03/03/2016 Scotland 2016

The French President wades into the European debate,

warning of "consequences" if we vote to Leave.

As the French hint they'll end UK border controls in Calais if there's

a Brexit vote, Liam Fox tells us why he thinks its time to Leave.

The battle lines are drawn for the Holyrood election -

And the international students who aren't allowed to stay

If there's an out vote, "There will be consequences

in the financial trade, in the economic development

No, not a flashback to Scotland's Better Together

campaign but the latest intervention in the war of words over Europe,

this time from no less than the French President.

And for the Remain campaign there were more helpful words

There is no upside to leaving the European rain. You can't do away

with the regulations and stop paying, because as Norway has found

out, if you want to be a part of the single market you still pay and

obeyed. But you have no seat at the table. David Cameron is right to

negotiate some sensible reforms and has protected the pounds Sterling

and has limited the flow of migration by cutting down public

payments to immigrants. Those are sensible reforms and the way to

achieve more or less by staying in Europe. Staying in Europe will be

better for the UK economy and tourism and jobs and leaving gets

you nothing. Michael O'Leary. Joining me now from Edinburgh

is the former Defence Secretary, Conservative MP and staunch

Eurosceptic, Liam Fox. There is no upside to leaving the

EU. Do you think people will be swayed by that? He was wrong on

every single particular when he said people would be exempted from closer

rain, but it won't be because there is no treaty change. He said Britain

would be exempted from the migration flow we have had and we will not be

because we have had no change to the concept of free movement of people.

We have had 1.16 million European migrants coming to the UK and the

last decade and that will not change. But what about the argument,

he says you still pay and obey but don't have a seat at the table? The

other side are making a great play of the fact that you cannot see what

the UK outside the EU will look like. The argument about Norway was

used and I hear about all the time including in Edinburgh this evening.

The fact is if you look at Nordby, which is in the economic area but

not customs rain, people say, Norway has too abide by all the rules but

doesn't get a seat at the table, but in 2000 Norway has only had 9% of

single market legislation applied to it so have done quite well. The

United Kingdom has any very different position. We have a

massive trade imbalance with Europe. They sell some ?67 billion worth of

goods more to us each year than we sell to them, therefore it is hugely

in their interest to maintain a free trade situation, where the United

Kingdom to leave. We're not a small country and are one of the biggest

economies. Perhaps we should have some self-confidence. You saw how

important the voice of business was during the Scottish independence

referendum and voters do not like uncertainty? The remaining campaign

keep telling us that if we leave the European rain it is a leader in the

dark and we don't know what to expect so what can we expect? We now

the day after we leave we will still have a permanent seat on the

Security Council at the UN and will still be in the G-7 and G20, we will

still have one of the biggest military budgets and economies and

be at the centre of the Commonwealth and Natal with the special

relationship with the United States, it hardly adds up to isolationism,

and the skier stories being put about just do not take account of

the strength the United Kingdom has and Project feared is rather coming

into Project surrender, implying Britain simply could not manage on

its own in the wider world and clearly given our success and

trading capabilities and innovation and skills, that is nonsense. What

do you make of what has been coming out of France today, especially the

economy minister saying France could allow migrants to travel unchecked

to the UK if British voters vote to leave? I am sure it is a complete

coincidence that we are getting these arguments coming out of France

as the Prime Minister is they are visiting. I don't buy it at all. In

October last year the French interior minister in charge of the

situation said it would be against the interests of France to in any

way go back on the treaty in 2003. He said it would cause a

humanitarian catastrophe in France because it would act as a magnet to

people smugglers and migrants from all over the world to go to the

north of France and create a situation they couldn't handle.

There's a reason that Britain and France came to a bilateral deal

outside of the European rain, which was nothing to do with membership,

and that was because it was in the interests of both countries to do

so, as it would weather not Britain is inside the EU. The government

tried this a few weeks ago and it blew up on their face and I am

surprised they have tried it again. Thank you. It wasn't all good news

from the business community for remain. The official view of the

Chambers of commerce is neutral but earlier today the Director General

made comments that will be a shot in the arm for the league campaign. I

have come to the view that there are risks in the short-term to leaving

and risks in the long term to staying. The negotiations the Prime

Minister came out with one actually an adequate and far short of what

the BCC wanted and actually on the balance of probabilities now,

Britain could have a brighter future outside of the European Union, just

as it would have done had we stayed in.

