07/12/2016 Scotland 2016

It's endured for more than 300 years, but Scottish Labour

think it's now time for a new Act of Union.

After Calman, Smith and a referendum, is there really

And Scotland's Lord Advocate gets his moment in court to make

Holyrood's case for a say in triggering Article 50.

Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has outlined

proposals for a federal UK, which would see more powers

Ms Dugdale says creating a new Act of Union will protect the UK

But her critics say it's just an attempt to make

And, in the current climate, how much demand is there for another

It seems like we've been talking about Scotland's Constitution for

ever. The Convention once action and a Scottish parliament up and running

within two or three years. Back in the early 90s, heavyweight prounion

politicians of the day meant to demand devolution. We will not take

no for an answer. In 1999, Scotland eventually got it. In time, the

parliament building crew. A decade on, the Labour inspired commission

said Holyrood needed increased responsibility. And in 2014, yet

another review said Scotland's parliament needed even more powers.

Now the current Scottish Labour leader wants to revisit devolution

yet again. Although this time, she once a UK wide solution. So what is

she after? She wants a new active union to deliver what she calls a

federal solution for the UK. That would mean extra powers for English

regions as well as Holyrood delivered through a people's

convention. I think our union across the UK faces a great deal of peril

if we don't act to change things now. We are going to have a politics

in our country which is dominated by a Tory and S nationalism. There is

a great opportunity here to talk about power and where it sits across

the whole of the UK. But it has to be done in a fundamental when that

means a new act of union. We've been here before. The Liberal Democrats

have long dreams of a federal UK. The idea has never come to pass but

supporters say it is achievable. This is a journey about convincing

people who haven't been convinced before, about the real benefits of

federal reform throughout the UK. The transfer of power down to

regions and nations survey control more of their own destiny. Because

you don't feel's other opponents say nobody cares. For the past few

weeks, we've seen everything going on in Scotland from a GP crisis, and

education crisis, a transport crisis and here we have Labour talking

about some random constitutional change. Most people in Scotland want

to turn the page on the constitutional arguing and it's

disappointing Labour are trying to open this up once again. There is

also scepticism that Westminster will listen to miss Dugdale 's plan.

Could there be another reason? There is no doubt that this is the

Scottish Labour Party trying to come up with a plan that is not the

Independent 's... The truth is, the Labour Party has been uncertain and

ensure about the message it should present on constitutional

settlement. Right now, Brexit on Scottish independence are dominating

politics. So the question is, is there room for yet another

conversation on devolution? Joining me now from Edinburgh

are Labour's Lewis Macdonald, the SNP's Linda Fabiani

and the Conservative's Miles Briggs. Why is a new act of union necessary?

Some might say there are more pressing issues on the political

agenda just now. There are many pressing issues but there is nothing

which is more pressing than the consequences of the Tory's gamble on

Brexit which has led us to a position where change is inevitable.

The question becomes what changes did to be? Is it to be another

change of separatism, turning our back on our neighbours or something

positive? Something that provides a vision which can unify the country.

