01/02/2016 Scotland 2016

With both sides still far apart, time is running out for a deal

Another round of talks between the Scottish and UK

Governments fails to break the deadlock over new tax

If you are taking on new powers then you take on the risk that something

goes wrong on the economy and you don't get the revenue -

The starting gun is fired on the most unpredictable

And Will Smith talks to John Beattie about the connection

between American Football and brain damage the subject

A big part of why I wanted to make this film was as a parent I didn't

know - I sent my child out there, and I think at a minimum you have

to know so you can make an informed decision.

Another day, another set of talks between the Scottish Government

and the Treasury that have failed to reach agreement

It's the eighth time they've met and still no deal.

If agreement isn't reached soon on the funding formula that

will underpin new tax powers for Scotland,

Holyrood may not have time to scrutinise the deal this side

And huge change. We're about to get new powers on tax and welfare which

the UK Government says will transform Hauritz into one of the

world's most powerful devolved parliaments. But is all that about

to be scuppered by a row over how it gets paid for? Scotland's budget is

currently funded by the UK Treasury through the Barnett formula, and is

more powers come north to Holyrood, the size of that part has to be cut.

And that is the issue that is causing problems. Today, the Deputy

First Minister John Swinney attended the latest in a series of

negotiations with the Treasury in an attempt to agree a solution. But

after several hours of talks, no deal. We have had a lot of

discussion a long discussion on the issues in connection with the fiscal

framework. We're still trying to get to the point of agreement. The

Treasury put forward some proposals today, I've put forward alternative

proposals at our last meeting and we discussed those further. This is our

eighth meeting so far and we remain absolutely committed, the UK

Government, to getting a good fiscal framework that is the right fiscal

framework for taxpayers in Scotland and for the rest of the UK. There

are issues still to resolve, but we remain up the about getting a deal.

