18/01/2016 Scotland 2016

As MPs debate banning him from Britain, Donald Trump threatens

Well, he'll still get into the UK, but The Donald won't be getting

His comments about Muslims are passionately condemned by MPs.

He's talking about my family, my children. That is what Mr Trump is

talking about. Widespread opposition at Holyrood

to the Trades Unions Bill. Does the Scottish Government

have the power to block it? And 1% of the richest people

own more than the other 99%. Donald Trump's comments

about Muslims made the UK an "uncomfortable place"

for her and other Muslims to live Another called him a "dangerous

fool". For three hours, MPs debated

whether the Home Secretary should ban the American presidential

hopeful from Britain The debate at Westminster

was prompted by an e-petition signed Earlier today, Donald Trump

addressed students at liberty university, Lynchburg, in Virginia.

Get those teleprompters out of here. At almost the same time, MPs at

Westminster Paul were debating a petition to ban the Republican

presidential contender from the UK. I draw the line at freedom of speech

when it imports violent ideology, which is what I feel is happening.

If we only allow free speech for those we agree with, is that free

speech at all? He is talking about my family, my children. That is what

Mr Trump is talking about. It is worthy of note, however, that his

policy would make it impossible for me or other Muslims of America to

travel to his country to make the same case there that we are making

here. This follows Mr Trump's comments about Muslims. Donald J

Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims

entering the United States, until our country's representatives can

figure out what the hell is going on. But he had caused a few raw at

the launch of his presidential campaign with remarks he made about

Mexicans. They are bringing drugs, crime. They are priests, and I

assume some are good people -- they are beasts. At the same time, one of

his hosts in Scotland was laying golf. He can say what he wants, my

opinion about myself and my culture is not going to change. He has

caused the odd row here, of course, not least about wind farms of his

East Aberdeenshire golf course. The mother is from Scotland, and you

have to be careful. The greatest thing Scotland has is its land. The

greatest thing, other than its people, who are incredible, is its

land. They are destroying the landscape of Scotland with these

ugly wind turbines. The latest controversy meant hundreds of

thousands signed a petition here to ban Donald Trump from the UK.

Students at liberty university told us what they thought. I think

keeping him out of another country would not be the best idea. It

actually does the same thing that they don't want him to do to Muslim

people. Just because you don't agree with someone, or you think they

could be dangerous, it doesn't mean they should be banned from a

country. Meanwhile, Mr kerb's spokesperson in Scotland gave the

official reaction -- Mr Trump's spokesperson. Our politicians would

be better served in debating the issues currently facing our country

and its people. In the north-east of Scotland, there are tens of

thousands of jobs being lost in the oil industry, and thousands more to

come. These are the issues that our parliament should be focusing on. It

maybe that ordinary voters in the US will not much notice of anything MPs

say. My guess is that if he is asked about it, which he will be by media,

he will say that this is evidence of him standing up for what is right,

of him saying what needs to be said. His campaign slogan is to make

America a great again, and this is how he does it, by speaking the

truth and standing up to foreign bodies. His opponents may try to use

it as a way of showing that Trump doesn't have the respect of foreign

powers. Do you really want this man to be on the world stage? And saying

these outlandish comments? This is not what we should have representing

America. It may even be that uppity Brits complaining about him will do

Mr Trump some good. Donald Cobb knows how to make America great. --

Donald Trump. And we can speak now

to our Westminster Correspondent - We saw a passionate contribution

there from Tasmin Ahmed Sheikh. Where the SNP United on this today?

Something you do not see often these days, SNP MPs disagreeing with each

other. As you say, Tasmin Ahmed Sheikh made a powerful personal

argument in favour of banning Donald Trump from the UK. She argued that

his policies would condemn her family, as Muslims, to not be able

to visit the United States. She said Donald Trump was bad for business in

Scotland. Making the opposite argument, however, was Corey Wilson,

the SNP MP who represents the area in which the golf course is based.

She said Mr Trump's investments had been great for the local area.

