09/06/2016 Scotland 2016

The United Kingdom, she's determined to have another go because it was

the wrong answer. Isn't that the EU... I just respond to that

briefly. I don't think it is any secret to what I stand for in terms

of independence, and putting that to one side tonight I'm standing here

because I want people across the UK to vote to stay in the EU because

it's better for Scotland and the UK, that's my argument not just to this

audience, but to people across the UK. If we vote to leave... And not

it is speculate on what will happen in the event of a Brexit vote, I'm

here are going for Remain. Keeping an eye on the debate was David

Porter who joins me now. Good evening, David. Most two hours of

very intense debate, it certainly things things have livened up. A

fortnight ago, in a fortnight will be counting the votes, before then

we have two weeks of hard campaigning when they are fighting

for every vote. It was fairly spicy and spiky tonight! When you have a

two our TV debate you have a lot of time to make your arguments. And

with six seasoned politicians it was always at one point going to get

charity. And that is exactly what happened. None of them were backward

in coming forward with their arguments. The people who were

taking a back-seat with the audience. Only about six or seven

questions tonight, each of the politicians got a chance to put

their field and then it was opened up to debate the politicians. It was

a spiky event. They are all seasoned politicians, they all know how to

play dirty, and some of them took full advantage of their experience

in doing just that. As we could've expected, immigration was centre

stage, what other subjects are the panellists under pressure on? The

economy and the NHS. It was interesting that on both of them, it

came back again and again to the question of immigration. And

essentially the argument being put forward by the Leave side was that

the UK ought to have control of its own immigration policy, therefore it

could plan for population growth, the argument put forward by the

Remain side was that immigration had been good for the UK and there were

many people working in this country doing vital jobs and things like the

NHS who had come from the European Union, the point that Nicola

Sturgeon made was that there was a too wasted, people coming into the

UK from the European Union but also people going from Britain to other

They were called immigrants when they came into this country, but

when they were Britain's going out, they were called expatriates.

This was billed as a big head-to-head between Nicola Sturgeon

and Boris Johnson. How did they fair up against each other? They don't

particularly like one other. I don't think it was a case where it was foe

outrage or anything. Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon, by far and away

probably the two best known politicians on the panel and it is

fairly obvious that part of the tactics that Nicola Sturgeon was

using was actually to go for Boris Johnson. She didn't really attack

his two female colleagues on the Leave side, but time and time again,

she went for Boris Johnson and she made it pretty plain that she did

not agree with him, not only just on the case of the European Union, but

his wider politics as well as part of the Conservative Party. And she

left a final sting in the tail if you like, she said and she

questioned whether Boris Johnson was actually really interested in the

case he was making about Europe and the argument or if his real interest

was replacing one job, that of David Cameron. David Porter in London,

thank you very much. Well, I'm joined by a pair of

political commentators. Katie Grant and in Edinburgh Ian. Good evening

to both of you. Katie, how do you think the First Minister did? Well,

I thought she looked uncomfortable actually and I think it must be

uncomfortable for her using the same arguments that the Better Together

campaign used, but to remain. I didn't think she looked Kerr bleu

comfortable of the it was a msz take to go for Boris. She should have

plenty to say without doing that. I didn't feel that she was actually

the strongest member of her own panel this evening. Ian? Oh, I

disagree with that actually. I think she was by far the most coherent and

effective despite having a very difficult line to negotiate because

of course, she is a nationalist, arguing to remain in the union. The

European Union. And she was using a lot of the same kind of phrases,

"We're better together. We're stronger together." That were being

used by the anti-independence, Better Together cap pain. It was a

nick cl and Boris grudge match. Boris was blown off the stage partly

by very personal attacks such as the one we heard from Nicola, but Amber

Rudd. They are in the same Government, the same Conservative

Government, they are colleagues, but here was Amber Rudd saying she

wouldn't trust him to drive him home back at night from a party! An

extraordinary thing to come out, but effective. Might that not be a

problem in the future for Boris Johnson? That's clearly going to be

a problem for Boris Johnson. The make-up of the panel was

interesting. We don't often see five women and one man and I thought that

made it more interesting. Did it work as three on three though? Would

it be better as one on one? I think she on three is difficult. It is my

turn, your turn, my turn and for those following the debate, there

was nothing new that was said. In some ways, it would be more

interesting to have people who actually worked in the EU, so for

example, I don't know why we don't have a debate between two judges,

one who is for Remain and one who is for Leave so we can ask questions

about how the legal system works and there is controversy about the

figure on the Leave's battlebus, you know, and that just rumbles on no

matter who says it is a lie, they still carry on using. I didn't think

it was an effective way of throwing any light on the matter.

