02/11/2015 Scotland 2015

Does the Scotland Bill really live up to expectations?

More than 100 amendments have been tabled to the Scotland Bill tonight.

The Scottish Secretary says he's delivering on the Vow

for more powers for Scotland - the Deputy First Minister disagrees.

Also, the fall-out siren is sounding on Trident.

Scottish Labour's vote to scrap the weapons system sends shockwaves

through the union movement and the party as a whole.

House of Commons officials confirmed tonight they've received more than

The Scottish Secretary David Mundell says any reasonable person would

agree the Bill meets the Smith Agreement that came

To the contrary, says John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister,

Here's our political correspondent, Tim Reid.

This is essentially the Scotland Bill Mark two, a new and improved

version of the legislation published earlier this year. David Mundell

saying he has listened to all the criticism made to the earlier

passage of the legislation. Interesting today we have seen lots

of the theatre, the reaction to the amendments that were not published

until late tonight. The reaction has been based on the words and

assurances that David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, has given that

this Bill lives up to the the Vow and Smith Commission

recommendations. He says welfare powers have been beefed up. The

permanency of the Scottish Parliament is guaranteed in the

future. The veto over welfare powers that many of the Scottish ministers

had been concerned about has been removed. Not everyone is convinced

about that. John Swinney says he does not believe this lives up to

the the Vow. Many of the power she put forward are not included in the

Bill. Gordon Brown said tonight he believes that because of Labour

pressure many of the amendments are there and the Vow has now been lived

up to. He had not seen the amendments when he made that

statement by press release earlier tonight. It leaves us very much

where we were before the amendments were published which is that the

Scotland Office says they have lived up to the Vow, the Scottish

Government says they have not lived up to the Vow, and we have a debate

here next week for all of these arguments will be rehearsed once

again. Just before we came on air I spoke

to the Scottish Secretary David David Mundell, you were saying any

reasonable person would conclude the Bill meets the Smith Commission

Agreement. John Swinney does not agree with that. Is he not a

reasonable man? John Swinney as somebody who wants Scotland is to be

independent. That is the argument that he is making. I do not think we

will ever satisfy the Scottish Government or the SNP in relation to

additional devolution. What I am hoping is that when people say the

Bill as amended, when it starts to impact on their day to day lives,

when they are paying income tax in Scotland, saying the benefit system

shipped in Scotland, that they will realise that this is a very

significant change and it is a change that reflects in full, in

words and in spirit, the proposals of the Smith Commission.

It does not need the Smith Commission report. As John Swinney

says there are significant weaknesses remaining. On page 16 bid

talks about Crown assets, revenue generated from Crown Estate should

be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. There is not fool

devolution to the Crown Estate as John Swinney says. Why not? I do not

agree with John Swinney's interpretation and I do not

understand the fixation that the Scottish Government has with the

Fort Kinnaird shopping centre. When people wanted devolution of the

Crown Estate that was about is making sure that the Crown Estate

was responsive to remote communities and played a part. It was not about

shopping centres which were actually part of an English legal

partnership. The way in which we have devolved the management of the

assets of the Crown Estate is what the Smith Commission intended and I

am sure that that will be reflected by anybody looking reasonably at the

proposals. What you have been saying for some

time now, the Smith Commission has been fulfilled, but you are sitting

there at Westminster tonight, about 100 amendments have been tabled. How

could it have been fulfilled when we are still looking at more and more

changes? It has been called Scotland Bill to. We have a parliamentary

democracy where we debate things. I wanted to make the Bill better. I

believe the Billy producer did reflect the Smith Commission but if

people have reasonable conditions I will take those on board. I did not

take on board amendments for things like full fiscal autonomy or

devolving National Insurance which was not agreed by the Smith

Commission, but what I did do was when Cato 's organisations and MPs

in Scotland said they could be a better definition of carers and have

more flexibility in what the Scottish Parliament could do I took

that on board. That is what debate and discussion about the Bill has

been about. Making it better. Taking things like the power to create new

benefits in devolved areas and putting it on the face of the Bill.

Constitutional lawyers argue that the Scottish Parliament already has

some of these powers but in order to avoid any doubt voters put them on

the face of the Bill so people know exactly what is being delivered by

the Smith Commission. The finances behind this are very

important. You are trying to set up this fiscal framework, essentially

trying to say that Scotland does not lose out financially. When we get

that Agreement? The end of the month? By the Autumn Statement? The

discussions are going well in relation to the fiscal framework.

