:00:37. > :00:41.Just two months to go until Scotland decides if it should stay
:00:42. > :00:45.As the campaign heads for the final furlong,
:00:46. > :00:49.what are the issues and arguments that will determine the result?
:00:50. > :00:53.The SNP's deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon joins me live.
:00:54. > :00:56.David Cameron's scheduled a major cabinet reshuffle on Tuesday.
:00:57. > :00:58.Many of those tipped for promotion are women.
:00:59. > :01:02.So have efforts to promote diversity in public life barely started or
:01:03. > :01:11.And don't know whether to support Germany or
:01:12. > :01:20.Fear not, we'll bring you our political guide to the World Cup.
:01:21. > :01:25.We look at whether the capital stands to win or lose when Scotland
:01:26. > :01:41.It's World Cup final day and as usual the BBC's snagged the
:01:42. > :01:46.Yes, eat your heart out, ITV, because for top football analysis
:01:47. > :01:50.we've got Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen, and Alan Shearer.
:01:51. > :01:52.And for top political analysis you may
:01:53. > :01:56.as well tune in to them too because all we could come up with is Nick
:01:57. > :02:06.David Cameron will reshuffle his cabinet on Tuesday.
:02:07. > :02:09.The Sunday papers are full of stories telling us who'll be
:02:10. > :02:11.in and who'll be out, though they don't really know.
:02:12. > :02:14.The Mail on Sunday has one of the more eye-catching lines,
:02:15. > :02:16.reporting that former defence secretary and right-winger Liam Fox
:02:17. > :02:20.is in line for a return to the political front line.
:02:21. > :02:27.But there's general agreement that women will do well and some
:02:28. > :02:30.of the old men in suits guard will do badly.
:02:31. > :02:40.Here's senior Tory backbencher David Davis speaking to this programme.
:02:41. > :02:46.It's good to make parliament more representative.
:02:47. > :02:49.But you've got to do it in a way that doesn't create
:02:50. > :02:53.injustices, and you can't put people in a job who can't do the job.
:02:54. > :03:01.And I've seen that too over the last 20 years, people being
:03:02. > :03:03.accelerated too far too fast and they come to
:03:04. > :03:09.a screeching halt where they have to catch up with themselves.
:03:10. > :03:23.I am not going to give an example. Is this not a bit cynical? He is
:03:24. > :03:30.going to promote these women into cabinet positions, but they will not
:03:31. > :03:36.be able to do anything. I am sceptical of Cabinet reshuffle. It
:03:37. > :03:39.is an un-written pact in that the media and the government have a
:03:40. > :03:43.great interest in talking it up. media and the government have a
:03:44. > :03:47.great interest in talking it up The government says, haven't we
:03:48. > :03:51.refreshed ourselves? Generally it doesn't refresh the government.
:03:52. > :03:58.David Cameron wants to send out a new signal. You're going to see the
:03:59. > :04:02.old guard getting a P 45 and you will see a lot of women come in and
:04:03. > :04:09.a lot of younger men. We will find there will be a lot of resignations.
:04:10. > :04:15.A lot of, dear Prime Minister, as I told you 18 months ago, I want to
:04:16. > :04:20.move on. Because the Conservatives have this perception of not being
:04:21. > :04:24.very good with women and not being good with black and ethnic minority
:04:25. > :04:31.voters, they are going to want to do something about that. Why did he not
:04:32. > :04:37.do it before? This reshuffle might be the triumph of the a list. A lot
:04:38. > :04:42.of the women coming through the ranks have been from the a list
:04:43. > :04:47.which was a half measure because they knew they could not bring all
:04:48. > :04:52.of them in. You are going to see more women but that is a result of a
:04:53. > :04:57.long-term strategy. David Cameron is not the world's most raging
:04:58. > :05:01.feminist. He is doing this for practical reasons. He knows he has
:05:02. > :05:11.an image problem for the party and he has to solve it. He was stung by
:05:12. > :05:14.that picture of the all-male bench at Prime Minister's Questions
:05:15. > :05:20.because visibly it gave you the problem that you have been talking
:05:21. > :05:24.about. I do not think he has allowed it to be all-male since that
:05:25. > :05:27.embarrassing image. I can understand the criticism made of this approach
:05:28. > :05:34.if it was the case that all the women being promoted by talentless
:05:35. > :05:39.but you have to be very harsh to look at them and say that they would
:05:40. > :05:52.have much less to offer than the likes of Andrew Lansley. You can be
:05:53. > :05:55.pro-feminist. The tests for David Cameron is that having raised
:05:56. > :06:00.expectations he has to give them substantial jobs. They have to be
:06:01. > :06:05.given departments to run or big portfolios to carry. If they are
:06:06. > :06:09.given media campaign positions in the run-up to the election it looks
:06:10. > :06:15.perfunctorily. He is under some trouble to perhaps suggest a female
:06:16. > :06:24.commissioner to the European Union Commission. Jean-Claude Juncker has
:06:25. > :06:29.made clear that if he proposes a woman candidate they will get a
:06:30. > :06:37.better job. Saying they would like ten out of the 28 to be women. We
:06:38. > :06:43.are going to get the name of the British candidate at the same time
:06:44. > :06:49.as the reshuffle. The first face-to-face meeting, he will be
:06:50. > :06:56.able to put a name. There are other names in the frame. People like
:06:57. > :07:05.Archie Norman. That come from? His name is in the frame. There would be
:07:06. > :07:08.great scepticism of giving it to Andrew Lansley. People would think
:07:09. > :07:17.he was the man who mucked up the reform of the NHS. Who is it going
:07:18. > :07:22.to be? Either a woman or a man. I would not be surprised if they go
:07:23. > :07:28.for someone believe dynamic. Someone who would square the party. Would
:07:29. > :07:36.that not mean a by-election? It might. She is a high profile
:07:37. > :07:40.Eurosceptic. She is a very competent former banker. It would be the smart
:07:41. > :07:42.choice. I have no idea but my favourite rumour is Michael Howard.
:07:43. > :07:50.That had some legs for a while. The Mystic Megs of Fleet Street
:07:51. > :07:55.predict with confidence that the PM is going to promote more women
:07:56. > :07:56.in his cabinet reshuffle. The move can be seen as part
:07:57. > :07:59.of a move across British public life to do more to make our institutions
:08:00. > :08:03.less male and less white. But as the list
:08:04. > :08:05.of schemes to encourage diversity grows ever-longer, have we abandoned
:08:06. > :08:20.the idea of appointment by merit? Tunnelling. Hard hats, and all for
:08:21. > :08:25.new trains. It does not get more macho than the Crossrail project.
:08:26. > :08:26.When Crossrail looked at the construction industry they realise
:08:27. > :08:38.that less than 20% was made up construction industry they realise
:08:39. > :08:39.women and they asked, can we fix it? They are trying with a recruitment
:08:40. > :08:46.drive that has brought in female engineers like this woman. She even
:08:47. > :08:50.has a tunnel named after her. Having more female engineers and
:08:51. > :08:56.construction brings a bigger range of opinions, a bigger range of
:08:57. > :09:01.ideas, more diversity, into the industry, and makes it better as a
:09:02. > :09:04.whole. It is the issue being grappled in another male dominated
:09:05. > :09:08.workplace, the Cabinet. There is about to be a reach shuffle and the
:09:09. > :09:12.rumour is David Cameron is going to promote a lot of female ministers.
:09:13. > :09:18.It was a lack of promotion that annoyed Harriet Harman this week.
