10/11/2013 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gary Robertson with the latest political news. With deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman, UKIP leader Nigel Farage, and a look at calls to remove the Sun's Page 3.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/11/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Ed Miliband's on


the war path, over pay day loans, your energy bill and what he calls


the bedroom tax. His spinners say he's "resurgent",


though the polls do not show it. We will be talking to his right-hand


woman, Labour's Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman.


From resurgent to insurgent. Nigel Farage won an award this week for


being a political insurgent. We will be talking to the UKIP leader.


And Harriet hates, hates, hates Page three. She wants rid of it, but what


do you think? We sent Adam out with some balls. It is a better harmless.


What do you think of people who feel it is a exploitive?


And on Sunday Politics Scotland... As BAE announce job losses from its


yards at Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth, we ask could this be the way


ahead for the shipbuilding industry in Scotland?


Kenobi and R2D2. Congratulations on your new jobs. We'll miss you. Nick


Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh. First, the talks with Iran in


Geneva. They ended last night without agreement despite hopes of a


breakthrough. America and its allies didn't think Iran was prepared to go


far enough to freeze its nuclear programme. But some progress has


been made and there's to be another meeting in ten days' time, though at


a lower level. The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, had this


to say a little earlier. On the question of, or will it happen in


the next few weeks? There is a good chance of that. We will be trying


again on 20th, 21st of November and negotiators will be trying again. We


will keep an enormous amount of energy and persistence behind


solving this. Will that be a deal which will please everyone? No, it


will not. Compromises will need to be made. I had discussions with


Israeli ministers yesterday and put the case for the kind of deal we are


looking the case for the kind of deal we are


interests of the whole world, including


interests of the whole world, the world, to reach a diplomatic


agreement we can be confident in in this issue. This otherwise will


threaten the world with nuclear proliferation and conflict in the


future. The interesting thing about this is that it seems


future. The interesting thing about prepared to go far enough over the


Iraq heavy water plutonium reactor it is building. The people who took


the toughest line - the French. France has always had a pretty tough


line on Iran. They see it as a disruptive influence in Lebanon. I


am reasonably optimistic a deal will be done later this month when the


talks reconvene. Western economic sanctions have had such an impact on


Iran domestic league. They have pushed inflation up to 40%.


Dashes-macro domestically. The new president had a campaign pledge


saying, I will deal with sanctions. I actually think, by the end of this


year, we will see progress in these talks. Should we be optimistic? The


year, we will see progress in these next round of talks will be at


official level. The place to watch will be Israel. The language which


has been coming out of there is still incredibly angry, incredibly


defensive. They do not want a deal at all. Presumably John Kerry has to


go away and tried to get Israel to be quiet about it, even if they


cannot be happy about it. They cannot agree to a deal which allows


the Iraq reactor with plutonium heavy water. You do not need that


with a peaceful nuclear power programme will stop that is why the


Israelis are so nervous. If there is an international deal, Israel could


still bomb that but it would be impossible. The French tactics are


interesting. It says the French blocked it in part because they are


trying to carry favour with Israel but also the Gulf Arab states, who


are really nervous about and Iranians nuclear capability. Who is


that? Saudi Arabia. Newsnight had a story saying that Pakistan is


prepared to provide them with nuclear weapons. You are right about


Saudi Arabia. They are much more against this deal than Israel. Who


is Herman van Rompuy's favourite MEP? It is probably not Nigel


Farage. He plummeted to the bottom of the EU president's Christmas card


list after comparing him to a bank clerk with the charisma of a damp


rag. And he's been at it again this week. Have a look. Today is November


the 5th, a big celebration festival day in England. That was an attempt


to blow up the Houses of Parliament with dynamite and destroy the


Constitution. You have taken the Dahl, technocratic approach to all


of these things. What you and your colleagues save time and again - you


talk about initiatives and what you are going to do about unemployment.


The reality is nothing in this union is getting better. The accounts have


not been signed off for 18 years. I am now told it is 19 and you are


doing your best to tone down any criticism. Whatever growth figures


you may have, they are anaemic. Youth unemployment in the


Mediterranean is over 50% in several states. You will notice there is a


rise in opposition dashed real opposition. Much of it ugly


opposition, not stuff that I would want to link hands with. And Nigel


Farage joins me now. Let me put to you what the editor of the Sun had


to say. He says, UKIP will peak at the European election and then it


will begin to get marginalised as we get closer to 2015 because there is


now that clear blue water between Labour and the Tories. What do you


say to that? There may be layered blue water on energy pricing but on


Eastern Europe, there is no difference at all. When Ed Miliband


offers the referendum to match Cameron, even that argument on


Europe will be gone. The one thing that will keep UKIP strong, heading


towards 2015, is if people think in some constituencies we can win. I


cannot sit here right now and say that will be the case. If we get


over the hurdle of the European elections clearly, I think there


will be grounds to say that UKIP can win seats in Westminster. You are


going to run? Without a shadow of a doubt. I do not know which


constituency. The welcome I got in Edinburgh was not that friendly.


Edinburgh is not everything in Scotland. I think we have a


realistic chance of winning those elections. If we do that, we will


have the momentum behind us. You might be the biggest party after the


May elections. The National front is likely to do very well in France as


well. They have won the crucial by-election in the South of France.


Have you talked about joining full season in Parliament? The leader has


tried to take the movement into a different direction than her father.


