06/08/2014 Scotland 2014

Lend us your ears, lend us your votes.

The SNP appeal to traditional Labour voters.

Yes Scotland know they cannot win the referendum on SNP votes alone.

They have to persuade a large number of traditional Labour

voters that Scotland should be an independent country.

So how are they trying to do that and is it working?

Is Trident the referendum's not so secret weapon?

Are people voting yes because they want to get rid of the nukes?

And we have a special report on how making workers pay to access

an employment tribunal has seen an 80% drop in cases.

You don't have to be an SNP supporter to vote yes in September.

You don't even have to like Alex Salmond or his party.

That's the message Yes Scotland are actively trying to take to Labour

Tonight Nicola Sturgeon is in Preston Pans and Julie Peacock

is there as well to see if her message is getting through.

Preston Pans is about as traditionally Labour as it gets. A

former mining town, Labour has won more than a 40% share of the vote

here in every general election for the last 30 years. But the Yes

Campaign has this area in its sights. Of course, it's not the

first time Preston Pans has been the scene of a battle over Scotland buzz

future. The first conflict of the Jacobite uprising happened here in

1745. Things have moved on since the Jacobite hero. You won't be catching

Alex Salmond or Alistair Darling slugging it out in the battlefield

behind me here. But it is area is like this all over Scotland that are

the fiercest fighting over the next few weeks of the campaign. It's full

of voters, some of whom are undecided. It is those voters that

could swing the result. Nicola Sturgeon even addressed them at the

SNP conference. To every Labour voter in the country, I say this,

the Yes Campaign is not asking you to leave your party. Instead, it

offers you the chance to get your party back. A Labour Party, free to

make its own decisions, no longer dancing to a Westminster tune.

Tonight, she is bringing that message to Prestonpans. But if the

views of the regulars at the British Legion are anything to go by, she's

going to need all her powers of persuasion. There is no way I'll be

convinced. Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond, if they tried to say

anything or try to bribe me by being ?500 better off. I'll listen to what

Nicola has to say, listen to the opinions of other people. I'm not

decided, but I'm swinging towards yes. I'm sitting on the fence, I'm

not sure which way is going to benefit myself, my children. I'd

rather somebody just gave me, right, that is yes, that is no for the

working man. The SNP have a long history of giving Labour a bloody

nose in its own backyard. Hamilton, in 96 to seven. The first SNP

parliamentary seat since the war. Winifred Margaret Ewing, 18,395...

In 1973, it was Margo MacDonald who swore under the boat in the

by-election. The SNP have won the constituency. And here in East

Lothian, the SNP have gained ground. There was a huge swing to the SNP.

Can Nicola Sturgeon repeat that success here? Preston Pans... Pans

is a very Labour town, how confident are you that you will be able to get

people to rode yes? A lot of traditional Labour voters are

thinking about voting yes, and why wouldn't that be the case? A

traditional Labour voter is as unhappy as I am about getting Tory

Government we didn't vote for. She was met with cheers and some

hackles. This is probably not the best place for you! There were tough

questions on the EU and currency, but also plenty of obvious

supporters amongst the audience. The debate went on well into the

evening, with perhaps some traditional Labour voters being

swayed. But can the Yes Campaign persuade enough of them in towns

like this across the country to make the difference?

With me now in the studio is Bob Thomson, former chair of Scottish

Also, former special advisor to Alistair Darling and former Herald

Thanks for coming in. You are a traditional Labour voter that has

decided to go yes. What changed your mind? The Labour Party was formed by

working people to look after their interests and the interests of their

family. That is why it is called Labour. Sadly, Labour at Westminster

has lost their way and is no longer looking after those interests. You

couldn't really put much between the policies of Labour and the

Coalition. What I found interesting was that they were describing a

similar country, whether it was independent of the United Kingdom.

