13/07/2014 Sunday Politics London

Just two months to go until Scotland decides if it should stay

As the campaign heads for the final furlong,

what are the issues and arguments that will determine the result?

The SNP's deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon joins me live.

David Cameron's scheduled a major cabinet reshuffle on Tuesday.

Many of those tipped for promotion are women.

So have efforts to promote diversity in public life barely started or

And don't know whether to support Germany or

Fear not, we'll bring you our political guide to the World Cup.

We look at whether the capital stands to win or lose when Scotland

It's World Cup final day and as usual the BBC's snagged the

Yes, eat your heart out, ITV, because for top football analysis

we've got Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen, and Alan Shearer.

And for top political analysis you may

as well tune in to them too because all we could come up with is Nick

David Cameron will reshuffle his cabinet on Tuesday.

The Sunday papers are full of stories telling us who'll be

in and who'll be out, though they don't really know.

The Mail on Sunday has one of the more eye-catching lines,

reporting that former defence secretary and right-winger Liam Fox

is in line for a return to the political front line.

But there's general agreement that women will do well and some

of the old men in suits guard will do badly.

Here's senior Tory backbencher David Davis speaking to this programme.

It's good to make parliament more representative.

But you've got to do it in a way that doesn't create

injustices, and you can't put people in a job who can't do the job.

And I've seen that too over the last 20 years, people being

accelerated too far too fast and they come to

a screeching halt where they have to catch up with themselves.

I am not going to give an example. Is this not a bit cynical? He is

going to promote these women into cabinet positions, but they will not

be able to do anything. I am sceptical of Cabinet reshuffle. It

is an un-written pact in that the media and the government have a

great interest in talking it up. media and the government have a

great interest in talking it up The government says, haven't we

refreshed ourselves? Generally it doesn't refresh the government.

David Cameron wants to send out a new signal. You're going to see the

old guard getting a P 45 and you will see a lot of women come in and

a lot of younger men. We will find there will be a lot of resignations.

A lot of, dear Prime Minister, as I told you 18 months ago, I want to

move on. Because the Conservatives have this perception of not being

very good with women and not being good with black and ethnic minority

voters, they are going to want to do something about that. Why did he not

do it before? This reshuffle might be the triumph of the a list. A lot

of the women coming through the ranks have been from the a list

which was a half measure because they knew they could not bring all

of them in. You are going to see more women but that is a result of a

long-term strategy. David Cameron is not the world's most raging

feminist. He is doing this for practical reasons. He knows he has

an image problem for the party and he has to solve it. He was stung by

that picture of the all-male bench at Prime Minister's Questions

because visibly it gave you the problem that you have been talking

about. I do not think he has allowed it to be all-male since that

embarrassing image. I can understand the criticism made of this approach

if it was the case that all the women being promoted by talentless

but you have to be very harsh to look at them and say that they would

have much less to offer than the likes of Andrew Lansley. You can be

pro-feminist. The tests for David Cameron is that having raised

expectations he has to give them substantial jobs. They have to be

given departments to run or big portfolios to carry. If they are

given media campaign positions in the run-up to the election it looks

perfunctorily. He is under some trouble to perhaps suggest a female

commissioner to the European Union Commission. Jean-Claude Juncker has

made clear that if he proposes a woman candidate they will get a

better job. Saying they would like ten out of the 28 to be women. We

are going to get the name of the British candidate at the same time

as the reshuffle. The first face-to-face meeting, he will be

able to put a name. There are other names in the frame. People like

Archie Norman. That come from? His name is in the frame. There would be

great scepticism of giving it to Andrew Lansley. People would think

he was the man who mucked up the reform of the NHS. Who is it going

to be? Either a woman or a man. I would not be surprised if they go

for someone believe dynamic. Someone who would square the party. Would

that not mean a by-election? It might. She is a high profile

Eurosceptic. She is a very competent former banker. It would be the smart

choice. I have no idea but my favourite rumour is Michael Howard.

That had some legs for a while. The Mystic Megs of Fleet Street

predict with confidence that the PM is going to promote more women

in his cabinet reshuffle. The move can be seen as part

of a move across British public life to do more to make our institutions

less male and less white. But as the list

of schemes to encourage diversity grows ever-longer, have we abandoned

the idea of appointment by merit? Tunnelling. Hard hats, and all for

new trains. It does not get more macho than the Crossrail project.

When Crossrail looked at the construction industry they realise

that less than 20% was made up construction industry they realise

women and they asked, can we fix it? They are trying with a recruitment

drive that has brought in female engineers like this woman. She even

has a tunnel named after her. Having more female engineers and

construction brings a bigger range of opinions, a bigger range of

ideas, more diversity, into the industry, and makes it better as a

whole. It is the issue being grappled in another male dominated

workplace, the Cabinet. There is about to be a reach shuffle and the

rumour is David Cameron is going to promote a lot of female ministers.

It was a lack of promotion that annoyed Harriet Harman this week.

