12/09/2016 Scotland 2016

Hostilities in Syria have halted, at least for now.

Could this truce be the last chance of peace in a united Syria?

Early reports are of some reduction in violence in Syria

since the ceasefire came into force. Can it hold?

Is enough being done here to keep families together

And Jeremy Corbyn's marking a year at the helm of Labour,

but does the Scottish party have reason to celebrate?

The world holds its breath as it waits to see whether

the fragile truce that's just come into effect in Syria

If it can, then Russia and the US will carry out

co-ordinated air strikes against jihadist militants.

The US Secretary of State John Kerry said there would be violations

but urged all parties to abide by the terms of the agreement.

Well, joining me now is Professor of Peace Studies

Good evening. Is the ceasefire holding so far? Broadly, yes,

reports particularly in the hour or so after sunset of some preachers in

several northern towns and cities but by and large, the level of

violence has declined markedly. It is night time now and the key test I

think will come during daylight hours tomorrow and indeed on

Wednesday. And what happens after that? What if it does manage to hold

for seven days? If it was to hold for the whole seven days, two things

will happen then, one is the Americans and Russians

extraordinarily will start to court neatly bombing attacks on Isis and

one of the other extreme groups they regard as terrorists. It is amazing

the Americans and Russians are coming together on this but not

clear it will last very long, given the problems between Russia and

America in other zones, but they intend to do that. In the longer

term, the Russians are hoping there might be longer term negotiations in

October or maybe later and that these could possibly involve some

sort of deal with the Assad regime. That is some loose talk about

President Assad being persuaded to stand down but one has to realise

the complexities at every stretch of this at the present time. A number

of the moderate Islamist opposition groups, not regarded as on any

terrorist list by the West, I dubious about the ceasefire. We have

seen intense violence in the last 36-40 at hours from both sides,

principally from the Assad regime, but also others as well and in any

case, the main thing is that the most that is what really is the only

be sufficient respite for aid to get into the areas most needed. But few

people are optimists for the long-term, but at least this is

better than the kind of war fought until a few hours ago. We have had

so Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, saying that Russia needs

to rein in President Assad if this seaside has a chance of succeeding.

How likely do you think that is? -- if the ceasefire. The Russians have

been important in stabilising the Assad regime, it is more confident,

one of the reasons why it can go back to barrel bobbing, using

chlorine, even targeting hospitals. But there is said to be problems on

both sides. You have the regime feeling more secure, suggesting

Russia has a lot of power, but the second element is the Russians

themselves are concerned at the really Islamic extremist,

particularly Isis, which is why they have come in with the Americans.

Why? Russia has a very large Muslim minority, particularly in the

Caucasus, and within that there are some elements that are being very

severely but it lies by what is happening in Syria. The Russians are

very happy with the way in which their status has increased, whatever

the bloodshed involved, but they do fear getting bogged down in this

kind of war because of their experience in Afghanistan. It is

complicated picture, then the Syrian Kurds and Turks as well, which is my

experience watchers of this regard this as one of the most complex was

there have been in the last 30 years, and it will be difficult to

bring it to an end. And just talking about the practical problems

involved, when that is joint US and Russian targeting of hardline

Islamist is, how much of a challenge will be faced just separating the

nationalist rebels from the jihadists? It will be extremely

difficult. One looks around anywhere for something more positive. But in

many parts of Syria, on the fringes of the violence, it is remarkable

how communities have tended to be much more cohesive than expected.