Both governments want to see a fair settlement for Scotland. A lot of

legwork has been put into getting that Agreement. There are two big

events coming up for the UK Treasury on the Spending Review and for the

Scottish Government we have got the Scottish budget. Probably there will

not be the capacity to have much progress over the next few weeks but

I am confident we will have a fiscal framework in place by the time the

Bill completes its parliamentary passage so that people will not only

see the new powers that Scotland is going to get to make the Scottish

Parliament one of the most powerful devolved parliament anywhere in the

world, but they will also see the financial basis upon which that is

going to happen. Thank you. And shortly after that interview,

I caught up with the Deputy First Minister John Swinney

in our Dundee studio. John Swinney, I have got your

shopping list of issues. At the top of the lists are issues relating to

the Sewel Convention. When you are campaigning is this the top issue.

You are just nit-picking, are you not? What we are doing is making

sure that issues that were properly raised by the Scottish Government

and the devolution unity of the Scottish Parliament are

comprehensively addressed by the UK Government. That is important. It is

only when those issues are addressed will the Smith Commission have been

implemented in full in spirit and in substance by the UK Government,

which has been our objective throughout this process. David

Mundell says it has been implemented in full. Was there any legislation

at Westminster could have passed that would have satisfied you while

still fitting end with the referendum vote of 2014? If you go

back to the interviews that David Mundell was giving over the summer,

he was seeing over the summer, when he introduced this Bill, it had

implemented the Smith Commission info. Now we find ourselves several

months later, 100 members having to be tabled, to deal with the fact

that the Smith Commission was not in fact commented in full by the

publication of this legislation in the first place. There should be

some considerable scepticism about the commitment of the Secretary of

State. We have set out in great detail the changes that we believe

have to be made by the UK Government to ensure that this legislation did

implement the Smith Commission report in full and there are a

number of babies this is not been done. Principal among them is when

it comes to exercising Social Security responsibilities in the

Scottish Parliament we will still have two secured the consent and

Agreement of the UK Government. But as a by another name. The UK

Government is very clear there is a misapprehension about Beatles. Go

and read the clauses. The Agreement of a UK minister is required if we

want to take forward changes in social security. That puts control

in the hands of the UK Government and gives them a veto. If you

devolve power, look back at the history of devolution, you devolved

responsibility in its entirety to the Scottish Parliament, to be able

to exercise those responsibilities. If we want to make a decision on

health begin at have too asked the UK Government, we just get on and do

it. But on issues of social security the UK Government is requiring us to

go to them to seek their Agreement to undertake the changes that we

want to change and they have a basis of withholding that Agreement and

that is a veto by any interpretation you can apply. But the issue is here

the majority of people voted to remain in the UK. Something like

Universal Credit is still being reserved. Perhaps you are wanting to

over egg the pudding which the Smith Commission did not promise and which

the people of Scotland, the majority of the people of Scotland, fought to

stay in the UK, and actually these powers are not used for taking at

the moment. Two things about that. The first is that the Smith

Commission followed the referendum. The people of Scotland is required

at Smith Commission report be fermented in full. One particular

example, and there are others, where the Smith Commission report is not

being limited in fool even by these changes that have been brought

forward. But in terms of powers beyond the Smith Commission that a

different argument which is German videos come of the Westminster

election in me is the SNP pulling over 50% of the vote in that

election and the people of Scotland demanding quite clearly a greater

range of powers at the disposal of the people of Scotland is to ship

and determine the future of our country. David Mundell as saying

that he is fulfilling the Smith Commission and that is before the

general election. I quite understand the Secretary of State is trying to

permit the Smith Commission report. I constantly pointing out that

anybody observing Scottish politics is trying to take the temperature

and mood of the people of Scotland which recognise that having heard

the Smith Commission, having seen its report being published in

advance of the general election, the people of Scotland voted with the

support of over 50% for the SNP for there to be more powers for the

Scottish Parliament. That is what should be responded to by the UK

Government. That is what my colleagues have been trying to

advance in the House of Commons. At some of the areas we will continue

to push for. You are getting these new powers.