She claimed Gordon Brown did not make her Deputy Prime Minister

because she was a woman. It was strange that in a hard-fought highly

contested election to be deputy leader of the Labour Party, and

having won against men in the Cabinet, to succeed to be deputy

leader of the Labour Party I discovered that I was not to be

appointed as Deputy Prime Minister. For women in this country, no matter

how able they are, the matter how hard they might work, they are still

not equal. There are initiatives to make the world feel more equal. In

the City the EU wants a quarter for women in the boardroom but that goal

of making 40% of the top floor female. At the BBC the boss of the

TV division says no panel show should ever be all-male. In the ever

glamorous movie business the British film Institute announced their new

thematic system to get lottery funding projects improving diversity

on screen and off and helping social mobility. Employers like Crossrail

are not allowed to positively discriminate but under the quality

act of 2010 if two candidate for a job are just as good you are allowed

to base your decision on characteristics like race, sexuality

and gender. Some worry it has chipped away at the idea of hiring

on merit. A woman and three men going for a job, two of the men are

really good and the woman is not quite as good but she gets the job

anyway. That will create injustice, a feeling that she did not deserve

the job, resentment. It does not advance equality in society at all.

On this project they want to leave a concrete legacy of a more diverse

construction industry. The question is, what tools do you use when it

comes to the rest of society? I'm joined now by

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a columnist for the Independent

and by Munira Mirza, the deputy mayor of London responsible

for education and culture. Cabinet wee shovel coming up punches

though. Should David Cameron be promoting women? He is going to do

it anyway. He should have a long time ago. It does not feel quite

right that a few months before the election it would do the party a lot

of good to be seen as a party properly reflective of the entire

population. He should promote women because they are women? I think he

should think about lots of different factors, whether the people he wants

promote have proven themselves in their current reefs, whether they

are good performers in the media, whether they represent different

parts of the party, but the main principle is to promote on basis of

merit. There are many talented women who fill that description. It should

be that merit is the important thing rather than what you were born with.

The thing about positive discrimination as it flies in the

face of that kind of principle. You are shaking your head. We have

always had positive discrimination. Men of a certain class have

appointed in their own image because they feel most comfortable with

that. We have had unspoken positive discrimination in this country and

every other country throughout history. We are asking as women, all

minorities, let us get into the same game. What do you say? You cannot

solve the racism or the sexism of the past by more racism and sexism.

It is not the past. There are complex reasons why a smaller number

of women will appear in certain industries. It has a lot to do with

childcare, education, expected. You cannot short cut that by setting a

target. That is not how you achieve equality. Things are changing and

more women are appearing in engineering and so on but it will

take time. My worry is that these kinds of measures are

counter-productive and undermine the perception that women can do it on

their own merit rather counter-productive and undermine the

perception that women can do it than because they need a helping hand. It

is not a helping hand. It is to say, we are as good as men and these

hidden barriers. Dot. Either they are not as good or they do not want

it, which is just how we persuade are not as good or they do not want

it, which ourselves that it is not happening, or there are barriers.

How we judge meritocracy is at the heart of it. Are lots of industries

won there are not that many women, such as engineering. We need more

engineers generally. I think it is fine to try to encourage more women

to study that subject. By setting a target you put pressure on an

organisation. You tried to ignore the complex reasons why women do not

go into those sectors. I think an all-female short list achieved

miracle in Parliament. This is following up from having an

injection of women coming up because the system was changed and a large

percentage of women went into Parliament under the all-female

short list were brilliant, so why not? So if the Prime Minister is

mailed the Deputy Prime Minister has to be female and vice versa? Yes,

absolutely, 50-50. We need to reflect the population. If we want

to play this as a symbolic gesture, ideally we should have one of each.

Why should a man get the job if you have a great female prime minister

and a great female Deputy Prime Minister? I personally wouldn't mind

this. I hear the disgruntled man and I want to come -- them to come with

us. You're choosing people on the basis of traits they were born

with. Are there too many Indian doctors in the NHS? I would argue

not. Given that we tend to have male prime ministers rather than female

ones, and we don't see another female one coming down the pipe very

quickly... In the time before women short lists by the way. If you had a

male prime minister with a female Deputy Prime Minister, wouldn't that

give some balance? Why women? Why not working class person, which

group do you prioritise? I would go with you that we need something

fundamental to change. This idea that what we have now is a

reflection of a genuine meritocracy is highly questionable. I would

argue that when you look at the statistics things are changing.

argue that when you look at the statistics things There are more

women appearing in parts of public life, that is a long-term trend, but

if you are trying to appoint people on what they were born with... That

is not the only reason but it is an additional reason. She has to be

able to do the job, obviously. I am saying the policy of hazard to

discrimination explicitly state that you should choose somebody who is

female because they are female. At the moment there is already enough

suspicion about women who are successful to get to the senior

position and if you institutionalise it you reinforce that suspicion.

Harriet Harman is still complaining women are not being treated fairly.