Quite a number of local ceasefires, some of which lasting for a long

time, and obviously, this it is in no way to see there are not mass of

problems with huge displacement, but what this means, as and when one

glimmer of hope, if you have more or less national ceasefire, even if

just partial, that can give scope for local initiatives to develop,

not just releasing it but essentially initiatives which could

lead to local ceasefires and it might be possible to build some

degree of stability here and they are, not much to hope for, but it

might be something which would come out of this ceasefire. What evidence

is there that Isis is being diminished? Is there much case for

optimism here? As far as Isis is concerned, with this intense war in

Iraq and Syria, the Americans reckon they have killed 40,000 Isis

supporters over the last two years, and Isis is certainly in retreat, to

some extent depressed, but still retains a remarkable degree of power

and to spread overseas, quite deliberately, not just concerned

with its own geographical caliphate, which is under pressure, but

reaching out with groups responsible for what happened in Brussels and

Paris, the problems in Bangladesh recently, even the problems in South

East Asia. This entity is in a week taking on a rather new mantle and

just as it replaced Al-Qaeda to a degree by something else might

replace it. The fundamental point is the underlying reasons why this kind

of group is able to arise, stemming much more from problems right across

the Middle East and beyond, not deleting even specifically just to a

very narrow interpretation of Islam. Even if we were able to see Isis

apparently defeated, I am hesitant to say that would be the end of the

problems of this kind of rubble from the margins, if you like. Paul

Rogers, thank you. Thank you. Well, with all eyes on the Syrian

ceasefire, here the Home Office is being urged by faith leaders

and charities to do more to keep families together

after they've fled the war there. The Scottish Government has also

said it wants obstacles to be removed to allow families

to join those granted refugee status in the UK.

Here's Fiona Walker. My name is Ahmed Zalgana. My name is

Muhammad. Mining is Mahmoor. -- my knee is. Tentative first words of

English for this family, the mother and children classed as refugees,

and this is why. TRANSLATION: Planes bombing and we were in the Andy

Graham shelter with lots of dust and the planes were bombing and people

were dying. -- we were in the underground shelter. No far from the

bombing and reunited in Glasgow but the thing is the mother and children

can stay here but the father cannot. TRANSLATION: I nearly died to be

with them, to have them with me, I just can't imagine life without

them. He has to prove he is their father to avoid being deported. The

government don't believe they are my family, I am prepared to prove from

them, take a DNA at anything. TRANSLATION: I need him and the

children need him. Two of my children are disabled, I don't

understand the system. I call for help from the government so I can

work and support my family. 208 leaders from around the country are

making that call for help saying the UK can do more and quickly. -- 200

faith leaders. The government can the likes regulations about

admitting refugees who have family in this country, guaranteeing a

network when they arrive, which is achievable within the foreseeable

time frame. The Scottish Government is also taking a stance. We have to

be in the business of keeping families together, so we are calling

on the UK Government to revisit and revise the guidelines of the family

reunion programme. In response, the Home Office said...

This is what this family fled at home. Five years ago, it was the

city which sparked the Syrian uprising. Today, a truce begins.

When the war started, school stopped. Now they are learning to

read and write but in a different language. And in the fear they may

lose their father once again. Well, joining me now

is the Chief Executive of the Scottish Refugee Council,

John Wilkes. Hello. Scotland accepted 1000 Syrian

refugees in the last year. Do you think that enough has been done to

keep families together in that process? Certainly, the Syrian

resettlement process the UK Government has instituted does try

and bring family units over so in that sense families brought over to

the UK, Scotland taking most of those so far in the first year of

this programme, that there are other aspects of the UK Government policy

around family reunion for other refugees hear that could be improved

and widened. So what happens when families don't arrive together? What

are the problems? The families are separated, a concern for the

families, making it more difficult to settle and integrate, because

they are worrying about family members elsewhere. Once they are

settled here, it is easier to bring other people to live with them. Less

resources are required to do that. Currently, the rules around Family

Reunion in terms of refugees having their family joining them are very

narrow and constrained and it is a complicated process. The Home Office

could make those rules easier, could widen the definition of family

members currently included, that would help I think an awful lot in

helping more people build new lives. We have from the family in the film,

obviously distressed by the checks they were having to go through, but

the Home Office says that every case is carefully considered on its

merits. Isn't that reasonable? It is not so much to do with checking the

validity of the people, but the narrow definition of high Family

Reunion is done. At the moment some untangling the spice and children.

But if a Syrian man was here already in the UK, he could bring his wife

and if he had any child under the age of 18, but could not bring

another who could be 19, that is how restrictive covenant rules are. If

the rules are widen to broaden the number of family members you can

bring, that would be helpful. What about the current situation in terms

of how asylum is controlled? Would you like to see polar over asylum

devolved to Scotland? Certain elements of how the asylum system is

run would be better run by the Scottish Government. Why is that?