So how might Scotland's Treasury grant be cut? One option is known as

index deduction with the Treasury grants declines in line with UK tax

revenues. Then there is per capita index deduction where the cuts takes

account of Scotland's slower population growth compared to the

rest of the UK. This is thought to be the Scottish Government's

preferred method. A third option is known as levels adjustment programme

funding is based on a population share of change in taxes in the rest

of the UK, a bit like how the Barnett formula currently works. And

there is another issue. The final agreement, whatever that is, is not

supposed to put Scotland at a disadvantage, the so-called no

detriment clause. But some experts argue that is almost impossible to

achieve. You have to have detriment. If you are taking on new powers then

you take on the risk that something goes wrong in the economy and you do

not get the tax revenues that you expected. So you have to live with

that. You cannot have a situation where under all states of the world

things will be no worse than they would be under the current Barnett

formula. And time is now running short. The agreement on Scotland's

new funding deal needs to be wrapped up well ahead of the Scottish

parliament elections in May. Without it, the prospect of new financial

powers for Holyrood could be bleak. Well, earlier today the BBC's

Scotland Editor Sarah Smith spoke to leading economist and Principal

of Glasgow University, She started by asking him

whether the Scottish Government is right to say that the Treasury

proposals could cost Scotland They are absolutely right about

that, and I have proposed a particular methodology, or supported

a methodology called capita induction, which tends to protect

Scotland against additional democratic risk. And if we were to

go with for instance indexed deduction, over the next ten years

we could use the' lose -- we could lose Jamila to the millions of

pounds. Why just because Scotland's population is growing more slowly

does that mean they would get less money? The reason is because unlike

per capita index deduction those other formulae don't ensure Scotland

against additional democratic risk. The UK has a peculiar demographic

structure, of course. Immigration to Scotland is likely to be far less

than immigration to London and the south-east over the next 20-30 years

the office of National to sticks predicts that those patterns will

continue. In Scotland does not have the powers to do anything about

that. We don't do not have any separate immigration policy and any

attempt to do that through post of the work visas have not been

accepted. Scotland does not have the leverage to do anything about that,

so it seems unreasonable for them to take on the risk. There are people

who say that if we sign up to the methodology the Scottish Government

one that would be unfair to English taxpayers. That is one argument that

has been put forward, the taxpayer fairness argument, so for instance

if the UK Government were to raise taxes in the future to pay for

English NHS or the English education, through the per capita

method Scotland would get some additional funding which it should

not have. You can adjust to try to take account of that. It would mean

an additional tweaks to the formulae, but you can do that. And

of the three method the capita method is the easiest one to tweak

in such a way as to take account, and make sure that Smith is fully

adhered to. Smith had these various no detriment clauses, and the three

methodologies set those clauses to a different extent. In my view the per

capita one is the only one that can meet the requirements of Smith, the

other two for short of the no detriment to Scotland, and frankly

cannot be adapted as far as I can tell. There are people in England

who think that England gets too much money, that the Barnett formula is

too generous and they want to correct that. But the fiscal

framework is trying to deliver Smith and the vow that preceded Smith, and

that started off by saying that the Barnett formula shall be the formula

which is at the heart of that settlement. And then there were no

detriment clauses upended to that. If this is about delivering Smith,

it has to start with Barnett and enshrining Barnett, and not then

undermining it and having a bit of detriment. It is about no detriment,

and therefore I cannot see any other formula delivering that whilst being

fair to the rest of the UK taxpayers.

Professor Anton Muscatelli speaking to Sarah Smith.

Just before we came on air I spoke to Professor Michael Keating,

Professor of politics at Aberdeen University and Director

of the Centre For Constitutional Change.

I started by asking him whether the differences

between the Treasury and Scottish Government may prove

to be irreconcilable or is it all just political manouvering?

It's mostly about politics. There will be an agreement eventually

because most sites have a very strong incentive to reach an

agreement, and because it is about money there will be a compromise.

You can always make a compromise about money, and probably they will

get the arithmetic to work around it. The difficulty, however, with

this is selling whatever deal they get. Because of David Cameron is

seen as being too generous to scuttle his own backbenchers will

not like it. There is a lot of discontent in Wales and Northern

Ireland and they will be looking for their own deals, and this is about

the curious way we do public finance in this country. There is a

negotiation about Scotland, a separate one for Wales and Northern

Ireland, and then England comes along at the end rather than having

a single system for the whole country. Whatever you do for one

part of the UK, the others will complain. Is it in the end for

Scotland possible to design an enduring formula that will make sure

that neither Scotland nor the rest of the UK actually loses out? That

is very difficult to do. A lot of people say that you could introduce

a single system for the whole of the UK based on need, so resources go to

where the need is greatest. That would be just fair, it could be

worked out so that it could be a long-term plan. The difficulty is

getting from here to there, because if you're going to change the system

that will be winners and losers, and as we know the winners stay very

quiet and the losers shout from the rooftops. Thinking about the deals

on the table at the moment, we do not know exactly what they are

discussing, but the method favoured by Anton Moscow telly and the

Scottish Government, would that not involve Scotland having its cake and

eating it as well? That's what everyone wants to have. It gets

extremely technical but the UK Government and the Treasury seem to

have moved a little way towards the Scottish position. And what Anton

Muscatelli was proposing would be in the interest of the Scottish

Government, so it is not surprisingly would take up that

because they think they would gain from it. Ultimately it is a question

of political advantage and arriving at political compromise. This all

centres around having to keep the Barnett formula. Do you think you

can reconcile keeping it and devolving taxes to this extent?

Whatever we get might be called the Barnett formula but it is not the

Barnett formula as we understood it. The Barnett formula in the past was

driven by expenditure levels in England, Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland got their share of that. This simply does not apply

when you have devolved taxes. That is why we are introducing all kinds

of other criteria that were not in the Barnett formula. In the Smith

commission and the parties' 's emissions to the commission they all

wanted to keep the Barnett formula but all had different versions of

what the Barnett formula means. Do you think whatever deal they thrash

out will be a lasting solution? That is very difficult to say. We know

that putting public finances is extremely difficult. Governments

keep missing their spending and debt and deficit target. It is extremely

difficult to model or plan the future. We do not know what the

world will be like in five or ten years' time. And it is exacerbated

in the congregations of the system itself. Inevitably there will be

unanticipated consequences. People will demand that the formula be

revised, Welsh and the Northern Irish will pile in there, so I do

not see there being a stable and agreed formula. But it should be

sent to UK is not the own country having these problems. All over

Europe governments are grappling with how you distribute finance over

parts of the country that is economically efficient and socially

just. All eyes are on the mid-western

state of Iowa tonight, where the starting gun has been

fired on the US Presidential race. It's shaping up to be one

of the most exciting and unpredictable

contests in decades. A year ago, who'd have imagined

Donald Trump as most likely Or Hillary Clinton as anything other

than a shoo-in for the Joining me now from Iowa,

is the BBC's Washington Expectations are being turned on

their head. What is the latest? Who would have

thought the contest would have turned out the way it has? Donald

Trump on the Republican side and Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side.