The man she beat, to become leader, actually attended the BNP


conference. The problem she has with her party and we have with her party


is that anti-Semitism is too deep and we will not be doing a deal with


the French national government. You can guarantee you will not be


joining such groups. I can guarantee that. Let's move on to Europe. Let's


accept that the pro-Europeans exaggerate the loss of jobs that


would follow the departure of Britain from the UK. Is there no


risk of jobs whatsoever? No risk whatsoever. There is no risk at all.


There have been some weak and lazy arguments put around about this. We


will go on doing business - go on doing trade with Europe. We will


have increased opportunities to do trade deals with the rest of the


world and they will create jobs. The head of Nissan, the head of Hitachi


and CBI many other voices in British business, when they all expressed


concern about the potential loss of jobs and incoming investment, we


should just ignore them. With Nissan, the BBC News is making this


a huge story. The boss did not say what was reported. He said there was


a potential danger to his future investment. They have already made


the investments. They have built the plant in Sunderland, which they say


is operating well. We should be careful of what bosses of big


businesses say. This man said they may have two leaves Sunderland if we


did not join the euro. I do not take that seriously. As for the CBI, they


wanted us to join the euro and now they do not. Even within the CBI,


there is a significant minority saying, we do not agree with what


the CBI director-general is saying. The former boss of the organisation


is saying we need a referendum and we need a referendum soon. It


depends on the renegotiation. There is not the uniformity. What we are


beginning to see in the world, is, manufacturing and small businesses


are a lot more voices saying, the costs of membership outweigh any


potential benefit. If you look at the polls, if Mr Cameron does


repatriate some powers and he joins with Labour, the Lib Dems, the


Nationalists in Scotland and Wales, most of business, all of the unions


to say we should stay in, you are going to lose, aren't you? In 1975,


the circumstances were exactly the same. Mr Wilson promised a


renegotiation and he got very little. The establishment gathered


around him and they voted for us to stay in. I do not think that will


happen now. The scales have fallen. We do not want to be governed by


Herman Van Rompuy and these people. These people are Eurosceptic but


they do not seem to feel strongly enough about it that they are going


to defy all the major parties they vote for, companies that employ


them, unions they are members of. I am absolutely confident there will


be a lot voices in business saying, we need to take this opportunity to


break free, give ourselves a chance of a low regulation lowball trader.


-- global trade. In 1970 53 small publications said to vote yes. I am


not contemplating losing. The most important thing is to get the


referendum. If UKIP is not strong, there will not be a referendum.


Earlier in the year, your party issued a leaflet about the remaining


sample parents being able to come to this country. The EU will allow 29


million Bulgarians and remaining is to come to the UK. That is


technically correct but we both know that is not the case. It is an open


door to these people. Why take the risk? By make out there are 29


million people? I stand by that verdict. It is an open door. 29


million are not going to come. They can if they want. Also 29 million


people from France can come. After these countries have joined, we will


do another leaflet saying that Mr Cameron wants to open the door to 70


million people from Turkey. That is scaremongering. I would not say


that. We have a million young British workers between 16 and 74


without work. A lot of them want work and we do not need another


massive oversupply in the unskilled labour market. Why did you have such


a bad time on question Time this week? The folk that did not buy your


anti-immigration stick. Do you think that group of people in the room was


representative of the voters of Boston? What would make you think it


was unrepresentative? When the county council elections took place


this year in Boston, of the seven seats, UKIP won five and almost won


the other two. I don't think that audience reflected that, but that


doesn't matter. How an audience is put together, how a panel is put


together, on one programme, it doesn't mean much at all. It shows


that your anti-immigrant measure doesn't fly as easily as you hoped


it would? The opinion polls which will be launched on Monday that we


are conducting and nearing completion, they show two things.


Firstly, an astonishing number of people who think it's irresponsible


and wrong to open the doer to Romania and Bulgaria, secondly and


crucially, a number of people whose vote in the European elections and


subsequent general elections may be determined by the immigration


issues. This does matter. It would be the perfect run group the


European elections in May for you if a lot of Bulgarians and remainians


flooded in. You would like that to happen? I think it will happen.


Whether I like it or not, it will happen. You think it will be good


for you, it will stir things up? If you say to people in poor countries,


you can come here, get a job, have a safety net of a benefits system,


claim child allowance for your kids in Bucharest, people will come You


are ready with the arguments already? You will be disappointed if


only ten turn up? Whether lots come or not we should. Taking the risk


and yes, we are going to make it a major issue in the European


election. Let's leave it there. Thank you very much, Nigel Farage.


The summer of 2013 was not good for Ed Miliband, with questions over his


leadership, low ratings and complaints about no policies. He


bounced back with a vengeance at the Labour Conference in September,


delivering a speech which this week won the spectator political speech


of the year aword. In that speech he focussed on the cost-of-living and


promised a temporary freeze on energy prices. Even said this. The


next election isn't just going to be about policy. It's going to be about


how we lead and the character we show. I've got a message for the


Tories today. If they want to have a debate, about leadership and


character, be my guest And if you want to know the difference between


me and David Cameron, here is an easy way to remember it. When it was


Murdoch v the McCanns, he took the side of Murdoch. When it was the


tobacco lobby versus the cancer charities, he took the side of the


tobacco lobby. When the millionaires wanted a tax cut as people pay the


bedroom tax, he took the side of the millionaires. A come to think of it,


here is an easier way to remember it. David Cameron was a Prime


Minister who introduced the bedroom tax. I'll be the Prime Minister who


repeals the bedroom tax There we go, that will go down with the party


faithful on Tuesday. There will be a debate on the bedroom tax. Labour's


Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, joints me now. Let's begin with the


bedroom tax or bedroom subsidy. Nearly 11% of people who've come off


Housing Benefits all together after their spare room subsidy was


stopped, isn't that proof that reform was necessary? No. I think


that the whole way that the bet room tax has been attempted to be


justified is completely wrong. What it's said is that it will actually


help take people off the waiting lists by putting them into homes


that have been vacated by people who've downsized by being


incentivised by the bedroom tax, so basically if you are a council


tenant or Housing Association tenant in a property with spare bedrooms,


then because the penalty is imposed, you will move to a smaller property.


