02/03/2014 Sunday Politics Scotland


The latest political news, interviews and debate in Scotland.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/03/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Fears that Ukraine


could face invasion escalate this morning as Russian forces take


control of Crimea. President Obama and his European allies tell


President Putin to back off. It doesn't sound like he's listening.


Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt has started spelling out


Labour's plans for schools. So what's the verdict - full marks, or


must try harder? He joins us for the Sunday Interview. And all the big


political parties are desperate to broaden their appeal. We'll look at


some unusual ideas for freshening up those tired old party logos.


And coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland: As the new interactive


visitor centre at Bannockburn opens its doors, we ask whether concerns


over the commemoration event are justified.


Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh. Instead of acceptance


speeches they'll be tweeting faster than the tears roll down Gwyneth


Paltrow's face. Yes, that's as luvvie as we get on this show.


Events have been moving quickly in Ukraine this weekend. The interim


government in Kiev has put the Ukrainian military on full combat


alert after Russia's parliament rubber-stamped the deployment of


Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine. Russian troops seem already to be in


control of the mainly Russian-speaking Crimea region,


where Russia has a massive naval base. President Obama told President


Putin that Russia has flouted international law by sending in


Russian troops but the Kremlin is taking no notice. This is now


turning into the worst stand-off between Russia and the West since


the conflict between Georgia and Russia in 2008, though nobody


expects any kind of military response from the West. Foreign


Secretary William Hague is on his way to Kiev this morning to show his


support for the new government, though how long it will survive is


another matter. We can speak to our correspondent David Stern, he's in


Kiev. As things look from Kiev, can we


take it they've lost Crimea, it is now in all essence under Russian


control? Yes, well for the moment, Crimea is under Russian control.


Russian troops in unmarked uniforms have moved throughout the peninsula


taking up various positions, also at the Ismis which links Ukraine into


Crimea. They've surrounded Ukrainon troops there. Three units have been


captured according to a top officials. We can say at the moment


Russia controls the peninsula. It should also be said, also they have


the support of the ethnic Russian population. The ethnic Russians make


up the majority of the population. They are also not entirely in


control because there are other groups, namely the Tatar as and the


ethnic Ukrainian speakers who are at least at the moment tacitly


resisting. We'll see what they'll start to do in the coming days.


David, I'm putting up some pictures showing Russian troops digging in on


the border between Crimea and Ukraine. I get the sense that is


just for show. There is, I would assume, no possibility that the


Ukrainians could attempt to retake Crimea by military force? It seems


that the Ukrainians are weighing their options right now. Their


options are very limited. Any head-to-head conflict with Russia


would probably work against the Ukrainians. They seem to be taking


more of a long-term gain. They are waiting for the figs's first move.


They are trying not to create any excuse that the Russians can stage


an even larger incursion into Crimea or elsewhere, for that matter. They


also seem to be trying to get international support. It should be


said, this is a new Government. It has only been installed this week.


They are trying to gain their footing. This is a major crisis.


They have to count on the loyalty of the army they might have some


resistance from solders from the eastern part of the country who are


Russian speaking. They probably could count on Ukrainian speakers


and people from the centre and west of the country as well as regular


Ukrainians. A lot of people are ready to fight to defend Ukrainian


Terre Tory. Where does the Kremlin go next? They have Crimea to all


intents and purposes. There's a weak Government in Kiev. Do they move to


the eastern side of Ukraine which is largely Russian speaking and there's


already been some unrest there? That's the big question, that's what


everybody's really asking now. Where does this go from here? We've had


some unrest in the eastern part of the country. There have been


demonstrations and clashes. More ominously, there have been noises


from the Kremlin they might actually move into eastern Ukraine. Putin in


his conversation with Barack Obama said they might protect their


interests there. It should be said, if they do expand, in fact, they've


also said they are dead against the new Government seeing it as


illegitimate and fascist. It does contain risks. They will have to


deal with international reactions. America said there will be a deep


reaction to this and it will affect Russia's relations with Ukraine and


the international community. They have to deal with the reaction in


Ukraine. This may unite Ukrainians behind this new interim Government.


Once Russia moves in, they will be seen as an invading force. It plays


on historical feelings of Russia being an imperial force.