I think the policy reinforces the prejudice that women are not getting

there because they are treated on the same basis. Although you may not

want to have the all-female short list forever, wasn't it the kind of

shock to the system that made a visible change in female

shock to the system that made a representation, which the Tory side

hasn't got? Of course it will work short-term but longer term it has a

very degrading effect on the principle of equality and the fact

Harriet Harman is saying she wasn't treated equally, whether it is true

or not, the perception is still there. A number of women find this

position must be reserved for a woman lying patronising, and

speaking of patronising women, you spoken your Independent column, she

presses all of the buttons for white people... Was that patronising and

offensive? Probably. I wrote it because I felt that at the time but

the point is that I was a token when I was appointed. The paper brought

me in because I was a woman and I was a muslin or whatever. You are

not writing about yourself. I was writing... It doesn't mean you don't

criticise other women. We absolutely have to be tough, Manira is tough

and so am I. Do you want to take back what you wrote? No. Do you

really think positive discrimination has gone too far? I think there is

already a suspicion out there that in certain sectors women are being

promoted for the wrong reasons or ethnic minorities are being promoted

for the wrong reasons. That is a shame and my worry is that by tying

funding to your ethnicity or your gender, by saying you will get a

promotion if you check that box, gender, by saying you will get a

promotion if you check that box but promotion if you check that box, but

you feel that resentment and prejudice and undermine the case for

inequality. I wanted to be treated equally, because I am capable of

doing that job. Only two months to go before Scotland takes its biggest

constitutional decision in 300 years - should it quit or stay with the

UK? For some in Scotland campaign has been going on forever. What has

been the impact on the campaign to date?

Alex Salmond says Scotland would remain part of the European Union

with sterling as its currency in a monetary union with the rest of the

UK, but he has also promised more public spending, increased child

care provision and free personal care for the elderly. The SNP claims

it would leave people better off by ?1000 though that partly depends on

the price of oil. With the Better Together arguing against

independence, it has naturally been attacking the SNP on all fronts.

George Osborne says there will be no monetary union. President Barroso

told the BBC it would be extremely difficult for Scotland to join the

EU after a yes vote. His successor this week said he agreed. Unions

claim Scotland benefit by ?1400 by being part of the UK. A poll this

morning shows a significant lead of 57% for the no campaign, leaving the

SNP to claim it will go their way in the last ten weeks. Nicola Sturgeon,

the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, joins me now. You want an

independent Scotland to keep the pound, stay in NATO, stay in the

EU, Scotland already has all of that but you cannot guarantee it would

have any of it in an independent Scotland, why take the risk? All of

these things should be the case because they are in the best

interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK but we want the powers to

enable us to grow our economy faster, to be productive, and

overtime increased the prosperity of people living in Scotland. We also

want powers over our social security system so that we can create a

system that meets our needs, one that also has a safety net for the

most vulnerable people in our society. Independence is about

letting us decide our own priorities. You didn't answer my

question, you cannot guarantee you would be able to keep the pound

within a monetary union, stay in NATO and the EU, you cannot

guarantee you could produce any of these things, correct? I would argue

that we can because these things are also in the interest of the rest of

the UK. No country can be prevented from using the pound, I suggest we

use that within a formal monetary union. We have had the UK minister

quoted in the Guardian saying the position of the UK Government right

now is one based on campaign rhetoric and following a yes vote,

of course there would be a currency union. Who is that minister? The

Minister is unnamed, but nevertheless that story in the

Guardian was a solid one and not substantially denied. So you are

basing your monetary policy on one on named minister in one story?

Basing it on Common sense because monetary union would be in the best

interests for Scotland but also overwhelmingly in the interests of

the rest of the UK, given their trading relationship with Scotland

and the contribution Scotland's exports make. We are having a very

good debate and the UK Government and the no campaign, and this is not

a criticism, want to talk up in -- uncertainty to make people feel

scared, but after independence there will be constructed process of

negotiation. Let's stick with the monetary union because most

economists agree it would be very good for an independent Scotland to

have a monetary union but George Osborne, Ed Balls, Danny Alexander

are unequivocal, they say you won't get it. You claim they are bluffing

but again you cannot guarantee that so why the risk? I would say the

benefits of independence are substantial but I would also say to

George Osborne and his counterparts in the other parties that it would

be a very brave Chancellor that says to businesses in the rest of the UK

that they have to incur unnecessary additional transaction costs of half

a very brave Chancellor that says to businesses in the rest of the UK

that they have to incur unnecessary additional transaction costs of

half. What we are doing is making a case that is based on common sense

and voters in Scotland will listen to that case being put forward by

the other side as well, and they will come to a judgement of the

common-sense position. Let's look at EU membership because you haven t

been able to guarantee the monetary union. When President Barroso said

that a seamless transition to EU membership for an independent

Scotland was anything but certain, and one said it could even be

impossible, you dismissed him because he was standing down, but

been -- venue EU president says the same, do you dismissed him? What we

are doing... I should say at the outset of this, we have said

repeatedly to the UK Government let's go jointly and ask for a

formal opinion on the EU commission. The EU commission have

said they will only do that at this stage if the UK Government ask for

it, they are point blank refusing to do that, you have to ask why? It is

in their interests to talk up uncertainty. Scotland is an integral

part of the European Union, we have been for 40 years, we comply with

the rules and regulations... Mr Juncker knows all of that but he

still says it will be anything but a seamless transition. He said you

could not join the European Union by sending a letter, that is not our

proposal. We set down a robust proposal and the timescale we think

is reasonable under these circumstances. There are many

nationals of other states living in Scotland right now, if we were to be

outside of the European Union for any period of time, something the

current treaty doesn't even provide for, they would lose their right to

stay here. The interests of Scotland and the interests of European Union

are in favour of a seamless transition. It comes down to common

sense and people in Scotland will make

sense and people in Scotland will their own judgement on who is

talking the common-sense. What about NATO, two years ago you told

Newsnight the SNP's position is that we wouldn't stay in NATO. We had a

democratic debate, we looked at whether it would be in the interests

of an independent Scotland, which forms a significant part of the

territory of the North Atlantic and the party changed its mind. It did

so in a thoroughly democratic way. That is the nature of democracy.

