23/05/2016 Scotland 2016

As the Chancellor warns of big job losses if we leave the EU,

the First Minister says, don't exaggerate.

We debate whether workers would be better off if we stay or if we go.

It's my decision that Mr Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 of the

Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be

released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to

die. bomber early believes his conviction

may well have been Stewart Hosie stands down as SNP

Deputy Leader after revelations They're supposed to be on the same

side, supporting the case But the First Minister Nicola

Sturgeon has made clear she doesn't buy the Chancellor's grim warning

that a vote to leave would lead to a recession

and to widespread job losses. Boris Johnson has dismissed

the remain side as rattled. With a month till the referendum,

would it be better for workers if the UK stayed in or moved out

of the European Union? Our reporter Iain Hamilton has been

finding how much influence the EU The good old days. Full employment,

when Britain made stuff that we exported around the globe. When men

were working men and women were housewives who stayed at home after

they got married and had children. I suspect that very few would agree

that these were the good old days. It was a struggle to get paid

holidays, there were once -- safe working conditions and a reasonable

working week. And up until the 1970s, a woman could be sacked for

getting pregnant. What we know as working life has been established in

my lifetime. 28 days of paid leave, you don't have to work more than 48

hours a week and gender equality and anti-dimmers discrimination laws

have been underpinned by the EU. Some say that these rights should

not be taken lightly and there are concerns that they could be eroded

if we leave the EU. The concern about leaving the EU and ending up

Westminster government and a Tory government for example in power,

those employment rights and those laws and start to become dilutive

and attacked. This woman is a lawyer. She represents employers and

employees in disputes. She says that UK workers have nothing to fear. I

think there will be changes around the edges, in respect of

discrimination law to bring it in line with domestic legislation love

about -- about compensation. And there will be changes for business

transfers to harmonise changes of employment. But wholesale changes

are unlikely. The business community shares the view that they -- we will

not see wholesale changes. In a lot of that law is already in UK

domestic law or enshrined in people's contracts of employment.

The question is really where should those laws best be made? And that is

the question we have to make a judgment on. But this lawyer does

not agree. The Tory government have been hiding behind a mask of red

tape but they were muzzled by the European Union. The law has gone as

far as it can. If we Brexit on a Thursday, a law will be brought in

on a Friday to finish that business. Those I spoke to me be focusing on

employment protection but are the public as interested? Or is it the

case that we now take our working rights for granted?

Here now to discuss that is Dave Moxham,

Deputy General Secretary of the STUC, who favour

And in our Edinburgh studio, the former SNP deputy leader

Jim Sillars, who is part of the ScotLeave EU campaign.

Jim Sillars, the Chancellor warned today Brexit could result in a 4%

fall in average incomes, 40,000 jobs lost in Scotland alone. None of that

sounds very good for people worried about their jobs. I would like to

take you back to the 12th of March 2008. We were just about to go over

the abyss into the worst recession since the 1930s. That is when you

can judge the treasure. Alistair Darling's budget speech forecast to

3/4% and 3% growth and he claimed that the banks in the financial

system had never been more stable. How did you prove that? He said, I

am backed by the Bank of England, the Eyemouth, and the OECD. -- the

Eyemouth. Each one of them failed to gather what was going to happen in a

catastrophic fashion which other -- that which other economist knew was

going to happen. So far from the institutions to which we should bow

down and accept, they are in fact the economic stages. And outside the

Bank of England, if they were honest, they would put up a banner

and say, we haven't a clue. But aren't you concerned about the fear

factor, just like the independence referendum, that it will have an

effect on people who think it is safer just to stay with as they are?