:09:19. > :09:22.She claimed Gordon Brown did not make her Deputy Prime Minister
:09:23. > :09:25.because she was a woman. It was strange that in a hard-fought highly
:09:26. > :09:30.contested election to be deputy leader of the Labour Party, and
:09:31. > :09:34.having won against men in the Cabinet, to succeed to be deputy
:09:35. > :09:38.leader of the Labour Party I discovered that I was not to be
:09:39. > :09:42.appointed as Deputy Prime Minister. For women in this country, no matter
:09:43. > :09:49.how able they are, the matter how hard they might work, they are still
:09:50. > :09:54.not equal. There are initiatives to make the world feel more equal. In
:09:55. > :09:58.the City the EU wants a quarter for women in the boardroom but that goal
:09:59. > :10:04.of making 40% of the top floor female. At the BBC the boss of the
:10:05. > :10:10.TV division says no panel show should ever be all-male. In the ever
:10:11. > :10:14.glamorous movie business the British film Institute announced their new
:10:15. > :10:20.thematic system to get lottery funding projects improving diversity
:10:21. > :10:27.on screen and off and helping social mobility. Employers like Crossrail
:10:28. > :10:31.are not allowed to positively discriminate but under the quality
:10:32. > :10:36.act of 2010 if two candidate for a job are just as good you are allowed
:10:37. > :10:41.to base your decision on characteristics like race, sexuality
:10:42. > :10:48.and gender. Some worry it has chipped away at the idea of hiring
:10:49. > :10:53.on merit. A woman and three men going for a job, two of the men are
:10:54. > :10:57.really good and the woman is not quite as good but she gets the job
:10:58. > :11:04.anyway. That will create injustice, a feeling that she did not deserve
:11:05. > :11:14.the job, resentment. It does not advance equality in society at all.
:11:15. > :11:18.On this project they want to leave a concrete legacy of a more diverse
:11:19. > :11:19.construction industry. The question is, what tools do you use when it
:11:20. > :11:31.comes to the rest of society? I'm joined now by
:11:32. > :11:32.Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a columnist for the Independent
:11:33. > :11:35.and by Munira Mirza, the deputy mayor of London responsible
:11:36. > :11:47.for education and culture. Cabinet wee shovel coming up punches
:11:48. > :11:54.though. Should David Cameron be promoting women? He is going to do
:11:55. > :12:00.it anyway. He should have a long time ago. It does not feel quite
:12:01. > :12:06.right that a few months before the election it would do the party a lot
:12:07. > :12:10.of good to be seen as a party properly reflective of the entire
:12:11. > :12:15.population. He should promote women because they are women? I think he
:12:16. > :12:18.should think about lots of different factors, whether the people he wants
:12:19. > :12:25.promote have proven themselves in their current reefs, whether they
:12:26. > :12:30.are good performers in the media, whether they represent different
:12:31. > :12:34.parts of the party, but the main principle is to promote on basis of
:12:35. > :12:39.merit. There are many talented women who fill that description. It should
:12:40. > :12:43.be that merit is the important thing rather than what you were born with.
:12:44. > :12:46.The thing about positive discrimination as it flies in the
:12:47. > :12:52.face of that kind of principle. You are shaking your head. We have
:12:53. > :12:59.always had positive discrimination. Men of a certain class have
:13:00. > :13:04.appointed in their own image because they feel most comfortable with
:13:05. > :13:06.that. We have had unspoken positive discrimination in this country and
:13:07. > :13:12.every other country throughout history. We are asking as women, all
:13:13. > :13:19.minorities, let us get into the same game. What do you say? You cannot
:13:20. > :13:25.solve the racism or the sexism of the past by more racism and sexism.
:13:26. > :13:29.It is not the past. There are complex reasons why a smaller number
:13:30. > :13:35.of women will appear in certain industries. It has a lot to do with
:13:36. > :13:38.childcare, education, expected. You cannot short cut that by setting a
:13:39. > :13:43.target. That is not how you achieve equality. Things are changing and
:13:44. > :13:48.more women are appearing in engineering and so on but it will
:13:49. > :13:50.take time. My worry is that these kinds of measures are
:13:51. > :13:52.counter-productive and undermine the perception that women can do it on
:13:53. > :13:54.their own merit rather counter-productive and undermine the
:13:55. > :13:59.perception that women can do it than because they need a helping hand. It
:14:00. > :14:10.is not a helping hand. It is to say, we are as good as men and these
:14:11. > :14:12.hidden barriers. Dot. Either they are not as good or they do not want
:14:13. > :14:16.it, which is just how we persuade are not as good or they do not want
:14:17. > :14:21.it, which ourselves that it is not happening, or there are barriers.
:14:22. > :14:29.How we judge meritocracy is at the heart of it. Are lots of industries
:14:30. > :14:36.won there are not that many women, such as engineering. We need more
:14:37. > :14:42.engineers generally. I think it is fine to try to encourage more women
:14:43. > :14:50.to study that subject. By setting a target you put pressure on an
:14:51. > :15:11.organisation. You tried to ignore the complex reasons why women do not
:15:12. > :15:21.go into those sectors. I think an all-female short list achieved
:15:22. > :15:25.miracle in Parliament. This is following up from having an
:15:26. > :15:28.injection of women coming up because the system was changed and a large
:15:29. > :15:35.percentage of women went into Parliament under the all-female
:15:36. > :15:42.short list were brilliant, so why not? So if the Prime Minister is
:15:43. > :15:50.mailed the Deputy Prime Minister has to be female and vice versa? Yes,
:15:51. > :16:00.absolutely, 50-50. We need to reflect the population. If we want
:16:01. > :16:05.to play this as a symbolic gesture, ideally we should have one of each.
:16:06. > :16:11.Why should a man get the job if you have a great female prime minister
:16:12. > :16:18.and a great female Deputy Prime Minister? I personally wouldn't mind
:16:19. > :16:28.this. I hear the disgruntled man and I want to come -- them to come with
:16:29. > :16:33.us. You're choosing people on the basis of traits they were born
:16:34. > :16:39.with. Are there too many Indian doctors in the NHS? I would argue
:16:40. > :16:43.not. Given that we tend to have male prime ministers rather than female
:16:44. > :16:50.ones, and we don't see another female one coming down the pipe very
:16:51. > :16:57.quickly... In the time before women short lists by the way. If you had a
:16:58. > :17:02.male prime minister with a female Deputy Prime Minister, wouldn't that
:17:03. > :17:08.give some balance? Why women? Why not working class person, which
:17:09. > :17:12.group do you prioritise? I would go with you that we need something
:17:13. > :17:17.fundamental to change. This idea that what we have now is a
:17:18. > :17:21.reflection of a genuine meritocracy is highly questionable. I would
:17:22. > :17:23.argue that when you look at the statistics things are changing.
:17:24. > :17:26.argue that when you look at the statistics things There are more
:17:27. > :17:34.women appearing in parts of public life, that is a long-term trend, but
:17:35. > :17:38.if you are trying to appoint people on what they were born with... That
:17:39. > :17:42.is not the only reason but it is an additional reason. She has to be
:17:43. > :17:48.able to do the job, obviously. I am saying the policy of hazard to
:17:49. > :17:52.discrimination explicitly state that you should choose somebody who is
:17:53. > :17:56.female because they are female. At the moment there is already enough
:17:57. > :18:03.suspicion about women who are successful to get to the senior
:18:04. > :18:05.position and if you institutionalise it you reinforce that suspicion.
:18:06. > :18:13.Harriet Harman is still complaining women are not being treated fairly.
