21/09/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


The latest political news, interviews and debate in Northern Ireland.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning from Manchester, where the Labour Party are gathering


for their annual conference as British politics adjusts to what


the rest of the UK. in Scotland might mean for


Scotland's decision to vote 'no' means more powers heading north


But what about Home Rule for England?


Independence for Scotland has been his life's work. Alex Salmond tells


us why he is stepping down after losing Thursday's vote. And we've


got an exclusive survey of what the people who want to


With Holyrood hoping for new powers in the wake


of the Scottish No vote, is Stormont ready for increased devolution?


We'll hear from the DUP and Sinn Fein.


We'll hear from the DUP and But what is the next devolution step


for the capital? With me, the best and brightest political panel in the


business, at least that is what they pay me to say every week. Nick Watt,


Helen Lewis and, this week, we have done some devolution ourselves to


other areas, and we have Sam Coates from the times. The union survived,


but only at the cost of more powers for the Scottish parliament and


enshrining the formula that gives Scotland a privileged position when


it comes to public spending, which has MPs on both sides of the Commons


of in arms. The Scottish question has been answered for now. Suddenly,


the English question takes centre stage, doesn't it? Absolutely. It


has a grubby feel, when that vow was put to the Scottish people, that


they hoped would swing the vote, there was nothing about English-only


votes. It was unconditional? The Tory proposal did talk very core


justly about looking at the proposals by a former clerk of the


House of Commons that looked at this issue. That was very cautious. --


cautiously. These proposals will not get through Westminster unless David


Cameron addresses the English-only issue. You look at people like Chris


Grayling in the Sunday Telegraph. Alistair Darling on the Andrew Marr


Show said you could not have a link between what you are giving Holyrood


and English-only MPs. Back on says, is welshing on the deal. -- comic he


They were furious that he gave away these tax powers and inscribed the


Barnett formula. They said they weren't going to vote for it. It is


a shameless piece of opportunism. Now they can say that Labour are the


ones that don't trust you and don't want to give you more powers. He


knows it is going to be a tight timetable. The idea of getting a


draft of this out by Burns Night, most people would say, given they


had six years to set up Scottish parliament, the idea we will solve


these huge constitutional questions in four months is absurd. But they


don't care about the constitutional questions, the one they care about


is English votes? There is a simple reason they won that. If you look at


the MPs in England alone, the Tories have a majority of 59, an


overwhelming bias, and if you strip out Wales Scotland and Northern


Ireland, so this has become a partisan issue. The question is


whether David Cameron can follow through on the promise. He said he


would link the two Scottish powers, but it's not clear you will get


either before the general election. It's not but the purpose is to cause


Labour Party discomfort, and it is. You can see with date -- Ed Miliband


this morning, they find it very hard to answer the question, why


shouldn't there be English votes for English laws? Ed Miliband this


morning was saying how London MPs get to vote on London transport and


English MPs don't outside of London and it is confusing, but Labour is


in a difficult position. They were before the Prime Minister made his


announcement. The yes side triumphed in Glasgow, the largest city in


Scotland, a Labour heartland, and the Prime Minister is saying that if


Labour don't agree to this by the time of the general election, he is


handing a gift to the SNP, that that would be the party that the natural


Labour voters would vote for to see off the plan. It's not just Tory


backbenchers. There are Labour backbenchers saying there should be


in which bodes for English laws. Even people in the Shadow Cabinet


think it is right. The cases unarguable. If you say her chewing a


partisan way, you can't sell it to the country. Ed Miliband is on


course to have a majority of about 20, and you take the 40 English MPs,


and he hasn't got it. This is a coalition government where the


Conservatives haven't got really to be in charge, they have put in


sweeping laws. Labour should probably take the bullet on this


one. Let's leave it for the moment. But don't go away. As they struggle


to keep the United Kingdom in one piece, David Cameron, Ed Miliband


and Nick Clegg promised to keep something called the Barnett


Formula. It wasn't invented in Barnet,


but by man called Joel Barnett. And it's how


the UK government decides how much public money to spend in Scotland,


Wales and Northern Ireland. It's controversial,


because it's led to public spending being typically 20% higher


in Scotland than in England. Well, some English MPs


aren't happy about that. I'm joined now by the


Tory MP Dominic Raab. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. How


can the Prime Minister scrap the Barnett Formula when he has just


about to keep it on the front page of a major Scottish newspaper? If we


are going to see financial devolution to Scotland, more powers


of tax and spend, it's impossible not to look at the impact on the


wider union, and there have been promises made to the Scottish and we


should do our best to deliver them, but there have been promises made to


the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If you look at the Barnett


Formula which allocates revenue across the UK, it is massively


prejudicial to those other parts. We have double the number of ambulance


staff and nurses compared to England. The regional breakdown is


more stark with double the amount spent on social housing in Scotland


than in Yorkshire and the North West and the Midlands. The Welsh do very


poorly on social services for the elderly. What are we saying? That


they need our children, patients and the elderly are worth less than the


Scots? That's not the way to have a sustainable solution. I understand


the distribution impact of the Barnett Formula, but Westminster


politicians are already held in contempt by a lot of people and to


rat on such a public pledge would confirm their worst fears. Your


leader would have secured the union on a false prospectus. First of


all, it's clear from the Ashcroft poll that the offer made in the


Scottish newspaper had zero effect and if anything was


counter-productive to the overall result because two thirds of swing


voters in the last few days voted for independence. But we can't keep


proceeding without looking at the promises made to the English. We


said in the referendum that we would have English laws -- English votes


on English issues. The Liberal Democrats, in their manifesto,


pledged to scrap the Barnett Formula. We have to reconcile all of


the promises to all parts of the UK, and Alex Salmond talks about a


Westminster stitch up, but what he's trying to do is, with gross double


standards, is in French stitch up in rapid time, which would be grossly


unfair to the rest of the rest of UK -- is contrive stitch up. What is


unfair about the current spending formula? The extra money Scotland


gets from Barnet, is covered by the oil revenues it sends to London.