That is the nature of democracy Would you accept the protection of

the NATO nuclear umbrella? There is no doubt the SNP's position is that

we do not want nuclear weapons in Scotland. That is not what I asked.

The world rid themselves of nuclear weapons. One of the interesting

point is of the 28 member countries of Natal 25 do not have nuclear

weapons. An independent Scotland... I asked if you would accept the

nuclear umbrella. The key feature of NATO's military dog train is now

clear shrike. We would accept the basis of which NATO is founded but

we would argue two things. We want Trident removed from Scotland rather

than have a situation where might we are spending ?100 billion over the

next generation replacing Trident and we would argue within the

international community that the world should move much more quickly

to rid itself of nuclear weapons. That is the principal position and

won the SNP has held consistently for many years. You would get rid of

one of the key parts of the NATO deterrent based in Scotland. You

would kick that out. You would not accept all of the club rules because

you do not like the idea of nuclear. Why would they like a member like

you in? Because Scotland is a significant part of the territory of

the North Atlantic. You do not subscribe to the rules. 25 of the

member states of NATO are non-nuclear members. You are saying

you do not follow the doctrine. NATO has said it wants to move away from

reliance on nuclear weapons. An independent Scotland would be

entering the majority mainstream of NATO as a country that did not have

nuclear weapons. By leading by example our moral authority and

encouraging others to do likewise would be increased. Money and oil,

the finance minister has said that an independent Scotland would

increase public spending by 3% a year. He would pay for that by

borrowing. Your First Minister says he is going to stash money in an oil

fund. You're going to borrow and save. How does that work? There are

two points. Firstly in terms of the outlook for finances and what is one

of the central debates of this referendum campaign, austerity that

we know will continue if we stay as part of the Westminster system

versus prosperity. The economy can afford a higher level of increase in

public spending while we continue to have deficit levels at a sustainable

level. What is the point of borrowing and saving at the same

time? People who have a mortgage and the savings account would not

themselves what the wisdom of that is. This is based on recommendations

of our expert fiscal Commission that as borrowing reduces to sustainable

levels it makes sense to start saving a proportion of our oil

wealth. In Norway, which has many similarities to Scotland, they have

an oil fund worth ?500 billion. Scotland is part of the Westminster

system is sitting on a share of UK debt. We can continue to allow our

oil wealth, our vast oil wealth, debt. We can continue to allow our

oil wealth, our vast oil wealth to be mismanaged or we can decide we

are going to manage that resource better in the years to come. Your

figures do not add up unless you are about oil prices and revenue and you

have been consistently wrong in your predictions. Last year you forecast

that revenues would be the .7 billion more than they actually work

-- 3.7 billion. The cost of the Scottish school system gone. There

were particular reasons for that in terms of interruption to production

and bigger levels of investment. Used ill have to find the money Let

me explain. They are based on robust assumptions, firstly a production

estimates that is in line with the estimates of the oil and gas

industry. Use of figures that are based on production of 10 billion

barrels of oil. Oil and gas has been wrong as well. It is 24 billion left

to be recovered. That is what is in the UK Government's oil and gas

strategy so production in line with industry estimates and an oil price

of $110 per barrel which is flat in cash terms would be a real terms

reduction. The Department of energy is estimating $128 per barrel so our

estimate compared to that is cautious. These are robust estimates

based on robust assumptions. Except they have been wrong. Finally, we

hear a lot from you and your fellow nationalists, you want a

Scandinavian style social democracy, you know how to spend the money but

you never tell us about social democratic levels of taxation. Also

should grizzlies have higher levels of tax in Scotland does at the

moment -- all social grizzlies. I want a Scottish style of social

democracy. Free education, free medicines and balancing the books

every single year. We want to get more people into work in Scotland,

raise the level of distribution in the Labour market and make the

economy more productive so we are raising the overall tax revenue

Over the last 33 years we have generated more taxpayer head of

population than is the case and the rest of the UK. Those last 33 years,

some of those years oil prices would have been high and in others they

would have been law but we take different decisions. A report showed

that if we go as part of the Westminster system down the plate --

route of replacing Trident then the cost will be as high as ?4 billion

every year. Our share of that is the hundred million pounds a year. Let

us get access to our own resources so we can make different and better

decisions about how to spend the resources we have. You are promising

Scandinavian style social democratic levels of public spending but you

say you will not need a top rate of tax of 56% which is what Scandinavia

has, that all 25%, which is what Scandinavia has and VAT of 15%. You

are going to have the spending but none of the taxes that make it

possible in Scandinavia. For mischievous reasons you are met --

misrepresenting what I am saying. The Scottish economy can afford it

and we want to generate more wealth in our economy. We want to use the

existing resources Scotland has We are the 14th richest country in the

world in terms of what we produce. We do not want to be wasting

resources. We want to be spending resources on the things that other

priority for the people of Scotland. These are the benefits and the

opportunities really get if we take the opportunity of voting yes and

becoming independent. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll

be talking about the week ahead with our pane, and we'll give you the

political guide to the World Cup. First, though,

the Sunday Politics where you are. Hello and welcome to Sunday

Politics. Joining me, Mary Macleod,

Conservative MP for Brentford and Isleworth, and Liberal MP

for Islington South and Finsbury, Emily Thornberry.