The figure ?350 million was on the bus, on Boris' bus has been widely

condemned, by all manner of authorities, not just the UK

treasury, but also the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying it is bogus.

Nevertheless, it was interesting how they managed that and it was quite

interesting how few, how little this revolved around the sterile exchange

of figures and economic postures and what the Leave people did there was

just try to blitz all that by coming back relentlessly again and again

and so much I was almost throwing my remote at the television screen

saying we must take back control. Take back control. That's how they

resolved the contradiction about the ?350 million, we want control over

the ?350 million, they are not saying necessarily they lose ?350

million, but they lose control of ?350 million, but that was the theme

and I have to say the Leave side were much more co-ordinated in their

message and though it was relentless and mind numbing and infuriating

they got it across that it was a question about taking control and

really it seemed to me the central issue in the debate tonight was

about sovereignty and that's quite interesting because I think the

debate is now moving on from, as I say, this exchange of economic

statistics, which people have found alienating and basically they don't

believe figures from either side now and it is moving on to the questions

about democracy and sovereignty and that could be very dangerous, I

think, for the remainers. Well, away from the TV debate, the big guns

were out in force across the UK talking about Europe, the

Chancellor, three former Prime Ministers, one former Labour Party

leader and an SNP deputy leader. So you can tell it is getting serious.

Serious. These two were speaking in Glasgow tonight. The European Union

is the their great friend and if we leave, they will be in terrible

trouble. It doesn't make any sense for a country that needs jobs and

that believes in full employment, that wants people to be working, it

doesn't make any sense to leave the European Union. So Katie, a lot of

focus on jobs, the economy, what do you think of the arguments being put

forward? Well, I mean, I think they are all valid arguments. The thing

about the EU referendum debate is there are good arguments to be made

on both sides. I think sort of when they reduce them to a shouting

match, it is not terribly helpful. I think sometimes it would be more

useful to have a conversation about it, but it is not very easy to do

that. So what we do end up with is these terribly superficial and

general assertions, we will be better off, there will be more jobs

if we remain and we will get more control back if we leave, but no

examples are given as to what this will mean in our daily lives. Ian,

we saw two former Prime Ministers standing shoulder-to-shoulder,

warning that the unity of the UK itself is on the ballot paper? Well,

the irony of ironies, they are two unionists saying that if there is

Brexit it means there is more likely to be an independent Scotland. On

the same day you heard Nicola Sturgeon insisting she wants to

remain within the European Union and opposing Brexit. There are a number

of ironies in this debate. But I think what's also quite interesting

is that the Leave side have begun to neutralise the project fear. The

first of all identified project fear rather as it was in the Scottish

referendum, the claims there would be, people would be ?4600 a year

poorer. There would be 830,000 jobs lost and house prices would fall by

80%. They have managed to neutralise the figures by saying they are just

scaremongering and people have stopped believing the figures,

stopped trusting them, at any rate and that's a very ding are yous

situation for Remain to be in because it is rather what happened

towards the latter stages of the Scottish independence referendum

when we had the same project fear, many of the same figures and the

same claims from the people people, but a lot of people in the end

stopped believing them. So, it is interesting. There is a lot to play

for. OK, for now, there we must leave it. , antibiotic and Katie.

Now away from the Brexit debate, it was all about attainment, how to

close that stubborn educational gap. The Education Secretary pledged an

extra ?20 million for schools, but new figures showed a fall in the

number of 18-year-olds from Scotland's poorest areas going to

university. The First Minister acknowledged there is work to do,

but said for people of all ages the numbers have actually gone up. Well,

one private school head has weighed into the debate saying the gap is

narrowing because some able children in state schools aren't being

stretched. Earlier Cameron Wylie joined me and a head from a state

school was here in the studio. Cameron Wylie, writing in a personal

capacity you've said that the attainment gap is narrowing, but

because of a move towards the middle. What do you mean by that?