The Republican polls have Donald Trump with a small lead over Ted

Cruz. In the Republic -- in the Democrat side it is neck and neck

between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. People will go to meetings

around this state and hear speeches. If you are public and you will sign

a bit of paper. If you are a Democrat he will physically stand in

a part of the room that denotes who you support. Then we start to get

the figures and the results. That will be the moments when certain

genes of certain candidates will come to an end. Others will think

they can see a way ahead potentially to the nomination and potentially to

the presidency. How important is what happens in

Iowa? It is interesting. Politically it

does not account for a lot of votes in terms of the national conventions

of the parties. At its distinction, its significance is that it is

first, it comes first in the nation, it gets a chance before anyone else

to say, we do not like you, we like you, you can leave, you can stay.

This is the powerful position that Iowa finds itself in and jealously

guards that position in the primary season. It passed laws to make sure

that it goes first in this entire process. That is the significance of

it. After tonight what you will see, particularly because the Republican

field is so crowded with 11 candidates in it, you will see

winnowing down, people started to drop out, simply for the reason that

it will not have enough money to carry on. The money will deserve

them. That is only a finite amount of money and when you are splitting

it that many ways something has to give. And then we will have a

candidacy of several people. The president of the European

council said good progress has been made on David Cameron's reform

demands. If the two can reach an agreement on EU reform.

And that's backed by all 28 EU leaders at their summit

month - an in/out referendum could be held as early as June.

So, are the rival campaigns in Scotland ready?

The BBC's political correspondent, Glenn Campbell, explains.

At this stage the in campaign is more developed than the out. The

stronger in campaign has set up a Scottish team. Inevitably there will

be some messages warning of the potential impact of moving out of

the European Union but our aim is to be a non-party campaign, people

based, talking up the benefits of EU membership for Scotland and the

broader UK. Of the six foot coal parties with parliamentarians in

Scotland's only one, Ukip, is campaigning for an out ports.

Leaders of Labour, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, SNP, and

the dreams, all once Scotland to stay within the EU.

At the moment there Leave campaign in Scotland is embryonic but this

myth that Scotland is in love with the European Union, it has been

little debate on this. Who knows during a referendum which way this

might go? Who is arguing the case? David Cockburn of Ukip. There is

also a Labour Leave campaign fronted by Nigel Griffiths. And Jim Sillars

says he will be on that side of the argument. Brian Monteith,

conservative, has been involved in the Leave.EU campaign. There is also

bought Leave. But neither of these have yet set up Scottish operations.

Will Smith has starred in many memorable movies

He plays the forensic pathologist Dr Bennet Omalu,

who is called to examine the body of local hero, American

He died of a heart attack at the age of 50 after years of showing

Dr Omalu, discovers Webster's brain has something called CTE,

a degenerative brain disease brought about by head knocks.

You know what hastily does to people. Trained physicians who

ignore science. I am not done. Mr Lee laughs. If you continue to deny

my work the world will deny my work, but your men continue to die,

families left in ruins. Tell the truth.

The BBC's own John Beattie - a former Scotland Rugby

international - researched the link between concussion and CTE

He caught up with the film star ahead of the release next week.

I know you said you watched your son play American football but you did

not realise that knocks these people get. It is the strangest thing. We

watch it. We see the hurts. You see someone go down. Then you applaud

when they come back five minutes later. You think they are oche. Once

I had the science explained to me it's becomes so obvious that you

cannot imagine how you did not see it before. Their big part of why I

wanted to make this film was as a parent I did not know, I sent my

child out there, and at a minimum you have 20 so you can an informed

decision. But do the governing bodies, the NFL, the Rugby unions,

do they look after players? I have spent a lot of time with

professional players in the last eight months since working on this.

I was actually shocked at how many players were calling to see the film

for information. That seemed strange to me that players were coming out

of the film and had never had the science puts together in a way that

was simple and comprehensive. That was surprising. Do you wonder that

maybe the top collision sports, rugby, soccer, NFL, will ever

change? If it was my head I think I have to be responsible for my head.

Not your employer. Rate. My employer has to be responsible for whatever

they want to be responsible for. But once I have the information, and it

is not an easy decision, it has been excruciating for me in this process.