Scotland is only getting back on spending what it pays in tax. There


is no analysis out there that suggests it is the same amount.


Having voted to stay in the UK. Let me give you the figures. Last year


revenues were 4.5 billion, and the Barnett Formula was worth 4.5


billion to Scotland. It is awash. A huge amount of British taxpayer


investment has gone into extracting North Sea oil, and if we move to a


more federal system, we would need to look at things like the


allocation of resources, but the Barnett Formula has been lambasted


as a national embarrassment and grossly unfair by its Labour Party


architect, Lord Barnett. So what we need is to change this mechanism so


it is based on need. The irony is, when the Scots allocate Avenue to


the -- revenue to their local authorities, it's done on a needs


basis, and what is good for Scotland must be good for the rest of


Britain. One final question. The Prime Minister is now making his


promise of more home rule for Scotland conditional on English


votes for English laws. Why didn't he spell out the condition when he


made his bow to the Scottish people? Why has this condition been tacked


on by the Prime Minister? In the heat of the referendum debate lots


of things were said, but the truth is that Parliament must also look at


this and make its views known, and English MPs as well. You will find


that conservative as well as a lot of Labour MPs would say, we cannot


just rush through a deal that is unsustainable. It has to be good for


all parts of Britain. Yes, we should deliver on our promises for more


devolution to Scotland, but let's deliver on promises to be English,


and Northern Irish. Why are they locked out of the debate? Let's


leave it there. Thank you for joining us.


The man responsible for taking Scottish nationalism from


the political fringes to within touching distance of victory, Alex


Salmond, has a flair for dramatic announcements, and he gave us


another on Friday when he revealed he's to stand


Friends and foes have paid tribute to his extraordinary career.


In a moment I'll be speaking to Alex Salmond,


but first here's Adam Fleming with the story of the vote that broke


The BBC's HQ on the Clyde, the whole place converted into a studio for


Scotland's big night. You know what you need for big events, big


screens, and there are loads of them here. That one is three stories


high, and this is the one Jeremy Vine uses for his graphics. The


other thing that is massive is the turnout in the referendum, it is


enormous. It was around 85% of the electorate, that is 4 million ballot


papers. First to declare Clackmannanshire. No, 19,000. 19,000


and 36. The first Noel of the night, and there were plenty more. -- the


first no vote. The better together campaigners were over the moon, like


Jim Murphy, who had campaigned in 100 different towns. I don't want to


sound schmaltzy, but it makes you think more of Scotland. It makes you


small tree. Yes, 194,779. Around five a.m., the Yes campaign


applauded as they won Scotland's biggest city, Glasgow. Dundee went


their way as well, but just for areas out of 32 opted for


independence. How many copies have you had? This is my second cup of


tea on the morning -- how many copies. He was enjoying the


refreshments on offer, but the yes campaigners were not in a happy


place. We are in the bowels of one of the parts of the British


establishment that, I've got to say, has probably done its job in this


referendum, because I think the BBC has been critical in shoring up the


establishment and have supported the no campaign as best as they could.


But there was no arguing with the numbers, and by sunrise, the BBC


called it. Scotland has voted no in this referendum on independence. The


result, in Fife, has taken the no campaign over the line and the


official result of this referendum is a no. There we go, on a screen


three stories high, Scotland has said no to independence. As soon as


the newsprint was driving north of the border, the focus shifted south


as the Prime Minister pledged more devolution for Scotland but only if


it happened everywhere else as well. Just as Scotland will vote


separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax,


spending on welfare, so to England, as well as Wales and Northern


Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues, and all this must take


place in tandem with and at the same pace as the settlement for Scotland.


It began to dawn on us all that we might end up doing this again. See


you for an English referendum soon? Northern Ireland. There could be


another one in Scotland. But not next weekend? Give me a break. There


was no break for Nick, because Alex Salmond came up with one last twist,


his resignation was as leader, my time is nearly over. But the


Scotland, the campaign continues, and the dream shall never die. So,


the referendum settled, the Constitution in flux, and a leader


gone. All in a night work. Alex Salmond is to stand down as


First Minister of Scotland. He shows no signs of going quietly. Last


night, I spoke to the SNP leader in Aberdeen and began by asking him if


it was always his intention to resign if he lost the referendum. I


certainly have thought about it, Andrew. But for most of the


referendum campaign I thought we were going to win. So, I was...


Yeah, maybe a few months back I considered it. But I only finally


made up my mind on Friday lunch time. Did you agonise over the


decision to stand down? I'm not really an agonising person. When you


get beaten in a referendum, you have to consider standing down as a real


possibility. Taking responsibility and politics has gone out of fashion


but there is an aspect, if you need a campaign, and I was the leader of


the Yes Campaign, and you don't win, you have to contemplate if you are


the best person to lead future political campaigns. In my


judgement, it was time for the SNP and the broader yes movement, the


National movement of Scotland, they would benefit from new leadership.


In your heart of hearts, through the campaign, as referendum on day


approached, you did think you were going to win? Yes, I did. I thought


for most of the last month of the campaign, we were in with a real


chance. In the last week I thought we had pulled ahead. I thought the


decisive aspect wasn't so much the fear mongering, the scaremongering,


the kitchen sink being thrown at Scotland by orchestration from


Downing Street, I thought the real thing was the pledge, the vow, the


offer of something else. A lot of people that had been moving across


to independence saw within that, a reason to say, well, we can get


something anyway without the perceived risks that were being


festooned upon them. You were only five points away from your dream.