Listening to that was John Edward, senior campaign spokesperson

Britain could have a brighter future outside of the EU according to the

Director General of the British Chambers of commerce. Are you

worried that opposition to Brexit is soft and in? I don't think it is and

people are starting to have arguments we should have and there

is an awful lot of could have and should have endless. The one thing

that separates the two cases as we are and we have a system built up

over decades with our closest allies and on the other side we have

nothing. We're not the ones projecting fear. We have no

blueprint of what things will look like the day after and we simply do

not like they're so go for something completely unknown! But even on your

own side, the Business Secretary, a Eurosceptic, the best argument he

could muster is that uncertainty is the enemy of jobs and growth, hardly

a rallying call? That is hers and I am not here to speak for any

political party. You're stressing security and stability? But there

are also huge opportunities. Any of the risks that come up, surely the

way to deal with these is to be working together with our closest

neighbours and allies and most importantly, something the member

for North Somerset choose to ignore when talking about a treaty that is

important, is that all of this is built on legal treaties meaning you

and I and everyone in Scotland has the equal right to anyone in Europe

to contest these things and make sure rights and protections are

defended, and they've is no talk from anyone about what will happen

to all those rights and protections of the day after. You said at the

launch of the Scottish campaign that you want to protect the positive

fact -based case to remain in Europe. What do you make of the

video release that came out today from Britain stronger in Europe?

There will be people making deliberate sides and we have taken

the decision in Scotland to be upbeat and I am already rejecting

the choice of project Cheer. Those are the questions being asked of the

campaign. The problem is it isn't project fear when people say

factually inaccurate. For people to say that's not true. The pointers in

all of this, for a very long time, people have had a likely to delay

and over one stories about how bad Europe is. We are part of Europe and

are strong, comfortable and confident country on this and

everyone has a bigger voice in this as anybody else, and we say we

should be using that voice rather than putting the ball down and

walking off the pitch. It sounded rather ominous about consequences,

you would be happy with the French President's intervention today. Liam

Fox says he doesn't buy it? He doesn't buy that Liam Fox is the

President of France. Clearly, there will be consequences and we have

taken over 50 years to build up a whole series of treaties or with

rights for individuals and companies and businesses and he is talking

about the free movement of workers, so all these workers have these

rights and of course there will be consequences if we decide to tear

them apart. Thank you. Before we're asked to cast a vote

on Europe, we'll have the Holyrood And if this week is anything to go

by, the battle lines are well Another victory for the SNP may look

like a foregone conclusion but the other parties

are going all out to find any chink In a moment, we'll be debating how

the contest is shaping up but first, Huw Williams has been

on the battlefield. Larping is a serious business,

real-life Dungeons Dragons, and turns out this is a hotbed. It is a

commonplace of political reporting to be talking about battle lines

being drawn and parties colonising issues in the hopes voters will

rally around the flag, but in the run-up to the Holyrood elections, is

it helpful to see politics as battle, and do you get the strategy

right? You can if it is not particularly ideological. For a

topic like taxation it is quite difficult to appeal to left, right

and centre, but other things, the standing up Scotland issues, are

likely to be relevant to everybody across the range of politics. So if

you keep the issue is quite broad and nonideological you can appeal

across the spectrum but making it ideological makes it difficult to

appeal to a wide range of people. Back on our impromptu battlefield,

what do you do if you have been in charge but now you see power,

influence being ripped from your grasp. You shouldn't let your enemy

consolidate his power and perhaps attack in small groups and split

them up. Try to soar dissension within the ranks. And that First

Minister's Questions... Voters should have known that when the

First Minister said she would get rid of the council tax, what she

really meant was that she would keep it. The whole process has been a

sham and it wasn't just the council tax. The SNP say fracking is bad and

we have proposed a temporary freeze. A big report has been ordered but

all the signs are that they are to go ahead and do it anyway. And what

if you are the new force in the land, determined to break the old

Empire's grip on power? You need to instil loyalty and Euan followers

and backtracks attract others to rally to your banner. Maybe it is

what they wanted all the time. Does that have anything to do with what

is happening here? Before Kezia Dugdale decided to adopt her usual

possession of whingeing from the sidelines and in this case criticise

the SNP's policy on local taxation, it might be a good idea to have a

policy on local taxation yourself! Let's hear the First Minister... No

fracking in Scotland because there's a moratorium on fracking. That is

what it means! It ain't allowed to happen! And our Viking strategist

says if you are rebel force trying to grow in influence, you must be

willing to do deals this necessary but keep distinctive, ready to seize

power if you see weakness in your opponents. Would any smaller parties

be listening to that advice? I'm joined by Kevin McKenna and from the

Sunday Herald, do you think we are right in the middle of campaign

proper? I think it will get more angry in the weeks ahead. The

manifestos have yet to be launched. We are talking the first couple of

weeks in April. But I think, fringes, that the Labour Party,

ought to be, forget being fracking. I don't hear fracking as being one

of the top ten, top 15 issues on the streets. I think that they should be

choosing their battleground... You don't think it is a chink in the

SNP's armour? I think education all the way, followed by he will.

