13/07/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

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.

Coming up here: A peaceful Twelfth at the Ardoyne flashpoint and praise

for those involved - but there's still no sign of a resolution. So,

what next for Twaddell Avenue? Join me in half-an-hour.

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. 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

voters, they are going to want to do do it before? This reshuffle might

be the triumph of the a list. A lot of the women coming through the

be the triumph of the a list. A lot 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 they knew they could not bring all

more women but that is a result of a long-term strategy.

more women but that is a result of a not the world's most raging

feminist. He is doing this for practical

feminist. He is doing this for 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

at Prime Minister's Questions 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 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

have much less to offer than the pro-feminist. The tests for David

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

expectations he has to give pro-feminist. The tests for David

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

trouble to perhaps suggest a female 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 ourselves that it is not happening, or there are barriers.

it, which ourselves that it is not How we judge meritocracy is at the

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

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

engineers generally. I such as engineering. We need more

fine to try to encourage such as engineering. We need more

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

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, 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.

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, 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.

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

No resolution to the controversial Ardoyne parade,

but no violence either, after a generally peaceful Twelfth weekend.

But what's the next step to ending the stand-off?

I'll be talking to the North Belfast DUP MP Nigel Dodds

With me throughout the programme are Jim Flanagan of the Ballymena

Guardian and Professor Peter Shirlow from Queen's University.

So, there's been something of a collective sigh of relief that

the Twelfth of July weekend has seen no repeat of the violence

of recent years at the Ardoyne flashpoint in North Belfast.

Members of the local Ligoniel lodges were prevented from returning past

the Ardoyne shops on the Crumlin Road by a Parades Commission

ruling - a ruling that the wider Orange family disputed,

However, the Orange Order remains adamant its campaign will continue.

We have united unionism around this issue and shattered the myth that we

stand alone. As we speak there are protest parades the length and

breadth of the problems. Do not underestimate the significance of

the six minute stoppage earlier today by every orange man and banned

on parade. That stoppage says to the world that the Justice and hatred

that stops people expressing their culture along a show called Sheard

Road. Six minutes. The tide is turning. Far from going away, we are

preparing to enhance our campaign and our efforts are being redoubled

politically and through further peaceful and lawful means. The more

and the SDLP MLA for the area, Alban Maginness.

Things passed off peacefully, as you and others hoped they would. Does

that transformed the landscape and others hoped they would. Does

the future? It is a very positive development. All of us were very

pleased at the end of the day at how things worked out, in north Belfast

in particular. There was a lot of tension, anger and frustration at

the Parades Commission. People felt strongly that threats of republican

violence had won the day. Nevertheless, the unity of purpose

and leadership at all levels and the positive engagement of a range of

people on the ground managing the situation they deliver a dignified

protest and a strong message, but done in a peaceful and lawful way.