That is the justification for it. But actually, something like 96% of


the people who're going to be hit by the bedroom tax, there isn't a


smaller property for them to move into. I understand that. Therefore


they are, like the people in my constituency, if they have got one


spare bedroom, they are hit by ?700 a year extra to pay and that is


completely unfair As a consequence of people losing the subsidy for


their spare room, they have decided to go out and get work and not


depend on Housing Benefit at all? 11% of them. What's wrong with that?


Well, they are going to review the way 2 the bedroom tax is working.


What is wrong with that? But that's not working. That's the result of


Freedom of Information, 141 councils provided the figures, 25,000 who've


come off benefits, of the 233,000 affected, it's about 11%. These


people were clearly able to get a job was having the Housing Benefit


in the first place? But of course the people who're on the benefits


who're not in work are always looking for work and many of them


will find work which is a good thing, but for those who don't find


work, or who find work where it's low-paid and need help with their


rent, it's wrong to penalise them on the basis of the fact that their


family might have grown up and moved away and so you have either got to


move out of your home, away from your family and your neighbourhood,


or you've got to stay where you are and, despite the fact that you are


low-paid or unemployed, you have got to find an extra ?700 a year because


of your rent. So it's very unfair The Government that was


commissioning independent research on the impact of this work change


and welfare policy, particularly on the impact on the most vulnerable,


some of which you have been talking about there, shouldn't they have


waited until you have got the independent research, that


independent investigation before determining your policy? No. In


fact, the Government should have waited until they'd have done their


independent research before they bought into effect something and


imposed it on people in a way which is really unfair. They could have


known. Why didn't you wait? What they could have done is, they could


have asked councils, are people going to be able to Manifest into


smaller homes if we impose the bedroom tax and the answer from


councils and Housing Associations would have been no, they can't move


into smaller homes because which haven't got them there. They should


have done the evaluation before they introduced the policy. We are


absolutely clear and you can see the evidence, people are falling into


rent arrears. Many people, it's a terrifying thing to find that you


can't pay your rent, and some of the people go to payday loan companies


to get loans to pay their rent. It is very, very unfair. The


justification for it, which is people will move, is completely


bogus. There aren't places for them to go. On the wider issue of welfare


reform, a call for the TUC showed that voters support the Government's


welfare reforms, including a majority of Labour voters. Why are


you so out of touch on welfare issues, even with your own


supporters? Nobody wants to see people who could be in a job


actually living at the taxpayers' expense. That's why we have said


that we'll introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee, so that if you are a


young person who's been unemployed for a year, you will have to take a


job absolutely have to take a job, and if you have been unemployed as


somebody over 25, there'll be a compulsory thing after two years of


unemployment. So if you have been on welfare two years? So the main issue


about the welfare bill actually is people who're in retirement who need


support. We have said for the richest pensioners, they shouldn't


have to pay their winter fuel allowance. My point wasn't abouts


the sub stance, it's about how you don't reflect public opinion --


substance. The Parliamentary aid said the political backlog of


benefits and social security is "not yet one that we have won. Labour


must accept that they are not convincing on these matters,". Well,


redo have to convince people and explain the policies we have got and


the view we take. So, for example, for pensioners, who're well off, we


are saying they don't need the Winter Fuel Payment that. 's me


saying to you and us saying to people in this country, we do think


that there should be that tightening. For young people, who've


been unemployed, they should be offered jobs but they've got to take


them. So yes, we have to make our case. OK. The energy freeze which we


showed there, on the speech, as popular. The living wage proseles


have been going down well as well. Why is Labour's lead oaf the


Conservatives being cut to 6% in the latest polls? Ed Miliband's own


personal approval rating's gotten worse. Why is that? I'm not going to


disdues ins and outs of weekly opinion polls with you or anybody


else because I'm not a political commentator, but let me say to you


the facts of what's happened since Ed Miliband's been leader of the


Labour Party. We have got 1,950 New Labour councillors, all of those...


But you're... All those who've won their seats against the


Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats and no, Andrew you don't


always get that in opposition. In 1997 after Tony Blair was elected,


the Tories carried on losing council seats. Exceptional circumstances and


these days Mr Blair was 25% ahead in the polls. You were six. The economy


grew at an annual rate of 3% in the third quarter just gone. Everybody,


private and public forecasters now saying that Britain in this coming


year will grow faster than France, Italy, Spain, even Germany will grow


faster. Your poll ratings are average when the economy was


flatlining, what happens to them when the economy starts to grow?


