24/11/2015 Scotland 2015

Yesterday, she was not going anywhere.

Tonight, Natalie McGarry has stepped down from the SNP.

Hello and welcome. In a dramatic move, Glasgow MP

Natalie McGarry has stepped down from the SNP parliamentary group,

She is enetitled to the presumption of innocence. She has done the right

thing in the interest of party and I accept that position but she is now

entitled to state her innocence and clear her name.

The question exercising Westminster tonight, as the Scotland Bill

And 20 Labour MPs defy calls from their leadership to abstain

To lose one MP may be regarded as a misfortune but, to paraphrase

Oscar Wilde, to lose two is starting to look like carelessness.

Just six months ago, the SNP was celebrating its best-ever success

at the Westminster elections, but tonight, a second MP has resigned

the SNP whip, as allegations of financial irregularities against her

Natalie McGarry denies any wrongdoing

Here is our Political Editor, Brian Taylor.

Natalie McGarry takes the Westminster seat of Glasgow East

from Labour in May. Natalie McGarry, Scottish National

Party, 24 thousand... There cheering her on the First Minister. Natalie

will be here at lunchtime. Central to the controversy is the campaign

group women for dense. They decided to keep going after the referendum,

but found gaps in their Championship with more apparently raised than had

been spent. -- cash. It is said Natalie McGarry had control of

crowdfunding, her lawyer maintains her innocence. Natalie McGarry is

aware of the fact that a report has been made, to Police Scotland, about

women for dense which raises questions of financial discrepancy,

as of yesterday, on Natalie's request we contacted Police Scotland

and advised them she would speak to them if they wished to. Natalie

maintains she has not done anything wrong.

It is not the first party problem for Nicola Sturgeon, another MP

Michelle Thompson's property deals are under police investigation. She

stresses her innocence, but has surrendered the party whip at

Westminsterment at lunchtime Nicola Sturgeon said she wanted time to

consider all the details. -- Westminster I am not going to be

rushed into a decision I will consider this properly and fairly.

If action needs to be taken it will be taken. It will balance the

highest of standards I expect from a presum son of innocence. Tonight,

after a day of pressure, Natalie McGarry withdrew from the SNP whip

at Westminster, which means automatic suspension from the party.

She said the controversy was distracting from her job. Opposition

leaders said it left Nicola Sturgeon looking weak I think this is the

right thing for Natalie McGarry to do, to resign from the SNP whip, it

is a shame that Nicola Sturgeon is the leader of the SNP, didn't do it

earlier today. Tonight, the First Minister was delivering a lecture in

Glasgow. In a statement the SNP repeated Natalie

Well, how much of a problem is this for the SNP?