:18:14. > :18:16.I think the policy reinforces the prejudice that women are not getting
:18:17. > :18:23.there because they are treated on the same basis. Although you may not
:18:24. > :18:27.want to have the all-female short list forever, wasn't it the kind of
:18:28. > :18:32.shock to the system that made a visible change in female
:18:33. > :18:38.shock to the system that made a representation, which the Tory side
:18:39. > :18:43.hasn't got? Of course it will work short-term but longer term it has a
:18:44. > :18:47.very degrading effect on the principle of equality and the fact
:18:48. > :18:51.Harriet Harman is saying she wasn't treated equally, whether it is true
:18:52. > :19:00.or not, the perception is still there. A number of women find this
:19:01. > :19:05.position must be reserved for a woman lying patronising, and
:19:06. > :19:13.speaking of patronising women, you spoken your Independent column, she
:19:14. > :19:18.presses all of the buttons for white people... Was that patronising and
:19:19. > :19:23.offensive? Probably. I wrote it because I felt that at the time but
:19:24. > :19:30.the point is that I was a token when I was appointed. The paper brought
:19:31. > :19:35.me in because I was a woman and I was a muslin or whatever. You are
:19:36. > :19:48.not writing about yourself. I was writing... It doesn't mean you don't
:19:49. > :19:56.criticise other women. We absolutely have to be tough, Manira is tough
:19:57. > :20:02.and so am I. Do you want to take back what you wrote? No. Do you
:20:03. > :20:10.really think positive discrimination has gone too far? I think there is
:20:11. > :20:14.already a suspicion out there that in certain sectors women are being
:20:15. > :20:18.promoted for the wrong reasons or ethnic minorities are being promoted
:20:19. > :20:24.for the wrong reasons. That is a shame and my worry is that by tying
:20:25. > :20:27.funding to your ethnicity or your gender, by saying you will get a
:20:28. > :20:29.promotion if you check that box, gender, by saying you will get a
:20:30. > :20:31.promotion if you check that box but promotion if you check that box, but
:20:32. > :20:41.you feel that resentment and prejudice and undermine the case for
:20:42. > :20:47.inequality. I wanted to be treated equally, because I am capable of
:20:48. > :20:55.doing that job. Only two months to go before Scotland takes its biggest
:20:56. > :21:01.constitutional decision in 300 years - should it quit or stay with the
:21:02. > :21:05.UK? For some in Scotland campaign has been going on forever. What has
:21:06. > :21:12.been the impact on the campaign to date?
:21:13. > :21:17.Alex Salmond says Scotland would remain part of the European Union
:21:18. > :21:22.with sterling as its currency in a monetary union with the rest of the
:21:23. > :21:28.UK, but he has also promised more public spending, increased child
:21:29. > :21:35.care provision and free personal care for the elderly. The SNP claims
:21:36. > :21:40.it would leave people better off by ?1000 though that partly depends on
:21:41. > :21:47.the price of oil. With the Better Together arguing against
:21:48. > :21:51.independence, it has naturally been attacking the SNP on all fronts.
:21:52. > :21:58.George Osborne says there will be no monetary union. President Barroso
:21:59. > :22:03.told the BBC it would be extremely difficult for Scotland to join the
:22:04. > :22:16.EU after a yes vote. His successor this week said he agreed. Unions
:22:17. > :22:24.claim Scotland benefit by ?1400 by being part of the UK. A poll this
:22:25. > :22:30.morning shows a significant lead of 57% for the no campaign, leaving the
:22:31. > :22:35.SNP to claim it will go their way in the last ten weeks. Nicola Sturgeon,
:22:36. > :22:39.the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, joins me now. You want an
:22:40. > :22:47.independent Scotland to keep the pound, stay in NATO, stay in the
:22:48. > :22:51.EU, Scotland already has all of that but you cannot guarantee it would
:22:52. > :22:59.have any of it in an independent Scotland, why take the risk? All of
:23:00. > :23:02.these things should be the case because they are in the best
:23:03. > :23:08.interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK but we want the powers to
:23:09. > :23:13.enable us to grow our economy faster, to be productive, and
:23:14. > :23:19.overtime increased the prosperity of people living in Scotland. We also
:23:20. > :23:25.want powers over our social security system so that we can create a
:23:26. > :23:29.system that meets our needs, one that also has a safety net for the
:23:30. > :23:36.most vulnerable people in our society. Independence is about
:23:37. > :23:40.letting us decide our own priorities. You didn't answer my
:23:41. > :23:44.question, you cannot guarantee you would be able to keep the pound
:23:45. > :23:49.within a monetary union, stay in NATO and the EU, you cannot
:23:50. > :23:54.guarantee you could produce any of these things, correct? I would argue
:23:55. > :24:00.that we can because these things are also in the interest of the rest of
:24:01. > :24:05.the UK. No country can be prevented from using the pound, I suggest we
:24:06. > :24:10.use that within a formal monetary union. We have had the UK minister
:24:11. > :24:15.quoted in the Guardian saying the position of the UK Government right
:24:16. > :24:19.now is one based on campaign rhetoric and following a yes vote,
:24:20. > :24:27.of course there would be a currency union. Who is that minister? The
:24:28. > :24:31.Minister is unnamed, but nevertheless that story in the
:24:32. > :24:37.Guardian was a solid one and not substantially denied. So you are
:24:38. > :24:45.basing your monetary policy on one on named minister in one story?
:24:46. > :24:51.Basing it on Common sense because monetary union would be in the best
:24:52. > :24:55.interests for Scotland but also overwhelmingly in the interests of
:24:56. > :24:59.the rest of the UK, given their trading relationship with Scotland
:25:00. > :25:08.and the contribution Scotland's exports make. We are having a very
:25:09. > :25:19.good debate and the UK Government and the no campaign, and this is not
:25:20. > :25:24.a criticism, want to talk up in -- uncertainty to make people feel
:25:25. > :25:28.scared, but after independence there will be constructed process of
:25:29. > :25:31.negotiation. Let's stick with the monetary union because most
:25:32. > :25:35.economists agree it would be very good for an independent Scotland to
:25:36. > :25:40.have a monetary union but George Osborne, Ed Balls, Danny Alexander
:25:41. > :25:46.are unequivocal, they say you won't get it. You claim they are bluffing
:25:47. > :25:51.but again you cannot guarantee that so why the risk? I would say the
:25:52. > :25:55.benefits of independence are substantial but I would also say to
:25:56. > :25:59.George Osborne and his counterparts in the other parties that it would
:26:00. > :26:04.be a very brave Chancellor that says to businesses in the rest of the UK
:26:05. > :26:07.that they have to incur unnecessary additional transaction costs of half
:26:08. > :26:10.a very brave Chancellor that says to businesses in the rest of the UK
:26:11. > :26:15.that they have to incur unnecessary additional transaction costs of
:26:16. > :26:19.half. What we are doing is making a case that is based on common sense
:26:20. > :26:24.and voters in Scotland will listen to that case being put forward by
:26:25. > :26:33.the other side as well, and they will come to a judgement of the
:26:34. > :26:37.common-sense position. Let's look at EU membership because you haven t
:26:38. > :26:46.been able to guarantee the monetary union. When President Barroso said
:26:47. > :26:50.that a seamless transition to EU membership for an independent
:26:51. > :26:55.Scotland was anything but certain, and one said it could even be
:26:56. > :27:04.impossible, you dismissed him because he was standing down, but
:27:05. > :27:11.been -- venue EU president says the same, do you dismissed him? What we
:27:12. > :27:16.are doing... I should say at the outset of this, we have said
:27:17. > :27:20.repeatedly to the UK Government let's go jointly and ask for a
:27:21. > :27:24.formal opinion on the EU commission. The EU commission have
:27:25. > :27:30.said they will only do that at this stage if the UK Government ask for
:27:31. > :27:37.it, they are point blank refusing to do that, you have to ask why? It is
:27:38. > :27:42.in their interests to talk up uncertainty. Scotland is an integral
:27:43. > :27:48.part of the European Union, we have been for 40 years, we comply with
:27:49. > :27:53.the rules and regulations... Mr Juncker knows all of that but he
:27:54. > :27:59.still says it will be anything but a seamless transition. He said you
:28:00. > :28:10.could not join the European Union by sending a letter, that is not our
:28:11. > :28:16.proposal. We set down a robust proposal and the timescale we think
:28:17. > :28:21.is reasonable under these circumstances. There are many
:28:22. > :28:27.nationals of other states living in Scotland right now, if we were to be
:28:28. > :28:31.outside of the European Union for any period of time, something the
:28:32. > :28:36.current treaty doesn't even provide for, they would lose their right to
:28:37. > :28:40.stay here. The interests of Scotland and the interests of European Union
:28:41. > :28:45.are in favour of a seamless transition. It comes down to common
:28:46. > :28:45.sense and people in Scotland will make
:28:46. > :28:50.sense and people in Scotland will their own judgement on who is
:28:51. > :28:56.talking the common-sense. What about NATO, two years ago you told
:28:57. > :29:02.Newsnight the SNP's position is that we wouldn't stay in NATO. We had a
:29:03. > :29:06.democratic debate, we looked at whether it would be in the interests
:29:07. > :29:13.of an independent Scotland, which forms a significant part of the
:29:14. > :29:19.territory of the North Atlantic and the party changed its mind. It did
:29:20. > :29:25.so in a thoroughly democratic way. That is the nature of democracy.