Coming up later, with the Scottish referendum looming, is London

better off with or without Scotland? We take

the political temperature north of the border and here in London.

First, it has been a difficult week for the proposed new airport in

the Thames Estuary which is backed of course by the mayor of London.

The government's Airport Commission charged with finding a resolution

in this long-running debate about airport capacity has released

a series of studies to find the proposal represents considerable

cost and risk to the taxpayer along with serious environmental

problems. The mayor's office says the report

shows there will be challenges but nothing insurmountable.

Many Macleod, an MP sitting in west London wants

to see Heathrow expanded further, but what do you say about what you

have heard about these proposals? I want to keep Heathrow

in west London because it is great for the economy but I do not want to

see it expanded. I think the choice,

the right choice, is Gatwick. I think initially the Thames Estuary

proposal was worth exploring because decade after decade Heathrow have

said to us they are never going to expand any more and they have, so I

think it is useful for the country to look and see

if there is something we need to build for the really long term.

I was quite interested in the proposal because of that

What do you think? It is rubbish.

It has always been rubbish. You cannot put an airport

on a sanctuary. There are dolphins and porpoises

and lots of birds and birds have terrible problems

with aircraft and get into the machinery and down aircraft.

It is a famous sanctuary. It is really important.

It has water voles and all sorts of things.

It was never going to work. It is like some sort

of dog whistle from Boris, saying to the people of west London, don't

worry, vote for me, I will push all the aeroplanes into east London

I do not have anything practical... He is saying demolish Heathrow.

West Londoners are not for his proposal as such because they do

not want to get rid of Heathrow. I think it is

a very negative attitude in terms of...if you say you're never going

to expand anywhere you are never going to build on land like that

then you have to look after the environmental impacts but we would

never have built trains, never have done a lot of things, so we have to

look and see where we would be for the long-term to build more capacity

and I think we should not be thinking of Heathrow,

there are other airports around London so let's expand Gatwick

and develop regional airports. Has it helped to move the debate,

even if there seems to be an acceptance it is dead in the water?

It is dead in the water. Rare birds live on that island. It is

extraordinary. It was never going to work. What is interesting is how you

did Boris get away with it? How did he get away with such a ludicrous

proposal? It was never taken seriously. It was. You have to look

at innovative solutions to this. seriously. It was. You have to look

at innovative solutions to this He has done that and I admire him for

that. Tomorrow sees the publication on the Parliamentary report of the

representation or underrepresentation of women in

Parliament. London thirds slightly better than the rest of the

country. The breakdown for figures for male and female MPs in the House

of Commons makes grim reading for those pushing for equal gender

representation. Our 649 MPs, 50 men representation. Our 649 MPs, 502 men

and 147 women. In London the picture is slightly different. 73 MPs, 25

and 147 women. In London the picture is slightly different. 73 MPs, 5 of

whom are women. Is the capital different? In London we have some

excellent examples, for example Islington and Camden have high rates

of women. Where could be sharing best practice with the rest of the

country. Some of London's's women MPs feel they have been the victims

of sexism. This wall. MP received rape threats on Twitter.

of sexism. This wall. MP received Harman spoke about what she saw as

her sexist treatment at the hands of the Gordon Brown

her sexist treatment at the hands of getting to the top of the political

structures is no guarantee of quality. Imagine my supplies when

having won a hard-fought election to 60 John Prescott as deputy leader of

the Labour Party, I discovered I was not to succeed him as Deputy Prime

Minister. Imagine the consternation in my office when we discovered when

I was equality minister and leader of the house and deputy leader, that

my involvement in the London G20 summit was inclusion at the Number

10 dinner for the leaders' wives. While London may have some success

of getting more women into Parliament for people looking to

increase the number of women some of the experiences of our current MPs

are for from something to replicate. You have had a hand in this. What

are the recommendations? This is looking at women at cross... We want

to improve representation of women in parliament. We want women from

all backgrounds and all sectors of this country. We went out and we

survey men and women in the house because we wanted to get from the

male MPs as well and former politicians, and we had sessions to

find out what the issues were. We made a range of ribs did --

representation is looking at zero tolerance because it is something

about behaviour in the chamber, you would not tolerate, but for some

reason we think it is important acceptable. What about attracting

more people to take up this job? Absolutely.