This is a divided country as never before. It needs something that

people can unite around. No matter how they roasted in this referendum

or the one before. We think this up those that opportunity, a

modernised, new, renewed act of union which reflects the reality of

where we are. Do you not think after 300 years, it's worth looking at

this again, providing a modern solution? I was just stunned when I

read context today. I chaired the Scotland Bill committee. I sat

through the camp Smith commission. And consistently, they've turned

down the idea of additional powers. So it seems really bizarre that here

they are, for some reason, deciding that they want to open all this up

again. They had their chance. It seems to me it's a constant struggle

for Labour to find a meaning and they will try anything. Millions of

years from now, they will still be saying, let's do this or that. They

don't seem capable of taking real action. The party has additional

powers and many argue you are not using them properly. Of course we

are. You're all sway is looking at how we are doing the best in

Scotland. The Labour Party surely should be looking at how they can

work with the SNP to try and get a better deal for Scotland. We found

tonight that they are so representative at Westminster in

Scotland, again voted against the idea of Scotland getting a real say

in the Brexit negotiations. One hand doesn't know what the other hand is

doing. Why doesn't the SNP work with Labour? Why don't the SNP get behind

the idea of a constitutional convention that can look at all the

options and allow the people to determine the way forward? That is

what we are saying. We need a new solution and a new way forward,

rather than the SNP reaction. We went through an independence

referendum when Labour were talking about a federal solution. They were

talking about is years of home rule as possible. They were talking about

flowers. Then, when it got to the Smith commission, they didn't want

to look at employment law powers in Scotland. They didn't want to look

at minimum wage. Let me make this point, in the absence of the

European Union, would this not be an opportunity to look at things like

employment law? Because fishing and farming? Has your Dugdale is also

talking about you powers for the English regions. They can't even

come together and talk with Scotland's elected government

properly about new powers for Scotland and standing up. And

interest. All of a sudden, she is wanting to have a UK focus. It's

about time they were looking at Scotland and doing the best for

Scotland. Miles, many in your party are for federalism. Why are you not

supportive of this idea? This is pretty desperate stuff. Only

Scottish Labour could draw the conclusion that what Scotland needs

is more constitutional uncertainty. That is where most people who have

now left Labour and stop voting for them this into what has been said

today and reinforce the message that you cannot trust Labour with union.

Let's look at the arguments which we've had over the past four years

in Scotland. We made a decision two years ago and cosier and her party

don't seem to be comfortable with that outcome. We don't fully know

where they stand. She says she is for the union. The deputy leader

wants another independence referendum. This is just adding to

yet more confusion about what Scottish Labour is actually four in

Scotland. That is a point that has been made, you appear muddled. You

are neither Unionist nor independent. What are you and is

that the part of your problem? It's pretty rich to have the Tories

accusing Labour of undermining the union. This... Ever since the day

after the referendum when David Cameron came forth to announce

English laws of English votes. It intentionally and deliberately stood

up English nationalism. That whirlwind, Brexit, has changed the

situation completely. I think that's clear to everyone living in

Scotland. We do not want to go down the road of a sterile argument again

about independence on the one hand and the kind of nationalists

alternative from the Conservative Party and the other hand. What we

actually want something positive that the country can unite around.

We are very clear that the way to safeguard the union, the Democratic

union that we believe in the union that can redistribute power and

wealth within the country is to go down this road of radical change in

the direction of federal Britain. It is our job to get the message across

and it's our job to say to people, if you don't want a sterile argument

over independence or a reactionary hard Brexit that turns our back on

Europe, then here are some that offers a positive way forward,

maintains our strong relationship with Europe but also maintains and

safeguards the United Kingdom for generations to come. The whole

argument which was being made today was that actually England would have

to have some sort of regional government. England has rejected

that and she cannot force that. We shouldn't be dictating to England

what they should be doing. We should be finding solutions to Scotland and

our Scotland Parliament. For Labour, they are walking down the road the

SNP want them to. Over the past few weeks, we've seen failings in

education, transport and health and here we have Labour now dancing to

the SNP's tune on the constitution. They need to get back to their own

day job of being an opposition party in Hollywood because they are

failing completely to do that. Talk of constitutional change ended up

leading to devolution. Do you not think federalism could help in your

aim towards independence? Federalism is only possible if the centre which

is Westminster ones to divest power. I'm afraid I have seen no real plans

at all from Westminster to divest real power. But I'm horrified about

tonight is Labour and the Tories voted tonight to stop Scotland

having a real say in Brexit. To talk of radical change is just nonsense.