Here to mull that over is the Daily Record's Political Editor,

Good evening, David. It is a powerful imam there, in Brian

Taylor's film of Nicola Sturgeon cheering on Natalie McGarry, just

six months ago in Glasgow. What do you make of the First Minister's

response to this, today? I think it is quite clear that there is a

strong personal friendship between Nicola Sturgeon and Natalie McGarry,

that has existed for some time. Natalie McGarry's a long-standing

member of the SNP and has a lot of family links with the party, so that

is not surprising that Nicola Sturgeon would want to give her a

fair hearing. The bigger political problem, for Nicola Sturgeon is

probably where these allegations have came from. These are not

allegations made by opponents of the SNP, in fact, seven of the people in

the Women For Dense board who took this to the police are SNP

candidates for the Holyrood election, so the problem is not just

the allegations, not just the political problems they present, not

just the embarrassment that 56 is now down 54, the fact it is figures

within the SNP that have raised concerns. Labour are saying tonight

that there are questions to be asked about who knew what and when, in the

SNP, about these allegations. It is not going to go away quickly all of

this, is it? It is not going to go away quickly, Police Scotland have

said this is likely to be a lengthy investigation, we should say not

only does Natalie McGarry deny any allegations of wrongdoing but in

fact the police have not established that any criminality occurred. I

think while the opposition have been seizing on issue of who knew what

when, there is frustration from people in the Scottish Government

round Nicola Sturgeon, that really they haven't had the fabs presented

with, to them very clearly. They have had no documentation at all

from Women For Independence. Whenever opposition politicians are

accusing Nicola of not acting quick enough, she probably has reasonable

ground phosphorus tracing there if she hasn't been presented with full

detail of what is alleged. After Michelle Thompson this puts the

SNP's candidates under the spotlight again? It is not just Michelle

Thompson, in the current Scottish Parliament we have the case of Bill

Walker who was the MSP that concerns had been flagged up previously and

he was convicted in court, and had to stand down, so I think t although

Michelle Thompson and Natalie McGarry are different situation,

because neither have been convicted of anything or it is not clear that

there is any allegations to answer, but another episode where an SNP

politician appears to have been dragged into scandal isn't a good

Within the last hour, the House of Lords has given its approval

to the Scotland Bill, but as it went through its Second Reading,

some peers raised serious concerns about approving substantial

new powers for the Scottish Parliament before they have been

able to scrutinise the financial deal that will underpin them.

The so-called "fiscal framework" is currently being negotiated

behind closed doors by the UK and Scottish governments.

Alexandra MacKenzie has been listening to this evening's debate.

As the lights dimmed round Westminster, the debate on

Scotland's future continued. Despite concerns about a lack of detail on

the fiscal framework. That would explain who funds what, and why. We

are going to be legislating in this chamber, on a wing and a prayer, but

I am very worried that we will end up taking decisions that we cannot

back out of, that will have a negative effect, not just in

Scotland, but in all of the United Kingdom. The details were not

available for this second reading of the Scotland bill, because they are

being negotiated by the Scottish and UK Governments.

The Bill delivers the Smith Commission agreement, Lord Smith,

alongside others, long to see it passed. This bill must be enacted.

The political breach of trust and betrayal of commitment to Scottish

voters were it not to be passed is unacceptable. However the Economic

Affairs Committee is right to identify the fiscal framework,

consequential in the bill as being of huge importance. That is correct

to do that. The SNP has no representation in the Lords. They

denied suggestions they would welcome delays We have been clear we

would like to see the fiscal framework, we would like to see

that. We are clear we will not sign up to a fiscal framework that will

be detrimental to the people of Scotland. We need to look carefully

and put it in front of the Scottish Parliament. They need to make the

decision. I hope nobody is suggesting we should sign up to

something that will be bad for the people of Scotland. Back in the

chamber another peer was on his feet and said this should be an exciting

time. This bill is not an end in itself. It is a means to try and

improve on the Governments of Scotland, the accountability of

Scottish Government, to take more decisions and build the kind of

Scotland we want to see and the bill has our support. For the people of

Scotland the debates and discussions continue. And all await further

Just before we came on air, I spoke to the former Conservative

You have just come from the House of Lords where the bill has passed its

second reading. There were concerns raised. Justifiably so? Yes, the

Scottish Parliament are insisting they can only consider the bill with

the fiscal framework, and this bill has gone through the House of

Commons and they have not had the fiscal framework which sounds

complicated. It is what decides how much money Scotland will get and

what the long-term funding of public services in Scotland will be, and

that is really very very important, in our Economic Affairs Committee

report showed there are hundreds of millions of pounds if not in the

longer term billions at stake here, it is difficult to consider the bill

properly without having the fiscal framework. Indeed you have

previously likened passing the Scotland bill to buying a car

without seeing the engine, do you think there is a danger Scotland

could be very much worse off if this isn't properly scrutinised? There is

indeed. If, if Scotland is funded under the Barnett Formula and gets

20% more than the rest of the UK, and you take some of that money and

replace it with money that is raised in taxes in Scotland. If the tax

base is the same in Scotland as in England and not 20% higher, there

will be a gap. How you move forward in the years ahead, with determining

the block grant is crucially important, and I think it may have

just dawned on the Scottish Government that is the case. I think

that is why the negotiations, which were supposed to be completed by

October are continuing to drag on. Do you agree with the Scottish

Government here, they shouldn't approve the Scotland bill until a

fair fiscal agreement has been thrashed out? Yes, of course I do.