The time is now for you to use them. You have been complaining

about working tax credits being cut. Are you going to diverse

working tax credits cuts in Scotland once you get powers? If you look at

how we have exercised are powers to date the Scottish Government has

taken a series of steps to mitigate the effect of UK Government welfare

reforms. We are spending ?100 million per year mitigating the

effects of the welfare reforms. Clearly there are changes to the tax

credits system coming forward from the UK Government. A quite vicious

attack on some of the low paid working people of our country. The

UK Government has been sent home to think again so we will have to wait

and see what proposals they come forward with when they come forward

and the author stated in a few weeks' time. The Scottish Government

will use all of our powers to the best of our ability. We will

consider the issues that arise out of the changes that have been made

by the UK Government when we see the final changes that emerge on the

25th of November as a consequence of the discussions of last week.

Scottish Government is determined to make sure that we support those who

are affected by the welfare reforms and picture that's been put in place

the effective assistance that can mitigate as far as we possibly can

do the effects of the UK Government changes. Thank you.

It was a passionate debate in Perth on the future

Labour delegates young and old made stirring

and emotional speeches about whether Trident should be renewed or not.

The final vote was overwhelmingly against renewal.

But Scottish Labour's decision to press the nuclear button has left

a series of rifts in the party at Holyrood,

Here's Andrew Black. 167,000 million pounds on nuclear

weapons. I do not believe that giving up our nuclear weapons in

isolation will trigger other giving up our nuclear weapons in

contribution to influence wider party policy. What we want to do is

build oldest possible coalition against Ryden. I want people from

all political parties to come to that conclusion. I want the

communities whose strident to come to that conclusion, I want the

workers involved in Trident come to that conclusion. And key to this

debate is how we ensure that those communities and those workers secure

their future without Trident. And that is what should be focusing all

our minds at the moment. That issue of jobs at the home of Trident has

caused further division. You might voted against Trident renewal at the

Scottish Labour conference provoking anger. We expect our union to back

us to the hilt in preserving our jobs. We don't believe it has done

so. Scottish Labour's Trident debate was held to rid the party of the

perception of control freak read but instead it has created more problems

than solved them. Now I am joined by the Labour MP for

Barrow and Furness, John Woodcock. There's a BAE shipyard which builds

submarines in his constituency. Good evening to you and thank you

for joining us. Now, you are no fan of Jeremy Corbyn but this decision

by Scottish Labour means even more chaos under his leadership. Well, of

course, the Scottish party was entitled to express its view on

this. And I think many of the voices in the clip two you played made

important points, and I think I have particular sympathy for the workers

at Faslane, and one of their two unions in a real difference to its

policy in the United Kingdom, haven't backed those workers. But

all of this, I think, takes place against a act round where we need to

realise that the vote to renew the deterrent is going to happen. There

is a cast-iron majority for it in Parliament in the UK Parliament. And

many of the UK Labour MPs have just recently including myself stood on a

clear manifesto commitment to renew the deterrent. That commitment was

endorsed wholeheartedly at the UK conference, of which, obviously,

Scotland was part. Yes, because you are very concerned about jobs in

your constituency. But why does this decision let down working people?

Scottish Labour were very clear at the weekend there would be a process

of diversification and support for affected communities. You can say

those things but saying it is one thing but delivering on it is

another. The thing that Saddam me most about that debate was the

people, good Labour people, who used the argument that we heard from the

Conservatives saying, just days earlier, to steelworkers, basically

saying don't worry we will find you something else to do. Now,

unfortunately, we need to make clear that is a fantasy. There is no

alternative that can sustain the employment of the Faslane employees.

And the many thousands of people in Faslane who uphold the submarines

and deterrent. But also more than 100 of the advanced manufacturing

and engineering companies across Scotland alone who are part of the

supply chain. These are the jobs we need more of in the country, so it

is saddening to see this decision taken. So, people's jobs are vitally

important and we have been debating that night. There is a huge moral

question here about whether or not it is right to hold and use these

weapons of mass destruction. And perhaps you might think that

question is actually more important than people's jobs. Yes, I do. And

the whole point of the UK having the deterrent, the reason, the sole

reason why Clem at Lake, as a Labour Prime Minister in that famous 1945

government, the reason we construct of the deterrent was to make the

horrifying prospect of a nuclear war less likely. It deters that prospect

which is why we have it. It is no accident that the only nuclear

weapons strikes we've had in the world have taken place in a world

where, at the time, only one country, the United States, had

them. We will have to leave it there, but thank you for joining us

this evening. Joining us now to look back

at the rest of the day's news is the former head of Communications for

the SNP Kevin Pringle and Pauline Good evening to both of you and

thank you for joining us on the programme. Pauline, Labour at the

weekend back to the good old days or bad old days, depending where you

stand, on the Trident vote. 1988 was the last year that Scottish Labour

discussed Trident. No, I think it felt like the old days where the

band storming speeches were made, but the point has been missed. It's

not so much where you stand on Trident. The heart of the debate was

the morale at the of it, and the morality of spending 167 Ilion

pounds. Scottish Labour can make its own decisions on important matters.