They were talking about social democracy, fairness, ending food

banks. When you have people that are broadly looking towards the same

social democratic goal, you can see why maybe Labour voters are tempted

to vote yes? May be. The truth of the matter is that Alex Salmond

didn't like the Labour Party any more than he liked the Tories. The

last Labour government took 200,000 pensioners out of poverty, 100,000

children out of poverty, it spent more on health, poverty and schools

than any previous government. That is a Labour government and that is

what a Labour government does. People like Bob, of Bob's

generation, icon from them ever talking, when they were in the

Labour Party, about saying we are only going to look after ourselves

and we are not going to look after other people. That must be one of

the key, fundamental principles of the Labour Party, that we care about

each other, wherever we live. You sound very disenchanted with the

Labour Party today. How can a big Yes Campaign get the message through

to people who still see themselves as Labour, if there is an

independent Scotland they will vote Micro for a Labour Government, how

can you persuade them to vote yes on this occasion? I'm still a member of

the party, 51 years a member. I want to reclaim Labour for its socialist

principles. I have my card here. It says, the Labour Party, the

Democratic Socialist party, I want it to come back to that. I am not

supporting the SNP. A yes vote is a vote to give us the opportunity to

build a fairer, more prosperous Scotland. Catherine is talking about

achievements. The reality is, and people know it, there are more

children in poverty, a fourfold increase in food banks and various

things. I'm not in favour of SNP policies, I want to see a lot more

radical policies about, for example, taxation. What about ringing our

railways back into ownership? Tony Blair, famously, boasted that

British workers had better rights than any other workers in Europe.

Labour in Westminster is saying nothing about these important

issues. You are going to have a programme about by the tribunal is

and how people no longer have rights at work. It's all very well to talk

about what Labour has done in Hollywood or Westminster, if people

are not convinced that Ed Miliband is going to win the next general

election, then the argument by the Yes Campaign that Scots don't get

the government they vote for, regardless how they voted they will

get another Tory Government, it's going to resonate with Labour

voters? I'm sure it might, it's not a pleasant prospect to think we are

not going to get the government that we want. If we vote for

independence, it will be for ever. It is not something that can change

at the next general election. If there is a Tory Government, and I

hope there is not, they can be thrown out in four years time. Ed

Miliband, and I think Bob has got to give him credit, is putting forward

traditional Labour agendas. He wants to cut energy prices. That is a

different argument we will have on another night. Thank you for coming

in. The promise that an independent

Scotland would be a nuclear free country is one of the central

tenants of the Yes campaign. The idea of removing nukes from

Scottish soil got loud cheers at the debate last night and never fails to

delight the party faithful. But how much does it really

matter to the undecided voters? Trident nuclear missiles have been

based on the Clyde since the 1960s. But for how much longer? I am for

yes because I think the needs of the ordinary people are more important

than the needs of the few. I want to protect the NHS, reduce inequality,

I want to preserve our environment and get rid of nuclear weapons. We

don't want to spend 100 early in pounds on a new generation of

nuclear weapons. Is that why Labour people are voting yes? In another

debate today, referendum lines were drawn as the fate of Scotland and

Trident were linked. As part of the UK, we are able to defend our own

nation, our citizens and influence international debate. We all want a

nuclear free world, but the unilateral removal of Trident is not

the way to achievement. -- achieve it. We believe it could only be

achieved at the expense of traditional defence programmes. On

the 18th of September, vote for independence and for the withdrawal

of Trident from Scotland, or leave that decision to the UK Government

and face the possibility of another half-century of nuclear weapons. Is

the talk about the future of Trident preaching to the converted or could

change the way people cast their vote?

Joining me now is Political Correspondent

How much do you think Trident matters? It matters a lot to the

party faithful in the SNP, very wedded to this policy and that is

why it gets loud cheers. It hold sway with voters? The SNP see it as

something distinctive and is different that you would get in an

independent Scotland. I think it does appeal to people on the left,

maybe some Labour voters that you were talking about might be

attracted to independence. I think the SNP know that. It is worth

mentioning that there are a lot of people on the Labour benches at

Holyrood that are not so keen on nuclear weapons. I think it is very

far from being an issue that is solely the SNP's. There were a

number of contradictions in their policies, such as support for an

independent Scotland being in NATO, a nuclear alliance. As I was saying,

you could argue, in many ways, Labour has a much stronger tradition

of anti-nuclear weapons, even though it is a long time since Labour has

been a unilateralist party. There are a lot of people of that view in

the party. That interesting, because it hasn't been party policy for the

Labour Party for a long time. You forget that large swathes of them

probably are antinuclear, probably went on CMD marches. You think this

is a way to reach into the labour heartland? Some people will be

attracted, saying, this will be something that is different, we

won't have to put up with nuclear weapons. It might be the same people

that might be tempted to vote yes on the basis of not facing a Tory

Government again. The SNP know that, they are giving that the hard

sell. Stay with us, we are going to be talking to you again later.