You always know the SNP are afraid of the big picture when they start

talking about small details. The big picture here is is we do not want to

go down the road that the SNP want to take a stand of an independence

referendum. Completely wrong to say... It has been said there is no

appetite for devolution in England. In London and in other cities, we

have seen the kind of devolution letting them once and that's

something that can be accommodated in a federal United Kingdom. The

Mayor of London has said, and he's right, the 19th century was the time

of empires. The 20th century was the era of the nation state. The 21st

century is the age of cities and regions. The nations and regions of

the United Kingdom can come together on a renewed basis. We are offering

a way forward. I think an awful lot of people in Scotland and across the

UK, when they consider these options, they will consider that as

the most progressive one. A quick response. Start looking after

Scotland. That is what people in Scotland would expect. We are going

to have to leave it there. Thank you all for joining us.

Scotland's highest law officer, the Lord Advocate,

was at the Supreme Court in London today making the Scottish

Government's case for a say in when Article 50 is triggered.

James Wolffe told the Supreme Court it would be unlawful for

a withdrawal from the European Union to start without Holyrood's consent.

Well, our political correspondent Nick Eardley was watching

The central question that is being asked is whether the parliament

behind me needs to vote before article 50 is triggered. The UK

Government says no. It says it can use executive powers. The people who

won a High Court case say yes, Parliament doesn't vote. Today,

Scotland's Lord Advocate, the most senior legal figure in the Scottish

Government backed up the latter of those arguments, saying that in

terms of Scots law, it's up to Parliament and not government

relying on crime powers to make that decision. He went further and said

that because aid bill under their argument will have to come before

the Westminster Parliament, Holyrood should have a say, too. That's

because it will affect devolved areas, changing what the Scottish

Government and the Scottish parliament can do in terms of

engaging with European directives. And because it means laws passed by

the devolved parliament in Holyrood will be altered if they are

contingent on being a member of the European Union.

If the bill were to come before the United Kingdom Parliament which

change things for the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish

Government in these ways, such a bill would engage the legislative

consent convention. Now, one of the interesting things about the Supreme

Court Case is that the 11 Justice 's sitting around the table have not

been scared to let their opinions known, to ask questions, to

challenge the legal teams that are making submissions and that was to

hear. Many of us are struggling to see exactly how the Sewel convention

impacts on the central issue before us. There should be no dispute that

the legislative consent convention as part of this. The UK Government

disagrees that the Lord Advocate on this. We heard yesterday from the

Advocate general, he is another lawyer, he is the man who advises

the UK Government on Scots Law. He said that because leaving the

European Union is a reserved issue that Holyrood does not need to have

a seat and he said that the Sewel convention, rather than being

something for the courts to decide was a political convention,

essentially Westminster remains sovereign. Politically, the argument

might be different but legally, that is the case. Tomorrow morning we

will hear the last of the Lord Advocate's submission and then the

question of water Holyrood needs to have a formal role in the Article 50

process will come down to the judges.

Shortly before we came on air, I spoke with Michael Keating,

the director of the Centre on Constitutional Change.