politics unless they have been steeped in politics. We need to get

more women to apply and stretch out and say to them, this is an

important role, you can change the country. It feels like we might have

heard this before, but what do you think, Emily? It doesn't sound like

it is enough. The answer is to have an all-female short list. The public

don't have any problem with female politicians. I have lots of people

who contact me, they think I am their MP, I am not an MP for that

large an area. Perhaps we stand out because of our personalities, I

don't know what it is but the public like having us as representatives. I

think we have solved the problem largely in the Labour Party by

having all-female short lists. For the winnable seats, half of them are

women. It is not just about selection, it is about our reach,

selection and retention and how we make Parliament a better place to

work, more professional and effective. Selection, the Labour

Party are much better in terms of the numbers of women selected in

Parliament, but you certainly haven't solved it yet. Each party

agreed as part of this reads -- research that we all have work to

do. What the Conservatives have done, and absolutely there is more

to do, is that we have tried to change that culture mindset about

how important women are to politics. It is also about being

listened to when you are in there and making sure women are promoted.

We are bolshie lot and we are listened to. If you look at the

contrast between us and David Cameron, he is good at talking but

not good at listening. What about Harriet Harman's comments? If I had

been prime minister at the time I would have made her Deputy Prime

Minister in a shot. She has pushed the boundaries for women and it is

not just getting in women for women's's sake but it is about

making sure women are on the agenda and taken seriously. In the last two

reshuffles, the Prime Minister has promoted 50% men and 50% women and

has said on several occasions that in the next reshuffle, his

aspiration is to get 30% female ministers so wait and see. Let's

move on. The run-up to Scottish referendum is

building up a head of steam. What will the consequences of the vote

before London? On September the 18th, Scotland goes

to the polls to decide on whether to leave the UK. It is a big day for

the whole country and not least for the capital city. London is the

capital of England, Britain, the UK, and I think it has a big role as the

front door for the UK. It is intimately connected with every

single part of the UK economy. At least for the time being, this is

the Scotland Office on Whitehall, the heart of British government

control over Scottish affairs. Even if Scotland votes to stay in the

United Kingdom, it is likely to be given even more powers of

independence under so-called devolution max. People in the

capital are already arguing that means London should be given more

power over its own affairs as well. It is certainly the view of this

business lobbying group, London First. So who might wield power in

an increasingly devolved London? In an increasingly devolved London In

recent elections the capital has tended to vote Labour in large

numbers. However, it is likely with Scotland gone from the UK we are

less likely to see a government of that persuasion. In history we have

seen that if you took the Scottish MPs out of Parliament then the

extremities of victories for Labour would have been much less. It

polarises politics in London a little bit because we know that

London votes Labour in significant numbers. London also has the most

places with the most favourable view of the European Union. If the Scots

vote to leave the UK, they are broadly more pro-Europe of an UK as

a whole, so London would find itself in a remainder of the UK which was

more likely to vote to leave the EU than if the Scots had stayed in,

assuming there is a vote on whether we leave the EU or not so London

might find itself leaving the EU because the Scots have left the UK.

The Scots could leave the capital potentially poorer and more likely

to be ruled by local government and possibly more likely not to be part

of the European Union. Whether or not that is accurate, the stakes for

the capital in the referendum vote are considerable.

From Glasgow we can talk to Pat Kane from the advisory board of the Yes

Scotland campaign. What do you think the impact would be to our viewers

of an independent Scotland on the capital city here? It depends what

London you are talking about. If you are talking about Westminster, the

City of London, the Treasury, the parts of London that run the British

state, an independent Scotland will affect those considerably because

they will have to be a division of assets. I think in terms of culture,

and that is my specialism, I have a relationship with London for about

30 years and I expect to have a relationship with London for the

next 30 years, as I expect to have a relationship with another global

cities. The exchange of ideas and talent. Scotland was the place that

registered the lowest vote for UKIP in the last election but London was

the second lowest so there is a strange symmetry between a

progressive independent Scotland under progressive independent

London. Don't you think that synergy would suffer? Not at all, in many

ways it would improve. I do a lot of cultural reviewing for Radio 4 and

it is often surprising to me that we can deal with the world's cultures,

cinemas, literatures but often Scotland does not get a shout. Does

Scotland become a rival as a powerhouse to London or do you think

a lot of Scottish firms would come down and strengthen London? It

depends how you categorise the Scottish economy going forward. If

you get rid of the nuclear weapons in the west, there is an oil boom

waiting to happen because then we can explore the waters. We could

also produce renewable energy systems, so the economy would be

pointing in a more northerly direction than necessarily down

south. Could we do without a lot of these debt ridden banks? I think we

would be happy about that. What would happen, Mary, in terms of

banks and financial services? We still don't No, do we? No, and that

is the thing, there are so many unanswered questions in this

proposal. I think it is important for us to stay together. There was a

recent poll done in London, and 85% of people wanted Scotland to stay

part of the UK. I do think there are so many things which have not been

answered by Alex Salmond so the Scottish people have many unanswered

questions in terms of what it will mean to their lives and what it will

deliver for them. Would it have a negative effect on London's economy,

or would it benefit us? I think it would make it a lot more complex. I

am all for Scotland getting additional powers, powers over

income tax, so we could push for devolution max, but there are so

many links with the Scottish financial services sector, I mean

most companies nowadays work on a global basis but I do think it could

have a negative impact on London. Pat? I think we took a wrong turning

with Scottish financial traditions over the global period over the

Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling years. The system survived the crash