You won Scotland's largest city. There is now the prospect of more


power. Why not stay and be an enhanced First Minister? Well, it is


a good phrase. I'm not going away, though. I'm still going to be part


of the political process. In Scotland, if people in Aberdeenshire


wish to keep electing me, that is what I will do. But I don't have to


be First Minister of Scotland, leader of the Yes Campaign, to see


that achieved. The SNP is a strong and powerful leadership team. There


are a number of people that would do a fantastic job as leader of the


party and First Minister. I've been leader of the party for the last 24


years, I think it is time to give somebody else a shot. There are many


able-bodied people that will do that well. -- many able people that will


do that well. I'm still part of the national movement, arguing to take


this forward. I think you are right, the question, one of the irony is


developing so quickly after the referendum, it might be those that


lost on Thursday end up as the political winners and those that won


end up as the losers. When we met just for the vote, a couple of days


before the vote, you said to me that there was very little you would


change about the campaign strategy. Is that still your view? Yes. There


are one or two things, like any campaign, there is no such thing as


a pitcher campaign. I would refer not to dwell on such things. I will


leave of my book, which will be called 100 Days, coming out before


Christmas. Once you read that, I will probably reveal the things I


would have changed. Basically, broadly, this was an extraordinary


campaign. Not just a political campaign, but a campaign involving


the grassroots of Scotland in an energising, empowering way, the like


of which in on of us have witnessed. It was an extraordinary phenomenon


of grassroots campaigning, which carried the Yes Campaign so far,


almost to victory. If Rupert Murdoch put his Scottish Sun behind you,


would have that made the difference? If ifs and ands were pots and


pans... Why did he not? I would not say that, you have form with him


that I do not have. I'm not sure about that. I was very encouraged.


The coverage, not in the other papers, The Times, which was


extremely hostile to Scottish independence, but the coverage in


the Scottish Sun was fair, balanced and we certainly got a very fair


kick of the ball. In newspapers, I would settle for no editorial line


and just balanced coverage. We certainly got that from the Scottish


Sun and that was an encouragement. I think you saw from his tweets,


certainly in his heart he would have liked to have seen a move forward in


Scotland and I like that. He said if you lost, that was it, referendum


wise, for a generation, which he defined as about 20 years. Is that


still your view? Yes, it is. It has always been my view. It's a personal


view. There are always things that can change in politics. If the UK


moved out of the European Union, for example, that would be the sort of


circumstance. Some people would argue with Westminster parties, and


I'm actually not surprised that they are reneging on commitments, I am


just surprised by the speed they are doing it. They seem to be totally


shameless in these matters. You don't think they will meet the vow?


You don't think there will keep to their vow? They are not, for that


essential reason you saw developing on Friday. The Prime Minister wants


to link change in Scotland to change in England. He wants to do that


because he has difficulty in carrying his backbenchers on this


and they are under pressure from UKIP. The Labour leadership are


frightened of any changes in England which leave them without a majority


in the House of Commons on English matters. I would not call it an


irresistible force and immovable object, one is resistible and one is


movable. They are at loggerheads. The vow, I think, was something


cooked up in desperation for the last few days of the campaign. I


think everybody in Scotland now engines that. -- recognises that. It


was the people that were persuaded to vote no that word tricked,


effectively. They are the ones that are really angry. Ed Miliband and


David Cameron, if they are watching this, I would be more worried about


the anger of the no voters than the opinion of the Yes Vote on that


matter. If independence is on the back burner for now, what would you


advise your successor's strategy for the SNP to be? I would advise him or


her not to listen to advice from their predecessor. A new leader


brings forward a new strategy. I think this is, for the SNP, a very


favourable political time. There have been 5000 new members joined


since Thursday. That is about a 25% increase in the party membership in


the space of a few days. More than that, I think this is an opportunity


for the SNP. But my goal is the opportunity for Scotland. I would


repeat I am not retiring from politics. I'm standing down as First


Minister of Scotland. On Friday, coming back to the north-east of


Scotland, I passed through Dundee, which voted yes by a stud --


substantial margin. There was a line of a song I couldn't get out of my


head, and old Jacobite song, rewritten by Robert Burns, the last


line is, so, tremble falls wakes, in the midst of your glee, you've not


seen the last of my bonnets and me. So you are staying a member of the


Scottish Parliament, shall we see you again in the House of Commons?


What does the future hold for you? Membership of Scottish Parliament is


dependent on the good folk of Aberdeenshire east. If they choose


to elect me, I will be delighted to serve. I've always loved being a


constituency member of Parliament, I have known some front line


politicians that regarded that as a chore. I'm not saying they didn't do


it properly, I am sure they did. But I love it. You get distilled wisdom


from being a constituency member of Parliament that helps you keep your


feet on the ground and have a good observation as to what matters to


people. I have no difficulty with being a constituent member of


Parliament. Can you promise me it will never be Lord Salmond? Yes!


Thanks for joining us. Great pleasure, thank you. Now, the


independence referendum is over, the next big electoral test is a general


election. It is just over seven months away. In a moment I will be


talking to Chuka Umunna, but what are the political views of the men


and women fighting to win seats for the Labour Party? The Sunday


Politics has commissioned an exclusive survey of the


Parliamentary candidates. Six out of seven Labour candidates


say that the level of public spending during their last period of


office was about right. 40% of them want a Labour government to raise


taxes to reduce the budget deficit. 18% favour cutting spending. On


immigration, just 15% think that the number coming to Britain is too


high. Only 7% say we generous to immigrants. Three in ten candidates


believe the party relationship with trade unions is not close enough.


Not that we spoke to think it is too close. Or than half of the


candidates say want to scrap the nuclear deterrent, Trident. Four in


five want to nationalise the railways. If they are after a change


of leader, Yvette Cooper was their preferred choice. Chuka Umunna came


in fourth. And he joins me now for the Sunday interview.