Talk us through this central argument, please? It has to give

notice to the other European countries. The first court, the High

Court in London said yes, it did need parliamentary approval. The

position of the government was it did not because its foreign affairs

comes under the Royal Prerogative. They've position is that it changes

the domestic law and United Kingdom. That has been appealed to the

Supreme Court which has been setting this week and the Scottish

Government has now joined the argument, saying that, yes, the UK

Government would need the approval of Westminster, but it would also

need the approval of the Scottish Parliament under the so-called Sewel

convention. That says that when Westminster legislates on devolved

matters or changes powers of the Scottish Parliament, it needs the

consent of the Scottish Parliament and the interpretation is that

Brexit does exactly that and therefore they would have to be a

vote in the Scottish Parliament as well as at Westminster. Lord Sewel

himself today said that foreign affairs is not a devolved matter and

therefore the Sewel convention does not apply. That is one argument, the

argument against it is that the European communities act that took

us into what is now the European Union does affect domestic policy,

the European Union is not just foreign affairs, it affects

commercial policy, economic policy, environment policy, agriculture, all

kinds of things. So it does change domestic law. That is the point of

the argument. And in the other question is whether the Sewel

convention itself is enforceable. There are different interpretations

of that as we have seen any court this week. Lord Wilson made the

point this week, he asked if this was an extra argument on top of what

they are already being asked to look at, which is whether or not the UK

Parliament should vote, is this the next argument? It is an extension of

that argument, it is saying that at the Westminster Parliament does

vote, then the Sewel convention will kick in because this does affect

devolved powers. Now, it is a different argument because the main

argument about what the Westminster would have to do it at a very solid

constitutional argument, the argument about the Sewel convention

is a little bit softer because it is only a convention and Westminster,

sorry, the Westminster government has said that not only is this a

matter of foreign affairs and so the Sewel convention does not come into

play, but even the Sewel convention is not enforceable in law, which

raises a serious constitutional question because one has to ask what

that convention is for if it cannot be enforced. The Attorney General

for Northern Ireland also addressed the court today, Wales will get an

opportunity as well but their arguments would be different, do you

think? The northern Ireland argument has a ready been rehearsed in their

own courts were their argument did not prevail, but it is a similar

arguments to the one in Scotland with an additional complication over

the position of the Republic of Ireland. The Welsh Government has

not tried to stop Brexit because Wales voted to leave the European

Union, so the political circumstances are quite different.

The Sewel convention does apply their but not as thin as strong a

way as it would in Scotland. This is all untested in the courts, of

course, that is why this case is so important. Uncharted territory

tonight the MPs back to the Brexit timetable so that the Article 50 can

be triggered by the end of March, when do we think we will hear the

verdict from the Supreme Court judges? This would probably be in

early January. If it says that there must be a Westminster Bill, we still

need to know what kind of bill it will be, it could be a one paragraph

Bill rushed through in a few days or it could be a more substantial bill

and that would be up to Parliament as to what it want to tie the hands

of the government or whether it the back to the Westminster government.

I would expect the Labour Party to take a distinct position on that,

the Lib Dems and the SNP have been quite clear that they will vote

against, almost certainly against triggering article 15. So it could

come down to what the Labour Party decides. -- Article 50. Very

quickly, should they dismiss a Scottish Parliament vote, is there

any other route the Scottish Government can go down? The

Constitutional Convention suggest that the Scottish Parliament must be

listened to but we have a slightly lopsided constitution is that what

the Scottish Parliament can do, but no legally enforceable restrictions

as to what Westminster can do. Professor Michael Keating there.

Now, joining me to discuss the day's big stories are the Sunday Herald's

investigations editor, Paul Hutcheon, and Jenni Davidson

Good evening to you both. We will begin with some news that is of a.

-- of a sad note. And sad news tonight -

the Scottish Conservative MSP He was a regular contributor on this

programme and had served Jenni, he must have been a figure

that you so often at Holyrood? Yes, you continue see the chip it is

pouring in today. He was very popular across all of the parties,

people mentioning how he was very funny and even if you did not agree

with him, you always got on well with him. Both from journalists and

politicians. A lot of sadness. Paul, a popular figure and also a

long-standing MSP, one of the originals. Yes, he was there from

the first day. Ten years, always returning the calls of journalists,

always very honest and forthright. He was a committed and passionate

conservative but not in the overbearing and dogmatic way. I

think as you saw on the tributes in the media and on Twitter today and

from politicians, he was a very popular man.

Kezia Dugdale has called for a new Act of Union, Paul, was this a well

conceived idea at the right time or the wrong time? I think it was about

addressing internal tensions within the Labour Party. The critics of

Kezia have said that she has nothing to say on the Constitution, I would

see it in that context. There are some problems federalism requires a

UK wide solution, so you need Westminster backing it, I am not

convinced that Jeremy Corbyn is in favour of federalism. You need the

Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, London and the English

regions buying into it and call me cynical but I do not think that the

leader of the third largest party in the Scottish Parliament who is

polling only 14% is going to trigger one of the biggest constitutional

changes in decades. Secondly, I have lost track of the number of times

Labour has got itself bogged down in the constitutional process. We have

had the Calman Commission, the Smith Commission, we had Labour's internal

devolution commission, none of these things added a single vote to the

Labour cause. It is a strong soap or Justice party, not a constitutional

party, whenever it speaks on constitution, it feels like it is

some kind of tactical manoeuvres, I cannot see this as being their

salvation. Jenni, has labour stuck itself any problem between the

Tories being the strong union party, that is how they sold themselves at

the last Holyrood election and they did well at that election and then

the SNP, of course, many of the left minded people have gone to them.