a lot better elsewhere so I think we need a lot of refashioning of the

system going forward. I would expect there to be a fantastic transfer of

ideas. I love London, I spend at least half of my time in London and

have done for the last 12 years, and have done for the last 12 years and

I think we are very kindred qualities. Why would that

relationship change? Let's go further. Isn't London the sixth

biggest Scottish city? Why aren't biggest Scottish city? Why aren t

Scottish people in London being allowed to take part in this vote

West German mark because it affects them too. Why can't Mary vote? It is

terrible. Some Somalian or some Romanian who has only been in

Scotland for the last five years and paid their taxes has more right to

vote than an MacTavish in London. Why can't we all vote on this?

Because the right to vote is civic and not ethnic as you well know.

Would it be beneficial to us economically, the 20 billion or so

that is raised every year in taxation in London which is spread

north or spread to Scotland, economically is there an argument we

would be more self-sufficient? I could see the argument, because

there is a support London gives to the rest of the country and Scotland

as well. There are insurance companies that would move down to

London, but I think this is about more than money, it is about our

shared history and culture and we don't want you to go. If the

financial services did come to London, if you lost the tax revenue

raised in the engine room of the UK, what would you do there? After the

deregulatory frenzy of the City of London and the crash that it did not

make us resilient, to call it the engine room is interesting. London

is an exceptional place, it has money, talent and power... It is

amazing and we don't want you to go away from us. That is all we have

time for. Thanks for joining us. Now time for. Thanks for joining us Now

it is time for the rest of the week's political news in 60 seconds.

Oxford Street has one of the highest levels of toxic

pollutant nitrogen oxide in the world, according to a new report.

The Mayor is facing demands to reduce the build-up of buses in the

area after a monitor showed average levels of the toxin were more than

Plans have been announced for a privately funded new cycle

and pedestrian bridge across the River Thames.

The ?40 million bridge would stretch from Nine Elms to Pimlico.

The Mayor has been criticised over his use of the capital's cycling

funds to meet the ?6 million cost of staging the Tour de France.

Critics claim the money should instead have been

The Government has announced ?6 billion' worth of funding for

It is the first instalment of the total fund of ?12 billion

but London will receive just 23 million, under 2%.

Let's talk about the Tour de France, ?6 million from the cycling

budget, that is well spent to bring an event through the capital, isn't

it? I love the Tour de France, I went to Yorkshire to watch it and I

am pleased it came to London as well but I am a cyclist

went to Yorkshire to watch it and I am pleased and it is not as safe as

it should be on the streets. It is safer now that car drivers have to

be aware of us in the way that they were not when I first started

cycling in London but the biggest issue is lorries. I would bring in

strong laws to restrict access of lorries that have blind spots

because they are Do you have a problem with this when it could have

been spent on safety measures? It is a great sporting event and it puts

London on the map. I agree on the cycling, too many cyclists dying on

London streets. People loved the sense that it gave, but isn't the

problem that it is encouraging be good to go on the roads and perhaps

they are not ready? You are ready to cycle. Get on a bike. Is it safe? It

is safe. You're likely to live longer if you are a cyclist because

you will be getting exercise you would not be getting otherwise.

Cycles live longer so long as the lorries do not get you. It is

fantastic. We have to make sure we are looking at safety. I keep well

clear of lorries and hopefully I will keep a bit safer. That is all

the time we have. So, plenty happening in Parliament

this coming week, including a controversial bill to make

so-called assisted dying legal and Lord Carey has intervened in the

assisted dying debate. Will it make a difference? It will make a

difference because we have established in the House of Lords, I

am not sure who they speak for and why they should have a privileged

position, but he was a big opponent and has made a change of heart. The

fact that the Daily Mail has printed this shows this is a big

intervention. The Bill being pushed through, is it now on the agenda? I

think it is. There are international examples of assisted dying

elsewhere. The state of Oregon passed a Bill similar to this in the

1990s and things have not got out of control. That has not been an

expansion or abuse. It has settled down and become part of the

furniture. That makes it easier for this Bill, to make the case for it.

Religious people may still have a principled objection but most other

people have a practical objection, which is how to put in place

safeguards to deal with unscrupulous relatives or anyone else who wants

to abuse this right? Once a controversial issue is only being

opposed for practical reasons it is on its way to getting its way. What

is the division, is it the Church against everybody else? Is it a

right and left division? What is stopping it? It is a very difficult

moral issue and there are people who can have genuinely held Christian

beliefs or non-Christian beliefs who can be on both sides. I think that

the Lord Carey intervention is potentially a game changer not just

because he is a former Archbishop of Canterbury but because he was on the

Evan Jellicoe side of the Church of England. That is quite a big move.