It is their job, I am not elected but it is certainly my job to do

what is in the best interests of Scotland, but also in the best

interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. You had two reports in the

House of Lords, which have both come to the same conclusion, different

Select Committee, the constitution committee and the Economic Affairs

Committee saying it is outrageous to look at this without having the

fiscal framework. I think the Scottish Parliament are saying the

same thing. Not just them, you have eminent people like the principal of

Glasgow University for making the same point. There is a real danger

here. If we don't have a settlement which is agreed on all sides and

where the rules are clear, we will have continuing conflict, which I

think will be very damaging to the United Kingdom, which the majority

of people in Scotland have voted to retain. We will be speaking our

guest in a moment. What is the next stage for you, will you try and

delay this at the committee stage if you are not happy with the detail

that has been published? We can't, I mean the Government made a

concession tonight, which is the parts of the bill which are

dependent on the fiscal framework, dealing with welfare expenditure and

tax will be moved, so they are taken last, and they say that they, they

think they can get agreement with the Scottish Government. So frankly,

the Scottish Government and the British Government have got to stop

meeting once a month and start meeting rather more rapidly and get

on with it. And enable us to do our job in the House of Lords. We are

not seeking to challenge the policy, but what we are there to do is to

scrutinise and warn people about the possible long-term consequences and

you will have seen the Economic Affairs Committee, which is an all

party committee of very distinguished people, has said they

believe we get this wrong, it will result in the destruction of the

United Kingdom, which may well will what some people in the Scottish

Government want but it is not what people voted for. We have to leave

it there. Thanks for coming in this evening.

Joining me now in the studio is the leading economist,

who is Principal of Glasgow University.

Good evening to you. You have serious concerns about the so-called

fiscal framework, what are they? The main concern is that the formula

that you would use as part of a fiscal framework to adjust the block

grant, has to be done, has to be designed in such a way as not to

disadvantage Scotland. The point I made in that intervention last week

was the fact if it is not done by indexing it to tax receipts and the

rest of the UK per capita, over time the block grant could be reduced in

such a way the spending power of the Scottish Government could be

damaged. That is in my view not the intent of the Smith Commission

agreement, which was to reach a no detriment clause to agree a no

detriment clause. Difficult is it to find a system which will mean

neither side will be worse off in the years to come? It is difficult.

The methods I proposed and others have done, is over claim that

Scotland would not be disadvantaged relative to the rest of the United

Kingdom. There is no perfect mechanism. Inevitably, you have a

situation we are a situation where if you change one tanks in some part

of the United Kingdom it will have some spill-over into the other

products. That was a main point I was making in my intervention. Is

there a serious prospect that Scotland could be seriously

short-changed if an agreement has not worked on it? I think the

methodology suggests this could be the right one. I do not think that

demographics will be so important. The other point I made subsequent to

that intervention was you need to find some sort of mechanism in the

long run to ensure that there is some independent scrutiny over what

is happening over this formula. Should you have an independent

arbiter? The difficulty here with both the Barnett formula and this

adjustment is that the Treasury is both a participant and also the

arbiter, a referee, in this match. You may be want a more independent

assessment of the formula. Could you see that as a major sticking point

from the viewpoint of the Scottish Government? We are both senior has

to be an agreement which is made to last? Yes, absolutely. You do not

want, after three or four years, some dispute arising. There is

always likely to be some aspects of dispute, which we had under the

Barnett formula. There were certain expenditures which were not taken

through it, a sort of formula by purse. We need the robust formula,

but we also need to decide which mechanisms will go through

arbitration to be decided in the future. Is there a worry that this

has been cobbled together too quickly? I think it was always going

to be difficult. I think Lord Smith said at the beginning, the lack of a

fiscal framework was the worrying aspect. You cannot just say the bill

is a good thing in itself. But if it passes the fiscal framework, it

should be a good one for Scotland. A lot of opponents have accused

Scotland. Clean politics, seeing the do not really want these powers.

They are seeing the meat you can delay the bill of the fiscal

framework is not in place. At the rate to be seeing the ball not

approve the Scotland Bill event is not sorted out? I think it is

absolutely right that you have have the fiscal framework worked out.

Thank you very much for coming in this evening.

MPs have overwhelmingly rejected a call from the SNP

for the Trident nuclear missile system to be scrapped.

A debate was called by the SNP, who say Trident is a waste of money,

but there was never any prospect of the motion succeeding.

So, was it simply a piece of political mischief-making?

It certainly shone a light on Labour's disarray over Trident,

as 20 MPs defied Jeremy Corbyn's request to abstain from the vote.

logic is to declare a nuclear attack, but not everyone agrees.

People begin to in lives and 10-15 years and next year a decision will

be made as to whether the system should be renewed. For the Scottish

National party, this is the defining issue. Since the party began, it has

been strongly against nuclear weapons.

been strongly against nuclear Russia or action it has been taking

in the you you clean. It also will obviously did not predict the rise

of Isil. There is still concerned from the unions about jobs. There

are thousands of jobs across the Clyde Rosyth depended on Trident.

