13/04/2016 Scotland 2016

It's shaping up to be the tax and spend election.

So whose plans would the raise the most cash?

A new league table suggests NONE of the parties' income tax plans

will plug the spending gap forecast for Scotland.

I'll be asking Lord Puttnam if Public Service Broadcasting

And the former boss of MI5, Dame Stella Rimington,

on the biggest danger faced by the UK.

I think I'll register to the national security which is after all

what the intelligence and services are there to deal with, must come I

think from the sort of terrorism that is coming out of the Middle

East at the moment, and it is a potentially large threat and it is

an immediate threat. Already in this election campaign

we've heard a lot about how much extra tax the parties might ask

you to pay if they form the next But just how much additional cash

might their plans raise? The left-of-centre think-tank

the IPPR has done the sums Scottish Labour would raise

the most, followed by the Greens, the Lib Dems and the SNP,

with the Conservatives, Here's our political

correspondent Andrew Kerr. It claims to be Labour who would

gather in the most revenue in the next electoral cycle. Powering round

the Hydro Reservoir, the IPPR said the parties plan to levy an extra

penny on income tax and raise the top rates to 50% means they will

build up the biggest reservoir of cash. This could raise extra

billions of pounds by 2021. Above what the UK Government plans to

bring in. It could be 1.1 billion this no additional revenue is read

to the 50% rate. We have a very soon clear sense from the IPPR today that

only Labour plan will stop the cuts. By using the tax powers of the

parliament we could use that money to stop any further cuts to tax

services, and the report highlights that our competitors would raise the

revenue to stop the cuts. Scotland were education system is falling

behind, say the Liberal Democrats. They are offering a lifeline of ?475

million. Paid for by a penny increase in the basic, higher and

additional rate of income tax will stop in total, the IPPR estimate,

this will bring in an extra ?715 million. They have identified that

the Liberal Democrats will invest in education, with a ?475 million

investment, to get Scottish education back to the best in the

world again. It contrasts starkly with the Conservative plans, a ?1.5

billion tax rate for the wealthiest in society. Meanwhile, the SNP 's

claim to have the fiercest brands. They have not planned to raise the

higher rate tax rate, but it will rise with inflation. All in all, the

IPPR says this means the party rakes in an additional ?300 million in

revenue. The party says the plans are carefully thought out. They

don't transfer the burden of the Tory austerity to the local

escapade. We want to protect the impounded for the lowest paid,

Labour wants to put taxes up for people earning under ?20,000 of our

proposals will allow us to protect public services but do so in a way

that doesn't penalise the lowest earning people in our society. Of

the main parties, one has a very different Prosser position on tax.

The Conservatives think less is more. They value entrepreneurship

and aspiration. That was a position made very clear here in Glasgow

today, as they launch their manifesto. Marching side by side

with George Osborne and not promising any tax cuts, means the

Conservatives plans result in zero extra revenue at being raised. Let's

grow our tax base, let's have the jobs and opportunities that we need

in Scotland to grow the economy, and bring in more money that way. We

want to put forward a really strong campaign at this election to say we

don't want to be the highest tax party in the UK, we don't want the

government to reach in the pockets of working men and women and take

more money, and harmed the Scottish economy collapsed by making us the

most uncompetitive place to do business in the whole of the UK. For

those who wish to levy further taxes, there could be a word of

warning. What difference will that money actually make? But for all the

parties, the IPPR point out that by 2020 there will be a ?2 billion

spending gap for the next Scottish Government. Perhaps more

importantly, where we'll the cuts fall? -- where will the cuts fall?

And with me to discuss these latest figures is

the economic commentator Alf Young,

and the political commentator Gerry Hassan.

Jerry, are paying a lot of attention to

nuance figures. We have the make the assumption that those will inform

them. There is a shift hereabouts talking about facts, we are talking

not about who wins and who loses stop there is an issue about the

thinness of the policy of all parties here. We are talking about

income tax only, that's just one bit. That is the only bidder

income tax only, that's just one adversity. We are trying to discuss

something we were thing that one can have clear from

these proposals is that there may be an appetite amongst voters to pay

more if it is invested in public services Jamaat you can say yes it

with a caveat because voters always like the idea of somebody else

playing taxes. The voters like the idea of a high rate of tax. That is

based on the assumption that they won't pay it. With that fact, we

have that differentiation of the spectrum from Tory to Labour, trying

to mine the myth, the mythology of centre-left, redistributed Scotland.

There was a Labour message in there which might be too late, and there

was a distinct story message, not raising taxes, not mitigating the

cuts, also not been responsible for the cuts. That is a distinct message

saying that the party is looking forward to be a powerful opposition.