:29:26. > :29:36.That is the nature of democracy Would you accept the protection of
:29:37. > :29:41.the NATO nuclear umbrella? There is no doubt the SNP's position is that
:29:42. > :29:48.we do not want nuclear weapons in Scotland. That is not what I asked.
:29:49. > :29:53.The world rid themselves of nuclear weapons. One of the interesting
:29:54. > :29:59.point is of the 28 member countries of Natal 25 do not have nuclear
:30:00. > :30:09.weapons. An independent Scotland... I asked if you would accept the
:30:10. > :30:15.nuclear umbrella. The key feature of NATO's military dog train is now
:30:16. > :30:23.clear shrike. We would accept the basis of which NATO is founded but
:30:24. > :30:25.we would argue two things. We want Trident removed from Scotland rather
:30:26. > :30:31.than have a situation where might we are spending ?100 billion over the
:30:32. > :30:33.next generation replacing Trident and we would argue within the
:30:34. > :30:40.international community that the world should move much more quickly
:30:41. > :30:42.to rid itself of nuclear weapons. That is the principal position and
:30:43. > :30:50.won the SNP has held consistently for many years. You would get rid of
:30:51. > :30:55.one of the key parts of the NATO deterrent based in Scotland. You
:30:56. > :31:00.would kick that out. You would not accept all of the club rules because
:31:01. > :31:06.you do not like the idea of nuclear. Why would they like a member like
:31:07. > :31:09.you in? Because Scotland is a significant part of the territory of
:31:10. > :31:14.the North Atlantic. You do not subscribe to the rules. 25 of the
:31:15. > :31:23.member states of NATO are non-nuclear members. You are saying
:31:24. > :31:28.you do not follow the doctrine. NATO has said it wants to move away from
:31:29. > :31:32.reliance on nuclear weapons. An independent Scotland would be
:31:33. > :31:37.entering the majority mainstream of NATO as a country that did not have
:31:38. > :31:40.nuclear weapons. By leading by example our moral authority and
:31:41. > :31:47.encouraging others to do likewise would be increased. Money and oil,
:31:48. > :31:50.the finance minister has said that an independent Scotland would
:31:51. > :31:55.increase public spending by 3% a year. He would pay for that by
:31:56. > :32:00.borrowing. Your First Minister says he is going to stash money in an oil
:32:01. > :32:09.fund. You're going to borrow and save. How does that work? There are
:32:10. > :32:11.two points. Firstly in terms of the outlook for finances and what is one
:32:12. > :32:16.of the central debates of this referendum campaign, austerity that
:32:17. > :32:23.we know will continue if we stay as part of the Westminster system
:32:24. > :32:27.versus prosperity. The economy can afford a higher level of increase in
:32:28. > :32:33.public spending while we continue to have deficit levels at a sustainable
:32:34. > :32:38.level. What is the point of borrowing and saving at the same
:32:39. > :32:40.time? People who have a mortgage and the savings account would not
:32:41. > :32:47.themselves what the wisdom of that is. This is based on recommendations
:32:48. > :32:52.of our expert fiscal Commission that as borrowing reduces to sustainable
:32:53. > :32:57.levels it makes sense to start saving a proportion of our oil
:32:58. > :33:03.wealth. In Norway, which has many similarities to Scotland, they have
:33:04. > :33:08.an oil fund worth ?500 billion. Scotland is part of the Westminster
:33:09. > :33:10.system is sitting on a share of UK debt. We can continue to allow our
:33:11. > :33:15.oil wealth, our vast oil wealth, debt. We can continue to allow our
:33:16. > :33:19.oil wealth, our vast oil wealth to be mismanaged or we can decide we
:33:20. > :33:25.are going to manage that resource better in the years to come. Your
:33:26. > :33:28.figures do not add up unless you are about oil prices and revenue and you
:33:29. > :33:33.have been consistently wrong in your predictions. Last year you forecast
:33:34. > :33:42.that revenues would be the .7 billion more than they actually work
:33:43. > :33:48.-- 3.7 billion. The cost of the Scottish school system gone. There
:33:49. > :33:51.were particular reasons for that in terms of interruption to production
:33:52. > :33:58.and bigger levels of investment. Used ill have to find the money Let
:33:59. > :34:02.me explain. They are based on robust assumptions, firstly a production
:34:03. > :34:06.estimates that is in line with the estimates of the oil and gas
:34:07. > :34:13.industry. Use of figures that are based on production of 10 billion
:34:14. > :34:18.barrels of oil. Oil and gas has been wrong as well. It is 24 billion left
:34:19. > :34:22.to be recovered. That is what is in the UK Government's oil and gas
:34:23. > :34:29.strategy so production in line with industry estimates and an oil price
:34:30. > :34:35.of $110 per barrel which is flat in cash terms would be a real terms
:34:36. > :34:39.reduction. The Department of energy is estimating $128 per barrel so our
:34:40. > :34:45.estimate compared to that is cautious. These are robust estimates
:34:46. > :34:52.based on robust assumptions. Except they have been wrong. Finally, we
:34:53. > :34:56.hear a lot from you and your fellow nationalists, you want a
:34:57. > :35:02.Scandinavian style social democracy, you know how to spend the money but
:35:03. > :35:05.you never tell us about social democratic levels of taxation. Also
:35:06. > :35:12.should grizzlies have higher levels of tax in Scotland does at the
:35:13. > :35:20.moment -- all social grizzlies. I want a Scottish style of social
:35:21. > :35:24.democracy. Free education, free medicines and balancing the books
:35:25. > :35:28.every single year. We want to get more people into work in Scotland,
:35:29. > :35:32.raise the level of distribution in the Labour market and make the
:35:33. > :35:38.economy more productive so we are raising the overall tax revenue
:35:39. > :35:41.Over the last 33 years we have generated more taxpayer head of
:35:42. > :35:48.population than is the case and the rest of the UK. Those last 33 years,
:35:49. > :35:52.some of those years oil prices would have been high and in others they
:35:53. > :35:57.would have been law but we take different decisions. A report showed
:35:58. > :36:02.that if we go as part of the Westminster system down the plate --
:36:03. > :36:08.route of replacing Trident then the cost will be as high as ?4 billion
:36:09. > :36:13.every year. Our share of that is the hundred million pounds a year. Let
:36:14. > :36:17.us get access to our own resources so we can make different and better
:36:18. > :36:23.decisions about how to spend the resources we have. You are promising
:36:24. > :36:28.Scandinavian style social democratic levels of public spending but you
:36:29. > :36:36.say you will not need a top rate of tax of 56% which is what Scandinavia
:36:37. > :36:41.has, that all 25%, which is what Scandinavia has and VAT of 15%. You
:36:42. > :36:45.are going to have the spending but none of the taxes that make it
:36:46. > :36:50.possible in Scandinavia. For mischievous reasons you are met --
:36:51. > :36:56.misrepresenting what I am saying. The Scottish economy can afford it
:36:57. > :37:00.and we want to generate more wealth in our economy. We want to use the
:37:01. > :37:05.existing resources Scotland has We are the 14th richest country in the
:37:06. > :37:11.world in terms of what we produce. We do not want to be wasting
:37:12. > :37:15.resources. We want to be spending resources on the things that other
:37:16. > :37:18.priority for the people of Scotland. These are the benefits and the
:37:19. > :37:21.opportunities really get if we take the opportunity of voting yes and
:37:22. > :37:32.becoming independent. We say goodbye to viewers
:37:33. > :37:37.in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll
:37:38. > :37:42.be talking about the week ahead with our pane, and we'll give you the
:37:43. > :37:45.political guide to the World Cup. First, though,
:37:46. > :38:05.the Sunday Politics where you are. Hello and welcome to Sunday
:38:06. > :38:07.Politics. Joining me, Mary Macleod,
:38:08. > :38:10.Conservative MP for Brentford and Isleworth, and Liberal MP
:38:11. > :38:12.for Islington South and Finsbury, Emily Thornberry.