The whole idea of project fear is to terrify people and -- into remaining

and the whole idea of the referendum campaign was to persuade Scots to

remain inside the United Kingdom. It may have an effect. But I do know

that it can only make people afraid if they are feared. There are brave

people who have the possibility to intellectually analyse absurd

arguments. For example, one argument produced earlier this week was that

we would all be ?4300 worse off in 2030. That is 14 years ahead. George

Osborne can't even forecast his budget deficit 12 months ahead. So

people who are sensible and analyse this will not be afraid. Let me

bring in Dave Moxham. Are you worried that that sort of argument

might actually alienate voters? That in fact, workers have got very

little to fear because a lot of these workers' rights are enshrined

in law? I think it is sensible to be critical of statistics wherever they

come from. But I think it is fair to say that the weight of opinion is

that it is far more likely that the UK would face a shock rather than

anything to the opposite, were we to Brexit. From our members point of

view, we are looking at a potential situation where a shock, followed by

an incumbent Conservative government, which may have some of

those laws enshrined, but many of which are gold-plated and supported

by European law, would seek not just to dig themselves out of a

recession, but as a strategy attack workers rights across the board. And

we heard in the film that if we left the EU, the Conservative government

might try to roll back many of workers' rights that have been built

up. Those rights are not from the EU, they are in British law. Any

government at Westminster might find it extremely difficult. For example

on paternity and maternity leave, to overturn those particular parts of

British law and protective law, given the strength of the feminist

movement and the power of middle England, particularly among the

young middle-class. But let me tell you this. One of the things that are

never spoken to by Dave and anybody else is that the EU can destroy any

workers' rights at any time. The one place they never mention is Greece.

All workers' rights in Greece have been destroyed by the Union itself.

Well, Dave Moxham... In Westminster, you can't guarantee the EU either.

To check that point, over the last five years, we have seen the

Conservative government removes some key protections. They removed

section 29 of the health and safety at work act which has existed since

1973. They have done their best to attack trade union and collective

organisation through the trade union act. So I don't share Jim's faith

that they would not try and I would rather we would not have that fight

is not necessary. The second point about Greece, Greece is in a dire

situation. That dire situation is undoubtedly caused to some extent by

the troika and by a Europe which desperately needs to be democratised

from within. But when somebody like the finance minister who have stared

into the eyes of the devil, I'm prepared to listen to him. Jim

Sillars, briefly on that point? Greece has been destroyed by the

European Union. Every worker 's right has been destroyed by the

European Union and I think the lesson from the trade union movement

here which is being repeated in Norway, which is in the EEA, is that

the quicker we are out of it the better. That anti-trade union Bill

which was mentioned by the way, will in fact remain if we stay in because

the European Union can do nothing about it. Is that the case? Know,

and that is very interesting take on the development of trade union

rights in Europe. It is a long way from perfect in Europe and it needs

to be Democrat ties, but the idea that over the last three decades

that we have in fighting the European Union rather than RM

right-wing governments, is a fantasy. Thank you both for coming

in this evening. He was Justice Secretary for seven

years and oversaw the creation But Kenny MacAskill will be

remembered around the world as the man who released

the Lockerbie bomber from prison In a new book out later this week,

Mr MacAskill sets Pan-American Airways says it has

lost contact with its flight 103... Lockerbie, 21st of December 19 88.

270 people died in the worst terrorist atrocity to hit Britain. A

bomb was placed on Pan Am Flight 103 to New York. The case would provoke

serious tension between the UK and Scottish governments and for the

Justice Secretary in charge at the time, it would prove career

defining. Kenny MacAskill held the post until 2007 and it was his

decision to convert the only man convicted of the atrocity. It is my

decision that Mr Abdullah asset Al-Megrahi be released on

compassionate -- Apple is it Al-Megrahi should be released on

compassionate grounds to die. He was released in 2009. The former Libyan

intelligence officer had terminal cancer and was expected to live for

three months. He died three years later and always insisted he was

innocent. It was a move strongly criticised by some, including the US

who lost 189 citizens in the bombing. But not everyone saw it

that way with some of the families campaigning for me groggy -- at

Al-Megrahi's conviction to be overturned. They believed he was not

responsible. Kenny MacAskill stepped down last month in order to pursue a

third career. In writing, perhaps with The Lockerbie Bombing to be

released later this week. He maintains he had a limited role in

the bombing. The search for the truth about Bob -- Lockerbie

continues, can the man who freed Al-Megrahi give us any answers?