There is also an opinion poll evidence from the BBC but like poll

last week suggesting strong support in Scotland that income tax should

remain the same as it is in England. So, do you think the mere SNP may be

right to be wary of this issue's? When you get to the kind of top end

up paying 20% tax, there is a little band there of about ?4000 where

because they will only raise the threshold by inflation, whereas

George Osborne, having kept the threshold down so that more and more

people paid 40%, is now recanting and going in the opposite direction,

and sticking it up to 51,000th. There will be a little gap there. A

lot of people in reasonably highly played jobs in the public sector can

in the health service, people in industry too, getting on in their

careers, will be getting to the stage of thinking well, if I am

going to start paying that 40% earlier, ?4000 earlier here than I

would be paying it if I were south of the border, there will be a

behavioural impact of that, people saying well I want to be a teacher

would it be better being its south of the border button marked so that

I didn't have to pay that additional tax earlier on. That is quite apart

from the black hole that you have been talking about, the lack of

honesty from spending cuts. Do you think maybe the discourse would be

different if it didn't seem like a foregone conclusion about who will

win this election? No, because then there would be something to play

for, and there is an issue of risk aversion. The assumed SNP majority

of the last election, and if you take last week's debate on this

programme, and the general campaign as much as it is, why, for instance

are the Greens and you get knots trying to call other parties out on

this? -- Ukip. It will only lead to disillusionment after the vote, and

anger, because there will be huge cuts. There is no scenario planning

going on in government even at the highest levels, so people will be

annoyed. I'm afraid we're out of time there, we must leave it.

Senior figures from the Scottish media world

were gathered in Edinburgh earlier to give evidence to an inquiry

into the future for public service broadcasting.

The inquiry is chaired by the Oscar winning film-maker

Lord David Puttnam, who we'll hear from in a moment.

Inevitably, one of the central themes of the evening

was whether Scotland should be getting a better deal

from this particular public service broadcaster.

Because the domestic agenda has so much come from Holyrood here, it is

ironic that the BBC News services have accommodated that. We have the

same structure of news on television in 1999. The BBC have not met the

integrated demand for Scottish broadcasting. There has been a lack

of editing from a Scottish perspective. John M, former

controller of BBC Scotland. Lord Puttnam came

into our Edinburgh studio. Lord Puttnam, there has been some

criticism that it has taken your enquiry quite a while to come north

of the border. Were you worried about the reception you might

receive tonight? Is reception in terms of the amount of time it as

they can. Truth is it has still not been delivered, and to Sheffield in

a couple of weeks' time. Everything has been geographically as and when

we have been able to put it together. I was less concerned about

what the reaction would be, but what thrilled me was how well moderated

and sensible the discussion was. How different where the concerns

expressed here to concerns expressed elsewhere in the UK about public

broadcasting? I think the big difference for me, my takeaway, is

that there are very litigious was concerned about governments. What

will be the relationship between the new unitary body, which will be I am

absolutely convinced as a result of this. What will be the relationship

between that unitary board and people who wish the BBC to be more

accountable to what happens in Scotland, the weather programming is

done in Scotland and money is spent there, what will be the relationship

between that board and Scotland? Just expand that for our viewers? It

is the same as happens in Channel 4. A board of 12 people, in memory, a

board like any other. It doesn't go through the convolutions of

pretending to be government who are then answerable to a trust and what

else. It is a proper board, appointed, and obviously the issue

of appointments is not going to be insignificant, but they should be

appointed by a transparent, hopefully accountable process, that

will make decisions as a board about the BBC, regarding the future of the

BBC. What to make of the Culture

Secretary's suggestion that he should appoint the new board? I

think it is probably impossible to head off the fact that the chairman

and the deputy chairman will be appointed by some Parliamentary

process. One of the breakthroughs is that, I think this has been agreed,

they will be confirmed in their appointment by the DCMS select

committee. That is much more of an American system, it is good news.

Much more serious is the appointment of the rest of the board, the other

six or seven people. How independent, how arms length of

government will that be? That is going to be a very tough and hard

fought battle. Are you worried that independence and trust may be

compromised? Talking to the guys the other day about exactly this, in

days of yore, when I was in the frame for this sort of job, the type

of Secretary of State you are dealing with were very trusted

people, even when they were political opponents, good man, and

you knew exactly that impartiality was at the core of what they did. We

do not live in that world anymore, there is mistrust, people suspect

that there is an angle on appointments, someone has been

appointed to pursue a particular agenda. The Secretary of State now

has a tougher job to justify changes and claim they are utterly

transparent and nothing to do with the Government attempting to impose

its views on the public broadcaster, that is much more difficult, and

therefore the requirement of transparency becomes much greater.