Why is Labour choosing so many left-wing candidates? I don't think


I accept the characterisation of candidates being left wing. I don't


think your viewers see politics in terms of what is left and right. I


think they see it in terms of what is right and wrong. Obviously, many


of the things we have been talking about, how we ensure that the next


generation can do better than the last, how we raise the wages of your


viewers, who are currently working very hard but not making a wage they


can live off, that is what they are talking about and that is what the


public will judge them on. But they want to raise taxes, they don't want


to cut public spending, they want to re-nationalise the railways, they


don't think there is too much immigration, they want to scrap


Trident. These are all positions clearly to the left of current party


policy. But that is your characterisation. If you look at our


policy to increase the top rate of tax to 50% for people earning over


?150,000, that is a central position. It is something that


enjoys the support of the majority of the public. Trident? If you talk


to the British public about immigration, yes, there are concerns


about the numbers coming in and out, yes people want to see integration,


yes, people want to see people putting a contribution before they


take out, the people recognise, if you look at our multicultural


nation, we have derived a lot of benefits from immigration. I don't


think your characterisation of those positions, that is your view... It's


not, it is their view. They are saying... You describe it... You


described those positions as left wing positions. I am saying to you


that I actually think a lot of those positions are centrist positions


that would enjoy the support of the majority of your viewers. I don't


think your viewers think the idea of the broadest shoulders bearing the


heaviest burden in forms of tax are going to see it as a way out,


radical principle. They want to scrap Trident, not party policy? It


isn't. I think that 73... Well, we will


have 400 Parliamentary candidates at the time of the next general


election, not including current MPs. This is 73 out of over 400 of them.


I think we also need to treat the survey with a bit of caution. They


are not representative? You are basically quoting the results of a


small percentage of our Parliamentary candidates. It's


pretty safe to say when you look at their views, they might be right or


wrong, that's not my point, it's fairly safe to say that new Labour


is dead? Again, I don't think people see things in terms of gold -- old


or new Labour. We are standing at a Labour Party. We are a great


country, but we have big challenges. We want to make sure that people can


achieve their dreams and aspirations in this country. Too many people are


not in that position. Too many people worry about the prospects of


their children. Too many people do not earn a wage they can live off.


Too many people are worried about the change. We have to make sure we


are giving people a stake in the future. That is a Labour thing, you


want to call it old or new come I don't care. It's a choice between


Labour and the Conservatives in terms of who runs the next


government. That one of your candidate we spoke to things that


the party's relationship with the unions is to close. 30% of them


think it should be closer. You have spoken to 73 out of 400 candidates.


Why should the others be any different? It's a fairly


representative Sample. Many people working on this set are the member


of the union, the National union of journalists. People that came here


to this Conference would have been brought here by trade union members.


Do you think the relationship should be closer? I think it is where it


should be. It should not be closer? I think that trade unions help


create wealth in our country. If you look at some other success stories


we are in the north-west, GM Vauxhall is there because you have


trade unions working in partnership with government and local employees


to make sure we kept producing cars. I'm not asking if unions are good or


bad, I'm asking if Labour should be closer. You are presupposing, by the


tone of your question, that our relationship is a problem. Let's


turn to the English question. Why do you need a constitutional


conversation where you have to discuss whether English people


voting on English matters is unfair? We want to give the regions


and cities in England more voice, but let's get it into perspective,


we have had a situation where the Scottish people, as desired buying


rich people, have to remain part of the UK -- by English people. What is


the answer to the question? I don't want to get to a situation where


people have voted for solidarity where you have a prime ministers


talking about dividing up the UK Parliament. Let me put this point


you. Most Scottish voters think it is unfair that Scottish MPs get to


vote on English matters. That comes out in Scottish polls. Why don't you


see it as unfair? If the Scots see it as unfair, why don't you? This is


an age-old conundrum that has been around for 100 years and it's not so


simple. You're talking about making a fundamental change to the British


constitution on a whim. It's not just an issue, in respect of


Scottish MPs. As a London MP, I can vote on matters relating to the


transport of England and transport is a devolved matter in London. In


Wales, there are a number of competencies that Welsh MPs can vote


on and they've been devolved to them. So with all of these different


votes, you will exclude different MPs? I think the solution is not


necessarily to obsess about what is happening between MPs in


Westminster. That turns people politics. We need to devolve more. I


think we should be giving the cities and regions of England more autonomy


in the way that we are doing in Scotland, but I've got to say,


Andrew, it's dishonourable and in bad faith for the Prime Minister to


now seek to link what he agreed before the referendum to this issue


of English votes for English MPs. That is totally dishonourable and in


bad faith. You have promised to devolve more tax powers to Scotland.


What would they be? This is being decided at the moment. I cannot give


you the exact detail of what the tax powers would be. Could you give us a


rough idea? There is a White Paper being produced before November and


there will be draft legislation put forward in January. Your leader has


vowed that this will happen. And you haven't got a policy? You can't tell


us what the tax powers will be? I can't tell you on this programme


right now. But we have accepted the principle on further devolution on


tax, spending on welfare and we will have further details in due course.


Your leader promised to maintain the Barnett Formula for the foreseeable


future. Why is that fair when it enshrines more per capita spending


for Scotland than it does for Wales, which is poorer, and more than many


of the poorer regions in England get? Why is that fair? We have said


that in terms of looking at go -- local government spending playing


out in this Parliament, we have looked at what the government has


done which is having already deprived communities having money


taken away from them and wealthier communities are getting more. We


accept that the Barnett Formula has worked well. How has it works well?