Just before we came on air I spoke to Kenny MacAskill.

The decision to release first arc was your decision and your decision

alone, you make that clear in this book. We need met him in the

present, he saying the book he didn't express any remorse, so why

were you compassionate towards? I think there are several reasons.

First of all, compassionate release is driven not by the gravity of the

offence or the odious this of the individual, it's whether they meet

the criteria set down in stature than guidance, whether they would be

a danger in a thread. He met the criteria, he was released by me. To

be fair, knowing none of my predecessors have ever refused, a

respected of the severity of the crime perpetrated, and none of them

rejected since. White but they don't get any more serious than this. They

don't, but people equally may have sought The Sunday Times on Sunday, I

met Al-Megrahi and I have to say he seemed to be a rather aged man, I've

met some serious killers in my time who was deeply dangerous, I don't

think he was a pleasant man, he clearly had a role in this. But

let's remember, this was state-sponsored terrorism. At the

time I was being criticised for visiting Al-Megrahi, president Obama

was present to back shaking the hand of Gaddafi. Hillary Clinton

entertains Gaddafi's family. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown embraced him

in the desert. If we're going to criticise people for meeting with

Libyans, let's do with the Libyans who were ultimately responsible.

Al-Megrahi took his orders, Gaddafi gave them. You're presenting your

side of the story here. The UK and Libyan governments wanted a prisoner

transfer. You were against that. But then you released him anyway, you

must've known the grief, the anger that was going to cause particular

among the relatives. When the agreement was entered into, in 2007,

at that time Al-Megrahi had not become ill with prostate cancer, so

it was all unknown. It was in the early stages of this verse Scottish

National Party administration, we signed up to a PTA with Libya. It

was only one Libyan prisoner in Scotland, it was quite clear what

they were seeking to achieve. That became quite clear to me because

Jack straw told me it was all to do with British interests with BP. I

actually refused the prisoner transfer application and I did so

because I listen to evidence not simply from victims who were opposed

to a chance for, but the Attorney General of the United States because

it became quite clear when this had been established, the United Kingdom

Government, despite they wouldn't confirm that to me, had given

assurances to the United States, United Nations and to Libya as well

to the relatives that he would serve his sentence here. So are refused a

prisoner transfer agreement, but he met the criteria or compassionate

release and on that basis I authorised his release. In the end,

as you describe it, it was a pretty grubby affair, but the Libyan and UK

governments got what they wanted, but your own account, it seems you

the fall guy. Why did you fall for it? I think the fall guys here were

first of all Lockerbie that was devastated and had no idea what was

about to descend upon it. It was a Scottish Government to myself is the

Justice Secretary, I was on her double that position, it's been a

privilege to have served. We got nothing out of this, Lockerbie got

grief and hardship. The United Nations, United States, United

Kingdom, Libya, were all involved in brokering, because this was a

tragedy that the fellow Lockerbie, but Scotland was used as a patsy,

especially by the United Kingdom Government, and what we suffered in

terms of an act of terrorism was actually overshadowed by diplomatic

injury, commercial deals, not just BP, but the United States companies

were involved there, and also by security involvement. Britain and

the USA were seeking at that stage to shore up Colonel Qaddafi as a

bulwark against Islamic terrorism, the Police Service of Northern

Ireland just weeks after I have been criticised for releasing Megrahi

were over on the instructions of the UK Government trading Gaddafi's

elite forces because they are experts in counter insurgency and at

the same time if we go back and you will read in the book, in 2004, Tony

Blair signed a deal when he embraced Gaddafi. The following day, a major

commercial transaction was signed between a huge company in Europe and

Libya. The day after that, the MI6 rendered a prisoner to the CIA who

returned him to Libya. He was a Libyan dissident, he was returned to

the clutches of Colonel Qaddafi. So we suffered in Scotland, Lockerbie

in particular, but Scotland was used by the US in the UK for diplomatic

injury. Well, Megrahi dropped his appeal in the end, decision you say

in the book was his and no one else's. Do you think we can really

