:41. > :20:45.Colin McKerracher's argument that you do not need this homogeneity.
:20:45. > :20:50.Some of the forces in the north of Scotland do not need specialist
:20:50. > :20:55.forces that a national police force would provide. There is no gain.
:20:55. > :21:00.There is a divergence of opinions. Some people would agree with Colin
:21:00. > :21:05.McKerracher's opinion. The majority is that we do require a reform and
:21:05. > :21:09.we do require to move towards a national force. We would hope that
:21:09. > :21:13.a decision in relation to that the meat as soon as possible. What
:21:13. > :21:18.about accountability? He said he did not think that was under threat.
:21:18. > :21:22.Why not? I think you can legislate to make sure there is
:21:22. > :21:27.accountability and we do not suffer from political interference. We
:21:27. > :21:32.only have to glance across the Irish Sea... It is accountability
:21:32. > :21:37.to local services. You can build in local policing boards. The senior
:21:37. > :21:42.officer locally will be held to account on these boards. It is not
:21:42. > :21:46.beyond comprehension we could build this sustainable structure. Is it,
:21:46. > :21:52.Colin McKerracher? Do you worry about accountability? I do. For the
:21:52. > :21:59.last couple of years we have heard reels beer mongering about police
:21:59. > :22:05.boards not been able to hold officers to account. The joint
:22:05. > :22:10.police force we have is a holding us to account. OK, we will have to
:22:10. > :22:16.leave it there. Thank you. Quick look at tomorrow's front
:22:16. > :22:26.pages. Starting with the Scotsman. Singing the national anthem could
:22:26. > :22:36.be illegal. They Independent: Europe braced for it Storm. The
:22:36. > :22:38.
:22:38. > :22:48.Guardian: defiant over Green is gas targets. Betty has a story about a
:22:48. > :22:52.
:22:52. > :22:57.bank. Hello. It might be warming up
:22:58. > :23:03.through the weekend but that is a long way off. It remains cool and
:23:03. > :23:07.shimmery across the UK. A wide distribution of showers with it few
:23:07. > :23:12.places staying dry. Some of the showers will be heavy and possibly
:23:12. > :23:18.thundery. Temperatures will be made to high teens. Wimbledon could be
:23:18. > :23:22.affected by some downpours. A bit of a breeze and that should help to
:23:22. > :23:29.move the share was true across many southern parts. It will not rain
:23:29. > :23:33.all the time. Temperatures are not as high as they should be at this
:23:33. > :23:39.time of the year. Further north, winds will be lighter which means
:23:39. > :23:46.that she was could lock up -- last that bit longer. It is a showery
:23:46. > :23:50.scene across Ireland and the North of Scotland. There will be some dry
:23:50. > :23:54.spells here. More showers to come across northern areas on Thursday.
:23:54. > :24:00.They could be quite heavy. The temperatures are disappointingly
:24:00. > :24:04.low. There will be some dry, bright spells but showers are never too
:24:04. > :24:09.far away. The main emphasis of showers are on Thursday across