Employment tribunals exist to allow any who thinks they have faced

discrimination or harassment at work to take their bosses to task.

But in the last year there has been a startling 80% drop in number

of people bringing cases against their employers.

Can it be a coincidence that it was also a year ago that the Government

introduced a system of fees that mean claimants must pay

hundreds of pounds before their cases can be heard?

Our political correspondent Lucy Adams reports.

This is where you would come to seek justice if you have suffered unfair

dismissal or discover nation on the grounds of race, gender or age.

Changes introduced a year ago by the UK Government mean that to even get

here you have to pay. That has not just deterred only some people, but

80% of claimants. Unlike the thousands of other victims of unfair

employment practices forced to drop their cases because they can't even

logic, Gillian was able to go to tribunal because her solicitor

covered the costs. It got to the point where I was suffering from

work-related stress and depression. I sent a letter to my boss of the

time and said, I felt like I was under attack at work, I felt I was

being bullied. That I had no choice but to leave. My lawyer said he

would put the money forward and I can pay in instalments. If he hadn't

done that, and I said to him at the time, if he couldn't do that, there

would be no way I could take them to court. Scottish is for

straightforward changes, the cost is ?319. For more complex cases the

basic cost is ?1200. The government figures show that thousands fewer

cases are taking because of the fees system. This affects the working

population of the UK. They have already paid. When you have just

lost your job and are facing discrimination and then you have to

find ?1200, just to protect your legal position, it is not

proportionate. It is challenging access to government which has been

free up till now. A new study by Strathclyde University has found the

change means victims, especially disabled, low paid and female

workers, have to drop out of the system. Our research proves that the

most affected claimants are women overall. That is something like 80%

of production in sex discrimination cases which are mostly blog by

women. Overall we are seeing the impact of fees acting on justice for

some of the most from rouble workers in society. Chris Grayling brought

the changes one year ago citing the 74 million cost of the tribunal

system. This was supported by some employers associations. Today the

CBI declined to be interviewed but be told this programme that firms

have been frustrated for years by both delays in the system and false

and misleading claims... Academics disagree. There have always been

vexatious claims. I am sure employers can give examples but the

big picture does not pack up that assertion. There is no research to

suggest that there is fallen claims. It would be beyond the realms of

possibility that the 80% reduction is that 80% of all claims were

spurious or vector stations. That is just ridiculous. The Law Society of

Scotland found that spurious claimants will already dealt with

using other measures. They warned that the new policy was flawed

before it was introduced. When fees were first canvas, we wrote to the

Justice Minister of the Westminster Government in March 2012 expressing

concerns about this policy. We were concerned about the policy of

itself, we challenged whether there was any evidence for the policy

itself and we express the view that it seemed that it would be

disproportionately adverse to the interests of workers. As a

consequence of the recently issued government statistics, we believe

those concerns have been vindicated. The BBC understands Scottish

employment tribunal judges have no express their own concerns about

whether the fees system is legally sound. As of tonight, the UK

Government is holding firm on its policy but the question remains. Is

it a tough stand against false claims on an attack on victims

already suffering? Joining me in the studio is

Ian Tasker from the Scottish Trade Union Congress and, from our studio

in London, solicitor Sarah Chilton It cannot be a coincidence there has

been such a drop-off in tribunal cases as the fees came in, if it

putting people off? I think it is. That is an inevitable consequence of

bringing in charge for the claim. It is worrying that it will put off

some of the nuisance claims but unfortunately it will also put off

or preventing genuine claimants from bringing their claims as it has been

putting off nuisance claimants as well. There were always nuisance

claimants and businesses don't have to deal with them now? Makes dead to

which there were spurious claims has been over played. -- I think the

extent to which. This is about getting money into the tribunal

system. Even in that objective it has failed. They wanted to recover

33% of the course. The fees they have brought in, extortionate as

they are, only recover less than 7%. So the tribunal system would be

priced out of everyone's Access. The Ministry of Justice did not want to

come on the programme. But they told us they have worked hard to make

sure that our fee waivers by people who cannot afford them. Is that

system not working? That our fee waivers but what is coming through

that for whatever reason, that system which is complicated, is not

always working with shoot. It is clear that even amongst lawyers

representing claimants, some of the lawyers are saying the system is

complex. It is just stacking more against that claimants. Whilst fee

waivers are good idea, you have to make sure that the level and

complexity of that system are set properly to give the desired effect.