Although she strongly condemned the comments he made about Muslims, she

said that he removing any investment from Turnberry would be

catastrophic. We saw a lot of contributions and cross-party

condemnation of his comments. Is there actually any prospect of him

being banned from the UK? It is very unlikely. One of the things about

Westminster Hall debates is that they are great for MPs to give their

opinion on an issue of the day and sound off like things about Donald

Trump, but there is no vote taken at the end of the debate. Ultimately,

the decision on this will lie with the Home Secretary, Theresa May. She

hasn't given her own opinion on whether Mr Trump should be banned

yet, but we have had a number of soundings from the government that

they do not think banning a man who could be the Republican presidential

candidate and could even one day be president, from the UK if a good

idea. Union reforms proposed by the UK

Government could damage industrial relations in Scotland,

according to Holyrood's Devolution MSPs are calling for Scotland to be

removed from the scope The Scottish secretary,

David Mundell, says the UK government will "look closely"

at their concerns. Here's our political

correspondent, Glenn Campbell. The law on strikes and other union

activities is not devolved. It is for Westminster to decide. But a

majority on Holyrood Palace make devolution committee want the

Conservative government to exempt Scotland from the changes they

propose. There is widespread opposition to this in Scotland. We

think Scotland should be removed from the territorial extent as far

as the Trade Union Bill is concerned, particularly given that

90% of the public service in Scotland work in devolved areas.

Scotland opposes the Trade Union Bill. There was a rally against the

bill in Glasgow last month, and both the Scottish Government and local

government employers oppose the legislation. The Trade Union Bill

abolishes check off in the public sector, preventing employers

collecting union subscriptions. It regulates facility time, giving

ministers powers to curb paid time off for union activities. And it

requires a minimum 50% turnout for strike ballots to be valid. No

matter what Holyrood says about the rules on strike ballots, UK

ministers are determined that their reforms will apply across Britain.

But might they be prepared to exempt Scotland from the changes to check

off and facility time? The UK Government certainly hasn't ruled

that out. We will look at the report. The First Minister has

raised these issues with the Prime Minister at a meeting at the end of

last year. At that point, the Prime Minister undertook to look at the

issues that had been raised. He is still considering them. So what if

he rejects the pleas of Nicola Sturgeon and others? If the bill

becomes law, we will not voluntarily cooperate with it or implement it in

Scotland. That was the First Minister's warning at Unite's

Scottish conference, but the union's leader called on the Scottish

Government to go further. I will be saying, don't just oppose this

wretched Bill, but block it in Scotland. But given industrial

relations law is a Westminster responsibility, what scope does

Holyrood actually have the block the Trade Union Bill?

When the Trades Union Bill was debated in Holyrood last

November, there was near cross-party consensus in opposing it.

Only the Conservatives voted in favour.

So you might think they'd be keen to come on and tell us why.

But not one of their 14 MSPs was available this evening and nor

So joining me here from the SNP is Linda Fabiani and Neil Findlay

Linda Fabiani, trade union law is not a devolved matter, so why do you

think Scotland should be exempted from the scope of Westminster's

Trade Union Bill? Cos it has a direct effect on Scotland. Firstly,

there has been no consultation in any meaningful way. We heard that

from the representatives when they came to our committee last week. So

there is no knowledge at Westminster of how industrial relations work in

Scotland, and we have a good system. Since the SNP came to power, the

number of industrial actions has gone down hugely. We have a good

relationship with the trade unions, and employers, people working

together. Then why should you be consulted? Because it directly

affects people in Scotland. Not only that. When you look at what is

devolved, like the health services, the Fire Services and public

services, this could have a massive impact on the relations we have over

issues that are the responsibility of Scotland. Neil Findlay, there

have been attempts by SNP and Labour MPs to block the bill. They failed,

so what more do you think the Scottish Government could do? Linda

is right. This does impact on public services in Scotland. It impacts on

police support staff, the NHS, local government, a whole range of

services. So you agree on that? Yes, it does impact. The other reason we

can debate it in the Scottish Government is because the presiding

officer has ruled that we cannot. She would have done that on the

basis of legal advice, but presumably, since the Scottish

Government laid their legislative consent motion, they would have had

legal advice also that was contrary to the presiding officer. So I think

we should work together towards getting that legislative consent

motion before Parliament so that we can debate this, because it clearly

impact on devolved services. Could this block it? We are having a

debate in the Scottish Parliament next week on the committee's report.

So it is not that we have stopped debating it. What has not been

allowed is the legislative consent motion is required to being

committed in Scotland. But in the end, is then not very little you can

do? One of the recommendations of the devolution and additional powers

committees is that the Scottish Government has another debate as

well. We have to look at every possibility of mitigating in

Scotland. We want Scotland taken out of this, of course we do. But there

is also a big issue about the regulatory powers of the Scottish

ministers when it comes to the public services. At the very least,

that should be passed over so that's what Nicola Sturgeon said, that we

will not willingly implement this, at least with the public services,

we should know where we are and where industrial relations are

going. We would not be discussing the

legislative consent motion. There is a proposal from Labour and that we

change the standing orders of the parliament to allow that to happen.