Well, the danger for the issue of the attainment gap is that, in

attempting to close the attainment gap, we have got to consider the

needs of the people who are doing well, as well as the needs of the

people who are doing less well. It is commendable to close the social

attainment gap, but we need to be careful about how we do it. How do

you close the gap if everybody moves up the way, doesn't the gap stay the

same? Well, it should be the intention of the forces of

Government it make sure that everyone in Scotland's attainment

improves at the same time, I'm happy, very happy indeed, that the

social economic status of should be a part of that, and I think the

private sector does very well in its contribution to closing the

attainment. You are head of a state school in a deprived part of

Glasgow. Are pupils in danger of being left behind in the move to

close the attainment gap? No, absolutely not because the advice we

get nationally and one of the recommendations in the recent OECD

report was that we had to do two things at the same time. We had to

strive to raise attainment for all young people and certainly, at St

Andrew's secondary, that's the mission of the school, but we had to

be sophisticated and rigorous in identifying where the gaps are and

being relentless in meeting them and it is about the dual-purpose in

everything we're trying to do in schools, which is driving the work

of schools at the moment. Well, Cameron Wylie, you've said that

parents are moving children from state to private schools in the

third year of secondary because they are not doing stretched enough by

the curriculum for excellence. What's your evidence for that? Well,

the broad general education which has been brought in as part of the

senior phase of curriculum for excellence has two problems attached

to it. The first is that second year was always the year traditionally in

Scotland where we had to watch to make sure that pupils didn't tread

water. That danger, where pupils not have chosen their subjects, and are

therefore becoming less interested in things is now extending into

third year and at the same time, what is happening is that in fourth

year, there are less choices available to pupils. Creating broad

general education in S3, curriculum for excellence created a swigs where

there is less broad education in year four. You are hearing from

parents saying this is the reason they want to move to a private

school? Definitely. Because their subject choices in S4 don't extend

beyond five choices at national five or national four and that means

subject choices are very, very limited and they just feel the more

able children aren't being stretched. Is this a picture you

recognise? No, absolutely not. There is a number of things in what

Cameron said that are far away from what I recognise. Firstly, there is

no suggestion that there should be no choice in schools before third

year. In fact, national advice is that there should be increased

specialise ag as young people move through the broad general education

particularly into third year with a view to the senior phase. Secondly,

we were tied then to a system where people only took young people so

far. They knew where young people had to be by the end of the first

year of standard grade and that's as far as young people were taken. The

broad general education allows us now to extend young people much

further, we have scope to stretch the more able, support those that

need help. But what are we to make of the new figures today that show

that the number of 18-year-olds from disadvantaged areas applying and

getting accepted to university has fallen? Well, it picks up on an

issue that's been in Scottish society now for a substantial period

of time and the Government have recognised that by setting up a

commission and widening access. The answer to that question is very

complex and it is one of the things that the commission certainly

identified was that the answer is a systems answer. It is not about one

particular sector or one particular group. It is about the whole of the

education system in Scotland working together to deal with that

particular issue. Can I just pick up one other wee issue that Cameron

made? It was about the slack in S2 and it seems strange to me that

having recognised that, independent schools have staged with the same

structure which I assume still has that slack, part of it, it would be

really interested to know what they have done to address that. Briefly

on that, Cameron Wylie? Well, what we've done is avoided the situation

where we extended the slack into S3, what I can't understand about

Gerry's argument, the idea that you are talking about stretching the

most able children while at the same time you're bringing them down to

five subjects in S4, thus making their choices for crucial S5 even

more difficult. You can't take being in a situation whereby previously

they were doing accept or eight subjects in S4 and now they are

doing five and say they are being stretched, I don't think. That's not

a common pattern. In St Andrew's secondary school, there are a group

of people who are doing five subjects because they go to college

two afternoons a week and Cameron and I agree on that. We have a group

of young people who do seven subjects, seven national fives,

national fours by the end of S4 and we have a group of our most able who