Definitely education. I think when Kezia began to talk about fracking,

you called almost sense the joy in some of the government benches.

Ian you spoke about the paradox of voters continuing to support the SNP

as a party that stands for Scotland, inspite of the fact a majority voted

against independence, do you think it will endure in the coming weeks

in the duration of the campaign? I think we are still living very much

in the shadow of the referendum. Politics in Scotland will be defined

by that for the coming political cycle. That is very much to the

SNP's strength. Paradoxically, although they lost the referendum,

the Scottish voters decided to back the SNP as the party most likely to

fight Scotland's corner the most vigorously, even if the majority of

Scots voted against formal independence. So the SNP is still in

the row there. We saw in the general election that, and the support will

continue. But we have at the moment a bizarre game of fiscal poker

taking place that Kezia Dugdale raises one Le Penny in tax and

Daniel Sturridge see it is and raises -- Nicola Sturgeon raises

Council Tax in response. I think it will go on until polling day. There

will be lots of positions taken, trying to appear as if the parties

are aggressive, raising tax but not really raising it very much.

Kevin, when the Council Tax reforms were announced. Nicola Sturgeon

announced the ?100 million to be raised to go to education, the

battle ground. Is it a sign that the other parties parties are getting to

the SNP on this? Nicola Sturgeon has recognised that education should be

the main battle field, hence the ?100 million. But if I were in the

Labour Party or the Conservatives, I would be looking at the detail.

Nicola Sturgeon was asking Kezia Dugdale to come up with the details

to her changes in Council Tax but equally, Labour and the

Conservatives, should be asking how will they spend this ?100 million?

For several years talking about reducing the attainment gap. The SNP

in power for nine years, definitely for five years and probably another

five years after it. This is an opportunity for them to leave a

legacy but so far in the nine years, you could challenge what has been

done radically to address that very important issue at the heart

What about those who bought into the anti-austerity measures? I say we

are going to see this kind of rather incremental, minimalist game of

fiscal poker until polling day. Both sides will be trying to assert a

claim to be the anti-austerity party, the party of progressive

politics, the party prepared to raise taxes. Next there will be a

bidding war taking place on thresholds of taxes taken, whether

or not Scotland should raise the top rate of tax further to ?50,000 from

?40,000. But it is difficult to explain the very minimal tax

changes, like it is difficult to explain how the new Council Tax

regime is going to work. It all seems minimalist. It is complex and

I don't think it will translate into votes. These will not be the

decisive issues. Kevin, do you think that if the

polls were closer that the SNP would be pursuing a more radical agenda? I

don't think so. You could say because the SNP have been in power

for nine years, they are set fair for another five and by the balance

of probability another five years. If there was a time to be radical,

to take risks, this is a three, four, five-term government, they are

subject to the same criticism that the Labour Party, the UK Labour

Party had in 1997. Tony Blair came in knowing it was a three-term

government but was accused by many traditional Labour supporters of not

using it to be more radical and to take more risks.

Should international students be allowed to stay

A cross-party group of MSPs and university leaders has called

for the return of post-graduation visas for international

All of Holyrood's political parties support bringing back the visas,

which were abolished by the UK government in 2012.

Catriona Renton has been speaking to some of those who'd

These international students are from Strathclyde university. They

have taken time out to have a coffee with me. This man is from Mumbai,

studying for a PhD in engineering. When I got the opportunity to study

for a PhD in Strathclyde, I was looking forward to it.

So far, I have found the lifestyle similar. I have grown into the

lifestyle of Glasgow. Raj is from Malaysia, his sub-is bio

medical engineering. I wanted to do bio medical

engineering to go into prosthetics. The most advanced in Europe, until

today is here. I am looking for funding to do a PhD, there is not

from the international students from our side of the EU to do anything

with prosthetics. Ryan is from the United States,

doing a Masters in international law. He has not long left on his

visa. It runs out in January 2017. I got here last year. Basically they

gave me a year and a few months. My programme runs up to that point. As

soon as the programme is over, my visa is out. I will have to go.

Amy is here from Toronto. I am doing a Masters in psychology

there. Is a huge mental health crisis in terms of support workers.

The waiting list is as long as two years, right? I think that is

negative, turning qualified people who could be helping with that.