How long would that take? It could be done quickly if there is a

political will. The parties that believe in that should move in that

direction. I put down a motion in Parliament before the Christmas

recess stating that the parties should get together and we should

support that move to change the rules. It is nonpartisan, asking for

that. You want to withhold consent for something that is not a devolved

issue. What disappoints be on this, and I hope that London will be the

first SNP member to support this, I would ask her to look at that. In

terms of legislative consent, the Welsh assembly has a legislative

consent motion put down by the Welsh Government which will be debated so

that is an implication in Wales and the implications in Scotland. The

Conservatives are conspicuous by their absence here tonight. Would

you not be better placed finding a way of agreeing instead of

squabbling about the way forward? I agree but what I will say is that I

believe that the best way of working together was through the Smith

Commission to get union law and employment law devolved. The same

way that the STC wanted. The Smith Commission might the past but Labour

could still come on board and say they got it wrong, they want this

devolved. It is up to us to make the decisions in Scotland and it should

be up to us to make the decisions in Scotland. Can you beat United? Of

course. The issue raised has passed. What we have two deal with now is

the practicalities of what we can do. We can

practically do that if we change the standing orders of the parliament

and if we are willing to work across the parties to get that budget of

consent motion before the parliament where I think there would be a large

majority to vote that legislative consent motion down. Then we would

expect the full weight of the Scottish Government to go into

negotiations with the UK Government to exempt Scotland from this. There

we must leave it for this evening. We will see how this other false.

Argue for joining me. The rich and powerful are gathering

in the small Swiss mountain village of Davos to take part

in the World Economic Forum. Business and global leaders

will discuss topics from climate But one poverty campaign group says

the focus should be on how to reduce the worldwide gap

between rich and poor. Ahead of the meeting,

Oxfam GB has published a report claiming that just 62 people

own the same wealth as half The world is getting richer and

according to Oxfam more and equal. 1% of the worldpos-macro just people

all more than the other 99%. The report found that in 2015 just 62

people owned as much as 3.6 billion people, the poorest 50% of the

population. And instead of narrowing the gap between the richest and

poorest it is widening. The wealth of the richest rose by 44% in the

five years since 2010. The combined wealth of the poorest fell by 41% in

the same period. Today some have questioned Oxfam's report. The Adam

Smith Institute said the figures are misleading that if you measure its

definitely you could argue there is greater equality globally. Are we

living in times of greater equality or as global inequality reaching new

extremes? Joining me now from London hopefully

to shed some light on those big questions are Oxfam GB's Head

of Inequality, Nick Bryer and Ben Southwood from

the free market think tank And what we are Oxfam's figures

misleading? There are three problems. The point of

representation. When you start to some up negative numbers you get

strange results. The bottom 2 billion people have negative net

wealth, not as you'll get real. If you add them up the amounts get

smaller as and a bigger negative number. For the coolest person in

the world, is actually richer than the next 2 billion people put

together. It is misleading. It does not include human capital. People

who have just finished university with student debts come out as very

poor even if they are just about to start a banking job. Other measures

of any quality sure it narrowing distribution, not a widening one. Do

you accept that you are figures are misleading? Not at all. The Adam

Smith Institute has raised these concerns that they have before. They

are concerns that occurred to us when we first started looking at

these data sources. This data is not something we have conjured up out of

nowhere. This is widely regarded as the best available wealth data in

the world. The point that was raised about graduates with debt, it is

misleading. It is a distraction from the real story. You can look at the

overall wealth statistics. 1% of people have more wealth than the

other 99% combined. As that's not something to be concerned about?