That enables us to have a strong platform to move forward. You could

argue that the Parades Commission got it right because it would just a

response that everybody is happy with. I don't think you can take

that from that at all. There was leadership and begin -- a unity of

purpose that resulted in a peaceful day. That is what we always wanted

purpose that resulted in a peaceful to see. We have been very clear

throughout the years at Ardoyne that we did not want violence. The vast

bulk violence have come from

republicanism, violence have come from

dissident republicanism as violence have come from

2012. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. Can we allow

threats of violence from republicans to sway decision-making in Northern

Ireland? The Parades Commission has created a position that needs to be

addressed. The issue has not gone away. There is a concentration and

determination more broadly than in North Belfast at all levels of

unionism to make sure this issue is probably addressed. Do you think

things have changed for the better? I think we should banquet

things have changed for the better? achieved yesterday. That was a

peaceful Twelfth, by and large. That is an important step forward. I

think we have one a bit of space and time to try and resolve the problem

in Ardoyne on a negotiated basis between the two communities. And to

find a local resolution to this particular problem. I think that has

been won by the good sense of those both on the unionist side and the

nationalist side. Would you pay tribute to Unionist leaders? They do

pay tribute. It is what they should have been saying all along. I think

it is important that people on the Unionist side, on the leadership

side, they keep repeating to their reporters that the determination of

the Parades Commission, although they may not like that

determination, that it should in fact be complied with and any

protests that there might be should be peaceful. I certainly believe

that that is progress and if we can continue that way I think we can

create an atmosphere where we have very positive negotiations. What

impact will this have on the psyche of Unionist leaders and the Unionist

rank and file and people in the Orange Order, to hear political

opponents actually giving you credit. I assume isn't something

that you are very used to! Martin McGuinness and the police constable

both said very positive things, as the church leaders. Does that help

for the future because people are getting credit for a different

approach? Many make it clear that Unionist leaders and the Orange

Order have always been forthright in their denunciation of violence and

have always been clear in their call for peaceful demonstrations or

protests. The last year at Twadell Avenue has been peaceful. Every

Saturday there is a parade there and it has been peaceful. That is not an

accident, it has been work on the ground by people in the community,

Orange Order and politicians. It has been very hands-on. It has. What has

happened is that people have taken this issue and there is now a unity

of purpose around at a high political level, as well as local

level and there is a determination to acknowledge right across the

board on the part of unionists to make sure that others acknowledge

the seriousness of this issue and how it can impinge on other issues.

What we need to do is build on what we have achieved so far, but

recognise that the problem is not resolved and there are real issues

there. Does it allow a bit more wriggle room to be built into the

negotiation process, which might allow some kind of compromise to be

produced? It will depend on whether the words of republicans and

nationalists are actually translated into action. All we are asking for

is tolerance and respect. The six minutes that it takes to walk down

the road in the morning, which was done with great tolerance and

respect in terms of both the Orange Order and residents, that could not

be repeated in the evening. Let's see whether or not the breathing

space created is translated into action, not just in words from

nationalist leaders but in terms of their actions to put their talk of

tolerance and respect into action. Has that breathing space been

created? I think it has. We need to work very hard and almost

immediately to try to recreate the dialogue that was suspended prior to

the Twelfth. I think the principles of tolerance and respect are

important principles. I would hope that we could create a compromise in

Ardoyne around those two principles. It is very important to have local

community engagement and I believe that all of us politicians should be

encouraging it. What about this issue that Nigel Dodds raises, how

come the community in Ardoyne can put up at the parade going down the

road but will not bring any discussion about going back up in

the afternoon? I don't think there is any contradiction there. If you

listen to the judgement of the judge in the High Court last week whenever

he commented upon the situation, he said it was quite clear that there

are significant differences between the morning parade and an afternoon

or evening parade. He made that very clear. If a High Court judge comes

to that conclusion and if the Parades Commission comes to that

conclusion, it is fair and reasonable for the residents to come

to that conclusion as well. Can we get into a few specifics? The

Parades Commission ruling is the same as it was last year. I am told

by a senior figure in the Parades Commission that there has to be

overwhelming evidence brought to the table that will change an existing

decision. How do we move this forward? How do you draw the sting

out? How do you put the Ardoyne stand-off in the past tense so we

don't have to go through what we have been through again in 12

months? It comes down to the tolerance and respect on both sides.

That has to be the case. It can't be a denial of fundamental rights. We

need to exercise those rights on both sides in a way which promotes

tolerance and respect. In relation to the Parades Commission and what

has been said, every application has to be judged on its merits. I am a

bit concerned when to be judged on its merits. I am a

from inside the Parades Commission indicate that things have to be

different in order to make a different decision because each

application for each parade has to be judged on its own merits. That is

an important point of principle. The point is, if nothing has changed,

there is no evidence to change things, then the previous ruling

will inevitably stand. I understand what you're saying. There was change

this year in the sense that there had been intense dialogue directly

involving the Orange order with residents, and with the Orange order

and the Parades Commission, and despite of all that they still ruled

against the Orange Order. Also, the potential for disorder, and that

disorder was coming from republicans. That is a very

disorder was coming from destabilising and worrying

development. 12 months ago the violence came

development. 12 months ago the sides. Yes, the violence

development. 12 months ago the violence that has ruled the

Commission in terms of what they decided to do in 2012, over the last

two years. What the Parades Commission said is that there has to

be sustained and sincere dialogue and respect for the determinations

of the Parades Commission. That was not the situation. If that changes,

the Parades Commission will have to consider that, but nothing as yet

there has changed in that direction. Let's pause this discussion for a

moment. the Queen's academic Pete Shirlow

and the journalist Jim Flanagan. Peter, what do you make of what has

happened over the last couple of days? There is a breathing space.