The risk to national security are constantly changing. Who were

enemies are in 20 years' time and how we protect against them is

almost impossible to predict. Joining me now to discuss that and

some of the day's other stories are two men who have gone from political

communications to public relations. Kevin Pringle was the Head

of Communications for the SNP and Andy MacIver likewise

for the Scottish Conservatives. Welcome to you both. I want to go

back to our top story about in a moment, but only Trident issue, was

the Scottish National party simply mischiefmaking? No, if you look at

the global cost Trident of over its lifetime, it is ?167 billion. It is

a huge cost, given that it is militarily Stickley useless. If you

applied it to the productive economy, you could create tens of

thousands of jobs. You need to expose the military uselessness of

Trident. It was important to test with the Labour opposition where.

Some are voting with the Scottish National party and some are voting

with the Conservatives. It is a weapon system which is of no

military value and also about the huge and indefensible commitment of

?167 billion. That is over 45 years. That is over its lifetime. But the

cost is going up significantly. If the idea was simply to highlight

Labour's split, that definitely worked. Yes, but that is not the

worst thing for Labour in the past ten days. There will be more on for

sleep with the statement from the Prime Minister. There is no reason

not to have a debate over this. It is perfectly legitimate to Trident

oppose and there are many who supported and many who oppose it.

What we have to remember is that Trident is not an offensive weapon.

It is a deterrent. It is the not to be used. If you look at the Cold

War, if you look at why there was no conflict, it was because of nuclear

weapons. It is not designed to be used, like a burglar alarm. But

there is no reason why the Scottish National party not oppose it. I

think it was fit enough to hold the point to highlight Trident. The

Labour Party did not really want it needed to be highlighted, but it

was. As we have said at the top of the programme, Natalie McGarry has

resigned the Scottish National party whip pending a police investigation

into financial regular irregularities. Has she done the

right thing? I think she has. Nobody knows the rates and wrongs of this.

As we speak, it has not been established if there has even been

criminality. We do not know. In these circumstances, Natalie McGarry

is absolutely entitled to be regarded as innocent. To take some

of the political heat out of the issue and the part partisanship out

of it, she has done everything by resigning from the Scottish National

party whip in the meantime. It is the source of the allegations which

must be the biggest concern to the party? I think it is important what

has happened. We simply do not know what has happened. We do not know if

there has been any criminality. They are assessing the situation. They

may have been there may not have been. Pending that, there is not

really any way anyone should act as the judge and jury. This is a matter

for the police in the first instance to establish what happened. We

should suspend judgment and CV of this investigation goes. Letters

establish the facts. But I certainly think Natalie McGarry that the right

thing. Should the First Minister have acted earlier? It has only been

in the making for a day and a half, so I would not criticise her too

much for that. But of course, we had this situation with Michelle Thomson

and know the situation with Natalie McGarry, so it is obvious that

political opponents will jump on it. But I think that the Scottish

National party have quite cleverly taken the midget sting out of the

story by making it a police matter and taking Natalie McGarry out of

the firing line. We do not know what happened. Once that becomes

revealed, it will become a story once again. When you are director of

communications, did you worry about the sudden success, getting 56 MPs

that something like this may come along. Officer, the battle was to

win as many seats as successful as possible and we were very successful

in that. It is important that we establish what happened. It is

premature to talk about fitting procedures. In the situation with

Michelle Thomson, the initial investigation was a referral to the

solicitors tribunal about his solicitor which had been struck off.

I do not know if this has been extended. Obviously, political

parties keep the procedures under constant review, but until such time

as it has been established that any wrongdoing has taken place, which is

not happen, it is not appropriate for the opposition to make political

capital out of it. The public are not the, and of the rear, you would

not have the situation over the period of the Michelle Thomson

situation that the Scottish National party are still sitting at over

half, 50% in the opinion polls. That is because the people are more

interested in that. It has not dented the popularity of the party,

but this could be the beginning of the Cameron? I do not think so. I do

not think it will be a vital before things turn around in Scottish

politics. If this was a labour or a conservative oriel Liberal

Democrat, the Scottish National party would be jumping on this and

doing the same thing. This is politics.

That is it for tonight. Thanks for watching.

David will be here at the same time tomorrow night.