Well, I've just said to you, I'm not a political commentator or a pundit


on opinion polls. We are putting policies forward and we are holding


the Government to account for what they are doing and we think that


what they did opt economy pulled the plugs from the economy, delayed the


recovery, made it stagnate and we have had three years lost growth. I


understand that, but it's now starting to grow. Indeed. If you are


no political commentator, let me ask you this, you anticipated the


growth, so you switched your line to no growth to this is growth and


living standards are rising. If the economy does grow up towards 3% next


year, I would suggest that living standards probably will start to


rise with that amount of growth. What do you do then? We have not


switched our line because the economy started to grow. All the way


along, we said the economy will recover, but it's been delayed and


we have had stagnation for far too long because of the economic


policies. We have been absolutely right to understand the concerns


people have and recognise that they are struggling with the


cost-of-living. Sure. And we are right to do that. What kind of


living standards stuck to rise next year? -- start to rise next year. I


hope they will. For 40 months of David Cameron's Prime Ministership,


for 39 of those, wages have risen slower than prices, so people are


worse off. I understand that. You will know that the broader


measurement, real household disposable income doesn't show that


decline because it takes everything into account. Going around the


country, people feel it. They say where's the recovery for me. Living


standards now start to rise? If that happens, what is your next line?


There is a set of arguments about living standards, the National


Health Service, about the problems Health Service, about the problems


that there is in A, which caused -- are caused by the organisation. I


can put forward other lines. All right. Let me ask you one other


question If no newspapers have signed up to the Government-backed


Labour-backed Royal Charter on press regular lace by 2015 and it looks


like the way things are going none will have, if you are in power, will


a Labour Government legislate to make them? They don't have to sign


up to the Royal Charter, that's not the system. What the Royal Charter


does is create a recogniser and basically says it's for the


newspapers to set up their own regulator. They are doing that. My


question is... Let me finish. If they decide to have nothing to do


with the Royal Charter that was decided in Miliband's office in the


wee small hours, will you pass legislation to make them? The


newspapers are currently setting up what they call... I know that,


Harriet Harman. Just let me finish. OK. Because the newspapers are


setting up the independent Press Standards Organisation. Right. If it


is independent, as they say it is, then the recogniser will simply say,


we recognise that this is independent and the whole point is


that, in the past when there's been skaen deals a tend press have really


turned people's lives upside down and the press have said OK we'll


sort things out, leave it to us, then they have sorted things out but


a few years later they have slipped back, all this recogniser will do is


check it once every three years and say yes, you have got an independent


system and it's remained independent and therefore that is the guarantee


things won't slip back. Very interesting. Thank you for that.


That's really interesting that if they get their act right, you won't


force the alternative on them. We want the system as set forward by


Leveson which is not statute and direct regulation. I want to stick


with the press because I want to ask, is this a British institution


or an out-of-date image for a by gone age. The Sun's Page 3 has been


dividing the nation since it first appeared way back in 1970. That's 43


years ago. Harriet Harman's called for it to be removed, so we sent


Adam out to ask whether the topless photographs should stay or go. We


have asked people if page three should stay or go. Page three. What


do you think? Nothing wrong with it at all. I think it is cheap and


exploits women. It is a family newspaper. Should it stay or go? Go.


I will look like the bad guy. It should go. You have changed your


mind. It is free choice. Girls do not have to be photographed. Old men


get the paper just for that. Know when your age does that? Not really.


Dashes-macro know what your age. Page three girls, should they stay


or go? I am not bothered. There are other ways of getting noticed. Page


or go? I am not bothered. There are three of the Sun newspaper every


day, there is a woman with no top on. We got rid of that about 40


years ago in Australia. I am not in favour of censorship. It has been


long enough. It can stay there. What is wrong with it? We want to


encourage children to read the newspapers. I do not want my


children to look at that. It is degrading. Do you think we will see


the day when they get rid of it? Yes, I do. I am wondering if I can


turn this into some kind of a shelter. It is tipping it down. I


think the council should do something about their car parks!


Mother nature, the human body. It should stay. Is some people like it,


that is fine. I have nothing against it. You know what has surprised me,


lots of women saying In Maginot my grandfather opening


the Palin seen media. What do you think about people who


say it should be banned? They are idiots. The Ph.D. On Friday was from


Bedford. What you think of our decision to be on page three? Did


she make Bedford proud? I think it would be pretty hard to make Bedford


Road! So, easily victory for those who think it should stay. Most


people do not appear to clear. I have not argued for it to be


banned. I have disapproved of it since the 1970s. I do not think the


content of newspapers should be subject to subject to anything out


with the laws of the land. However, as someone from outer space arrived


in the 21st-century and saw that as the depiction of women, they would


think that they did not have much of a role in society to play. But the


newspaper does not longer have the political importance of the seals


that it had. Are people not just voting with their feet enemy, the


marketers sorting this out? Until such time as they do not have this


any more, I am entitled to my view that it is outdated and wrong. I am


happy to establish you do not want to ban it, although I think some of


your words many years ago did imply that, but do you think people should


boycott the newspaper? No, I have never said it should be banned. I


have not cold for an official boycott either. The women's


movement, of which I am part of, this is not about a politician


trying to suppress the press, we see that women can do better than taking


their clothes off and flashing their knickers in the newspaper. Why do


you not do something about it? I am, by speaking out about it and


supporting the campaign is for it to be got rid of. To viewers, would you


like to say to them, as long as this is in the newspaper, you should not


buy it. I am not arguing about a boycott of the newspaper. I am


saying to them, wake up to the role of women in society, which you


should be doing. They have changed it industrially, which is where


Ripper murder came from, why can they not in this country? -- report


Murdoch. Good afternoon and welcome to Sunday


Politics Scotland. Coming up on the programme...