Joining me is MP Mark Field who sits on the security Security and


Intelligence Committee in the House of Commons. What should the western


response be to these events? I can understand why William Hague is


going to Kiev tomorrow to stand side by side whizz whoever's in charge.


They need to CEOP sit numbers and also President Putin. The truth is


we are all co significant fatries to the Budapest Memorandum of almost 20


years ago which was designed to maintain the integrity of the


Ukraine and Crimea. There needs to be a discussion along those lines.


The difficulty is President Putin has watched events in recent months,


in relation to Syria, it is palpable President Obama's focus of attention


ask the other side of the Pacific rather than the Atlantic. The vote


in the House of Commons, I was very much against the idea of military


action or providing weapons to the free Syrian army. My worry is,


events proved this, the majority of the other options toed as sad are


rather worse. It is clear now we are in a constitutional mess in this


country. We cannot even contemplate military action without a


parliamentary vote that moves against quick reaction that is


required from the executive or, I suspect, there will be very little


appetite for any military action from the West over in Ukraine. We


are corn tours under the agreement of less than 20 years ago. We may be


but we've guaranteed an agreement which it is clear we haven't the


power to enforce. You wrote this morning, Britain is a diminished


voice. Clams Iley navigating the Syrian conflict we relick wished


decisions to the whims of parliamentary approval. That may or


may not be but the Kremlin's not watching how we voted on the Syrian


issue? In relation to Syria, it was where is the western resolve here.


The truth ask Putin's position is considerably less strong. In


diplomatic terms. He had a victory in Syria in relation to chemical


weapons and in relation to the West's relationship with Iran. Putin


is a vital inter locking figure. In demographic and economic terms,


Russia's in very deep trouble. The oil price started to fall to any


degree, oil and gas price, given the importance of mineral wealth and


exports for the Russian economy, Putin would be in a lot of trouble.


It requires an engagement from the EU and the EU are intending to look


at their internal economic problems and will be smarting from the


failure within a matter of hours of the deal they tried to broker only


nine days' ago. You say if Mr Putin decides to


increase the stakes and moves into the east, takes over the whole


place, our Government, you say, will find itself with another colossal


international headache. Some people watching this will be thinking,


what's it got to do with us? It's a long way away from Britain. We


haven't a dog in this fight? We have in this regard for the longer term


here. I think if there were to be some military action in Ukraine, the


sense of Russia taking over, it could have a major impact on the


global economy in very quick order. You should not deny that. There will


be move to have sanctions against Russia. The escalation of that will


be difficult. The other fact is looking at our internal affairs and


reform, partners, the Baltic states, Finland, Poland, the Czech Republic,


they will be looking at a resurgent Russia now and think they'll need to


hold as tightly as possible to the EU institutions and the power of


Germany at the centre of that. This whole appetite for the reforms


politically and economically will be closed very much within a matter of


a short period of time. It has longer term implications. Mark


Field, thank you. We're joined now by BBC News night's


Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban. Is there any prospect of a western


military response? Clearly at the moment, it is nil. The boat has


sailed with the Crimean. It has been per performed by Russian forces. It


is now a matter of coordinating a plate cal line. European foreign


ministers tomorrow. To say what will our future limits be? Where could we


possibly draw red lines? To try to think a couple of steps down this,


what happens if Russia interrupts energy supplies to EU member states


ornate owe countries? These are the important steps they have to think


about. It is quite clear we are in a different world here now. Also,


Ukraine is facing a urgent foreign exchange crisis. Within literally a


few weeks they could run out of money. All of these are rushing


towards decision makers very fast. There is an interim and I suggestion


unstable Government in Kiev. Crimea semi-to be under Russian control.


There are clashes between the reformers and Russian nationals in


the east of the country. What does Mr Putin do next? He has lots of


options, of course. He has this carte blanch carte blanch from his


Parliament to go in to the rest of Ukraine if he wants to. His military


deployment suggests the one bite at a time, just Crimea to start with.


