07/04/2016 Scotland 2016

In the week that Brexit campaigners turn their focus on Scotland,

is a vote here to Remain a foregone conclusion?

Nigel Farage says a vote to Leave the EU would bring

But is anyone here listening to the European debate?

And we've got a sneak preview of one of the UK's biggest celebrations

It's been slow taking off in Scotland, overshadowed inevitably

But are there hints, finally, the EU referendum

Earlier tonight, Nigel Farage was in Glasgow arguing that a Brexit

vote would lead to more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has defended his government's pro-EU

leaflet, amid claims that ?9 million of public money is being spent

Here's our political correspondent Nick Eardley.

I make no apology for the fact we have sent to every household in the

country this leaflet, which sets out... Ready for delivery. Arguments

on our future in the EU coming to a whole new you, soon. Vote Leave

lodged its campaign earlier this week, choosing the well's largest

hydraulic components distributor where the owner thinks life outside

the EU would mean better trade tariffs with South America. The

campaign's director north of the border focused his argument on

powers and education. Things like fishing and agriculture, currently

run from Brussels, will have to come to Holyrood, not Westminster,

because those are not reserved issues. If we come out of the EU, EU

students will continue to study here but they will have to pay tuition

fees. Vote Leave are competing with another voice to be the voice of the

Brexit campaign. Posting a rally tonight in Glasgow University, not

everyone was happy to see them. After protesters briefly had their

voice heard, it was back to the Leave arguments. There are a lot of

voices here from trade unionists to former Conservative Cabinet lenders.

They acknowledge the Holyrood campaign is dominating politics in

Scotland at the moment, and they argue that the EU question is why to

the important for the UK's future. We had to get the political

establishment to the point of total nervous breakdown and panic to even

give us this referendum. And only then did it happen because,

surprisingly, they got a majority. So, it is an important vote?

Constitutionally, it is the most important question people will

answer probably in their lifetimes. The Prime Minister also says this

vote is crucial. The government will spend ?9 million setting out its

case in a leaflet sent to every household. Leave campaigners are

furious but the PM says it is money well spent. We are not neutral in

this. We think it would be a bad decision to leave. It would be bad

for a economy, bad for jobs, bad for investment, bad for families and bad

for universities. We're not neutral is we have made clear stance in this

leaflet which I hope everyone will get a copy of at their home. The in

campaign in Scotland agrees it is therefore the government to set out

their vision but they take issue with a few -- with the future that

the Leave campaign. Our view is that Europe has done incredibly well for

us and we have done incredibly well from Europe. The EU debate may

remain in the background until the 5th of May, but these guys want to

vote, and you can expect to see them flying the flag in the weeks to

come. Here with me from the Scotland

Stronger In campaign is John Edward and from Scottish Vote Leave

is Tom Harris. Tom Harris, Nigel Farage was here

today, arguing that a Brexit vote would deliver more powers to

Holyrood, more money to Holyrood. Same argument as you, why aren't you

campaigning alongside him? There are a number of different campaigns. The

Electoral Commission will make a decision about the official

campaign, and until that happens people are perfectly free to

campaign how they like. There might be a different emphasis between the

two campaigns but essentially we are working towards the same goal, which

is a Scotland and UK outside the EU. And you are a former Labour MP,

though, and you are not part of the Labour Leave campaign, why not?

Labour Leave is part of Vote To Leave, it is part of the umbrella.