Could the union not to pay these fees for people? Presumably if you

win, you get the feedback again. On the wall, the trade unions are

paying the fees. Having access to union representation and advice also

deals with some people's aspirations. If the claim is not

genuine and it turns into a spurious claim, that could be because they

have not had access to the advice to point them in the right direction as

to whether they have a legitimate complaint. That is one of the

advantages of being a member. It manages expectations. People who do

not have access to that kind of professional advice, I think they

lose out. A huge drop in the number of cases, 80% fewer, but we do see

more mediation. If people can mediate without the tribunal and are

motivated to do so, that is a good thing for all concerned? Definitely.

One of the things we have seen more recently, from April this year, the

introduction of the conciliation scheme. Now a claimant must go to

that scheme before they can bring a tribunal claim. What we have

understood from discussions is that that system is working to an extent

so I think mediation is a great thing if we can get claims to stay

out of the tribunal system most peoples are winners. Now let's look

at the headlines around the world tonight.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is making headlines on both sides of

the Atlantic. The New York Times reports his intention of becoming an

MP. Officials in Cairo begin to

negotiate between representatives of Israel and Hamas. And ABC News

report says that the Rosetta spacecraft has arrived at as

speeding comet to begin mapping its surface.

Joining me now to talk through the rest of the day's news are

the Scotsman's Andrew Whitaker who we spoke to earlier, and Director

Thank you both for coming in. The political news electrifying

Westminster, Boris Johnson's seeing he does want a seat as an MP after

all. He has been teasing the political establishment for months.

Does this tell as he wants to become Prime Minister? I think it is an

conceivable that someone with the ambition of Boris Johnson would not

go over the top job or at least in delivering the top job for someone

else. This man considers he has one of the biggest mandates in the UK,

having been elected by the people in London. I think it is worth looking

at the other side of Boris Johnson. This man tries to put himself across

as those lovable, bumbling public schoolboy. Look back a few years ago

to when he spoke about the people of Liverpool and referred to them as

wallowing in their grief in reference to the Hillsborough

tragedy. He ate some fairly large pieces of humble pie in Liverpool.

Yes, he did but it says something about his attitude to working-class

people. There have been Tweets about his limitless ambition. He mentions

that the White House is vacant. Can you see in this play minister of the

UK? I think possibly I could. What is attractive about borders is that

he is not of an LR politician. He has character and people respond to

that. -- vanilla. He has been elected in London. David Cameron

says he is delighted to have them back in the House of Commons, you

has to see that but will he be pleased or angry? I think some

figures in the Tory party will be thinking, all gods, do we really

need this? People like Michael Gove will see him as a potential

leadership rival for the future. Some will think that his presence

but will not want his grandstanding. We are no sooner passed their Alex

Salmond and Alistair Darling debate last night and there seems to be

another win. There has been a tweet about the BBC debate on the 25th of

August. Both men will come away from last night knowing that there were a

few things that could have done differently. How do you think they

will approach another debate? I think we will see a very different

Alex Salmond to begin with. What struck me was I was surprised just

how badly Alexander had. It was clear he was second best. -- Alex

Salmond did. He was topped up a great deal. Not just that he would

defeat Alistair Darling, but he would do so comfortably. That did

not happen and he will look to put that right. That man is a political

streetfighter and you will see a different approach, there will have

been recriminations in his office today. Alistair Darling will be a

weird he had to up his game if he is to retain his lead. You say you are

undecided, it did last night help you make up your mind? Now, in

common with a lot of undecided voters, that is the level of

frustration. When people are interviewed in the street he asked

for more facts. There will not be more facts between now and September

the 15th. Will the format of the debate make a difference? Our

viewers have been tweeting that they would like the politicians to

Amsterdam and questions. Focus on one thing, drill down and answer

those questions. But that happened? It would be much better. The bit

which worked better was when a cross examined each other. Questions could

have been answered rather than repeatedly dodged. What about the

answers voters are looking for? Some of the suggestions about being more

firm about them and feeding questions would work. I like the

adversarial approach myself. Thanks for that. Join us again tomorrow.

MUSIC: "Changing" by Sigma feat. Paloma Faith