The Clyde shipyards are saved from closure, but what is the future for


an industry heavily dependent on military contracts? The politicians


say the shipbuilding industry must diversify to prosper. But how


realistic is that? And how much influence do you have


over politicians? A think tank says decision makers need to listen to a


wider range of opinions. If you have a small group just the elite of


society, making it policy on their own views, and do not engage with


the wider population, you get bad policy.


For shipyard workers on the Clyde and Rosyth and their families it has


been a difficult week. 800 of them will lose their jobs and, of course,


there has been furious debate about whether the contracts for the new


global combat ships will come here if there is a Yes vote in the


referendum. To help provide workers with future job certainty, there


have been calls to diversify the industry and emulate Norway's


renaissance in shipbuilding. With a look at whether that is realistic,


here is Andrew Kerr. The soul of the clay this week has been one of


realism, the other than the spear. -- this beer.


But what about the aspirational view of moving on and relying on


something other than just contracts from the Royal Navy? What


discussions has she had about diversification of work on the River


Clyde? We need to diversify, with nearly procurement as part of that,


but looking also at how we could improve exports. There are other


countries outwith Scotland to do this very well. The Conservative


leader asked what assistance there was for them to compete. Soon, we


may have do rely on contract out with the Royal Navy. If you wanted


to go into the civilian market, you need hundreds of millions of


investment to get the right tools into these yards. Secondly, you


require a very good cooperative relationship between unions and


management. Thirdly, you have to get the right kind of shape, which is


much more difficult. Even in its heyday, the industry went through


its ups and downs. It is certainly a while since big non-Navy vessels


were launched on the quiet. This is the last civilian shipbuilder on the


Clyde. It is hard to believe that the once powerful shipbuilding


industry had been reduced to just one yard. There have been civilian


shipping built here. There were two ferries built for Caledonian


MacBrayne. Unfortunately, the companies latest model is getting


built in Germany. We need shipyards which are resilient. When the market


is not in demand, they need to be able to be resilient in terms of


doing shipped rapier, ship maintenance and if you look at other


industries, the likes of wind farm installation. That is a big ask and


experts agree, but normally is being trumpeted as a place which Scotland


could emulate. 100 ships were built there last year. They have these


special is building oil supply vessels and a large customer base.


Could we do it? It is difficult. It is not something you could not do,


but it is difficult. It requires long-term planning. Shipbuilding


moves enlarge cycles, so there is a need for several different


measures, both from the government and from the private sector.


Professor Hagan said that determination to succeed means the


yards union and government must work together on a long-term plan. Eight


to claim 20 years. The Navy work may be sailing down the river, but


people here will have two cooperate here to recapture some of the past


glories of the Clyde. With me now in the studio is the


Labour MP for Glasgow South West, Ian Davidson and the SNP's Stewart


Maxwell. And from our Edinburgh studio, the Liberal Democrat leader,


Willie Rennie. This debate is now being seen through the prism of the


independence debate. The defence minister said exactly the opposite.


He said contracts could quite acceptably carry on in an


independent Scotland after a yes vote. Clearly, what Alistair Nichols


has been doing this week as scaremongering them into voting no,


on the false promise that this would offer job security. This was not a


word decision. This was the decision of the company along with the


government. The best place in the only place from 2014 on words to


build complex warships will be the Clyde. You have talked about a break


clause about the type 26 frigates if there is a yes vote. How does that


represent the best interests of your constituents? There has not been any


contract awarded. It would've been a great step forward of the ad been


awarded. Talks I have had with ministers and the Ministry of the


defence, they want to take the risk out of this. And this was discussed


with the unions when I put this forward, was to have a break


clause, that in the unlikely event of Scotland voting for separation,


they would be able to pool this back. You are giving comfort to


both. No contract has been awarded. Under my proposal, the shipyards in


Scotland would of had the contract, but the Ministry of Defence would


have the comfort of in the event of separation, they would have the


choice of pulling this back. You should be not representing the


Ministry of Defence, you should be representing Scottish workers. The


problem is that the MoD and the UK Government have quite deliberately


decided that the contract will not be awarded until after the


referendum decision is known. Quite clearly. Would you recommend a break


clause? We should get the design properly constructed before we award


the contract. That would not be until after the referendum. The 2014


referendum is not the date when independence would be declared,


though. But we would know when we were going. Whether we were going to


be an independent country or not. The rest of the UK could decide


whether to continue on its policy of building warships outside of its


entries. Would you encourage the MoD to continue building warships in


Scotland? If I was lucky enough to be a politician in an independent


Scotland, I would fight for Scotland. But I would be dealt a


very difficult hands. I would not be in a very strong position because


the UK does not build a warships outside of its boundary and never


has since the Second World War. Should Maxwell is wrong when he says


Portsmouth will be closed. It will not be closed until after the


referendum, so the shipbuilding capacity in England will remain and


could easily be built back up again. His approach is very complacent. It


is not serving the yards on the Clyde very well. The point is that


without this Article 346 exemption which is used by the Scottish


Government, the UK Government, to allow them to just build a big


warships in the UK, that those contracts would have to go out to


tender, which would be Scotland, Scotland Yard would have to


tender... That is not the case. It is shameful of politicians who are


trying to pretend that Article 346 says that you must build warships


exempt from this procurement build outside your boundaries. That is not


what it says. The decision would be for the UK Government in the


circumstances to decide where is the best place to build it. It does net


send you should now get in your own territory.


