24/02/2016 Scotland 2016

Now the deal is done, how might the Scottish Government

As the dust settles on the financial deal to underpin Holyrood's

new powers, how might the Scottish government do things differently?

Amnesty International says human rights around the world

And ahead of Friday's election, what lessons from the Irish Republic

about how its government has dealt with austerity?

The agreement struck over Scotland's future funding is an "excellent

deal" for those who want to keep the UK together,

The Prime Minister challenged the Scottish Government to start

"talking about policies and decisions rather than processes."

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told MSPs at Holyrood there was now

an agreement in principal over how Scotland would be funded,

which would allow the powers in the Scotland Bill

There are of course conflicting visions of what the next Scottish

government should do with its shiny new powers. We certainly believe

that the government will have the progressive tax powers it needs to

undertake some redistribution of wealth. There will be limits, but it

will be significant. We don't know what the size of its investment

powers will be, but if they are significant then in areas such as

housing industry, we will be for those powers to make good on the SNP

promised that they want these powers to tackle austerity. There is not a

huge tax base in Scotland and there is a risk if rates are too high, we

will lose people and capital. It's the last thing we need. What we need

to do is find a way of lowering taxes, constraining spending and

making Scotland re industrialised and grow itself out faster than

before. It is a racing certainty that the SNP will form the next

government, so what does it look like they will do? They have set

themselves a fairly stiff test over tax rises. It seems to be based on

the percentage rise in people's tax bills. That would allow them to

impose a one, two, three tax rise. Adding 1p to basic rate and 3p to

the additional rate at the top. They could do that within their own

benchmark. The question is, will they do that? That leaves opposition

parties free to make promises, knowing they will not have to keep

them, in order to distinguish themselves from the SNP approach. I

think Labour is sincere in proposing a 1p income tax rise, they are

insane -- they are sincere in wanting to protect public spending.

I think you are right. Where the polls are shows that Labour

particularly has a little bit more freedom to be a little bit more

daring. The Westminster government may be hoping their will be traps

for the SNP as they start to exercise more and more power. It is

difficult for a party that commands 50% support to narrowly define

itself politically. We know the SNP is a wrought church. These new

powers will undoubtedly test some of that and I would imagine create new

dynamics within the party. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it

is something we can expect. Under this proposal, there will not be a

single penny of detriment to the Scottish budget. We do know because

John Swinney told us that Scotland's economic forecasts will be produced

by an independent fiscal commission, not Scottish ministers. The most

important thing is for the fiscal commission to have an independent

body that tells us as taxpayers what will happen if tax rates change and

that is important. It is the one thing that will bring confidence to

those who want to invest in Scotland to put their capital on the ground

here. That is very important. It creates jobs and growth that we

need. But a lot of the most contentious stuff about how the deal

is working has been kicked into the long grass. There will be a review

Huw Williams reporting. end of the story.

Joining me are a pair of professors who have had very different views

in the course of the negotiations about the fairest method

With me in the studio is Professor Anton Muscatelli,

and from our London studio, Professor Jim Gallagher.

Good evening. Good evening. Professor Muscatelli, what do you

think of the deal that has been struck? I think it is a good deal

for Scotland and the rest of the UK. It is a good deal because of the

risk of no detriment which I spoke about during negotiations, it does

not have a detriment, but it will allow us to see how it works over

five or six years. From the point of view of the rest of the UK, the

other affects which some people have highlighted as potential problems

with the method will not be that big over that period of time, given the

path of fiscal spending and taxation in the rest of the UK. It is a good

deal for the both and gives stability and transparency in terms

of what might be happening under the different formulae. It's not exactly

what you argued for though? It produces the same result by a

different route. It is important that we have an independent review

instead of the default position at the end of the period in 21-22. Jim

Gallagher in London, would you have been happy with a deal like this if

he were Chancellor? If I have been Chancellor, I would be meaner. From

the point of view of Scotland, it is a good deal. Professor Muscatelli,

what do you think it was that made the Treasury barge and give this

good deal to Scotland? There was a need to come to a deal. One issue

that could not be forgotten if one believes the reports in the media,

once the negotiation was down to a detriment of 3.5 billion, or 2.5

billion and modified deduction, per year that is a big element of the

Scottish budget, but it is not a huge element of the UK budget. That

might have been the issue. Let us see how it works practice and that

might have been beeping that triggered the agreement in the end.