That is the heart of the debate. Having that debate now leads to

chaos with the unions, with different for righties of policy

north and south of the border. Different policies that both leaders

want to pursue. It has opened up a can of worms. It has, but if

Scottish Labour cannot demonstrate it can make its own decisions, even

to express the opinion of the Scottish people as Labour sees it,

we will not turn the corner on the opinion polls. So it is a

fundamental change we saw at the weekend. We have had other complex

decisions to work out, I am sure we will work this out. Labour have

sometimes found difficulties on the doorstep with this issue. This

policy might make it easier for them to appeal to people who voted SNP in

the past. They might get former SNP people back to them having this

policy. I don't think so. All through the 1980s and 90s, the

Scottish Labour conference always voted against Trident, voted to

scrap Trident but it didn't make any difference to the UK Labour policy,

it didn't make any difference to the Labour government, and it has made

any difference to Trident because it is still here. It is being renewed

at a cost of ?467 billion. That's the point. We can have opinions in

Scotland, and Maria Eagle has made the point that it is the opinion of

the Scottish Labour Party, it isn't a policy but we need to have the

power to decide these matters in Scotland. That is the lesson. We can

have the opinion but we do not have the power. There would be a process

of diversification and they would spend that money on workers jobs

accuse the SNP of saying the SNP have -- spent the money 12 times

over. I would sit for the point. The main myth about Trident is that it

enhances our security. It's in the dozen. Apart from anything else,

there's no credibility to the idea of any UK prime list ever using

Trident. Every Trident warhead eight times the destructive capacity of

Hiroshima. If you take Scotland's contribution, that is ?14 billion.

When Labour in government, they said there were fewer than 1,000 jobs

directly and indirectly based upon Trident. That is ?14 million per

jobs. If you apply that to money to the productive capacity, you have

hundreds of thousands of jobs. There were some internal divisions in the

Conservative Party. Let's look at Philip Davies asking the question in

the House of Commons about Europe. Wilkie agree with media anyway this

country will ever get can pleat control about citizens is by leaving

the European Union? -- complete control. Can I say to my honourable

friend the promised has the country a referendum on that matter. Which

is a huge step forward for the honourable gentleman opposite. They

will have a vote on that and I suggest at that moment he is able to

make that powerful argument. That was Iain Duncan Smith saying the

Eurosceptics might well win. And, tonight, we're getting George

Osborne's five key economic demands for the UK, such as participation in

the banking union must be voluntary. What do you make of the UK

Government's attempts to start the negotiations with Europe, bearing in

mind what IDS said? There is a real danger that the balance might be

tipped. They are under serious pressure within the party, within

the Tory party, and serious pressure in terms of the country. What George

Osborne has to set out is some things he demands from the EU, being

central to that is that no company or country that isn't in the euro

can be discriminated against. He has to come up with some reforms. If

they don't come up with a reformed Europe, we are in danger of leaving

Europe, with all of that entails. The farmers, the financial sector,

that is a very serious matter at stake so George Osborne has quite an

important speech tomorrow. A significant speech, and we will be

looking at Mr Cameron's demands, still waiting to see those. How do

you think the timetable will work-out? Perhaps time is running

out before he has to put the proposal before the country. It is

and I think we will see a detailed reform package in terms of what

Cameron is trying to secure from Europe before the end of the year.

What we're seeing at the moment is jockeying for position within the

Tory party, this in turn will -- internal Tory politics. We need a

positive debate on Europe. I think we need a Scottish debate to stay in

the European Union because I don't think we can have a positive debate

affected by internal party politics. And we need a debate and a campaign

that makes it clear in tangible terms what the EU delivers for

people. Shelley will be back

at the same time tomorrow night. From everyone on the programme, have

a very good night and goodbye for now.

Almost a year after the Glasgow bin lorry tragedy,

some of the families of those who died break their silence

and tell me, Jackie Bird, the impact the crash has had on their lives

and why they feel the Scottish justice system has let them down.