There is a cross parliamentary consensus as they don't know what to


do about it. Why has it works well, when Wales, clearly loses out? I'm


not sure by I accept that when you look at overall underspend --


government spending. It is per capita spending in Scotland, which


is way ahead of per capita spending in Wales, but per capita incomes in


Scotland are way ahead of Wales. Why is that fair Labour politician? We


have said we want to have more equitable distribution. You haven't,


you have said you will keep the Barnett Formula. I'm not sure


necessarily punishing Scotland is the way to go. The way that this


debate is going, what message does it send to the Scottish people? I


want to be clear, I am delighted with the result we have got. The


unity and solidarity where maintaining across the nations of


the United Kingdom. All of this separatist talk, setting up


different nations of the UK against each other goes completely against


what we've all been campaigning for over the last two years, and we


shouldn't have any truck with it. Coming onto the announcement on the


minimum wage, you would increase it by ?1 50 to take it to ?8, which


would be over five years. That is all you are going to do over five


years. Have you worked out how much of this increase will be clawed back


in taxation and fewer benefits? Work has been done on it. How much? I


can't give you an exact figure. The policy pays for itself. The way we


have looked at this, we looked at the government figures, and if


people are earning more, they would therefore be paying more in income


tax and they will be receiving less in benefit and will pay out less in


tax credits, so we are confident that this will pay for itself. I'm


not asking about the pavement, I'm asking what it means for low paid


workers will stop they will get an extra 30p per hour -- about the


payment. How much of the 30p to they get to keep? In terms of what they


get in the first instance, somebody on the minimum wage now, with our


proposal, would get in the region of ?3000 a year more than they are at


the moment. That is before tax and benefits. How much do they keep? I


cannot give you an exact figure. Why don't you give me an exact figure if


you've done the modelling? We are talking about some of the lowest


paid people in the country, and I would suggest to you that going down


this route, they would face a marginal rate of tax of 50 or 60%


and they will not keep most of this increase you are talking about. I


don't accept your figures. But you haven't got any of your own. I just


don't have any in my head I can give you right now. Don't you think out


policies before you announce them? Of course we think our policies


before we announce them but we are confident people have more in their


pocket and will be better off with the changes proposed, and we are


also seeking to incentivise employers to pay a living wage as


well. At the end of the day, as I said, the economy is recovering,


great, but we know, at the moment, it's still not delivering for a huge


number of your viewers and we're determined to do something about it.


The status quo is not an option. And even joining me. Twice in three


days. You can't have too much of a good thing. I am mad. He said that,


not me. It's just gone 11.35, you're


watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland


who leave us now for Coming up here in twenty minutes,


we'll be joined by John Prescott to talk about the challenge facing


Labour as their conference starts First though,


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


in Northern Ireland. Well, the people


of Scotland have had their say, but there's little doubt that


the tail-end of the independence debate lit the touch paper on the


explosive question of what's next. Could a potential revolution


in devolution mean more fiscal powers for Northern Ireland and,


if so, are we ready to take That's what I'll be asking


my political guests of the day - Sammy Wilson from the DUP and


Sinn Fein's Daithi McKay. As the political focus moves to


the Labour Party conference in Manchester,


we'll have the latest on Labour's proposals for constitutional reform


and what it means for us. Plus, just how worried are Scots


about the divisions Sadly, it will be a far more radical


movement now. We didn't want that. And we'll hear live


from our political correspondent Gareth Gordon in Glasgow later


in the programme. So, Scotland voted No by a wide


enough margin to lead the SNP leader, Alex Salmond, to stand down


as First Minister and party leader. But that was far


from an end to the matter. Already a major rift has seemingly


opened up between the Conservative and Labour parties on devolving


additional powers to Scotland. Mr Salmond has said No voters were


?tricked? by a late vow of more devolved powers, and he accused


the three main party leaders of ?reneging? on the pledge they made


days before Thursday's referendum. Amidst all the uncertainty, what we


can be sure is that months of debate about what future devolution in the


UK will look like will now follow. With me this morning in our 'guest


of the day' chairs to share their thoughts are the DUP's Sammy Wilson


and Daithi McKay from Sinn Fein. Daithi McKay, you have been very


clear that you want to see more powers devolved to Stormont as part


of this constitutional discussion. Your critics say we can't even cope


with the powers that we have, the last thing we need is more power. It


is important to put this into context. The reason we are facing a


lot of difficulty at the moment is that we don't have these powers. The


Conservatives did budget for the next four years, and that is why we


have the pressures we have on public services. They want is to dovetail


into their agenda to do away with the welfare state. It is not about


doing away with the welfare system, it is welfare reform, that is


different. It is ideological from the Conservatives. The reason why we


such a big Yes vote in Scotland is because of that conservative agenda.


People here want to see local politicians take responsibility from


for local issues. They put the south-east of London is the most


important place. People want us to see -- people want to see us taking


those decisions. Sinn Fein will even help us do the things we have


promised already. We would be mad to devolve more powers to the Northern


Ireland assembly, even if it was the right thing to do, which it is not.


Why is it not fundamentally the right thing to do? Two reasons.


Daithi McKay has said that by having more taxation powers delivered to


Northern Ireland we could get out of having to do the welfare reform


cuts. The fact of the matter is any taxation powers we have asked for in


Northern Ireland have not been to increase taxes, it has been to


decrease taxes. Pretty nice saying that he would love to have income


tax devolved so that we could dip our hands deeper into peoples


pockets and take more income tax of them? Is that the plan? In terms of


taxation, in terms of economic growth, we always underperform.


Because the taxation rates here are not set. We would like to see the


abolition of the airport tax duty for example. That would all create


jobs and create more tax revenues. Corporation tax, all these taxes are


set for Britain. Wendy said he would we will see greater economic growth,


the creation of more jobs, the better outcomes in terms of public


services. You have the capacity to charge people for water. That is a


way of generating income. Nobody is prepared to do that because it might


be unpopular. That is exactly the point I am making. If Daithi McKay


wants to see more tax powers devolved to Northern Ireland, let


them be honest with people, which taxes would he put up to finance all


the fantasy projects that Sinn Fein wish to have? Nobody has ever raised


their hand to bid up attacks in Northern Ireland and this idea that


every tax cut can be self financing is ludicrous. I think anybody who


knows anything about taxation policy will know it is not true. Anybody he


has responsibility for taxation matters should get about increasing


them in some areas and decreasing them and others. The reason Sammy is


not interested in this is because he is a Unionist, is because he wants


to kowtow to the British government in advance of the West and


selection. It is because I have some economic common sense.


So, just how deep are the divisions uncovered


There was minor trouble involving Yes and No supporters in Glasgow


A loyalist element is said to have been involved.