Do you think, Professor Gallagher, that the Treasury will want to take

away the safety net that has been negotiated after five years? We will

have to see in five or six years. Who knows? In the end the issue is

not so much the detail of the deal, but the fact the deal has been done

and the new powers will be available and that the Scottish parliament

will have choices now that it does not have today, and it will have

responsibilities that it does not have today. It will be able to

pursue, if it wants to, a different course from the rest of the UK. That

is the thing that matters. How do you think they might use these new

powers and how could it help the economy grow? It is not just about

growing the economy, although that is important, but investment and

borrowing. They have spending powers they can invest in education and

training, but they also have choices. Do they wanted protect

public services and pay for them, or do they want to cut taxes and public

spending? What they can't do any more is said or the responsibility

for cuts belongs somewhere else. This is fiscal responsibility is

sitting on Holyrood's desk. There are new powers, Professor

Muscatelli. Will they help Scotland's economy grow? It's also

about choices, not just the economy. I think given the nature of the

powers they have been given, there will be different choices and that

is a positive thing. So which of the powers might be the most important

in the coming years? The biggest powers are around income tax because

that is a devolved tax. It raises just under ?11 billion. There are

freedoms to move the thresholds. That might be the one along with

differential spending around welfare that will change. On the welfare

side you might be able to degrade labour markets and grow the economy.

What about this new independent fiscal commission that was mentioned

in our reports. How important do you think it will be? I think it matters

a lot. We see this everywhere, it is not just the Scottish thing.

Governments need to be kept honest. We need to know that when they are

making their fiscal choices they are not hoping for the best, they are

doing the best possible with the yield of taxes. This will be

particularly important for the Scottish government because up until

now they have not had much to worry about in terms of tax issues. They

have relied on Westminster to send the check. Now they have to think

about how the money comes in, how it is collected, what the choices are,

how people will behave when they make different decisions. A system

under which someone is overseeing them independently will be good for

them and everybody. OK. There we must leave it for now. Thank you

both are coming in, Anton Muscatelli and Jim Gallagher.

After a noisy debate at Holyrood, MSPs have voted to support

the Scottish Government's budget for the year ahead.

The Finance Secretary John Swinney announced extra cash for pupils

from disadvantaged backgrounds and said his overall package

But opponents said the new money was "window dressing" in the face

Here's our political editor Brian Taylor.

Back in Paris with the tension over fiscal deals, today pose backstage

three debate was a little tame, but there was real debate there. There

was genuine argument between the parties and there was substance.

Swinney announced extra money for rate relief for industrial premises.

John Swinney also announcing more money for Scotland's disadvantaged

pupils. There was a substantive debate over tax, of course. Both

Labour and the Liberal Democrats adjusting 1p on taxation across all

income tax will pay for education. John Swinney said no to that and

that he was defending in the process hard-pressed families. Big debate

there, backwards and forwards. There was also a debate on the impact of

cuts on public services. Claims that have been made about public sector

implement have been exaggerated. In the last 12 months the number of

jobs lost in the public sector in Scotland, in the devolved public

sector, has been 500. 0.1% of public sector employment when implement in

Scotland has risen by over 20,000 jobs. The terrible toll of these

cuts are there in black and white and the budgets have been passed

with heavy hearts. 170 jobs were lost in Angers. That Mac in Angus.