There are aspects that affect the asylum system, children's services,

housing, already the responsibility of the Scottish Government, so those

aspects would be better run at Scottish level. You think that gets

in the way, then, that those devolved issues can't be dealt with

separately in Scotland? There have been a number of instances where the

Home Office and UK governments have not appreciated differences in

legislation or rights around issues to do with children, health or

housing that exist in Scotland and that has caused problems. Different

legal aid in Scotland to England and Wales impact on people going through

the asylum process, many aspects of the system that could be better

managed and run if devolved to Scotland. The Syrian resettlement

programme, if the UK Government had decided to say to the Scottish

Government who would have been very willing to say here is the amount of

refugees you can have, and the resources, you organise the

programmes yourself within Scotland rather than the current situation we

are all the criteria set by the Home Office with individual local

authorities, we could have got better results we have even so far

in Scotland. A lot of goodwill in Scotland across the country to

helping asylum seekers come and settle here, but how will it but do

you think local authorities have been in providing everything needed?

I think the local authorities have demonstrated enormous goodwill, but

most of those local authorities have never experienced refugees, only a

few have experience of a lot through the programme. So we do have the

issue, about getting out that expertise, and we do think that

refugees arriving at Angus, western isles, they can learn from the

experience of other local authorities. No matter where you

arrive in Scotland, we hope that you have the same opportunities, to get

a good life and immigration experience. Thank you for coming in.