believe he didn't feel any pressure to actually drop his appeal if he

wanted to get home and die with his family? I don't know, that would be

a matter for him and the Libyan authorities. With greater member and

you listing in the book, he was actually offered up by the Libyans,

it was quite clear that there was a change of lawyers because at one

stage the advice given by the Scottish lawyers was to knock him

back to Scotland and certainly not to not to go to the camp, but they

change their Libyan lawyers and all of a sudden it became quite clear

that Megrahi knew that you was being sacrificed because a deal had been

done, and brokered by the United Nations, including Nelson Mandela,

the Arab states, the US and UK, that would see those two and nobody

further. There was good to be at that stage, unlike what we saw

recently involving campaigns and Libya, no regime change, there seem

to have been guarantees given that Gaddafi would not be touched. I have

no doubt, in the past, perhaps at that time, there were pressures put

by Libya, but equally Libya was exerting pressure in response.

Overtures being made by the UK and the USA. Do you think it would have

served the interests of justice better if the appeal had actually

gone ahead? I don't really know. I think at the end of the day, you

come to an end where you're just flogging a dead horse. Was his

conviction secure? You raise doubts about in the book. I think the

police and prosecutors acted honorably as to the courts at the

end of the day. I was a lawyer for 20 years, I've never heard of a

witness in Scotland getting more than minuscule expenses. One man was

given millions of pounds. That wasn't known... This was the main

witness? This wasn't known. That must cast a doubt about his

evidence. I think that's been and gone. It was pretty significant. The

bombs suitcase that linked Megrahi to the bombing, you're not convinced

that he did buy them now? The identification wasn't correct,

surely that alone... Would've meant his appeal would've been upheld. I

think there is reason to believe the appeal might've been hell does what

called unsafe, it doesn't necessarily mean he should be

exonerated entirely, but his conviction as such, that lead the

view that perhaps there was more to it. I do think that there was a lot

to come out here and it comes out in the book, but it can't be brought

out by the Scottish courts, because they don't have the power to compel

the Pentagon, they don't have the power and we're already hearing the

criticism from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for things I

have released in the book, I think risk went to be an inquiry it should

be by the Scottish core and it shouldn't just be about Lockerbie,

that was a tragedy, a dreadful terrorist incident that took all

those lives. But actually you got to TrackBack because before Lockerbie,

the USA brought down an Iranian airliner, you have to look

afterwards. What was going on in these commercial deals? What was

going on in the security world? Appears to be a pursuit and many

want to pursuit of justice, and has to be an international inquiry, not

a Scottish court. We must leave it there.

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

is the Scottish Political Editor of the Times, Lindsay McIntosh,

and the Political Editor of the Herald, Magnus Gardham.

Welcome to both of you. So today the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon says

Stewart Hosie is doing the right thing in standing down as Deputy

Leader of the SNP. But she said there was no reason

for him to leave his post as Deputy Leader of the SNP's

Westminster group, after revelations I don't think it has damaged the

SNP. These are really difficult issues and first and foremost they

are painful issues for the people concerned. Clearly they are also

difficult for friends and colleagues of the couple concern, but

fundamentally they are private issues and people can separate the

difficulties and issues that people have in their private lives from the

job that they do and I think that is the case for most people. So, did he

jump or was he pushed? I guess we will never know. I think it's

interesting, very clear from last week that Nicola Sturgeon was very

clearly supportive of her friend Stewart Hosie's wife, she was not

very supportive of Stewart Hosie himself. The usual platitudes came

out in the letters, those that were exchanged, but she was clear that

she supported his decision to resign. White Maki didn't sound

mature was trying to persuade them to stay. No, indeed. Whether he was

pushed, jumped, I think you'll ever know. You can draw your own

conclusions from that. I don't think there is any chance that she try to

talk him out of it. I think it is a decision that serves both parties.