:38:13. > :38:14.Coming up later, with the Scottish referendum looming, is London
:38:15. > :38:16.better off with or without Scotland? We take
:38:17. > :38:19.the political temperature north of the border and here in London.
:38:20. > :38:22.First, it has been a difficult week for the proposed new airport in
:38:23. > :38:25.the Thames Estuary which is backed of course by the mayor of London.
:38:26. > :38:27.The government's Airport Commission charged with finding a resolution
:38:28. > :38:30.in this long-running debate about airport capacity has released
:38:31. > :38:32.a series of studies to find the proposal represents considerable
:38:33. > :38:34.cost and risk to the taxpayer along with serious environmental
:38:35. > :38:36.problems. The mayor's office says the report
:38:37. > :38:41.shows there will be challenges but nothing insurmountable.
:38:42. > :38:44.Many Macleod, an MP sitting in west London wants
:38:45. > :38:48.to see Heathrow expanded further, but what do you say about what you
:38:49. > :38:51.have heard about these proposals? I want to keep Heathrow
:38:52. > :38:56.in west London because it is great for the economy but I do not want to
:38:57. > :39:00.see it expanded. I think the choice,
:39:01. > :39:04.the right choice, is Gatwick. I think initially the Thames Estuary
:39:05. > :39:07.proposal was worth exploring because decade after decade Heathrow have
:39:08. > :39:12.said to us they are never going to expand any more and they have, so I
:39:13. > :39:15.think it is useful for the country to look and see
:39:16. > :39:18.if there is something we need to build for the really long term.
:39:19. > :39:21.I was quite interested in the proposal because of that
:39:22. > :39:27.What do you think? It is rubbish.
:39:28. > :39:30.It has always been rubbish. You cannot put an airport
:39:31. > :39:34.on a sanctuary. There are dolphins and porpoises
:39:35. > :39:36.and lots of birds and birds have terrible problems
:39:37. > :39:42.with aircraft and get into the machinery and down aircraft.
:39:43. > :39:45.It is a famous sanctuary. It is really important.
:39:46. > :39:49.It has water voles and all sorts of things.
:39:50. > :39:53.It was never going to work. It is like some sort
:39:54. > :39:56.of dog whistle from Boris, saying to the people of west London, don't
:39:57. > :40:02.worry, vote for me, I will push all the aeroplanes into east London
:40:03. > :40:06.I do not have anything practical... He is saying demolish Heathrow.
:40:07. > :40:12.West Londoners are not for his proposal as such because they do
:40:13. > :40:14.not want to get rid of Heathrow. I think it is
:40:15. > :40:19.a very negative attitude in terms of...if you say you're never going
:40:20. > :40:23.to expand anywhere you are never going to build on land like that
:40:24. > :40:26.then you have to look after the environmental impacts but we would
:40:27. > :40:31.never have built trains, never have done a lot of things, so we have to
:40:32. > :40:34.look and see where we would be for the long-term to build more capacity
:40:35. > :40:37.and I think we should not be thinking of Heathrow,
:40:38. > :40:39.there are other airports around London so let's expand Gatwick
:40:40. > :40:51.and develop regional airports. Has it helped to move the debate,
:40:52. > :41:00.even if there seems to be an acceptance it is dead in the water?
:41:01. > :41:06.It is dead in the water. Rare birds live on that island. It is
:41:07. > :41:11.extraordinary. It was never going to work. What is interesting is how you
:41:12. > :41:16.did Boris get away with it? How did he get away with such a ludicrous
:41:17. > :41:20.proposal? It was never taken seriously. It was. You have to look
:41:21. > :41:23.at innovative solutions to this. seriously. It was. You have to look
:41:24. > :41:30.at innovative solutions to this He has done that and I admire him for
:41:31. > :41:33.that. Tomorrow sees the publication on the Parliamentary report of the
:41:34. > :41:36.representation or underrepresentation of women in
:41:37. > :41:41.Parliament. London thirds slightly better than the rest of the
:41:42. > :41:44.country. The breakdown for figures for male and female MPs in the House
:41:45. > :41:46.of Commons makes grim reading for those pushing for equal gender
:41:47. > :41:57.representation. Our 649 MPs, 50 men representation. Our 649 MPs, 502 men
:41:58. > :42:00.and 147 women. In London the picture is slightly different. 73 MPs, 25
:42:01. > :42:03.and 147 women. In London the picture is slightly different. 73 MPs, 5 of
:42:04. > :42:10.whom are women. Is the capital different? In London we have some
:42:11. > :42:13.excellent examples, for example Islington and Camden have high rates
:42:14. > :42:19.of women. Where could be sharing best practice with the rest of the
:42:20. > :42:25.country. Some of London's's women MPs feel they have been the victims
:42:26. > :42:33.of sexism. This wall. MP received rape threats on Twitter.
:42:34. > :42:36.of sexism. This wall. MP received Harman spoke about what she saw as
:42:37. > :42:36.her sexist treatment at the hands of the Gordon Brown
:42:37. > :42:42.her sexist treatment at the hands of getting to the top of the political
:42:43. > :42:48.structures is no guarantee of quality. Imagine my supplies when
:42:49. > :42:54.having won a hard-fought election to 60 John Prescott as deputy leader of
:42:55. > :42:56.the Labour Party, I discovered I was not to succeed him as Deputy Prime
:42:57. > :43:05.Minister. Imagine the consternation in my office when we discovered when
:43:06. > :43:09.I was equality minister and leader of the house and deputy leader, that
:43:10. > :43:15.my involvement in the London G20 summit was inclusion at the Number
:43:16. > :43:18.10 dinner for the leaders' wives. While London may have some success
:43:19. > :43:22.of getting more women into Parliament for people looking to
:43:23. > :43:27.increase the number of women some of the experiences of our current MPs
:43:28. > :43:33.are for from something to replicate. You have had a hand in this. What
:43:34. > :43:38.are the recommendations? This is looking at women at cross... We want
:43:39. > :43:43.to improve representation of women in parliament. We want women from
:43:44. > :43:47.all backgrounds and all sectors of this country. We went out and we
:43:48. > :43:53.survey men and women in the house because we wanted to get from the
:43:54. > :43:58.male MPs as well and former politicians, and we had sessions to
:43:59. > :44:04.find out what the issues were. We made a range of ribs did --
:44:05. > :44:09.representation is looking at zero tolerance because it is something
:44:10. > :44:15.about behaviour in the chamber, you would not tolerate, but for some
:44:16. > :44:23.reason we think it is important acceptable. What about attracting
:44:24. > :44:36.more people to take up this job? Absolutely.