See what response comes from the Ukrainian Government. Of course, so


far, there hasn't been a coherent response. The really worrying thing


about recent months, not just recent days, are the indications that the


future of Ukraine as a unitary state is now in doubt. Look at it from the


other side of the equation. The President when faced with


demonstrations, many extremists, he was unable to deal with that. Now we


have the other side, if you like, the Russian speakers, the other side


of the fight, Russian nationalists showing they can get away with


unilateral action more or less with impunity. The Ukrainian chiefs have


been sacked. I think there are considerable questions now as to


whether Ukraine is falling apart and, if that happens, we're into a


Yugoslav-type situation which will continue posing very serious


questions for the EU and NATO for months or years to come. So, Janan,


Ukraine is over? Where the west to concede to the Russian in Crimea, it


would perversely be a net loss for Russia. You'd assume the rest of


Ukraine would become an un unambiguously a member of the the


EU, maybe NATO. On top of that a Russian dream of Eurasion dream,


they will look at Putin's behaviour and is a, no, thanks, we'll head


towards the EU. It is a short-term victory for Putin which backfires on


his broader goals in Well, many people said if he grabs Crimea, he


loses Ukraine, which is your point. We have seen violent demonstrations


in the big eastern cities in Ukraine yesterday. People taking control of


certain buildings. The risk is there of spreading beyond Crimea. I think


the lack of any unified or visible response from Ukrainian armed


forces... They allowed Russian troops to walk into the bases in


Crimea. They have supposedly gone on red alert but they have done


absolutely nothing. We don't see them deploying from barracks. There


are serious questions about whether they would just fall apart. Putin is


not going to let them split away. I would have thought he would like the


entire Ukraine to come into the Russian ambit. Barack Obama is


saying this will not stand. He has a 90 minute conversation with Vladimir


Putin and what is his response? I am suspending my cooperation in the


run-up to the Sochi Summit. What is the EU doing? Nothing. There is


nothing they can do and Putin knows there are a series of lines that he


is able to cross and get away with it. Why should Berlin, London,


Washington be surprised by the strength of Vladimir Putin's


reaction? It was never going to let Ukraine just fall into the arms of


the EU. That is the interesting point. And who does he listen to?


Paddy Ashdown was saying sent Angela Merkel because she is the only


person who can talk to him and I find that response worrying. We need


to speak with a united voice but nobody knows what we should be


saying. Military intervention is out for the West so we go to economic


sanctions. Doesn't Vladimir Putin just say, oh, you want sanctions? I


have turned off the gas tap. Yes, it is move and countermove, and it is


difficult to predict where it will end up. In all these meetings that


are being held, they do think a step or two ahead and try and set out


clear lines. Thank you for coming in this morning.


Labour has been struggling since 2010 to decide exactly how to take


education secretary Michael Gove, one of the boldest reformers of the


coalition and most divisive figures. Ed Miliband appointed TV historian


Tristram Hunt and many thought Labour had found the man to teach


Michael Gove a lesson. But how much do we really know about the party's


plans for England's schools? Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are a


devolved matter. Child has been back to school to find out. A politician


once told me, do you know why education secretaries changed


schools? Because they can. Michael Gove might dispute the motive but he


is changing schools, like this one. The changes he is ringing in our


encouraging them to be academies, free from local authorities to


control their own budgets, ushering in free schools, focusing on


toughening exams and making them the core of the curriculum with less


coursework, and offering heads more discretion on tougher discipline.


And he is in a hurry to put all this in place. But has that shut out any


chance for a Labour Government to change it all themselves and do they


really want to? Any questions? Visiting a different school, first


in line to get a crack at that would-be Labour's third shadow


education secretary since 2010, Tristram Hunt. In post, he has not


been taken about fine tuning previous direct opposition to free


schools and he has also suggested teachers in England would have to be


licensed under a Labour Government, allowing the worst to be sacked and


offering training and development to others and of course ending


coalition plans to allow unqualified teachers into classrooms. Full


policy detail is still unmarked work. Your opinion about evolution?


What is very clear is that Labour's education policy is still evolving.


We are learning that they have some clear water, but we also seem, from


the sting at the back, to get the feeling that there is not a great


deal of difference from them and the current Government on types of


schools and the way education should proceed. -- from listening at the


back. So what exactly is different about their policy? What Tristram


Hunt's job is to do is to be open and honest about the shared agenda


between us and the Tories. There are a lot of areas where there is clear


water between us and Tristram Hunt as to turn his back, shared agenda,


stop fighting it, and forge our agenda, which I think people will be


really interested in. The art of Government, of course, is to balance


competing pictures of policy, even inside your own party. It is fair to


say that if Labour reflects and draws its own visions of a shared


agenda, it might have to square that idea with teaching unions, who are


already unhappy with the pace and tone of change that the Government


had sketched out. What we sincerely hope is that if Labour were to form


the next Government, that they would look at a serious review of


accountability measures. That is really what ways on teachers every


single day. Actually they would look at restoring the possibility, for


example, of local councillors to be able to open schools. That seems


eminently sensible. If they are not going to move back from the free


schools and academies programme, at the very least they need to say that


academy chains will be inspected because at the moment they are not.