Stewart Hosie, according to friends, is in a difficult place emotionally

as you would expect given everything that has happened. So taking a step

back probably makes sense. I don't think it matters, I think this is a

decision that everybody will be happy with. The party must be hoping

now to draw a line under this. Side that's a phrase I was going to use.

I think the events over the weekend, the exchange of letters, Nicola

Sturgeon making these appearances today. I think it's a move to draw a

line under it, move on, say, nothing to see here now, we're going to get

a Deputy Leader of the party in place, come autumn, it will be back

to business as usual. Any names in the ring yet? Side it's interesting,

we've just heard that the Scottish Cabinet announced last week, that's

Nicola Sturgeon's moved to get rid of the last of the old guard from

the Alex Salmond error and bring in her own team. It would be

interesting to see if she picks one of them. Obviously it goes to

whoever Nicola wants, they will get a big boost from that.

We saw Nicola Sturgeon Jenna Monday, she was talking to the Westminster

group, but preventing the positive case for the DQ.

Patty think that when? I thought it was very interesting. I was

surprised just how strongly Nicola Sturgeon attacked the Treasury

assessment. It wasn't just Nicola Sturgeon, George Caravan, one of the

senior MPs on economics, at Westminster, went even further. He

basically took apart the Treasury case bit by bit. It's easy to

understand why the SNP wants to keep the Treasury at arm's length when

they are on the same site, but there is a danger here for the remain

campaign. It's very easy to imagine the leave site hearing these

criticisms and saying to itself, but, hang on, even if the people in

the Remain campaign don't believe over the Treasury is saying, why

should the rest of us? I do think there is a danger that the SNP is

giving ammunition to the Leave campaign. When Max what did you

think of as a strategy? Side not just Nicola Sturgeon dismissing the

more literate comment submit had in previous weeks, the Boris Johnson

has made about Hitler comparing Hitler to the U, about David Cameron

on third world war. This is a serious analysis that she is

dismissing. You're saying, you treat them as stupid by dismissing that.

An independent investigation is going to be held into the disorder

at the Scottish Cup final after the violent clashes at Hampden Park when

thousands of people spilled onto the page at the final whistle. You think

that is the right action? There needs to be an inquiry. It's hard to

know what to say about this without resorting to the dreadful cliche of

a handful of idiots spoil it for everyone else. It was a great game,

a great story, with Hibs overcoming this 100 year cup hoodoo.

Personally, I wouldn't have even begrudged Hibs a pitch invasion and

grass related souvenirs, why not? But I'm afraid when you have images

of fans wielding corner flags as weapons apparently, there will be an

inquiry. You can only assume, judging this on the pictures, that

it was result in some kind of penalty for the club. That's a great

pity, it will take the gloss off what was a great occasion. There

have to be questions answered about how easy it is for fans to invade

the page, it seems there is not allowed to the stewards can do if a

group of are determined to get onto the pitch. I think that we can do is

wait for the inquiry and feels slightly regret for out that what

should've been a fantastic occasion for Hibs has been marred in this

way. And just finally before we go, some happy news on Twitter today.

The leader of the Scottish Conservatives Ruth Davidson has

announced she will marry her partner. You think things can get

better for Ruth Davidson? Side she's had a good year. Leader of the

Opposition, engage, and she's talking about getting a puppy.

Congratulations to Ruth Davidson and her partner Jan. It's always good

news, isn't it? Side you will have to get new hats! Thank you for both

coming in this evening. That's it for tonight, thank you for watching,

I'll be back again tomorrow night at the usual time. Do please join me

then if you can. Until then, goodbye.

We haven't really wakened up to the implications of Brexit for Scotland.

both in Scotland and abroad to find out.

We've built our business models around EU membership,

Brussels seemed to have more and more control.

It was like a noose round our neck all the time.