Across Scotland thousands of workers losing their jobs, cleaners, supply

teachers, early years staff. In the vote the SNP were sufficient to

overwhelm all of the parties, but today's votes, argument,

discussions, they form a rehearsal for the arguments to come in the

Scottish elections in May. Amnesty International

today released its annual State Of The World human rights

report, looking at the situation And it's a pretty

depressing picture. It calculated more than 60 million

people have been displaced More than 30 countries illegally

forced refugees to return to countries where they

would be in danger. Armed groups committed human rights

abuses in at least 36 countries. 133 restricted freedom

of expression and the press. And over 122 countries tortured

or otherwise ill-treated people. It's not all bleak though -

20 countries have passed laws recognising same sex

marriages and relationships. We can speak now to Naomi McAuliffe

from Amnesty Scotland in Edinburgh. Naomi, the UK government came

in for some criticism, too. It says that Britain is setting a

dangerous precedent by undermining human rights, in what way? Being

able to have the annual report of all of the countries in the world,

we can look at key scenes coming out, key trends worldwide. Some of

those include repression of free speech, freedom of expression in the

name of national security, it includes undermining human rights

institutions at national, regional and global level, the treatment of

refugees and huge mass surveillance that is going on. A lot of these

trends are mirrored in the UK. We have a government committed to

repeal the Human Rights Act which is undermining the European Convention

on human rights and European court. We have mass surveillance in the UK,

bulk surveillance as the intelligence services call it, and a

new Investigatory Powers Bill that will go further than that. You

really think it is something people ought to be concerned about? I think

so. Looking at the papers people will see what is going on in the

world. We have a refugee crisis as big as the Second World War, we have

conflicts in Syria and Yemen. Where we have seen thousands of civilians

killed. Again, the UK is implicated. They have a role in that billions of

pounds of export licences have been given to Saudi Arabia which has

included combat aircraft and bombs so there is a UK role. The Foreign

Office gave ?10.6 million to projects last year and they are

doing quite a lot around the world, aren't they? There are good pockets

of work and when we talk about sera we recognise -- Syria, we recognise

aid going to camps in Syria. At the same time, some of the rhetoric

around human rights coming from Westminster is undermining a lot of

institutions such as the Council of Europe will stop it affects ordinary

people within Scotland and the UK who depend on the Human Rights Act

and it affects those in countries covered by the European Court, such

as Russia, where families of victims of for example the bezel and

massacre, their only access to justice is through the European

Court -- Beslan. Thank you for joining us.

Voters in the Irish Republic go to the polls on Friday in a general

election that's shaping up to be quite a contest.

Prime Minister Enda Kenny hopes to become the first leader

of an austerity government in the eurozone to win

But, if the polls are anything to go by, that's looking

Just before we came on air, I spoke by video link

to the political correspondent of the Irish Times, Harry McGee.

Could this selection be more exciting than the one in five years

ago? I don't think it will be more exciting because the one in five

years ago was an exceptional collection by any yardstick. Fianna

Fail, which had been the governing party the most of the history of the

state since the 30s, collapsed entirely on the back of a

spectacular collapse of the banking and property industry and Ireland

went into deep recession and had to have international help from the

European Commission and IMF and it was put into a bailout programme.

Support for Fianna Fail, traditionally the biggest party in

Ireland, collapsed completely and a new regime, a coalition between the

second biggest party, Fine Gael, centre-right, and the Labour Party,

came into power with a huge majority. They have taken the

country out of recession and the IMF and European Commission have gone

away. The growth in the economy is at a staggering 5.5, 6%.

Unemployment falling from 15% down to 8%. They are struggling to retain

popular support. Though not as exciting as five years ago, it is an

intriguing election in prospect when people go to the polls on Friday.

Why are they knocked a dead cert to win on Friday? By -- neither party

is particularly loved by the electorate, and the reason is they

overpromised before coming to power in 2011. There were those parties

who wanted to take power and some promised things that could not be

achieved, as opposed to the old cliche of campaigning in poetry and

governing in prose came into effect. They promised that they would be

able to reach you some of the large debt accumulated by the state and

were not able to make good on promises. They made good on a lot of

promises, waving goodbye to the IMF and EU and bailout, and they have

steered the economy back to growth. The other thing going against them,

even though growth is felt at a macro level, it has not filtered

down to ordinary people, those who would be struggling on low and

middle incomes and even though they are told a recovery is under way,

they are not feeling it yet and I think they are taking out their

resentment against the incumbent government. Would you care to

predict the result? I think we will be left with a messy situation that

we have not seen before in an Irish context. We have proportional

representation in much the same way as the National Assembly in Scotland

and even though parties are allotted a fair proportion in terms of their

percentage support among the populace, it sometimes leaves a

fudge in terms of government formation. At this moment if you

believe the polls, no single party, no combination of parties that have

made alliances, looked like they will be near having a majority. You

could have a minority Fine Gael government but a long way short of a

majority it requires all the unthinkable, coalition between the

traditional parties, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail. I do not and that will

happen will stop the likely scenario is a minority government but an

unstable one and we may have an election within the next 12 months.