:44:37. > :44:41.politics unless they have been steeped in politics. We need to get
:44:42. > :44:48.more women to apply and stretch out and say to them, this is an
:44:49. > :44:52.important role, you can change the country. It feels like we might have
:44:53. > :45:01.heard this before, but what do you think, Emily? It doesn't sound like
:45:02. > :45:06.it is enough. The answer is to have an all-female short list. The public
:45:07. > :45:11.don't have any problem with female politicians. I have lots of people
:45:12. > :45:18.who contact me, they think I am their MP, I am not an MP for that
:45:19. > :45:23.large an area. Perhaps we stand out because of our personalities, I
:45:24. > :45:29.don't know what it is but the public like having us as representatives. I
:45:30. > :45:37.think we have solved the problem largely in the Labour Party by
:45:38. > :45:47.having all-female short lists. For the winnable seats, half of them are
:45:48. > :45:52.women. It is not just about selection, it is about our reach,
:45:53. > :45:56.selection and retention and how we make Parliament a better place to
:45:57. > :46:02.work, more professional and effective. Selection, the Labour
:46:03. > :46:07.Party are much better in terms of the numbers of women selected in
:46:08. > :46:14.Parliament, but you certainly haven't solved it yet. Each party
:46:15. > :46:21.agreed as part of this reads -- research that we all have work to
:46:22. > :46:26.do. What the Conservatives have done, and absolutely there is more
:46:27. > :46:29.to do, is that we have tried to change that culture mindset about
:46:30. > :46:38.how important women are to politics. It is also about being
:46:39. > :46:44.listened to when you are in there and making sure women are promoted.
:46:45. > :46:48.We are bolshie lot and we are listened to. If you look at the
:46:49. > :46:54.contrast between us and David Cameron, he is good at talking but
:46:55. > :46:59.not good at listening. What about Harriet Harman's comments? If I had
:47:00. > :47:05.been prime minister at the time I would have made her Deputy Prime
:47:06. > :47:09.Minister in a shot. She has pushed the boundaries for women and it is
:47:10. > :47:14.not just getting in women for women's's sake but it is about
:47:15. > :47:20.making sure women are on the agenda and taken seriously. In the last two
:47:21. > :47:24.reshuffles, the Prime Minister has promoted 50% men and 50% women and
:47:25. > :47:31.has said on several occasions that in the next reshuffle, his
:47:32. > :47:33.aspiration is to get 30% female ministers so wait and see. Let's
:47:34. > :47:39.move on. The run-up to Scottish referendum is
:47:40. > :47:45.building up a head of steam. What will the consequences of the vote
:47:46. > :47:49.before London? On September the 18th, Scotland goes
:47:50. > :47:54.to the polls to decide on whether to leave the UK. It is a big day for
:47:55. > :47:59.the whole country and not least for the capital city. London is the
:48:00. > :48:05.capital of England, Britain, the UK, and I think it has a big role as the
:48:06. > :48:09.front door for the UK. It is intimately connected with every
:48:10. > :48:14.single part of the UK economy. At least for the time being, this is
:48:15. > :48:20.the Scotland Office on Whitehall, the heart of British government
:48:21. > :48:24.control over Scottish affairs. Even if Scotland votes to stay in the
:48:25. > :48:28.United Kingdom, it is likely to be given even more powers of
:48:29. > :48:33.independence under so-called devolution max. People in the
:48:34. > :48:37.capital are already arguing that means London should be given more
:48:38. > :48:50.power over its own affairs as well. It is certainly the view of this
:48:51. > :48:57.business lobbying group, London First. So who might wield power in
:48:58. > :49:03.an increasingly devolved London? In an increasingly devolved London In
:49:04. > :49:08.recent elections the capital has tended to vote Labour in large
:49:09. > :49:13.numbers. However, it is likely with Scotland gone from the UK we are
:49:14. > :49:17.less likely to see a government of that persuasion. In history we have
:49:18. > :49:26.seen that if you took the Scottish MPs out of Parliament then the
:49:27. > :49:30.extremities of victories for Labour would have been much less. It
:49:31. > :49:34.polarises politics in London a little bit because we know that
:49:35. > :49:42.London votes Labour in significant numbers. London also has the most
:49:43. > :49:47.places with the most favourable view of the European Union. If the Scots
:49:48. > :49:55.vote to leave the UK, they are broadly more pro-Europe of an UK as
:49:56. > :50:01.a whole, so London would find itself in a remainder of the UK which was
:50:02. > :50:06.more likely to vote to leave the EU than if the Scots had stayed in,
:50:07. > :50:12.assuming there is a vote on whether we leave the EU or not so London
:50:13. > :50:17.might find itself leaving the EU because the Scots have left the UK.
:50:18. > :50:21.The Scots could leave the capital potentially poorer and more likely
:50:22. > :50:26.to be ruled by local government and possibly more likely not to be part
:50:27. > :50:32.of the European Union. Whether or not that is accurate, the stakes for
:50:33. > :50:36.the capital in the referendum vote are considerable.
:50:37. > :50:43.From Glasgow we can talk to Pat Kane from the advisory board of the Yes
:50:44. > :50:48.Scotland campaign. What do you think the impact would be to our viewers
:50:49. > :50:54.of an independent Scotland on the capital city here? It depends what
:50:55. > :50:58.London you are talking about. If you are talking about Westminster, the
:50:59. > :51:04.City of London, the Treasury, the parts of London that run the British
:51:05. > :51:07.state, an independent Scotland will affect those considerably because
:51:08. > :51:17.they will have to be a division of assets. I think in terms of culture,
:51:18. > :51:22.and that is my specialism, I have a relationship with London for about
:51:23. > :51:27.30 years and I expect to have a relationship with London for the
:51:28. > :51:34.next 30 years, as I expect to have a relationship with another global
:51:35. > :51:39.cities. The exchange of ideas and talent. Scotland was the place that
:51:40. > :51:43.registered the lowest vote for UKIP in the last election but London was
:51:44. > :51:48.the second lowest so there is a strange symmetry between a
:51:49. > :51:51.progressive independent Scotland under progressive independent
:51:52. > :51:59.London. Don't you think that synergy would suffer? Not at all, in many
:52:00. > :52:04.ways it would improve. I do a lot of cultural reviewing for Radio 4 and
:52:05. > :52:09.it is often surprising to me that we can deal with the world's cultures,
:52:10. > :52:18.cinemas, literatures but often Scotland does not get a shout. Does
:52:19. > :52:24.Scotland become a rival as a powerhouse to London or do you think
:52:25. > :52:30.a lot of Scottish firms would come down and strengthen London? It
:52:31. > :52:33.depends how you categorise the Scottish economy going forward. If
:52:34. > :52:39.you get rid of the nuclear weapons in the west, there is an oil boom
:52:40. > :52:47.waiting to happen because then we can explore the waters. We could
:52:48. > :52:54.also produce renewable energy systems, so the economy would be
:52:55. > :52:59.pointing in a more northerly direction than necessarily down
:53:00. > :53:03.south. Could we do without a lot of these debt ridden banks? I think we
:53:04. > :53:10.would be happy about that. What would happen, Mary, in terms of
:53:11. > :53:17.banks and financial services? We still don't No, do we? No, and that
:53:18. > :53:22.is the thing, there are so many unanswered questions in this
:53:23. > :53:29.proposal. I think it is important for us to stay together. There was a
:53:30. > :53:35.recent poll done in London, and 85% of people wanted Scotland to stay
:53:36. > :53:39.part of the UK. I do think there are so many things which have not been
:53:40. > :53:43.answered by Alex Salmond so the Scottish people have many unanswered
:53:44. > :53:49.questions in terms of what it will mean to their lives and what it will
:53:50. > :53:58.deliver for them. Would it have a negative effect on London's economy,
:53:59. > :54:03.or would it benefit us? I think it would make it a lot more complex. I
:54:04. > :54:10.am all for Scotland getting additional powers, powers over
:54:11. > :54:16.income tax, so we could push for devolution max, but there are so
:54:17. > :54:20.many links with the Scottish financial services sector, I mean
:54:21. > :54:24.most companies nowadays work on a global basis but I do think it could
:54:25. > :54:30.have a negative impact on London. Pat? I think we took a wrong turning
:54:31. > :54:37.with Scottish financial traditions over the global period over the
:54:38. > :54:50.Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling years. The system survived the crash
:54:51. > :54:55.a lot better elsewhere so I think we need a lot of refashioning of the
:54:56. > :55:00.system going forward. I would expect there to be a fantastic transfer of
:55:01. > :55:03.ideas. I love London, I spend at least half of my time in London and
:55:04. > :55:07.have done for the last 12 years, and have done for the last 12 years and
:55:08. > :55:12.I think we are very kindred qualities. Why would that
:55:13. > :55:19.relationship change? Let's go further. Isn't London the sixth
:55:20. > :55:23.biggest Scottish city? Why aren't biggest Scottish city? Why aren t
:55:24. > :55:28.Scottish people in London being allowed to take part in this vote
:55:29. > :55:42.West German mark because it affects them too. Why can't Mary vote? It is
:55:43. > :55:46.terrible. Some Somalian or some Romanian who has only been in
:55:47. > :55:55.Scotland for the last five years and paid their taxes has more right to
:55:56. > :56:01.vote than an MacTavish in London. Why can't we all vote on this?