# It does not say you should build it in your own territory. You cannot


guarantee that. There is nothing there that you can guarantee. I look


at the defenceman Mr Hu said this and Philip Hammond, the Secretary of


State for defence in the UK Government, who are repeatedly,


repeatedly on Westminster, would he cancel the order -- who was asked


repeatedly. He sensibly refused to say. Yellow like refused to say he


would cancel the order because he has not placed one. He has been


quite deliberate in placing it -- in not placing it. They refused to


place it. What we have to understand is that even if he waited be frowned


through the legalities of it, it is inconceivable that a UK Government,


the longer representing Scotland, would then actually placed orders in


Scotland. Why is it inconceivable? Scotland would not become a threat.


They would have responsibility to protect their own voters and


electorate. They spend money overseas, only when they have


decided that it is not something that they want as a sovereign


capability. The reality is that if the placed this order on the Clyde,


it would kill off Portsmouth. The UK would then have no further


capability for building complex warships. They have said that they


want to have that. The only way of having it is keeping the capability


by giving the type 26 contract to Portsmouth or indeed somewhere else


in the remaining United Kingdom. Is it time for cooperation between the


two governments to try to secure some kind of diversified future for


the shipyards? Absolutely. We must move to a plan B. We have to look at


the new future for the shipyards. This is a wake-up call for everybody


to say, what is the plan B? It is a long-term prospect, we have to put


one in place to ensure proper diversification. We have military


contracts but we also have other contracts that we can pursue. We can


diversified into the renewable and oil industry. There can be a bright


future for the shipyards but it cannot just be waiting on Ministry


of Defence contracts all the time. Is no way that beaten for shipyards?


It was in your piece before our interview. -- is no way the beaten


-- is Norway the beacon? They have companies that put their orders into


the Norwegian yards which helps Norway, so Norway is not necessarily


example we will be able to follow. Is it time for intergovernmental


cooperation to secure something of diversified future? Of course. There


has been much work and talk about diverse occasion. It is quite


difficult to actually match military capability with civilian


capability, it is not an easy thing to match together into one shipyard


and that is why the shipyards have found it incredibly difficult and at


last. The SNP's site the fuel tankers. But the British shipyards


did not even compete for that contract. It was Korea in a much


better position. -- ESN P cite the fuel tankers. The point that was


being made during the week was that it was the 40th anniversary of Margo


MacDonald winning the government by-election. At that .1 of the


issues was the future of the shipyards. That investigation of the


year does not seem to have worked. I have been involved with successive


management and union in the Clyde about the question of diversified


agent. It has never worked. It is important to look at Norway. When


Norway has got five frigates built in Spain, they have submarines built


and designed in Germany, they have just ordered a logistics ship from


Korea. The boots that the build in Norway, they are not really ships,


most of them are very small. Many could fit inside the studio. That is


not the scale of the shipbuilding industry and indeed the holes are


overwhelmingly built abroad and then taken to Norway. We are not


comparing like with like. I'd be that without a core MoD order book,


there will be little opportunity. -- and fear that without a core MoD


order bit. Joint procurement is the norm across the world. We could be


involved with that. That would be sensible, especially the type 26,


and MoD orders military hardware from all around the road. They spent


$3.5 billion in the last five years. The fact is, buying things abroad is


normal. Joint procurement is normal. The best ways to build ships in the


British Isles is in the Clyde and that should be the future. Thank you


very much for joining us. Here's a question - how much


influence do you feel you have over the decisions made by politicians?


Most local services are provided by councils, yet typically turnout in


elections for them are very low - around 32%. How much of that is down


to apathy, or is it a feeling that no matter who you vote for, your


ballot will make little difference to the decisions those elected will


take? Increasing participation in the decisions that affect our lives


has been occupying the thoughts of one think tank. So is this a problem


just for politicians or should it concern us all?


Scottish government plans to extend local democracy took a hit this week


after ministers announced that they were to abandon the idea of directly


elected health boards. The Health Secretary admitted that turnout for


the election in one area was only 10%. Yet the idea behind this team


was to give communities a greater say in how their health services are


organised. So when did this attempt to involve the local community feel?


How much say do voters in Scotland really want in the decisions? The


Jimmy Reid Foundation is one organisation evaluating local


democracy. It recently established a commission to look at how a wider


range of opinions and experiences can be taken into account when it


comes to policy-making decisions. A report from the commission, released


today, says access by citizens to the political decision-making


process is limited to the point of being nonexistent. Robert Mugabe


nine, director of the Jimmy Reid Foundation, says they have noticed a


worrying trend when it comes to who had influence in Scottish politics.