And now there are fears Scotland could be heading for problems


around the nature and scale of devolution, perhaps more


Our political correspondent Gareth Gordon sent this report


We have one as a nation. The whole world watched Scottish people


celebrate further freedom. If political passion is your thing, you


have come to the right place. George Square in the heart of Glasgow, the


city that voted to leave the union to the annoyance of summer. --


some. Please were the scenes in the Square on Friday night. Rival


crowds, a few arrests, but no serious trouble. The referendum


itself may be over but it is pretty clear in Glasgow at least that the


debate is just beginning and that many of the issues which have been


opened up are still very raw. I do worry about the aftermath. Whether


we will be able to find reconciliation between the two


camps, if it will create long-term divisions. Hopefully last I got the


steam out of the argument and people will settle down. We know that


Scotland in Glasgow, things can be very polarised. The hopes of


independence gone? It is just the beginning. Sadly, it will be a far


more radical movement now. Believe me, that is what is going to happen.


We didn't want that. I counted David lives in Edinburgh but is originally


from Northern Ireland. He also says that the referendum opened up


divisions. I voted No because fundamentally a don't agree with


nationalism, I see it as an outdated concept not belonging to the


century. On top of that, the economic arguments put forward were


implausible, in my view. It has been very unsettling. The campaign for


the most part has been good-natured, but it has gone on for such a long


time and over the last month it became particularly acrimonious and


divisive, so I'm glad it has come to an end. Ash performed to help people


when it came to Northern Ireland deciding. The terms of the same, but


the meaning behind those terms are very different. There have been a


few unhelpful comments by certain people on the No side calling


internationalist movement. Don't get me wrong, there are people who are


very much nationalists in the movement, but it has been glossed


over the amount of support that has been from people from Northern


Ireland, Wales and England, that is a civic nationalism. It is about


democracy, not about identity. It rejected independence, but Scotland


and its counterparts in the rest of the UK have more decision still to


make. Gareth Gordon joins me now


from Glasgow. Senior politicians from


across Scotland will gather in St Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh


this morning .The show of unity comes despite


continuing disagreement over how the process of devolving more powers


to Scotland should be handled. But as we saw in


your report people are worried about This was probably the most tourist


debate we have seen in these islands for decades. People were energised


to get their names on the voting register and vote. If you 5% of the


population went to vote. It was a major debate. You can't expect one


of those polling stations close for that old to be put back in a box.


When we go onto the streets with camera to talk about politics,


people often shy away from us. Yesterday George Square and almost


had to beat them. At 1.I had to say, for my cute! Everybody had something


to say. -- at one stage. I think this debate will go on for a long


time to come. The divisions have not gone away. You had people from both


sides wanting to talk to you. It remains a divided city. Will it be


able to park that division and move on. Glasgow, let's remember, on


Thursday devoted to leave the UK, as did Don B. -- Dundee. Senior Labour


politicians today have been warning that the vote cannot be ignored and


the promises that were made cannot be put back in the box and forgotten


about. The West of Scotland is divided along religious lines,


sectarian lines. You a bit of that, night in George Square on Friday. It


wasn't too bad, we don't want overstated, but those tensions have


always been below the surface. People are not surprised that that


happened, perhaps they are surprised it didn't happen before. They are


worried that it might happen again. What has happened in Scotland as a


catalyst for a much broader discussion about UK wide


devolution. We will be talking about that later in the programme. To what


extent are people there are aware of the fact that in Northern Ireland


and people in Wales and across England are looking in on this


debate and expecting to be a part of it? It has certainly been mentioned.


All politics is local. The Scots are pretty obsessed by their own


situation here, more so than what is happening in England and the rest of


the UK. I think some of them are looking on quite suspiciously. Some


people are sceptical about what is going on. Alex Salmond is claiming


already that the voters here have been tricked. Whether that is true


or not we will see in the coming days and weeks. The quiet majority,


the people who voted to remain in the UK, not all of them want more


powers for Scotland. I think the political establishment in Scotland


will expect that to happen. Sammy Wilson, clearly people are still


continuing to debate the issue of Scottish independence on the street


even though the vote is over and there was a clear margin against it.


That 45% of people who wanted independence and haven't got it will


not go away. There is a future constitutional discussion to cool


place -- to take place. How do you put the genie back in the box? Adam


think you can. The debate got better as went on. We sought the nasty side


of nationalism. Individual voters were afraid to put up notices.


Businessmen being intimidated and told they would be looked at after


the vote was over and so on. Relatively speaking, it was a pretty


good democratic exchange. They won't minor issues. The nasty side of


nationalism will leave a legacy. The single issue like that it is easy to


motivate people, rather than with the general run of politics,


especially when it is identified as party politics. If the debate on


that particular issue is going to continue. I think it will be


divisive. Even with the way in which Alex Salmond is trying to keep it


going with pointing to UK politicians and saying they will


renege on their promises. We haven't even had Westminster sitting against


a hike and he said that? There is clear blue water between what the Ed


saying and the Prime Minister is saying. Ed Miliband is taking the


opportunity to have a poke at the Conservatives on this. There seems


to be really a difference in the timing of getting things three.


Those timings will be important. Daithi McKay, can you put the genie


back in the box? What Sammy has outlined is that the scaremongering


will continue even after the resultant Scotland. Scotland had a


great democratic debate and I would love to see the same here, a mature


debate with little to no scaremongering and people can


empower themselves as opposed to leaving the politics to the


politicians. Are you talking for a border poll? Yes, we would like to


see one. How would that be anything other than another sideshow? It


would lead to a public debate, as to where our future with life. How


would that be helpful? We can't resolve welfare reform, things like


flags, parades and the past, why would we want to start a right about


a border poll? The reason why we can't resolve those issues is


because there is British government interference in those issues. What


we need to do is have that border poll so people can have that debate.