What was the view coming across to you tonight about how Scotland

should be represented? I think there was a general sense that in the past

there has been disappointment, a lack of transparency, that London

was running things, that the BBC, by its very definition, was London

centric, and that Scottish affairs, Scottish politics were not being

treated as properly and sensibly and fairly as the Scottish people have

every right to deserve. Now, interestingly, I know Tony Hall very

well. I don't think, as a Director-General, that he has any of

the neuroses that might have been shared about what that meant for the

future of the BBC. And he is a listening Director-General, I am

convinced of that, and I am certain that if there is sufficient debate

and sufficient discussion, he will come up with a resolution that will

not make everyone happy but will satisfy enough people. I am sure the

Scottish six came up once or twice denied in the course of your

discussions, when you look at how people are viewing content these

days, if it seems like an old-fashioned idea that we are

debating, you know, an hour-long programme going out at a specific

time of night? I think, under certain circumstances, you could say

that, but unfortunately the nature and complexity of the world, things

like Brexit, all the things we are being forced to look at, climate

change is a big one for me, and unless you have got programmes which

to reflect people's concerns, which are as objective as possible, which

are evidence based, unless you have a broadcasting system that you can

absolutely rely on what you are listening to is as truthful as it

can be, then I think is a democracy, and I mean this very sincerely, we

are severely endangered. The line between good evidence based

broadcasting and entertainment is a thin one, and I'm sure you credit

every single day of your life. Making sure that your audience

believes what your audience is saying, that what you are saying is

as accurate as you can become spaced, that is not easy, and the

notion that the BBC does hold that trust and retains that trust is

hugely important to stop you will have seen the BBC's and evidence

suggests that trust is lower in the corporation north of the border, do

you think it needs a shake-up here? I think that probably the

relationship, and I am now speaking and reflecting about what I've

night, the relationship between the governance of the BBC and the

ability to listen to and take account of the concerns of Scotland

does need not so much a shake-up, it needs refining and it needs, I'm

sorry to keep using the word, it needs to be utterly transparent so

people know what is going on and understand why it is happening.

While we have you, what do you make of the current controversy

surrounding John Whittingdale? Do you think he has been comprised? It

is not about John Whittingdale per se. What I think is worrying is that

the group of newspapers have censored themselves, probably in my

judgment in order to see off Leveson 2. I have always believed there will

be a Leveson 2, it is in a sense more important than Leveson 1, and

the possibility that newspapers have shelves this story in order to

achieve the removal of that threat, that worries me much more than

anything John Whittingdale has got up to. But doesn't it work both

ways? Isn't there concern he may have gone easier on the press

because he knew they had this ammunition on him? If John

Whittingdale was concerned about the possibility that the press might

miss use information that he had, surely that falls on the media. The

media have to behave in a way we can accept, they cannot start playing

games about who they will try and pillory or not, and that is not

press freedom as they describe it, and it is not press freedom as you

and I understand it. That is, frankly, using the media to obtain

your own very aims. And that is my concern, that the newspapers may

well have used John Whittingdale's foolishness, and it probably was

foolishness, to actually put him in a position where they were able to

secure the things they wanted. That is not a democracy, that is not

media, that is not good journalism. Lord Puttnam, thank you.

Terrorism coming out of the Middle East

poses the biggest threat to the national security of the UK.

That's the view of the former head of MI5, Dame Stella Rimington.

She's been up in the capital for the University of Edinburgh's

Spy Week, talking about espionage, international terrorism,

She took time to talk to our reporter Suzanne Allan

and the difficulties of living a secret life.

Dame Stella Rimington, you have been in heaven but this week to talk

about women in spy fiction, how has the role of women in spying changed?

-- in Edinburgh. It has changed a lot, actually. When I first joined

MI5, in 1970, women were definitely second-class citizens, it was a male

dominated world, and we had our own career structure, and it was a

structure of support, basically. Our job was to look after the blokes who

went out and did the intelligence gathering, and we were there to look

after the papers, you know, do the things that were needed, not quite

making the tea but something like that. And so as the 1970s wore on,

and sex discrimination legislation came in, and Women's Lib, women like

me, who had degrees and previous careers, and indeed were almost

indistinguishable in the background from the men started to say, we are

not very content with this second-class role, so it amounted to

be a quiet revolution, and the men in charge sort of puffed on the

pipes and scratched their heads and decided they would have to let at

least to some of us try to do the real intelligence work, and that is

how the role of women in MI5 gradually began to change. So these

days are female spies and male spies completely equal? Yes, I would say

they are, in all three of our intelligence services there are

women working on what you might regard as the front line, doing

intelligence gathering, but also doing all the other work. Because

the work of an intelligence service is not just James Bond, it is a

combination of intelligence gathering, intelligence assessment,

working out, you know, what you need to do, how you will prevent the arm

that somebody is planning. You obviously keep up with the news

regularly, in order to inform your writing. Do you find... What sort of

things you working on now for your next book? Which crises, which

situations around the world are giving you pause for thought now?