What we discovered was that the 70% of the population who live on


?25,000 or less per year only make up about the percent of the people


who are invited to sit in public bodies are giving advice to


parliamentary inquiries. This massive imbalance clearly suggested


there was a problem in who was getting to influence politics and


getting involved in the political process and so the commission is


attempting to question how we can improve this situation. Professor


Richard Crowley as an academic advisor to working group on


strengthening local democracy. He said there needs to be wider


engagement across layers of government. Review is that the


capacity for local people to make decisions about matters which are


specific to a given area is something that should be recognised,


that there are a range of services were variation is appropriate and


good and therefore we should recreate or create the opportunity


for that to occur through the decisions that councils and local


people make, maybe even at layers below local council but not that


central government level. But is there a happy medium where citizens


feel involved and politicians listen? Good Scotland pioneer a new


way of thinking? This report, if it was accepted, to be one of the most


radical changes in government we have seen in hundreds of years. The


idea that the government becomes something which is done by people


and not two people would be an enormous change in the way that we


think about and understand politics. Chair of the Commission on Fair


Access to Political Influence for the Jimmy Reid Foundation, Larry


Flanagan, joins me now. Good afternoon. It is a fairly weighty


book. You come to the inclusion that the political access to the decision


making process is limited to the point of being nonexistent. How do


you measure this? It is a general summary of the feedback we got from


a number of organisations. You mentioned in your introduction the


low level of participation in the election process. Robin mentioned a


number of people earning low wages who actually participate in


Parliament committees. When you gather the evidence, it is clear


that there is a fairly strong degree of disillusionment with people at


all process. If there is disillusionment and disengagement,


is that the same as seeing people are disinterested? Not at all. One


route points is that people are very interested in political issues and


political issues are important for people in terms of their daily


lives. What we have to try to do and we hope the report is a positive


contribution to the discussion, is we have to ensure that our path with


that enable ordinary people do feel that they can influence


decision-making and participate in the process. How sure are you that


people want to participate and they want a role? Isn't there are many


people in the population who say, we let these people to make the


decisions, get on with it. One of the things that the report


highlighted was that in other European countries there is a much


higher level of participation amongst the population. There is


nothing to suggest Scottish people somehow have a different approach to


decision-making about their lives. I think we have developed a process in


Scotland and to some extent the UK where people do feel


disenfranchised, they do feel impotent in the face of


decision-making processes. What we are suggesting in the report is a


number of ways of taking this forward. Some of them are relatively


small-scale, they might be about local decisions in the community.


Some of them will have an impact on our whole system. And if we can get


agreement to take some of these ideals forward, we will see a


groundswell of involvement and people participating. What is the


role of politicians in this lack of participation? Are some of them


reluctant to share power? At the most politicians become engaged in


politics for the best of motives. They want to see a fairer society. I


think the proposals we have in the commission report and around


involving more people in the consultation process, for example,


in terms of influencing budget decisions, I think that would be to


the benefit of politicians. We were told when the Scottish Parliament


was set up that it would do things differently from Westminster. I you


suggesting that has not happened? A lot of consultation goes on. The


Scottish Parliament is in the better placed than the UK Parliament. In


number of hopes and aspirations and the Scottish Parliament have


floundered. -- a number of hopes and aspirations. Party politics dominate


the Scottish Parliament. We had been hoping for a more consensual


approach. Robin highlighted the fact that we have the facility for


committees to hear evidence but that is for a elite section of people. It


is often not for the people who would be the main recipients of the


decision-making process. They might be well-organised which is why they


have access to the politicians in the first place. It is far harder to


canvass a lot of youth and come to a consensus rather than speaking to


organise groups. As things stand, it is difficult for politicians to have


that access will stop one of the ideas we suggest is people jury 's.


That would actually facilitate politicians. They would have access


to a broad range of opinion, that opinion would be supported. The


mechanisms here are not about attacking the current system, it is


about expanding the role of people in that decision-making process. Is


there a danger you could offer too much democracy? There is never late


year goes by when we do not have elections, whether it is for the


Council, Westminster, Scottish Parliament or Europe. Good people


just be a bit bored of the whole process? There is the danger of


election fatigue. There are different ways of influencing


thinking. The health boards are one aspect of that. But if you took some


of the health board decisions and used them, the idea of a


cross-section of the public being involved in it, you would be able to


justify these decisions, not by electoral process, but by


consultation. The would-be de-signed to encourage involvement by the


population. You want politicians to look at this is a new way of


thinking. If this idea that people are not engaged, will there be a


danger that everyone loses interest? There is always a danger of people


do not have faith in the democratic process. We have had riots in the


past in the United Kingdom and part of that was around the alienation of


young people. We need a society where people having gauged with


politics and trust politicians. Any surveys that commercial but


politicians, the level of trust accorded to them, is that an


all-time low. But this has to be real. People have to be involved in


the process. The current system is not working and we have suggested a


number of ways forward. We think they are is an opportune time no for


everyone to have a look at this. Thank you for coming in.


Coming up after the news, we will mull over the big news of the week


and what will make the headlines in the days to come with our guests,


Lucy Adams of The Herald and Spectator blogger Alex Massie.


You are watching Sunday Politics Scotland and the time is coming up


for 1.30pm. So, let us cross now for the news from Reporting Scotland,


with Andrew Kerr. Good afternoon. Thousands of people


across Scotland fell silent this morning to remember the dead of two


world wars and conflicts since. The First Minister and Secretary of


State for Scotland laid wreaths at the Stone of Remembrance in


Edinburgh. Meanwhile, hundreds of people also marked the two minutes'


silence in the ceremony at the Cenotaph in Glasgow.


Former Defence Secretary Lord Reid has warned that UK warships will not


be built in Scotland if there is a Yes vote in the referendum. Lord


Reid said the Type 26 vessels earmarked for the Glasgow yards


would not be built in "a foreign country". The Deputy First Minister


has rebuffed that, pointing out the Clyde will be the only place where


these ships can be built. A new idea to improve the dental


health of Scottish school children is being hailed as a success.


Glasgow University researchers found the Childsmile programme has saved


more than ?6 million in dental bills. The scheme involves staff at


every nursery offering free, supervised tooth-brushing each day.


Now, let us get the forecast with Gillian Smart.