Management and negotiation, although those talks broke down in June, we

are seeing a very different attitude. Even within the Orange

Order, what has happened in Derry with the apprentice boys, talking

has been the key to resolution. I think what we are witnessing is a

wake-up call in many ways for those who would claim to represent both

sides. They are starting to understand that there has to be a

process that has taken much further than it has been. Unionism has to

make sure when they talk about respect and parity of esteem, what

that means, as well. The language needs to be put into real action and

positive outcomes. Is there a breathing space? Has the landscape

changed? I think certainly the fact that the parade yesterday passed his

fully means there should be credit given all round. It doesn't change

the fundamentals. There is a potent cop tale of grievance in the

unionist community about this parade. It is important that while

there may be a breathing space it doesn't last indefinitely. There is

a temptation to think it is over, so that is OK until next year. We

should grasp the nettle now. I interviewed the police constable on

Thursday night when he does not want to send 100 peace officers up to

Twadell Avenue every night, costing ?40,000 a day. We always say that,

but we never talk about it until the next June! There is a more focused

attempt now being made to deal with this. 40 years ago the Ulster

workers Council strike led to many people being injured. We still have

the effect of that. We are in a different place. We should start to

celebrate that a bit more. They are difficult issues, but they are not

taking us back to the past. Will the nettle be grasped, or will we put it

on the long finger until 11 months's time? I trust not. The

problem over the past year was that the dialogue commenced in April.

That was far too late in the day. It only continued up until the

beginning of June. I think Jim makes an important point, the nettle is

being grasped because the Unionist leaders have said that we have a

plan, we have called for a commission of enquiry, we are

meeting the Secretary of State to talk about that. There will be a

high level and serious engagement as of now right through. The

seriousness of this and the unity of purpose and the peaceful conditions

that were brought about yesterday to create an opportunity for us. I need

to ask you about the front-page story, saying the Peter Robinson

will stand down in September and there are arrangements in place for

a seat in the Lords. Typical tabloid rubbish. We normally have a silly

season that starts in August, but it has started early. I am always

reminded when I read things like this journalist should be as

accountable politicians. They just invent new stories. So, no truth

whatsoever? None whatsoever. There are of rumours! -- there are lots of

rumours! Thank-you both for now -

we'll hear more from you later. Now, with the political year

at an end, time for a look back at some of the moments that stood

out for us - and there was no If it is just a few small areas of

outstanding disagreement, you might come back one further push? I don't

see the need for that. We have had a good campaign and is

our honoured by the people who have voted. It is essential that we get

out the truth of all that went on in order to restore public confidence

that has been so seriously damaged by this deal. Let us step up to the

plate, start grappling with the real issue is not manufactured ones.

Ethnic minorities have been attacked and I feel vulnerable when I walk on

the street. I am innocent of any involvement in any conspiracy to

conduct -- abduct or very Jean McConville. What is the political

lesson you have learned? Don't start a political party with Basil McCrea.

How are you keeping? Fine, thank you very much.

People are waiting to find out what the graduated response means in

reality. I think there is quite a serious situation that is developing

up there. We have other issues as well, the June monitoring round

remains unresolved, the OTR to. Nothing about the welfare reform

stand-off either. There will always be in. What we need to start doing

this year is be more positive. We have the city of culture in Derry.

We have seen the Giro d'Italia. The crisis that we have today do not

send us back to the past any more. A younger generation is being turned

off by politics and I think that is probably the real crisis. Despite

the protests, reconciliation projects will continue. What is

happening on the ground is important.

Let's pause for a moment and take a look back

at the political week gone past in 60 seconds with Martina Purdy.

Unionists may like to give the graduated response to a ruling on a

parade in north Belfast. A denial of cultural expression will have a

consequence. Friends in high places, the Taoiseach talks about the

cancelled Garth Brooks constructs. I am very disappointed that it won't

happen. The row over the decision by a bakery not to make a cake mated to

a Westminster. In terms to those of different sexes, tolerance and

equality of people with different sexualities, all of that is a very

important part of being British. It was awards night. Was it Danny in

like read that did it? Nobody put Peter Robinson into it? The winner

of Best Minister is Simon Hamilton! Simon Hamilton, the Best Minister? I

think it is a very good Simon Hamilton, the Best Minister? I

has a great grasp of his brief and is dealing really well with the

problems that the welfare cuts are creating. It was a draw between Jim

Allister and Anna Lo for the best MLA? Two very different people!

Democracy is the right to express your opinion. Anna Lo spoke very

well about the race issue. Jim Allister is the Rottweiler who will

always be there. People may dislike him in many ways for certain aspects

of those politics, but what we do like is the role he plays of

questioning the accountability of the Assembly.

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

on Catholics South America. With one 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 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, 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