That is a problem for them, they have not known which direction to go

on that they have had unique place. There is not another left of centre

Unionist party but there are questions as to whether people are

looking for that. However, I think perhaps they have left it too great

for this, they have floundered about in the middle, not been quite clear

as to where they stand constitutionally. In the Scottish

Parliament election, they were talking about stop talking about the

constitution and talking policy and getting on with the work of

governing and know they have brought this constitutional question back

again. It is at a time when people are not going to want to listen,

even if it was a good idea from another party, perhaps at another

time or from them at another time, this is not the time that people

will be interested. We talked about the Brexit Supreme Court case but

there are months after the Brexit vote, some social research news.

Months after the Brexit vote, the social research institute NatCen

has attempted to answer the question of who voted to leave

Here are some of their findings from the report -

70% of the voters were people living in local authority social housing.

Compared to 47% of homeowners. When it came to education those most

likely to Vote Leave were those with no formal education qualifications.

While a quarter of those with a degree voted Leave. Looking at

income group, 66% of people earning less than ?1200 a month considered

leaving. At the other end, 28% of the top earners, those taking home

more than ?3700 per month also voted to be. #30 8%. Looking at the Brexit

vote by political party allegiance across the UK by people who

identified with the Tories, 58% were Leaders. 60% wanted to leave and in

Scotland, a surprising 36% of SNP supporters said they supported

Brexit. Paul, we knew some of this information already but this is a

fairly extensive survey as well and some interesting findings. Yes, no

huge surprises but what struck me was that people with no formal

education and people at the bottom of the income bracket overwhelmingly

voted for Brexit. Any political context, I think that is more of a

problem for the centre-left than the centre-right. People on the

progressive side of politics have this idealised image of

working-class voters and what they are angry about. You saw from Brexit

be seen to be angry about things like immigration and globalisation.

Although the economy came out higher than immigration in the survey as

the main issue. That is correct. I think that ties into globalisation

and this feeling that people have been left behind by the status quo

it and the pace of change. I do wonder how the liberal left will try

and re-engage with voters and emotionally connect with people in a

way that fog on the right seem to manage at the moment. Jenni,

interesting reading in fact for all politicians, giving a sense of what

the row of certain people to Vote Leave. Yes, there were clear

demographics, particularly older working-class, people with less

education and also interestingly there was a kind of group of Richer

Eurosceptics who had a particular authoritarian anti-welfare perhaps

typically perhaps right wing viewpoint. So you can divide it up

into sort of target groups to them think about, well, how do we

approach those waters, you know, what were the unhappy with? What are

choosing to Vote Leave for? Obviously Leave it a good result for

some people, it is a bad result for others, especially people who are

wanting to reach those groups, they now have the data to work on. A

quick word on populist politics. US President-elect Donald Trump has

been named Time magazine's Person Here he is on the publication's

front cover, which was shot in his penthouse on the 66th floor

of Trump Tower in New Paul, a surprise, do you think? He

came highly only Twitter yesterday. Past winners include Henry

Kissinger, Newt Gingrich, Hitler... It as Person of the year, Jenni, it

does not have to be a great person, it is who we have talked about. That

is correct, not always a sign of approval, it is who has been

important and influential, and from that point of view, it is a fair

pack. Thank you both. I'm back again on Monday night

at the usual time for what will be So, the ayes have it,

the ayes have it. MPs overwhelmingly agreed

on everything Brexit today. The MPs voted to support triggering

article 50 by March after the publication of a