Good afternoon. Some glorious spells of autumnal sunshine around. It was


a cold start, but that has no clear that it will be blue sky and


sunshine for most others. A bit more in the way of cloud across the


northern parts of the country. That will be the exception, because


elsewhere around the country ever be dry and bright with good spells of


sunshine. I temperature is of eight Celsius.


That is it for the moment. Our next update is at 6.10pm.


Now, in a moment, we will be discussing the big events coming up


this week at Holyrood, but first, let us take a look back at the Week


in Sixty Seconds. The row over alleged vote rigging and Falkirk


rumbled on. Alistair Darling said that if the police do not pursue the


matter, there should be a fresh enquiry, with results published.


Payday loan companies defended the policies in front of the committee


of MPs. Glasgow 2014 organisers said there has been a sensational demand


for tickets for the Commonwealth Games next year. Over 90% have


already been sold. The Scottish government published proposals about


revitalising the City centres. The Church of Scotland added its voice


for the armed forces to stop recruiting 16 and 17-year-olds and


plans to introduce gay marriage won the support of the equal


opportunities committee in Holyrood.


What is in store for the week ahead? And who is making the headlines


today? Let us take a look. My guests this week are Lucy Adams


of The Herald and The Spectator blogger Alex Massie. Let us start


with shipbuilding. We will find out the next couple of days how the job


losses will impact on the Clyde and Rosyth. In the Sunday Herald, there


is a piecing that a vote to leave the United Kingdom will put into


doubt we're ships will be built in the future. Nicola starred Jim hits


back. Does this move anything forward? No, both sides are claiming


a certainty over something which is uncertain. Uncertainty leads to


project fear and scaremongering that we hear the yes campaign accusing


opponents of. The honest answer of this from both sides as that we do


not know what is going to happen to Royal Navy ship contracts in the


event of Scotland being independent. Nicholas Dudgeon is correct to say


they probably could still be built in Glasgow, but there is a big


difference between good and probably would. I think it is more probable


they would not be built in Glasgow, but it is not impossible that they


could be. More importantly, this is the sort of thing that gets wrapped


into the independence campaign when it probably should not be. If you


are going to decide your vote on the basis of shipbuilding on the Clyde,


it is a narrow basis for you to make your mind up, unless you are a


worker in that industry. It is enormously emotive. We know that 800


jobs are going to go, regardless. This debate is raging around


politics. For the next two days, they will be a summit to discuss


what will happen to these people, how they may be redeployed. On the


bigger issue, the politicians are going to continue to grow about what


this means for the future and the referendum. At the end of the day,


these people have lost their jobs and for a lot of people, the word


jobs, referendum in future will go together and they will use that. But


when it came to Grangemouth, we saw cooperation between the two


governments. On the subject is shipbuilding, it appears to have led


to a political row. This is a different issue. Grangemouth was


about a single industry, a single client. Shipbuilding, because it is


much more in emotive, casts a greater shadow over the political


process, because it is redolent with the history of the Clyde. Much of


this has disappeared over the last 70 or 80 years. Because the


shipbuilding argument is also about the future, it is inevitable that a


gets dragged into the referendum debate. It is any one of these


isolated examples sees to me and insufficiently as to whether you


should cast your vote. Whether Scotland should be independent is


neither diminished or increased by whether the Royal Navy built


frigates on the Clyde or the Solent. We cared about the sad death of


Helen Eadie, the MSP for Cowdenbeath. We had a lot of tribute


about her. She was very well liked and admired. I dealt with her on a


number of occasions and always found her to be a real character and


someone who was very dedicated to her constituents. I think moving


tributes have been paid to her and she was just 66, tragically young.


This opens the prospect of a by-election. She had a majority of


just over 1,000. This will clearly probably be less contentious than


the one in Dunfermline. Yes, obviously be circumstances in which


the by-election has arisen are different. As you are seeing, with


some of the tributes to her, she had a reputation, it was against the


Russell Black brand view of politics that everyone is in it for


themselves. She proved to be the opposite of that. A lot of politics


is drudgery, it is painstaking work. A backbenchers casework is never


done. It does not make headlines, it is not sexy, because it does not


have a conflict drama for the newspapers. It is the popular in


cheap cynicism offered by the likes of Russell Brand. This report from


the foundation, about the role of engaging the public with the


politicians. They say there is a real divide. This is a long-standing


problem. The foundation said this could be addressed. As the ugly


political will to do that? It is an interesting report and it comes out


at an interesting time, and around up to the referendum. They highlight


some important issues, talking about people out with the Central Belt


time to do video conferences and been told it was not feasible. He


talks about an Edinburgh centric approach. Some of it is very focused


around that. You could see my improvements could easily be made.


Other points it makes are vague. It talks about appointments to public


boards and you heard about how health boards might or might not be


appointed locally. I think some of these points are more difficult to


address. It talks about civil servants having too much power in


who is appointed to these boards and the likes of social networks,


focused around an elite group, and some of those points are harder to


address, but obviously, Larry talked about the point that you could have


people Judy 's and maybe have a more diverse group of people giving


opinions to politicians and civil servants. Do you think the public


want to see these type of changes? I think given the opportunity and


reason to get involved, we see this on a single issue pieces, such as


wind farms. The problem with local democracy in Scotland are dated


neither of them local or democratic. This is a debate which will


continue. Thank you very much for coming in.


That is all from us this week. I will be back at the usual time of


11.30am next week. Until then, goodbye.


Political magazine presented by Andrew Neil and Andrew Kerr.

Download Subtitles