:56:02. > :56:06.Because the right to vote is civic and not ethnic as you well know.
:56:07. > :56:11.Would it be beneficial to us economically, the 20 billion or so
:56:12. > :56:16.that is raised every year in taxation in London which is spread
:56:17. > :56:21.north or spread to Scotland, economically is there an argument we
:56:22. > :56:27.would be more self-sufficient? I could see the argument, because
:56:28. > :56:31.there is a support London gives to the rest of the country and Scotland
:56:32. > :56:35.as well. There are insurance companies that would move down to
:56:36. > :56:40.London, but I think this is about more than money, it is about our
:56:41. > :56:46.shared history and culture and we don't want you to go. If the
:56:47. > :56:51.financial services did come to London, if you lost the tax revenue
:56:52. > :56:58.raised in the engine room of the UK, what would you do there? After the
:56:59. > :57:04.deregulatory frenzy of the City of London and the crash that it did not
:57:05. > :57:08.make us resilient, to call it the engine room is interesting. London
:57:09. > :57:22.is an exceptional place, it has money, talent and power... It is
:57:23. > :57:25.amazing and we don't want you to go away from us. That is all we have
:57:26. > :57:31.time for. Thanks for joining us. Now time for. Thanks for joining us Now
:57:32. > :57:36.it is time for the rest of the week's political news in 60 seconds.
:57:37. > :57:38.Oxford Street has one of the highest levels of toxic
:57:39. > :57:41.pollutant nitrogen oxide in the world, according to a new report.
:57:42. > :57:44.The Mayor is facing demands to reduce the build-up of buses in the
:57:45. > :57:47.area after a monitor showed average levels of the toxin were more than
:57:48. > :57:53.Plans have been announced for a privately funded new cycle
:57:54. > :57:56.and pedestrian bridge across the River Thames.
:57:57. > :57:59.The ?40 million bridge would stretch from Nine Elms to Pimlico.
:58:00. > :58:10.The Mayor has been criticised over his use of the capital's cycling
:58:11. > :58:13.funds to meet the ?6 million cost of staging the Tour de France.
:58:14. > :58:15.Critics claim the money should instead have been
:58:16. > :58:21.The Government has announced ?6 billion' worth of funding for
:58:22. > :58:26.It is the first instalment of the total fund of ?12 billion
:58:27. > :58:42.but London will receive just 23 million, under 2%.
:58:43. > :58:48.Let's talk about the Tour de France, ?6 million from the cycling
:58:49. > :58:54.budget, that is well spent to bring an event through the capital, isn't
:58:55. > :59:00.it? I love the Tour de France, I went to Yorkshire to watch it and I
:59:01. > :59:01.am pleased it came to London as well but I am a cyclist
:59:02. > :59:06.went to Yorkshire to watch it and I am pleased and it is not as safe as
:59:07. > :59:11.it should be on the streets. It is safer now that car drivers have to
:59:12. > :59:15.be aware of us in the way that they were not when I first started
:59:16. > :59:22.cycling in London but the biggest issue is lorries. I would bring in
:59:23. > :59:31.strong laws to restrict access of lorries that have blind spots
:59:32. > :59:37.because they are Do you have a problem with this when it could have
:59:38. > :59:43.been spent on safety measures? It is a great sporting event and it puts
:59:44. > :59:55.London on the map. I agree on the cycling, too many cyclists dying on
:59:56. > :59:59.London streets. People loved the sense that it gave, but isn't the
:00:00. > :00:06.problem that it is encouraging be good to go on the roads and perhaps
:00:07. > :00:13.they are not ready? You are ready to cycle. Get on a bike. Is it safe? It
:00:14. > :00:17.is safe. You're likely to live longer if you are a cyclist because
:00:18. > :00:22.you will be getting exercise you would not be getting otherwise.
:00:23. > :00:26.Cycles live longer so long as the lorries do not get you. It is
:00:27. > :00:33.fantastic. We have to make sure we are looking at safety. I keep well
:00:34. > :00:35.clear of lorries and hopefully I will keep a bit safer. That is all
:00:36. > :00:48.the time we have. So, plenty happening in Parliament
:00:49. > :00:50.this coming week, including a controversial bill to make
:00:51. > :01:12.so-called assisted dying legal and Lord Carey has intervened in the
:01:13. > :01:16.assisted dying debate. Will it make a difference? It will make a
:01:17. > :01:24.difference because we have established in the House of Lords, I
:01:25. > :01:28.am not sure who they speak for and why they should have a privileged
:01:29. > :01:34.position, but he was a big opponent and has made a change of heart. The
:01:35. > :01:45.fact that the Daily Mail has printed this shows this is a big
:01:46. > :01:51.intervention. The Bill being pushed through, is it now on the agenda? I
:01:52. > :01:55.think it is. There are international examples of assisted dying
:01:56. > :02:00.elsewhere. The state of Oregon passed a Bill similar to this in the
:02:01. > :02:06.1990s and things have not got out of control. That has not been an
:02:07. > :02:12.expansion or abuse. It has settled down and become part of the
:02:13. > :02:18.furniture. That makes it easier for this Bill, to make the case for it.
:02:19. > :02:21.Religious people may still have a principled objection but most other
:02:22. > :02:25.people have a practical objection, which is how to put in place
:02:26. > :02:30.safeguards to deal with unscrupulous relatives or anyone else who wants
:02:31. > :02:33.to abuse this right? Once a controversial issue is only being
:02:34. > :02:38.opposed for practical reasons it is on its way to getting its way. What
:02:39. > :02:43.is the division, is it the Church against everybody else? Is it a
:02:44. > :02:50.right and left division? What is stopping it? It is a very difficult
:02:51. > :02:54.moral issue and there are people who can have genuinely held Christian
:02:55. > :03:01.beliefs or non-Christian beliefs who can be on both sides. I think that
:03:02. > :03:05.the Lord Carey intervention is potentially a game changer not just
:03:06. > :03:08.because he is a former Archbishop of Canterbury but because he was on the
:03:09. > :03:15.Evan Jellicoe side of the Church of England. That is quite a big move.