For my next book, which I have just completed, actually, coming out in

June, I decided that they were two themes that I had not covered much

in the previous books. And one was the increased my shall we say

aggression of the Russian intelligence services as far as the

West, particularly Europe? So I decided that was going to be one

theme. What might they be doing in order to, you know, somewhat

destabilised western Europe? And the second theme, which I thought was

quite current today, is this theme of the civil liberties. Beginning, I

suppose, with the revelations of Edward Snowden, there is now quite

an advanced sort of civil libertarian view that the

intelligence services must not intrude into our privacy, and I

thought that was a very strong theme as well, because clearly, you know,

these are the matters that my colleagues now working in the

services are having to deal with. Do think intelligence agencies need

more surveillance powers? They need what they need in order to be able

to prevent the harm that is intended, and obviously there is

always going to be this debate between, you know, those who believe

in civil liberties, as I do, and in privacy, and those who have the

responsibility of trying to prevent harm. Where this balance lies is

something that I cannot possibly comment on now, but it is being

extremely carefully thought about, and it was always going to be. What

do you think is the greatest threat facing the UK at the moment? The

greatest threat to our national security, which is after all what

the intelligence services are there to deal with, must come from the

sort of terrorism that is coming out of the Middle East at the moment,

and it is potentially a large threat, and it is an immediate

threat, and it is something that the public, people, are very aware and

are worried about. When you look at what happened in Paris and Brussels,

do you think there has been a failure in the intelligence services

there? It is difficult for me to tell, actually. You always think,

when something happens, there is a failure somewhere, and that is one

of the difficulties of working in an intelligence service and leading an

intelligence service. You have to motivate people, because failures,

as you might call it, there for all to see, and their successors are

not, you often never hear about successful prevention. So,

obviously, it is easy to say something is a failure, but it is a

difficult job to find out in advance what is being covertly planned.

Recently Police Scotland confirmed it was investigating claims made by

the BBC that a leading member of Glasgow Central mosque had a link

with banned terrorist organisations, does that surprise you? I don't

know, actually, I cannot comment on that, I am not an expert on what is

going on now. But you know, if these things are happening, then somebody

has to take steps about it, and it is a very difficult and delicate

area. Do think Scotland is just as much at risk as any other part of

the UK? I think it is, though I have no inside information. White you

think women make good spies? YouGov why not, almost! People sometimes

ask whether women make better spies than men. No, they come in all

shapes and sizes. Women are very good at recruiting and running a

human sources, and much of the information comes from human beings,

in spite of the technological world that we live in, and women have the

soft skills, the feminine skills that enable you to be had is

persuade somebody to do something that, you know, they might not want

to do full stop instead of being a terrorist, they might like to work

for Her Majesty's government! You have been a writer for a long

time, how do your two careers compare? Well, it is about age,

quite frankly. I could no longer be head of MI5, I am getting too old,

but I am able to sit quietly at my laptop and dried. One of the things

I like to write about is what it is like to work in a secret

organisation, what effect that has on people and their relationships,

the way they relate to each other, and people outside. That is the kind

of things I bring from my previous career to my present career as a

writer. Could you tell any friends what you did? How much did your

family know? We don't hear a lot about what it is like to live the

normal day-to-day of being a spy. Until I became a public figure, when

I was appointed director-general, nobody knew what I did exactly. My

husband knew, because he was there when I first started work for MI5.

My children vaguely knew I worked for something secret that we didn't

talk about. My friends, I did not talk about what I did. And that is

one of the difficulties. Even today, when there is a lot more openness,

if you are going to work covertly and possibly undercover, you cannot

go around telling people what you do. Even today, people who work in

the intelligence services do not talk about what they do, they have

to make up a cover story of some kind or another or avoid getting

into situations where you have to talk about what you do. Were your

friends surprised when they found out? Yes, some of them were, people

I had known since I was a school were surprised and in some cases

offended that I had not told them. That you had not taken them into

your confidence? There was a whole aspect of my life they knew nothing

about. That is one of the downsides, I suppose, of working in a secret

organisation. Dame Stella Rimington, thank you very much for your time.

We're having another in our series of election debates next Tuesday,

this time on the subject of energy and the environment.

If you'd like the chance to be in the audience,

through BBC Scotland's Election 2016 online page.

I think I love you. I love you too. Let's move in together.

Let's get married. Let's have kids. Two. Three. Four.

I'm so glad we met. Oh, me too.

I just need some space. You're stifling me.

I want a divorce. Talk to my lawyer. I'm keeping the CDs. In your dreams.