We will see what happens. Joining me now to discuss the rest

of the day's news is editor of the Big Issue, Paul McNamee,

and Scottish political editor Welcome. Listening to that, do you

think there are any lessons to be drawn from Ireland's experience in

dealing with austerity? It is tricky to take anything from the Irish

political situation. I lived on the island of Ireland for the first 18

years of my life and the political system in the Republic always left

me baffled. In terms of how they cut hard and quickly, yet it does not

seem to have damaged the ruling establishment government is

interesting because it seems to go against the received wisdom in other

places where a non-establishment voices rising up, certainly Jeremy

Corbyn in Britain and perhaps Donald Trump in America. Interesting

establishment has remained despite making cuts. The SNP got its budget

passed today in Holyrood and without refusing to bow to demands over a

penny on income tax. I wonder whether you think extra taxes have

made the government unpopular there, maybe something John Swinney is

having an eye on when he thinks how to campaign in this election will

stop what was interesting the way the budget was passed at Holyrood,

it happened inside Parliament while outside there was a massive protest

among unions saying that because of spending decisions John Swinney has

made there have been cuts to council funding and jobs are being lost and

already we are seeing a reaction against the SNP we have not seen.

Going to the May election, John Swinney will have more powers and

will be able to do things with income tax and labour and the Lib

Dems have put forward policies where they would raise a penny in income

tax and John Swinney rejected that, so it will be fascinating to see

what position he will take stop until now he has been able to be all

things to all people but he has hard decisions coming up. You could argue

it is easy to say you want to raise taxes if you have no chance of being

elected. How do you think the SNP position has played in the polls?

Everything suggests they will not be damaged and they will strengthen

their hand in the May election. It was raised earlier with a

commentator that the SNP now, they have to show they are a ruling party

with controls. If we talk about austerity, they cannot blame

Westminster any more when they have got some control and fiscal levers.

For instance, cuts to local councils, they cannot keep saying

this is the right thing to do, jobs have been damaged, when they could

do something about lifting council tax, stopping the freeze, which

looks politically motivated, and talking then properly about income

tax. All parties were against lifting the council tax. We are not

clear what all parties will do about council tax although we had a report

from the local tax commission that said the council tax is discredited

and we need a new system. Nicola Sturgeon will bring forward

proposals next week but it looks like it will retain a sick African

element of a reformed council tax. Moving on to Prime Minister's

Questions and a personal attack by David Cameron on the Labour leader

Jeremy Corbyn during a question on the health service, and Mr Cameron

was heckled to ask his mother because she signed a letter opposing

cuts to children's centres. It is vital. Asked my mother? I

think she would look across the despatch box and say put on a proper

suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem! Mr Speaker, if we

are talking of motherly advice, my late mother would have said, stand

up for the principle of a health service free at the point of use for

everybody. What do you make of the tone of

David Cameron's comments? He looks wild. I dressed tonight like I was

going to a French jazz bar in protest. That was at the tie and

jacket gag. It looked like it was said in temper but as he started to

say it he could see the cogs working and you could see him thinking, this

will do me no harm, it plays to the idea he is a true Englishman and

conservative, with the EU, and having its best interests at heart.

It also says that he does not go to Jermyn Street to get suited up, but

he didn't. It is supposed to be about authenticity, is power

dressing something voters care about? We are at an interesting

point. For the last decade it has been all about image, as we have

turned to 24-hour media the politicians are supposed to look

good in front of the camera. One reason Jeremy Corbyn was elected is

he is seen as authentic and a man of the people. The people who put him

in charge of the party knows that he dresses in a a bit too big for him

and look slightly shambolic and that is who they are elected and they are

happy with him. And tonight, glamour with music stars out in force for

the Brit Awards. Adele won British single of the year for Hello and was

named best solo artist. Justin Bieber also won. The awards have

been criticised for failing to reflect diversity. Is that fair?

There were a number of non-white faces but it probably is something

of a criticism but I do not know if that reflects people voting or those

who have risen to the top in contemporary British music. Do you

think it is bland and safe, not what the kids are into these days?

Without knowing what the kids are into