It has been reported, that one big donor has stopped supporting the

party north of the border. Huw Williams has been asking

how much of a problem Scottish Labour, one is

overwhelmingly the dominant force in the land. But now a shadow. I know

that people in Scotland have been disappointed by the Labour Party, I

agree with you. But an argument that the Labour Party has always been

small and weaker than it seemed. Strip the patronage. You are left

with a party that is not the tournaments, it exists almost as a

branch operation, and London Labour, it faces the challenge of not being

answerable to the Scottish people. And it cannot be, because it has

never been fully financially autonomous. Scottish Labour could be

facing the perfect storm, far less of a membership boost than down

south, trade unions supporting Jeremy Corbyn, even though Kezia

Dugdale has publicly backed Owen Smith. It is like a patient, on

life-support. And things have not got any better since 2007. And if we

are approaching a nadir... That is another matter. But you get reports

about the withdrawal of funding, where do you go? Just relying on the

unions? Problems for Kezia Dugdale, supporting Mr Smith, because Unite

and Unison back Jeremy Corbyn. And uncertainty about Scotland's

political future, stake all on union, or does Labour need to start

thinking about what it could form in an independent Scotland. Labour has

been playing catch up in Scotland for over a date. They should have

had the vision, ideas, worked up for policies, federalism, legal support

us in Scotland would not be put off by this. A lot of them would support

this has been open to independence. It needs to have an agenda, that is

not against independence, but social justice, that is the question. The

union, secondary question. The need to be humble, and seek to us, good

historical Labour, a lot of us grew up knowing the story but it's

passed. They have to explain how that has gone wrong. Whatever

strategy Labour fault, it is not going to make much difference with

no money and votes. Here now to talk about that

and the rest of the day's news is Labour's former

Shadow Scottish Secretary And Moray MacDonald,

who's a former director of the Scottish Conservatives

and now a PR executive. These latest report, about donors

closing wallets to Scottish Labour, what does that tell us? I think it

is just another symptom, about the trouble that we are in. No point

fading that. I have been in the studio, defending the Scottish

Labour Party, but no getting away from this. I find myself agreeing

with Gerry Hassan, we need to be humble. But this is the symptom, not

the cause. And it is not just about Kezia Dugdale, so many factors and

we have a big job on our hands. But a lot of Scottish opinion, once the

centre-left voice, not wanting to talk about the constitution all the

time. Angry, frustrated, because despite ourselves, we are not going

to fill the vacuum. Just won the financial issue, one senior union

official told me, no cash problem. Do you think the party is being

honest with itself? I think over past generations we have not been

honest and off with sales, and that reflects to the Scottish public, we

have not been deliberately dishonest but we need to come to terms with

some of the issues. Some of the divisions, lack of ideas, and

galvanise around the founding principles. You need money with than

politics. No doubt about that. But money tends to follow power in

politics. The Scottish National Party, when I was growing up, not

having many resources but they do now a days. We need to be serious

about wanting to change Scotland and then perhaps we can begin to have

the conversation to become more effective. You shall run the

Scottish Conservatives, back in 2001. In the doldrums. Do you see

some parallels? Between Scottish Labour now? Absolutely. The Scottish

Conservative Party 2001, it was fractured, not strong, and had lost

elections. That has a big impact on the party. It has an impact on how

people work together. And when the public sees that, the public does

not give support. In that time... The party is only going to get

support from die-hard supporters, people who have got money, giving

you money no matter what. That is not generally going to be enough to

get back into power. It is going to take years to get trust back, as

market has said, getting them back on site. -- on side. That is when

you can begin to get enough cash, to run a good campaign. Some in Labour

have said good riddance to wealthy donors! They always seem to want

some influence, but do you think any serious political party can do that?

You have the argument, that some parts of the party, or anti

business, I am not one of those, I think the Labour Party has attracted

wealthy people who have got the sense of knowing where they came

from, wanting to contribute to get back, and for ethical reasons. They

have just lost faith, in the ability to get back into the power. Bay want

to see results, investment, success. I think it is more about that. But I

would not rule out the fact, you can get resources from our bus, --

others, also from membership. But the core, the cause of the problem.

And we are not serious enough about being an alternative government.

David Cameron has announced he's standing down as an MP

just two months after he quit as Prime Minister.

He said then he planned to fight the 2020 general election,

but today, he said he'd changed his mind.

As a former Prime Minister, it is difficult to sit as a backbencher,

and not to be an enormous distraction. I do not want to be a

distraction, I want Whitley to have an MP, playing a role in everyday

life I would find them possible. Are you surprised? Do you think he was

being a distraction? I am not surprised. I think after being Prime

Minister it is difficult to sit on backbenches, not doing as much as

when you think about him being Prime Minister. It is almost indecent

haste!? He probably does not want to be trampling over Theresa May.

Regardless of what you think, years the former Conservative Prime

Minister, he does not want to wreck what is happening. But I am

disappointed, about David Cameron, after the European referendum. He

was clearly for Remain. He said if we do not win, I'll stick around.

And try to get the best Brexit deal that we can get, but he resigned the

next day, and he is also resigning from this. I think it is a good

example of one of the reasons why the public have gone off

politicians. They keep saying what they are going to do, and then they

do not do that. They think it is PR spin, but PR is actually about doing

what you said you are going to do, and if not, giving reasons. I think

the spin that David Cameron and Tony Blair have given out, has given

politics a bad name. What do you think of this hasty departure?

Alternative sources of income? More interesting things to do? What is

his legacy? Burst onto the scene... Modernising the Conservative Party.

I think that explained some of the support that they had, but he has

largely failed. He will be remembered, as the Prime Minister

who took us out of Europe, and the notion of being a more modern party,

implementing gay marriage, greenest government, and we have Theresa May,

back to the debate about grammar schools. Fights about migration,

grammar schools. I think David Cameron has to go down as failed

Prime Minister. Do you think he will go down as having a legacy? I think

that he will. When you think about Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John

Major, everybody says that nobody is ever going to remember them, but

after some time, they do, John Major the classic example. And now...

During the Olympics, everybody going back to one of the reasons, was

because of the national lottery that John Major setup. David Cameron

could through his parliament, gay marriage, who would have thought

that Conservative came on a story to that? I think he is going to be

remembered as being liberal, and he made the Conservatives re-elected.

But Brexit failure always looms large? I think that is undoubtedly

going to be the hallmark of his administration and he cannot shake

that of, because his projects, they seemed to fail. Years forever going

to be associated with Brexit. Nothing to be compared with that.

Important though some of the legislation was, I think that is of

significance. His legacy is not continuing that. It seems to me

shifting. And I think that is how you judge people.

Gary Robertson will be here tomorrow night, usual time.

This is a trailer for BBC Four's conceptual art season.

You see clips of a pile of bricks causing anger in a gallery,

and a man in a cardboard outfit babbling onstage.

"Is it art if it doesn't make sense?"

Cut to a clip of an artist displaying a crumpled ball of paper.

"Is it art if no-one painted it or sculpted it?"

Now a clip of a pickled shark floating in a tank.

"And is it art if it only exists...in your head?"

BBC Four gets very conceptual. Three nights of programmes...