They all feel that they have a lot to offer but the rules make it hard

for them to stay. Ideally I would like to stay, do

some work, get experience, work for a company and live in the highlands.

It is so nice. I really love that. But the rules keep changing. It is

more and more difficult for internationals to get visas. We are

all here as international students because we want to be here. That

would be incredibly beneficial to the professional world. When we all

leave, Glasgow, the UK is losing that enormous chunk of

professionals. They hope that things will change so

that they can live and work here in the future. Catriona Renton talking

Catriona Renton talking to international students.

Joining me now to talk about that and some of the day's other news

is The Herald's Chief reporter, David Leask and Professor

of International Economic History at the University of Glasgow,

Welcome to both of you. Let's start with that story on international

students. Professor Catherine Schenk you came to the UK as an

international student from Canada? I did. I am one of those who came in

and stayed. What do you think of the

restrictions? I think it is an important signal we are giving to

student trying to attract here as a professor at the University of

Glasgow, I am aware that we are working in a global market to try to

get the best minds, the best students, to bring them to Glasgow

to enrich the student community but to be doing the research and sharing

it with us. It is a visible barrier, I think to our competitiveness to

attract the best and the brightness from around the world.

These restrictions were introduced across the UK as there were concerns

that the system was being abused. David, do you think it was a problem

in Scotland? I am unaware of it, there are more people more capable

of policing this. I think it is a concern of wider immigration south

of the border. Our politicians agree that this is something that must

change. There is a good reason why, I think it has been suggested

something of up to ?800 million of foreign students fees and the money

spent on campus but my good fast, that energy, culture, having your,

why would we want to lose that. Yes, they seem to want to stay. Should

Scotland visas be different? We have a slightly more ageing population

and some particular skill shortages. There are examples where there is

devolved immigration policies, using a point-based system. I'm from

Canada... Does it work there? It does. There is a points based

system. Points given for the regional locations, those who come

are required to stay and work and live there for a period of time

before they take full citizenship. Let's move on to Trident. Michael

Fallon said that scrapping Trident could jeopardise jobs and millions

of pounds of investment in Scotland. This is what the Scottish

Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson had to say. I'm sorry, we don't have

that clip from her. On this story, does it seem odd, David, do you

think that job creation has been placed at the centre of this debate?

It is the worst, most expense I have, silliest job creation of all

time. They create jobs but you should create jobs with the same

money. You should look at the defence, the challenges that face us

is it global warming, chaos in the Middle East, and a threat of Russia

and make up your minds based on that. There may be other important

matters in terms of why to choose Trident, is it international

prestige? Obviously he was trying to make a political capital out of

this, saying Labour is split on the issue, it might cost jobs in the

end. How important do you think it is for Labour to have a coherent

position. We have seen that the Tories are split on Europe? I think

it is a dangerous precedent. That the Labour Party is in a time of

development and evolution. This issue could be an important folk

room for the direction where the two parties north and south of the

border might evolve in a different kind of way. I think it is a really

interesting issue. It is an issue of passion and ideology in the same way

that the European referendum is for the Conservative Party. After you

have the splits it is hard to knit the people back together. There was

criticism of Michael Fallon announcing ?642 million, before the

MPs had had a chance to vote on this.

They seem to have made up their minds on this.

I happen to live in the Trident questions, I think that it has an

MSP in Jackie Bailly, very prove Trident but basically is sitting on

a giant bomb with lots of pro- yes and pro-independent supporters. And

New Zealanders have begun voting in the second stage of a referendum to

determine the national flag. The choice between the current Union

Jack and four red stars or the newer alternative, a silver fern.

Do you think that the flags matter? I think that they do. It is the

Union Flag, not the Union Jack. Canada made a similar decision and a

similar process in 1965. They went for the maple leaf. The silver fern,

maybe it is a theme to have a botanical item. But it reflects the

nation that New Zealand has become. It does have a British heritage and

a strong Mauri heritage, so reflecting the more cosmopolitan

forward-looking nation that New Zealand has become.

The Prime Minister has said it is time to remove the Union Flag

symbol. That would be a big step? It is but what is fascinating, I don't

think that the Union Flag carries the baggage that many in Scotland

think it has. Many of us think it is a contaminated brand, contaminated

by centuries of the British acting as international priority,

trafficking and drug slave labour. But it is a symbol that it is Post

Office. There are many that see it that way. So we should not bring our

own problems with the Union Flag to this particular issue, which some

are doing. You think it is seen negatively

abroad? I don't think it is seen in the same way it is here. But

differently. I think it has been decontaminated.

Thank you for joining us. Thank you for watching. That's it for this

week. See you on Monday at the usual time. Goodbye.