Possibly. There is reason why we might want to be concerned about

wealth inequality. But at the same time it should not get too worried

about it when it is being driven by various parsley temporary factors

and partly misleading factors. One major reason why over the last few

years and especially over the last year the number has shrunk, is

because of a rising dollar, so most countries around the world appear to

get your. Not at all. We had that seem concerned. We talked to people

from the team who rate the report. We had the same concern and turns

out because different currencies fluctuate, and if you look at the

strained over a number of years, it turns out that effect is basically

negligible. Do you think there is a limit to the amount of wealth that

one person should be allowed to amass? It depends under what

circumstances they are gaining the wealth? Look at the 62 people who

own as much as half of the world, many of them, people like Bill Gates

and others have created huge amount of value for everyone else on the

way to getting their own wealth and after doing so they are biting at

wealth parsley into investment, which mixes all wealthier and

future, and partly into philanthropy. I do not think it is

that big an issue to worry about. I do not think they should be a cap

put on the amount of wealth someone could bring to themselves when it

are also creating wealth for others. But trickles down in the end? The

fact is and what history shows us the trickle down effect simply is

not true. The president of the World Bank said the same if you months

ago. What is said about philanthropy is true. There are some generous

individuals within the super-rich 62 but it does not change the fact that

if you look at tax havens, a perfect illustration of this insane runaway

inequality we have, a system that works for the very rich and very

powerful few, and against the majority, against the vast majority,

tax havens are holding $7.6 trillion of individual wealth. That makes

normal moral or economic sense. That is money that could be fuelling

economies in rich and poor countries, it could be creating

jobs. It is money that should be being taxed. Governments around the

world are losing $190 billion because that wealth is stashed in

tax havens. That is money that should be getting kids into school,

getting sick people into hospital. It is ludicrous to say that that

kind of tax avoidance is not having a harmful effect on everybody. There

we must leave it. Thank you. Well joining me now to discuss that

and some of today's other news stories are Gerry Hassan,

Author and Research Fellow in cultural policy at the University

of the West of Scotland, and the former Liberal Democrat

advisor Shabnum Mustapha. Let us stick with the inequality

story. How big an issue do you think it is going to be for politicians in

the Holyrood election trail? Any quality is an issue. That is

recognised across all the political parties. There will be differences

in the manifesto is when they are published as to how we tackle it.

All the major parties said they would prioritise education. We know

there is an issue about education attainment gap, where the poorest

children in Scotland. All the parties recognised as an issue, they

all have different solutions. SNP have been in power for many years

but the attainment gap has widened. He needs to ask questions of why

they have not tackle this already. Other parties have put forward

different proposals to dry and deal with this issue. Do you think that

any of the parties are offering anything particularly radical? If

you agree that this is a big problem what are they going to do to close

the gap? You heard in that discussion, inequality is something

that to most people it is an abstraction. It is about an entire

society. To judge yourself relative to other people. Any quality matters

in relationship to social justice and then to poverty. On those issues

Scotland has talked a good talk for the entire devolution period, but

that has not done anything other than redistribute income and

opportunities up the income scale. Three tier for the elderly, council

tax freeze, these do not reduce poverty or any quality. They have

people that are doing all right. The bigger house you have the more you

gain from the council tax freeze. If you talk about unravelling some of

these issues we can maybe begin to start some things. Educational or

lack of opportunity for working-class kids, it involves

challenging middle-class privileges. David Cameron said a pure grasp of

English left Muslim woman more susceptible to extremism. -- a poor

grasp. If the investor not improve new migrants will not be guaranteed

a right to stay. You have to be able to speak basic level of English to

come into the country as it has and wife. We have made that change

already and we're now going to tap in that up. We are halfway through

the spousal settlement programme. There will be another opportunity to

make sure your English is improving. You cannot guarantee you can stay if

you do not improve your language. What do you make of this? I do not

to start. There is a complete lack of coherence with this policy. He is

taking the serious issue of tackling radicalisation in the UK which does

need to be challenged and lumping and migrant Muslim woman in the UK

who do not speak Angus, who make up a small number of the UK population,

and trying to link the two. He has not brought forward serious evidence

to show the link. I am not aware of any of those who have travels to

commit terrorism... There is a point about segregation but segregation

and integrating works both ways. It reminds me of Tony Blair at his

worst when people had been involved in minor crimes were going to be

taken to bank places and money being taken out of your account. It is

just off the hoof policies, combining two issues. Yes, speaking

English is helpful, yes there are issues in Muslim communities with

some women. Issues in all sorts of communities, not just Muslim. There

are issues with radicalisation. Before we get to the end of the

programme I wanted to talk about 40 years since the Scottish Labour

Party first broke away from the UK Labour Party. 40 years on has

Scottish Labour completely embraced devolution? I do not think they have

an adverse why they are where they are. History has shown us that they

have never fully embraced it. They seem to have problems with it. The

Calman Commission, the Smith Commission, they never came forward

with innovative exciting policies for Scotland. Parties like the

Liberal Democrats, federal parties who were comfortable with the idea

of devolution, where as the Labour policy on devolution tends to be top

down and that is why they had issues with it. There is an issue about

trusting Scottish Labour to devolve powers. They do not have as much

credibility on this. What do you think 40 years on was a static and

is about breakaway? It was short and ill-fated. It shows the weakness of

Scottish Labour. Jim Sillars pioneered Independence in Europe.

You could say it was the birth pains of the modern SNP and the modern SNP

dominance of Scotland. Have Scottish Labour learned from it? No.

Political parties can adapt. They can fall, they can die, they can

resurrect. But they are not at the resurrection stage yet.

Let your New Year start with a bang and visit an explosive new China.

Celebrate a country 4,000 years in the making.

Getting out into the streets and seeing what it's all about.

And see this little-known nation in a brand-new light.