:03:16. > :03:21.The response was to say, please withdraw your bell and let us have a
:03:22. > :03:26.royal Commission. The Supreme Court kicked the ball back to Parliament
:03:27. > :03:31.when they rejected the cases of three people who had been taking the
:03:32. > :03:35.case and said, we could say that banning the right to life is against
:03:36. > :03:40.the European Court of Human Rights, but it is a moral issue and an issue
:03:41. > :03:49.for Parliament. Parliament needs to decide. The data act that is going
:03:50. > :03:56.to be pushed through Parliament. In record time. To comply with a
:03:57. > :04:02.European court judgement. Tom Watson and David Davis, some dissent. Are
:04:03. > :04:10.you so prized with how united the establishment, left, right and
:04:11. > :04:14.centre is? No. There is a great quote saying this has been enacted
:04:15. > :04:18.under the something must be done act and that captures it exactly. Even
:04:19. > :04:25.Cameron says he does not want to look people in the eye and say that
:04:26. > :04:30.he did not do everything he could. There is no end to the power of
:04:31. > :04:34.surveillance. It is all was about drawing a distinction. I am always
:04:35. > :04:40.suspicious when politicians look something up and said, we have all
:04:41. > :04:44.agreed. Are there at the centre is right or is the political
:04:45. > :04:53.establishment right? I think the establishment is right. I think it
:04:54. > :04:58.is stronger than other issues. We are in a unique position where all
:04:59. > :05:01.three political parties have relatively recent experience of
:05:02. > :05:06.government so they now that security threats are not made up by
:05:07. > :05:16.unscrupulous people. The legislation being proposed is not dramatic, it
:05:17. > :05:19.is to fill a gap that was created. I do not see the political
:05:20. > :05:24.controversy. All three political parties support it. David Davis and
:05:25. > :05:33.Liberty are against that, and always are. Would you not have expected...
:05:34. > :05:41.The Lib Dems are in government, but a bit more rebellion on the Labour
:05:42. > :05:43.backbenches? There is no political controversy put outside parliament
:05:44. > :05:52.there's quite a lot of controversy about this. My paper has taken an
:05:53. > :05:58.interest in this. It is interesting, it does not feel, it is not a
:05:59. > :06:03.1950s, three public school boys setting, let us have this deal. The
:06:04. > :06:09.Liberal Democrats and Labour have serious questions. There's going to
:06:10. > :06:17.be a sunset clause that will run out in 2016. The Liberal Democrats, who
:06:18. > :06:21.asked pretty tough questions, have said there are assurances. Ed
:06:22. > :06:25.Miliband did not go to public school.
:06:26. > :06:27.For many English football fans, tonight's World Cup final presents
:06:28. > :06:31.How do you pick between two traditional foes
:06:32. > :06:34.Well, if you're a political obsessive, like these
:06:35. > :06:37.three, you could always back the nation according to how it votes.
:06:38. > :06:39.The website LabourList has produced a political guide to the tournament.
:06:40. > :06:53.At the beginning of the tournament, it was a fairly balanced playing
:06:54. > :06:59.field politically with 15 left wing and 17 right-wing countries. England
:07:00. > :07:04.found themselves isolated in a group with three left-wing countries. That
:07:05. > :07:08.was the least of their problems. There was a clear domination of
:07:09. > :07:11.democratic regimes over authoritarian with only six of
:07:12. > :07:18.oratory and countries making it through to the finals and the only
:07:19. > :07:24.all authoritarian tie was dubbed the worst match of the World Cup. By the
:07:25. > :07:30.second round 16 teams remained. The left had a clear advantage with
:07:31. > :07:32.nine, seven from the right and authoritarian countries all but
:07:33. > :07:39.wiped out. Two representatives remained. Both were beaten by
:07:40. > :07:47.European democracies. By the semi-finals, all was even Stephen. A
:07:48. > :07:52.right-wing Protestant Europe taking on Catholics South America. With one
:07:53. > :07:57.victory apiece, Germany knocking out Brazil and Argentina beating the
:07:58. > :08:01.Dutch, tonight's final repeats that pattern. Who will win? Angela
:08:02. > :08:11.Merkel's Germany or Argentina? We're joined now
:08:12. > :08:24.by Britain's only Labour adviser Should we read political
:08:25. > :08:28.significance in to the fact that the only time England has won the World
:08:29. > :08:34.Cup was under a Labour government? Of course. The problem is we did not
:08:35. > :08:38.qualify for Euro 2008 when it was a Labour government. We have had some
:08:39. > :08:44.pretty shoddy results under a Labour government. As someone under the
:08:45. > :08:50.left, are you backing Argentina? Absolutely not. I do not think it
:08:51. > :08:59.has anything to do with politics. It is a bit of fun. People should
:09:00. > :09:01.choose it is Don Hoop plays the best football and the Germans have been
:09:02. > :09:06.fantastic. They were great in 2010 fantastic. They were great in 2 10
:09:07. > :09:11.as well. They started this model in 2008 and that is the sort of thing
:09:12. > :09:16.people should be supporting. Who should a Eurosceptic support? I
:09:17. > :09:21.would not say Argentina because that is the country that has tried to
:09:22. > :09:28.seize British sovereign territory within my lifetime. You were not
:09:29. > :09:33.around for the Blitz. Believe it or not, I was not. There is a strong
:09:34. > :09:45.political case to support Germany. They are probably going to win the
:09:46. > :09:49.World Cup with a clear of -- with players of Polish origin. That sort
:09:50. > :09:57.of cultural change they have forced themselves to go through... You talk
:09:58. > :10:02.about them being right wing, but in fact the way that the German league
:10:03. > :10:08.is structured, and I am an expert, is based on ownership. It is very
:10:09. > :10:17.different from the Premier League. It is about football as a usual
:10:18. > :10:25.good. The ticket prices are lower. The fans are involved in running the
:10:26. > :10:28.club. It is a model that all English football clubs should emulate.
:10:29. > :10:33.Germany had a strong football team under centre right governments and
:10:34. > :10:45.centre left governments and a coalition. A strong football team
:10:46. > :10:49.and a strong economy. The Conservative MP who is the arch
:10:50. > :10:51.Eurosceptic wanted to get us out of the European Union and was for a few
:10:52. > :10:56.weeks ago when people were making jokes about Jean-Claude Juncker,
:10:57. > :10:58.weeks ago when people were making jokes about Jean-Claude Juncker he
:10:59. > :11:04.was outraged and said you should not do that, so he could happily support
:11:05. > :11:09.Germany. What was interesting about the authoritarian and democratic
:11:10. > :11:20.regimes, what is great is that the World Cup is run by this open and
:11:21. > :11:27.democratic organisation Fifa. It is similar to the EU in many regards.
:11:28. > :11:36.Two countries led by women. Maybe gender is the thing. We did not win
:11:37. > :11:41.under Margaret Thatcher. There's one big difference with the EU, you
:11:42. > :11:49.cannot flog six Dom Acta gets to go to a European summit. Did you know
:11:50. > :11:58.that Italy won two world cups under Mussolini? Can we draw any
:11:59. > :12:04.conclusions between a political system and the performance of the
:12:05. > :12:07.football team? You can draw certain parallels between maybe national
:12:08. > :12:15.cliches, so the Germans are efficient and effective, which might
:12:16. > :12:19.reflect and the English are very polite so we let everyone score
:12:20. > :12:24.first and go into the second round. We put ourselves at the back of the
:12:25. > :12:36.queue. Is England going to qualify for the European? We are going to
:12:37. > :12:38.win the European Championship. The first country Scotland have to play
:12:39. > :12:52.is Germany. What could possibly go wrong? Who is going to win? Germany.
:12:53. > :12:56.Germany. I am going to put a few bob on Argentina. Are you going to be
:12:57. > :13:03.watching? Absolutely. Thank you This is the last Sunday Politics
:13:04. > :13:07.for the summer. But we'll be back in early autumn
:13:08. > :13:11.and our first programme will be live from Scotland,
:13:12. > :13:17.the weekend before the referendum The Daily Politics is back tomorrow
:13:18. > :13:22.at noon and we'll bring you the last PMQs before the summer
:13:23. > :13:25.on Wednesday morning from 11:30am. Remember, if it's Sunday,
:13:26. > :13:28.it's the Sunday Politics, unless