Don't you think that is a bit confusing for the public, trying to

get your message across? We aren't asking people to analyse or memorise

the list of organisations, we are asking people to listen to the

arguments we are making. And the arguments we are making will have a

lot of resonance between now and 23rd of June. The argument that a

Brexit vote would actually bring more powers, more money to Holyrood,

and you concerned that is going to be quite a persuasive argument in

Scotland? Not really. It is a very strange roundabout way of devolving

more powers to the Scottish Parliament. We have had processes

before like the Calman and Smith omission that over months and years

have talked about the detailed aspects of devolving power. Putting

ourselves out of the most successful trade bloc and the community we have

been part of the last 45 years simply to seek to move some powers

to the Scottish Parliament isn't the way to do devolution. It is a bit of

a strange way, is it not, for arguing for more powers? What we are

pointing out is a simple legal fact that if UK comes out of the EU, the

powers that you currently wields over Scotland would have to go

somewhere, and if they are not listed as reserved matters in

Scotland, they would come to Holyrood. There are more positives

to coming out of the EU. First of all, the huge amount of money that

you and I pay as taxpayers for the privilege of being members of the

EU. They raise the knock-on effect that I mentioned in that video. Most

people in Scotland don't realise that when they pay their taxes to

fund free Jewish and in Scotland, they are paying for free Jewish and

for EU students as well. If EU students, who are always going to be

welcome in Scotland to study, if they paid their way, that would be a

financial boost for the universities but we can't do that as members of

the EU. What about that huge financial windfall? This assumes the

gross amount of money going out to the EU is somehow lost to us

permanently into a vacuum of 27 other countries. On that specific

argument about the tuition fees. It works both ways. Lots of Scottish

students go to the EU getting preferential treatment because they

are EU students. That is the point of being in a community where you

have equal rights and equal protection but the idea that somehow

all the money we send out has no impact back in Scotland, it wasn't

our figures or their figures, an independent body came out with the

idea that every pound we spend, we get ?10 back because of the

investment, the surge of innovation, never mind all the grants. What do

you say to that? That just isn't true. There was a big survey. Let's

talk about trade tariffs. The biggest survey of them show that

even outside the EU, with British companies having to pay tariffs, the

amount of tariffs they would pay would be caught by the amount of

money that would be saved by not paying money to the EU. At a time of

austerity, we are paying for infrastructure projects in Greece.

Now, actually, that money would be better spent in Scotland and in

Britain. Once that message goes out to people in Scotland, that is

something they going to listen to. When we talk about cuts to front

line services, but still giving money to a non-transparent

bureaucracy in Brussels. That could be a compelling argument. If it had

any sense behind it. The money isn't going to a black but it is being

invested back into the countries, including our own. It is like saying

we will pay income tax and that is the last we see of it, and just

because I see my In Amenas taken out once a month, I want my money back.

There are projects that... We are the biggest contributor. And we get

a very large rebate out of the system so the money, of course, we

spend a bit of money but if you at the back of your tax form, there are

great wages of social security, health and everything else. The EU

is a tiny slither in the middle, less than 2%, so we are talking as

if there is this huge cash cow that is somehow going to save the world

but actually this money has a big effect and the multiplier effect and

a match funding effect that nobody ever talks about. It certainly has a

big affect another EU countries, no doubt about that. As it has in the

Highlands. It is ?1.5 billion a year. That is more than half of our

total education budget. It might be a sliver of money to EU finances.

No, not the EU finances, our finances. One of the problems you've

got in presenting the argument to Leave, it isn't like the Scottish

independence referendum weather was a White Paper, as John Edwards said.

You can't say with any certainty what Scotland outside the EU would

look like. Remember the criticism the SNP and the yes campaign got for

producing that White Paper because it was criticised because it was

hypothetical. The fact is that remaining in the EU has its own

uncertainties. For example, to be able to tell us -- John won't be

able to tell us how much more we will be paying in five is time, ten

years' time, we don't know what the next intergovernmental conference

which brings us the next treaty change, we don't know what

restrictions that will impose on the UK. There are an awful lot of

uncertainties. So, uncertainties and both sides? Uncertainties in life, I

don't know what might income tax will be in five years' time. If we

veto this, it won't happen, so it isn't a union out there doing stuff

to us, we are a part of this system, and if we choose to exercise our

power within that, we can get what we want. The idea things will come

our way we have no control over in one of these conferences and we will

sit back and let it happen, it is a soup line and passive way of looking

at politics. Tom Harris, do you think Scottish voters are in any way

engaged in this debate yet or is it being overshadowed by Holyrood? I

think it is being overshadowed by Holyrood because that is right,

these are important elections. The problem in Scotland is for the last

decade whenever we talk about constitutional reform that has been

about one thing, Scottish independence, so we've never had an

audience for the debate on Europe. After 5th of May, we will have six

weeks to have a really intense and I hope positive debate about the EU,

and I hope we don't say just because of the political elites we will talk

for the EU. If they wanted, it should raise some warning bells. Do

you think the Scottish people will start to take an interest? Yes,

because it affects them. I have no interest in the political

establishment. We're talking about what difference it makes to people's

lives as workers, students and pensioners. That is the kind of

stuff that matters. Thank you both for coming this evening.

It's one of the biggest celebrations of contemporary art in the UK.

From tomorrow, 220 artists from around the world will present

work in 75 locations across Glasgow as part of GI -

The city's industrial heritage has inspired

many of the artists, and their work.

Our arts correspondent Pauline McLean reports.

It was a mighty industry, known the world over. Clyde built, a byword

for craft and quality. Today, many of those industrial buildings are no

arts centres. And art has itself become an industry. It is all up for

discussion in this, the seventh edition of the biennial Glasgow

International Festival. We are looking at artists which have

a strong relationships with the materials they are making, and

through that also crafts and craftsmanship, looking at feminist

practices, looking at lots of things I suppose through Glasgow being a

kind of loans to that. And the history of making an production in

the city. -- lens.

I always wanted to be a sculptor. I remember going with my father did

John Brown's shipyard in Clydebank where he worked.

Lawrence is one of the artists who have taken up the challenge.