I love acting and if I found out that acting could cause potential

long-term brain damage that would be life destroying for me. I know that

this is a difficult situation. It is a very inconvenient reality. This is

how I make my living so I know what that is. So I want to be very

careful in making those kind of judgments for other people. I want

people to have the information. Where next for these sports? With

the new science and the acceptance of it I do believe that there will

be scientific advancement in the next five, ten years that will be

extremely helpful. But for today, there is really nothing to do other

than bang your head less. Here with me now to discuss that

and some of the day's other news are two journalists,

Liam Kirkaldy from Holyrood magazine We will go back to the Iowa

caucuses. Voting begins soon in these important presidential

primaries. Donald Trump, will he get the Republican nomination? You have

two hope that this is the beginning of some serious campaigning and some

serious politics. So far the primary campaigns just seem to be eccentric.

Donald Trump is what would happen if Twitter came to life and started

campaigning for US president. For the last 45 years no one who has

come outside the top four at the Iowa caucus has then gone on to

become the party 's presidential candidate. Hopefully tonight we will

get rid of some of the fleet, separated from the chaff, and move

forward with a more serious campaign. I was not overestimate the

significance of the Iowa caucus. What about the chances of Donald

Trump over all? Overall I do not think he will win. There is a chance

he will win the contest that is going on just now. It is not a

hugely influential part of the entire thing. In 2008 in 2012 the

person to come out top in Iowa did not go on to win the nomination. The

last Republican to go on to win the nomination that one in Iowa was

George Bush in 2000. That suggests that Republican members there are

not the most in tune with the rest of their party. The significant

thing might be how it affects the other candidates. If you do badly in

this that could be enough to ruin your chances. But I do not think

winning it will be definitive. Let us move on. The new report from a

think tank says everyone should receive a basic income from the

state. ?100 for every adult. ?50 for every child. What do you make of

this? It does not a new idea. Bertrand Russell was talking about

that. The SNP wants to position itself as a socialist radical

reforming party. This is the type of politics it should be discussing. In

practice concerns about this type of policy and that it discourages you

will from working. Yet they are suggesting it would remove

disincentives to take more work, particularly part-time work, you do

not agree? I think that is a general concern that is topped about when

citizens income is mentioned. This was fermented in villages in India

and entrepreneurship came out of it. It had a positive impact. One of the

things I would want to address would be with this encourage businesses to

reduce salaries. If everybody is having a basic income where is the

incentive for business to pay fair salaries. It is a left-leaning idea

from a think tank that is usually regarded as being on the right, more

libertarian. Is this a sign that there is common ground? I would not

call it a particularly left-wing policy. It is not a right-wing one.

The Greens have supported. It is an all Dean policy. It is a difficult

one to articulate to voters. Voters have heard for a long time there is

not enough money. To then say that he wants to give ?100 2 million

years, people that have money already, that is a difficult sell.

The return of universality. A subject that has not been discussed

recently. That is something that is in one sense left wing. It is

universal in the sense of the way that the NHS was founded. At the

same time it is not progressive. It is not based on the money of --

based on the idea of taking money from the rich to give to the pure. A

day of intense because she is and is regarding the EU in Downing Street.

He said they had made good progress that that outstanding issues remain.

What can we expect tomorrow? Something substantial? I do not

think we can expect anything particularly substantial tomorrow.

There has not been any particular events so far that David Cameron is

going to be getting what he is wanting out of these stocks.

Yesterday it was said they would be no compromise in individual freedoms

which suggests a problem over David Cameron's requests on benefits and

movement. David Cameron has been over egging how difficult the

negotiations have been so that whatever happens tomorrow he is

still in a position to look like he has achieved something for the

Eurosceptics. How visual do you think the next few weeks and months

will be for David Cameron at home and abroad? In particular over this

deal that is key for him, the next 12 days if he wants to get a

referendum by the summer. That is what he is going to be focusing on.

A lot of other issues will go on the back burner so that he could try and

get this deal through. I do not think it is a huge change. Thank

you. Just before we leave you tonight and update on storm Henry.

Storm Henry making for hazardous conditions through tonight and

tomorrow morning. An Amber Beek appeared warning in force. Wind

gusts of 70 mph, 80 mph, 90 mph. Potentially structural damage.

Hazardous driving conditions. Frequent and heavy showers. Wintry

over hills and he drowned. Longer spells of rain. -- hills and he

drowned. Miserable conditions to start their day tomorrow. Delays and

disruption tomorrow. It also be wintry on the hills. A gradual

improvement as we go through the day. Still windy but we will lose

those storm force gusts. Do take care out there tonight.

Goodbye.