The response was to say, please withdraw your bell and let us have a

royal Commission. The Supreme Court kicked the ball back to Parliament

when they rejected the cases of three people who had been taking the

case and said, we could say that banning the right to life is against

the European Court of Human Rights, but it is a moral issue and an issue

for Parliament. Parliament needs to decide. The data act that is going

to be pushed through Parliament. In record time. To comply with a

European court judgement. Tom Watson and David Davis, some dissent. Are

you so prized with how united the establishment, left, right and

centre is? No. There is a great quote saying this has been enacted

under the something must be done act and that captures it exactly. Even

Cameron says he does not want to look people in the eye and say that

he did not do everything he could. There is no end to the power of

surveillance. It is all was about drawing a distinction. I am always

suspicious when politicians look something up and said, we have all

agreed. Are there at the centre is right or is the political

establishment right? I think the establishment is right. I think it

is stronger than other issues. We are in a unique position where all

three political parties have relatively recent experience of

government so they now that security threats are not made up by

unscrupulous people. The legislation being proposed is not dramatic, it

is to fill a gap that was created. I do not see the political

controversy. All three political parties support it. David Davis and

Liberty are against that, and always are. Would you not have expected...

The Lib Dems are in government, but a bit more rebellion on the Labour

backbenches? There is no political controversy put outside parliament

there's quite a lot of controversy about this. My paper has taken an

interest in this. It is interesting, it does not feel, it is not a

1950s, three public school boys setting, let us have this deal. The

Liberal Democrats and Labour have serious questions. There's going to

be a sunset clause that will run out in 2016. The Liberal Democrats, who

asked pretty tough questions, have said there are assurances. Ed

Miliband did not go to public school.

For many English football fans, tonight's World Cup final presents

How do you pick between two traditional foes

Well, if you're a political obsessive, like these

three, you could always back the nation according to how it votes.

The website LabourList has produced a political guide to the tournament.

At the beginning of the tournament, it was a fairly balanced playing

field politically with 15 left wing and 17 right-wing countries. England

found themselves isolated in a group with three left-wing countries. That

was the least of their problems. There was a clear domination of

democratic regimes over authoritarian with only six of

oratory and countries making it through to the finals and the only

all authoritarian tie was dubbed the worst match of the World Cup. By the

second round 16 teams remained. The left had a clear advantage with

nine, seven from the right and authoritarian countries all but

wiped out. Two representatives remained. Both were beaten by

European democracies. By the semi-finals, all was even Stephen. A

right-wing Protestant Europe taking on Catholics South America. With one

victory apiece, Germany knocking out Brazil and Argentina beating the

Dutch, tonight's final repeats that pattern. Who will win? Angela

Merkel's Germany or Argentina? We're joined now

by Britain's only Labour adviser Should we read political

significance in to the fact that the only time England has won the World

Cup was under a Labour government? Of course. The problem is we did not

qualify for Euro 2008 when it was a Labour government. We have had some

pretty shoddy results under a Labour government. As someone under the

left, are you backing Argentina? Absolutely not. I do not think it

has anything to do with politics. It is a bit of fun. People should

choose it is Don Hoop plays the best football and the Germans have been

fantastic. They were great in 2010 fantastic. They were great in 2 10

as well. They started this model in 2008 and that is the sort of thing

people should be supporting. Who should a Eurosceptic support? I

would not say Argentina because that is the country that has tried to

seize British sovereign territory within my lifetime. You were not

around for the Blitz. Believe it or not, I was not. There is a strong

political case to support Germany. They are probably going to win the

World Cup with a clear of -- with players of Polish origin. That sort

of cultural change they have forced themselves to go through... You talk

about them being right wing, but in fact the way that the German league

is structured, and I am an expert, is based on ownership. It is very

different from the Premier League. It is about football as a usual

good. The ticket prices are lower. The fans are involved in running the

club. It is a model that all English football clubs should emulate.

Germany had a strong football team under centre right governments and

centre left governments and a coalition. A strong football team

and a strong economy. The Conservative MP who is the arch

Eurosceptic wanted to get us out of the European Union and was for a few

weeks ago when people were making jokes about Jean-Claude Juncker,

weeks ago when people were making jokes about Jean-Claude Juncker he

was outraged and said you should not do that, so he could happily support

Germany. What was interesting about the authoritarian and democratic

regimes, what is great is that the World Cup is run by this open and

democratic organisation Fifa. It is similar to the EU in many regards.

Two countries led by women. Maybe gender is the thing. We did not win

under Margaret Thatcher. There's one big difference with the EU, you

cannot flog six Dom Acta gets to go to a European summit. Did you know

that Italy won two world cups under Mussolini? Can we draw any

conclusions between a political system and the performance of the

football team? You can draw certain parallels between maybe national

cliches, so the Germans are efficient and effective, which might

reflect and the English are very polite so we let everyone score

first and go into the second round. We put ourselves at the back of the

queue. Is England going to qualify for the European? We are going to

win the European Championship. The first country Scotland have to play

is Germany. What could possibly go wrong? Who is going to win? Germany.

Germany. I am going to put a few bob on Argentina. Are you going to be

watching? Absolutely. Thank you This is the last Sunday Politics

for the summer. But we'll be back in early autumn

and our first programme will be live from Scotland,

the weekend before the referendum The Daily Politics is back tomorrow

at noon and we'll bring you the last PMQs before the summer

on Wednesday morning from 11:30am. Remember, if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics, unless