No border poll as far as you are concerned? It is her diversionary


tactic by Sinn Fein. Their incompetence in the Assembly is


stripping them of everyday. A border poll would be a good way of


diverting attention from their own incompetence. He should bear in mind


that in recent polls even 25% of the room supporters say that they


wouldn't support a united Ireland. Now, with a look at the rest


of the political week in 60 seconds, Ian Paisley was buried in County


Down after a private service at his home. In a newspaper interview his


son described his father's critics as pygmies in his shadow. Sinn Fein


protested as Drew Nelson became Deputy Chief Constable saying the


selection process was flawed. Belfast councillor as well as Drew


Nelson became Deputy Chief Constable saying the selection process was


flawed. Belfast councillors were asked to take a. There is no


appetite for its. The executive received a gift from an American of


?58 million to promote education plans here. He wants to see peace


and do that through his giving in order to bring about change. After


Scotland said No, difference of opinion for more devolved powers for


Stormont. Things have changed utterly and we need the British


government to deliver. If you have those powers, you can't have


deadlock in your executive. So, no sooner is the independence


referendum over than the focus shifts to the next big electoral


test, the General Election, which The Labour Party is first out of


the blocks with its party conference Stephen Walker is there and when I


caught up with him earlier I asked him about the mood among delegates


after last week's Scottish vote. I think it is a mixture of delight


and relief. People here are delighted that Scotland has voted to


remain part of the UK, delighted the way that it went, but there is


relief because a number of days back in April came out saying that the


Yes were ahead. There were ahead. Scotland would the union. There is a


fundamental understanding that many people in Scotland have voted for


change. People have voted for more powers for Scotland and the need to


get on the bits agenda revolving devolution. There is an


understanding here is that there is a lot of work still to be done. UK


politics has become consumed with the future of devolution. Will it


dominate the agenda this week? It will. The whole issue of devolution


and constitutional change, well it is something that interests


journalists and academics, it is not often interest normal people. It is


now something that is on the front page of the newspapers. This issue


of devolution will dominate this conference. People will be talking


about what kind of powers we expect to see in Wales, Northern Ireland


and Scotland. There is a fundamental difference between Labour and the


Conservatives. David Cameron give a press conference in Downing Street


last Friday morning when he talked about linking changes in Scotland to


what Scottish MPs can do at Westminster. Labour have a


completely different position, they want change to go ahead and not


linked to this whole issue of Scottish MPs at Westminster. Labour


want this constitutional convention. There is a fundamental difference


between Labour and the Conservatives. The SNP are accusing


the Westminster parties of reneging on the deal. The whole issue of


devolution is not on the front page. In the meantime, we'll Northern


Ireland featured to any great extent in the conference agenda? I think it


will. Because of a direct result of what has been happening in Scotland.


Northern Ireland is on the agenda every year but because of what has


happened there is a greater impetus. Tomorrow we will have a


speech from Ivan Lewis, the Shadow Secretary of State, and he will


mention Scotland. Then this whole ongoing debate about what kind of


powers should be devolved to places like Belfast, Edinburgh and Wales.


Because of what has happened in Scotland, the whole issue of


devolution will be on the agenda. Sammy Wilson, if we have a


constitutional debate about devolution, does that mean that you


could go back as an MP who cannot discuss certain issues on the floor


of the House of Commons? I think it is a possibility. I have some


sympathy with the argument that where there is legislation which


affects only England, why should I as someone has already got those


powers devolved to Northern Ireland have a say in its? It is not always


clear-cut, of course. Let's take HS2, the real three England. That


has implications for the whole of the United Kingdom, shoes should I


have a say on that? Is a matter for our MPs, we don't take our seats.


Welcome back the to Labour conference, where we're joined


by the latest hot new stand-up comedian on the Manchester circuit.


I speak of course of former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.


In between giving tub-thumping speeches to rally


the party faithful this week, he's appearing at the Comedy Store.


He was also of course the man behind the last attempt to solve


Our political panel is with me as well. John, we have got Scottish


votes for Scottish laws, and more Scottish votes for Scottish laws,


why not English votes for English laws? That's an English parliament


in a major constitutional change and that is what has started. I


certainly don't agree with that. I campaign for powers to be given to


the regions. When I first tested it in the Northeast, I lost. Why?


Because they said they were not the same powers you are giving to


Scotland. So, basically, we must do that, decentralised, not just with a


Westminster Parliament. As you know, in 32 years I produce the


alternative. You've kept that for 32 years? I took it off my shelf and


everybody was talking about it now, but they weren't in 1982. This was


my five plan. 200 meetings all around the country -- five-year


plan. You wrote this morning, not 35 years ago, that this was a plot to


turn Westminster into a Tory dominated English parliament. But if


that is how England had voted, it's not a plot, it's democracy. You can


get reform in a more federal structure, and even English


parliament does fit into the federal structure and that is what the


Liberals say, but you need a fairer representation. It might be quite


radical, and we could get rid of the Lord's, and have representation in


the region there. It can't be done in two weeks. Alex Salmond, he's


assuming he has been sold out, and it was less than a week ago they


remain the announcement. We have to get it carried out will stop but


don't connect it to the English parliament that fixes it in their


favour. It may be pretty low politics from David Cameron to come


up with something that was not in the vowel -- a bow on the front page


of the daily record, but if they do not agree with what he said at the


time of the general election, he will say two in which voters, if you


want real protection in England, vote Conservative, and if you want


Scottish MPs deciding on your level of taxation, vote Labour. He is


scared to death of UKIP may have been saying it for a while. In the


constitutional changes have to see what is fair and equitable, the same


with the Barnett fallen -- formula. But what you have to do is get a


fair system. It takes time to discuss it. I was doing a 32 years


ago and nobody wanted to know. We had better start a debate, and don't


mixed up the constitutional type of English parliament with what we are


promising in Scotland. It is about trust and politics. So the turnout


of the north-east regional assembly and they voted against it. The


turnout that the police and crime commissioners was low. How'd you get


people interested in the process and it doesn't feel like a conversation


in smoky rooms and you go back to British people and tell them what


you decided? If you look at the turnout in Scotland whether they


were interested in, now it is phenomenally interesting. It is


about real power, having real influence. What they said to me in


the north-east, they said we know you have an idea for devolution and


you will give us assemblies but it doesn't have the power of Scotland,


but now we are talking about equity, similar distribution of


power and similar resources. The English people are entitled to that.