In this case I chose the QE2 as a symbol of heavy industry. And it was

sold to investors in Dubai in 2007, who wanted to turn it into a luxury

hotel. So fictional scenario is about a Glaswegian artist, who

raises funds to buy the QE2 and take it back to Glasgow and turn her into

a new home for the Glasgow School of Art which had the fire in 2014.

Inside Kelvin Hall, another industrial space is filled with art.

Across the city, in 75 different venues, this is a festival that

keeps on going. Its audience, like its artists, from

a wide range of backgrounds, local and international.

We work hard to get people who may be feel uncomfortable visiting

contemporary art exhibitions or will visit them but want a bit more

information. We worked hard to make those opportunities available. But

it is a wide-ranging audience, I like that.

And it means the festival can afford to challenge audiences with their

work. Cabaret, music, performance. Even

roller-skating. Anything goes at GI. I think the

audiences are open to everything, everything we have ever done in

Glasgow. But hopefully they have a little bit

of fear as well but in a fun way, there should be some kind of

trepidation. But I think there is a hungry audience that is completely

enthusiastic. Energetic too, with just 18 days to

see 90 different projects in 75 different locations. With something

for everyone, whatever your taste in art.

I think it is OK to see something and really, really hate it. Or do

have a real with it. It is good to fall in love with something, but as

long as there is a reaction and a thought-provoking situation, that is

OK. That is good. Two weeks down, four

more to go until we get the chance to cast our votes

in the Holyrood elections. Andrew Black has been

casting his critical eye over This week, we learned that singing

is good for help. And on the election campaign trial, Scotland

politicians -- Scotland's politicians were striving to hit the

high note. The decibel level was raised during

this week -- this week's tax debate. Do you know what the betrayal was?

John Swinney and his colleagues who voted that down and instead pushed

through ?500 million of cuts to local communities.

Massive tax cut... And I think absolutely it is a

measure of the Conservative Party... We are out of time...

And contributions from Ukip and the Greens, also raising a few eyebrows.

I live in five, I have broad beans than I know what to do with.

And I still don't get my rubbish taken away.

-- more bins. If somebody decides to leave Scotland because they don't

want to pay that high rate of tax, they don't take that job with them,

that money remains in the economy. And sticking with tax, offshore

loopholes for the rich was this week's big news, prompting the PM to

make a personal statement. I own no shares, I have a salary as

Prime Minister, and I have some savings, which I get some interest

from and I have a house which we used to live in, which we know let

out while we are living in Downing street.

Today came a clarification. Samantha and I had a joint account,

we earned 5000 units in an investment trust which we sold in

January 20 ten. That was worth something like ?30,000. -- 2010. I

paid income tax on the dividends, there was a profit on it but it was

less than the capital gains tax allowance so I didn't pay capital

gains tax. But it was subject to all the UK

taxes in all the normal ways. Elsewhere this week was the claim

that Scottish Labour Leader caveat that they auditioned for the SNP to

work experience. In figure 20 -- 2003 I was still at

university, are likely applied for lots of different opportunities to

work. But the idea that this is a central part of the election really

is laughable. So it has been a busy old week in

politics, but are the key messages of the campaign taking flight or

missing their target? With me now are Kirstein Rummery,

Professor of Social Policy at the University of Stirling

and David Leask, chief Welcome to you both. So week two,

have there been any highlights in the campaign for yourself at,

Kirstein? I think looking at the different

ways the parties have approached issues around tax and spend and that

kind of thing, but the focus is much more on kind of the difference

between Scotland and the UK's approach. It does highlight a lot of

interesting issues, but Scotland voters are going to have to take

into account. Do you think those differences are

emerging quite quickly? I think so, I think the way

campaigns around the EU referendum south of the border and also the

London elections are very different in tone to the way in which the

campaign is being played out here. David, we saw some clips there from

the tax debate we had earlier in the week. Whether any issues emerging

from that, any points you thought had been explained more clearly?

Aside from the comedy value of Ukip and the notion that we are facing

Soviet style land grabs, can we stop talking rubbish about that.

The most interesting person was somebody from the audience talking

about having potentially more than three tax bands, and that is the

really interesting detail I would like to hear more about, not just in

this election but incoming ones. He was the head of tax for Scotland

for RMS, were you surprised that some of the other parties didn't

have perhaps more innovative ideas about how to use these new powers?

It is interesting that the conservative nature of the approach

to this, if you look at the way in which a lot of people voted in the

referendum, a lot of the no voters voted no in the expectation that

further powers would come to the Scottish parliament. So there is

quite a lot of enthusiasm behind that idea. And the idea that the SNP

seems to be playing the middle ground and very cautious in trying

to appeal probably too middle-class voters and are very cautious voters

about not committing too much on the tax band, but also that their sons

appear to add up. And they seem to be making Labour point to the left

and be a little bit more radical. But still -- still none of the

parties are being as creative radical as they could be, Scotland

could have done a lot of very different things with those powers,

and none of the parties have gone really radical with anything.