are doing six subjects, but they are doing them at higher level from the

start of S4, not spending time studying at a level below their

ability for a period of time which is unnecessary and actually holds

them back. OK. I'm frayed we are going to have to leave there for

this evening. Thank you for coming in. Well, here to talk about this

and the day's news, I'm joined by Dominic Hind and Penny Taylor. Good

to see both of you. Just picking up on that discussion there. What do

you make of the claims that parents are turning their back on State

schools because their children, their able kids aren't being

stretched enough by the State system? The people that I speak to

who are considering private schooling as an option for their

children never use that as a reason when they are telling me that they

are thilg about this. They talk about wanting to give their

children, "The best chances." You know, whether they are right or

wrong and actually, I think basically it boils down to wanting

to buy them privilege and that for me, is the reason that people are

quoting it is not about wanting them to be necessarily pushed harder.

When you think Scotland had a worldwide reputation for the quality

of its education system and it wasn't its private education system,

it was its state education system. And if parents who want their

children to, you know, if they want them to be pushed, take them out of

the state system, arguably that's damaging our state system. I feel

very, very strongly that, you know, resourcing and consolidating that is

vital for the vast majority of people in this Scotland. Scotland

and adverts for the private school system can run in fair have you said

forms. The headteacher that you heard there, Cameron Wylie, he was

very definitely linking it to the curriculum for excellence sh the

broadening out of a secondary education that parents were coming

to him and the numbers were up on last year saying, you know, we're

worried about this. We are worried our children aren't being stretched

enough? Private schools are businesses and they make money.

James kelman is 70 and he is one of the stark critics of education in

Scotland. What you have seen in that report with the headmaster of a

private school saying that, is a perfect example. The education

system in Scotland is very, very divided and it is not going to get

any better if private schools are seen as a better option. Well, what

about attainmed, closing this attainment gap? They are talking

about trying to increase attainment at the top end and the bottom end,

but surely, that means the gap remains the same if you do that? But

attainment as the headmaster... Is that possible? It is about a great

deal more than what happens within, you know, the few years when you're

in secondary education. It is about, it is a whole society thing, I

think. Everybody recognises that now in Scotland. Is throwing money at it

going to work? I mean the Education Secretary hay nounsed an extra ?20

million targeted at schools in deprived areas. Is that in the end

going to make a difference? If private schools bring anything to

the party, it is staff to pupil ratio, it is the resources that they

might have for young people. And if putting more money into the state

system is going to close that gap and bring people up, great. Bring it

on. Are you concerned about the figures that are out today showing

that actually the number of 18-year-olds from deprived areas

applying and getting accepted to university has actually dropped over

the last year? That is of great concern. The problem, it is not a

problem for jaofrts to solve or for schools to solve, it is about

inequality in society as a whole. If you don't solve the fact that people

are going into the school system of different levels and economic

support and emotional development they will come out different as

well. It is about how do you sell yourself? What's your personal

statement to get in? And actually when you analyse those university

figures, the West Coast universities are maintaining the balance that

they had last year or even exceeding it. Strathclyde are taking more

people from poorer communities than they were before. St Andrew's has

seen a massive drop from 25 pupils, 25 only, last year, down to 15 this

year. So you think universities... I would asking those universities what

are they not doing? Why are they not interested in taking people from our

more deprived communities who have all the ability to get into

university, who are not being given places. I want to know the answer to

that. If more students from deprived areas get into university, then that

leaves a bit of a problem for the headteacher of the private school

because there will be a lot of disappointed parents? It does and I

think it would be a fantastic thing because it shows that going to

private school doesn't get you in. It buys you privilege, arguably,

whether it ought to is another question and that's for further

debate. Well, that will have to be for another night. Thank you very

much Penny and Dominic. That's it for tonight and for this week. Thank

you for watching. Andrew will be back here on Monday at the usual

time. Join him then if you can. Until then, bye-bye.

Both sides of the EU debate are about to face tough questions

Join us for two special programmes and see whether you're persuaded

by the answers from the Leave and the Remain camps.