They have been robbed of it for too long. Labour has long struggled with


what it should do over devolving power to the regions and you came up


with regional assemblies. Ed Miliband has a different idea of


city regions. Aren't they the same idea of yours but without a


democratic accountability? Can we really trust the greater region of


Manchester or Birmingham to deliver if there is not the same kind of


democratic link with the people? I live in whole, and it stops on the


boundary of the Pennines -- the city of Hull. We have city regions from


Labour because I failed in the north-east to get the assemblies in,


and now we have to look at those options. Do you work through city


regions? Mainly in the north, I might say. Even the federal


structure they talk about my be in the North or Midlands with


Birmingham, but there are a number of options and that is where I


believe that what the White Paper should do is to put those options


in. Instead of having to put them together, state what you want to do


in the English regions. Leave it to the legislation, which is what will


happen with the Scottish, and once you've agreed it, you do it after.


You have to start the radical debate about giving the English regions,


not centralised in London, but decentralised. Do you need to have a


separate English parliament? Wouldn't it just satisfy the English


if you simply said to MPs, when it's in English matter in the House of


Commons, stop interfering? I would disagree with that. I would say put


the option in the White Paper. The White Paper seems to be talking


about Scotland. If you don't put the commitments to what you want to do


with the English regions, people might say I'm not supporting that.


Put the framework in the White Paper, but a different timetable.


Devolution in this country has been to a different timetable, whether


it's Wales, Northern Ireland. Start looking fundamentally at it and the


Labour Party should be leading the debate. Let's come the no campaign


lost Glasgow. The cradle of British socialism. -- let's come to


something that happened with the referendum as the no campaign lost


Glasgow. Is it a sign that the Labour Party are finding it hard to


what -- hold on to their traditional working class vote question mark its


different in Manchester. They would say it is a message about


decentralisation. If we change the message a bit maybe. We have been


thinking that now it is that either the Labour Party to recognise it is


not the old message and old areas that will win it. I remember


covering the 1997 referendum in Scotland and you gave a tub thumping


speech in a big hall in Hamilton and you really connected. Obviously it


was a different referendum because that was about a parliament, not


independence and Alex Salmond was on your side, but you, and Ingush MP,


an English minister, connected to the core Labour voters in a way that


Ed Miliband is failing to do -- an English MP. You make a fair point.


In the big rally, I had to point out I was Welsh. Enough of this. Get on


with it. What I was saying there was that I supported you, as I did for


30 odd years when Labour MPs were against any thinker Scotland. I


support you, but I expect you to come in with your Scottish MPs and


make sure the English get their share of the powers and resources


and that is what that speech was about, and by God, it's as relevant


today as it was then. I haven't got any Scottish MPs, I live in


Knightsbridge. Did you get the vote? No. What would you have done? I


can't tell you. You would have voted yes, come on. I'm interested. What


do you want to hear from the speech by Ed Miliband? People are wondering


about where Labour stands. There are many issues we have flown around,


and we've done the discussion just now. What he has got to do where he


started off on the minimum wage. You are trying to deal with those left


behind. Those are the bottom. That is the Labour message. The National


Health Service is our creation and we have to say it will be saved. If


you can save all of these bankers with all the money and say you


haven't got the money for the NHS, say where we stand. That will be the


priority. The third one, housing. I have had a revolutionary idea that


you can buy a house without a deposit and without the interest or


paying the stamp duty, and you buy it by rent. The government gives


?150 billion guaranteed housing for up to 600,000. Get down to ordinary


people who can use their rent to buy the house. It's happening in the


north-east. Why are they not listening to you? You have said more


to connect with ordinary people in three minutes than we will probably


hear in an hour. I've been telling them, made, and we have a commission


coming out. People don't want commissions, they want action. I


say, I know what we do, housing, health, the people. That is our


language. That is why we are Labour. That a lot of people run away. I


think in Glasgow, they wondered about that. If you turn up on the


same three platforms, and I know it's a critical thing to say, they


think in Scotland it is a coalition. I don't like coalitions. It looks


like a coalition, didn't it? Maybe it was saved because Rupert Murdoch


started the The Times about the polls and he couldn't even get the


sun to say that they wanted. We haven't got time. I wondered how


long it would take is to get to repot Murdoch. You beat the record.


-- to Rupert Murdoch. Labour is quite behind on the economy, and


people are looking at Labour, trying to work out if they can trust you to


the stewards of the economy given 2010. Under Labour 's plans there is


20 billion of cuts to make in the next Parliament. Will we hear


anything about that? It is about the proportion of debt to GDP. I know it


sounds historic, but our debt when we came in in 1997 was a proportion


of GDP, and you must know this, and that was less than Thatcher's. Why


did we get done on debt? You guys run around saying a lot about it,


but the fact is it was worse under Thatcher. Thatcher is now seen as a


hero. If you look at the debt, it is still a problem. Gordon Brown did an


awful lot to solve those problems, but they were still left with us.


What we have to have is a sensible discussion like we had on devolution


and now we are talking about finances. Let's look at the public


sector debt and the price we pay. We need to be putting the record


straight. The problem is they tell me, John, we have to look to the


future not the past. We are getting screwed on the past and we have to


change it and perhaps Gordon Brown coming in could do something.


Finishing on the future, when we did a poll of the Labour candidates, you


were watching on the big screen, when it came up that their favourite


to succeed Ed Miliband was Yvette Cooper, why did you shout no! That


is alive. -- alive. -- that is not true. I know resistance is not


strong. What did that mean? You can't get away with anything at


a Conference, John. I was dropping comments them to pick up everywhere,


I do not wear -- nowhere they got that one from. Good to have you


back. Round of applause for former Deputy Prime Minister. That's it for


today. Don't applaud them, they are useless.


my guests. I'll be back here at Labour conference for the Daily


11:30am tomorrow when we'll bring you live coverage of the speech by


We're here all week, and next Sunday you can find us in Birmingham for


Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.


Download Subtitles