Ukip launched their manifesto in Scotland today, actually they did

propose another tax band, a 30p one, but some of the crowd pleasing ideas

like increasing the drink-drive limit, smoking areas in pubs. Will

this help their chances in Scotland. I'm sure there are plenty of people

who share their outlook on the world, many people who have strong

views on immigration. But unfortunately they cannot get

themselves organised enough to appeal to those voters. We see

constantly things like press releases with spelling mistakes,

social media that is incoherent. I think they are having trouble

getting the message across. I know we do have three female party

leaders, but what do you think about the female contribution so far to

the election campaign? Given that all of the main parties

have a stated commitment to raising women's representation, the 50-50

campaign and Nicola Sturgeon's 50-50 Cabinet, to see all-male panel is

not just around tax and spend, there was one run housing where there were

six people, lots of very interesting men in suits. -- around housing.

This indicates to me as a voter that there is not a lot of substance

behind some of those commitments, but some of the parties are not

willing to put the work in that would be involved in trying to get

women's voices further hurt, and that is a shame. Because when you

see the kind of grassroots involvement of women in politics,

and organisations and parties like the women's equality party coming

up, and the way the constitutional framework is in Scotland, but these

smaller groups could realistically have a voice or get a seat in

parliament, it is a shame to still see all-male panels.

David, there is obviously still a lot of women campaigning on the

ground. I thought the debate on the

television about financing was interesting, because finance is for

boys because they are good with numbers. That was disappointing. You

would like to see more women on that kind of issue, not just on soft

things that you might on the -- in the old days have been pigeonholed

into. The fallout from the Panama papers

continues. David Cameron has admitted he did have a ?30,000 stake

in his father's offshore trust, sold in 2010. He said it was subject to

all UK taxes, I mean, he has done nothing illegal it seems, but is

this politically embarrassing for him?

It seems he did have a cunning plan coming up to being Prime Minister to

kind of clear the decks and make sure there was nothing that could

come up and cause embarrassment later. But he knew all along, in

2010 that he was benefiting from this, and then to go out and make

statements specifically on tax avoidance, knowing it just takes one

good journalist to find out this kind of thing, does indicate to me

not just a lack of judgment, but also how out of touch he might be

with what the concerns are of everyday people. ?30,000 to me and

most people in Scotland is a lot of money. But to him it is just, oh,

that is what we do, we move our finances around, as rich people and

the elite, ways that that is not really questionable. But it does

look very suspicious to the voters. Each time he has asked a question on

something else comes out, his answers shift. No, he didn't do

anything illegal and he is quite proper to say it is really unfair to

have a go at my dad and all of that is fair enough, but it doesn't look

good, it doesn't look like someone who is judging these things very

well. Tom Watson tonight is saying it is

an extraordinary admission. Do you think it is damaging?

The problem is it can smell a bit smelly. Most people will forget the

details, but "Offshore" that seems unsavoury. It reminds people that Mr

Cameron's from an extraordinarily privileged background.

Can he draw a line under this now? I think it is one of these things

that has been blown out -- up a lot, particularly in the interests of

personal smear that politics it is the kind of thing that likes to get

pushed around, but I think if he moves the debate on to kind of

policies, anyone who is hit with that kind of thing needs to do that

and certainly someone who is the Prime Minister needs to be able to

move it on to substantiated issues. What about Scotland's place in all

of this. Well we are pointing fingers at all

these Caribbean fiscal paradises, Scotland is in itself being marketed

as a tax haven, as an offshore zone throughout eastern Europe, and there

are companies in Scotland producing, law firms, producing off-the-shelf

Scottish companies that in conjunction with Panamanian

companies and firms from the British Virgin Islands are being used as tax

evasion tools for people across the world. I think we need to sort that

are before we start pointing fingers elsewhere. It worries me a lot that

we have little cottage industry going on here, we have four example

companies that are set up with a mock shareholder in the Seychelles,

where you can get an address in Edinburgh that doesn't exist, or a

telephone number, for as little as $1500 in kiosk or Moscow or Latvia.

Before we go, do you think the public are going to expect something

to be done about all of this? I think David's right, it smells

fishy, it smells bad, and in terms of Scotland's reputation as a

financial leader as a haven for these kind of things it doesn't look

to the electorate. Kirstein, David, thanks so much for

coming in this evening. That's it for tonight

and for this week. I'm back with you on

Monday, usual time. Well, I'd hoped the debate

wouldn't be so personal! We are approaching

one of the biggest decisions this country will face

in our lifetimes. We need a change,

we have to take a risk, No, leave things as they are,

don't change anything, it might make it worse.

That's just scaremongering. I'd hoped the debate

might be more sensible. Well, I'd hoped the debate

wouldn't be so personal! So, we'll just keep the old set,

then?