Labour have balls in the air on education and are still throwing


around precise policy detail. There are areas that they could grab hold


of and seize possession. A focus on the rounding of the people,


developing character, the impact of digitalisation on the classroom.


Also the role and handling of teachers in the system and the


interdependence of schools. That is all still to play for. Currently I


think the difference between the parties is that the coalition


policies, while we do not agree with all of them, are clear and explicit,


and Labour's policies are yet to be formulated in a way that everybody


can understand clearly. I don't think that Tristram Hunt or Miliband


will want to pick unnecessary fights before the election. I think we will


have quite a red, pinkish fuzziness around the whole area of policy but


after the election there will be grey steel from Tristram Hunt. But


if fuzzy policy before the election is the lesson plan, it does rather


risk interested voters being left in the dark.


Tristram Hunt joins me now for the Sunday interview.


Welcome. Thank you. Which of Michael Gove's school reforms would you


repeal? We are not interested in throwing a change for the sake of


it. When I go round schools, teachers have been through very


aggressive changes in the last three years, so when it comes to some of


the curriculum reforms we have seen, we are not interested in changing


those for the sake of it. Where we are interested in making change is


having a focus on technical and vocational education, making sure


that the forgotten 15% is properly addressed in our education system.


What we saw in your package was an interesting description of how we


have seen structural reforms in the names of schools. Academies, free


schools, all the rest of it. International evidence is clear that


it is the quality of leadership of the headteachers and the quality of


teaching in the classroom that transforms the prospects of young


people. Instead of tinkering around the names of schools, we focus on


teacher quality. Viewers will be shocked to note that this Government


approves of unqualified teachers in the classroom. We want to have fully


qualified, passionate, motivated teachers in the classroom. It sounds


like you might not repeal anything. You might build on it and you might


go in a different direction, with more emphasis on technological


education but no major repeal of the reforms of Michael Gove? I don't


think you want to waste energy on undoing reforms. In certain


situations they build on Labour Party policy. We introduced the


sponsored academy programmes and we began the Teach First programmes,


and we began the London challenge which transformed the educational


prospects of children in London. We want to roll that out across the


country. You have said there will be no more free schools, which Michael


Gove introduced, but you will allow parents let academies, which just


means free schools by a different name. No, because they will be in


certain areas. We want to create new schools with parents. What we have


at the moment is a destructive and market-driven approach to


education. I was in Stroud on Thursday and plans for a big new


school, in an area with surplus places, threatened to destroy the


viability of local, rural schools. We want schools to work together in


a network of partnership and challenge, rather than this


destructive market-driven approach. You say that, but your version of


free schools, I think, would only be allowed where there is a shortage of


places. That means that where there is an excess of bad schools, parents


will have no choice. They still have to send their kids to bad schools.


And we have to transform bad schools and that was always the Labour way


in Government. At the moment we just have an insertion of new schools.


Schools currently underperforming are now underperforming even more.


Children only have one chance at education. What about their time in


school? Our focus is on the leadership of the headteacher and


having quality teachers in the classroom. So they cannot set up new


better schools and they have to go to the bad schools. Tony Blair said


it should be easier for parents to set up new schools where they are


dissatisfied with existing schools. You are not saying that. Even where


they are dissatisfied with existing schools, they cannot set up free


schools and you are reneging on that. We live in difficult economic


circumstances where we have got to focus public finances on the areas


of absolute need. We need 250,000 new school places. 150,000 in London


alone. We have to focus on building new schools and where we have to put


them. And secondly... Absolutely not. Focusing on those schools.


Making sure we turned them around, just as we did in Government. We


have had a remarkable degree of waste under the free school


programme. If you think of the free school in Derby, the Academy in


Bradford, and as we saw in the Telegraph on Friday, the free


schools in Suffolk, a great deal of waste of public money on


underperforming free schools. That is not the Labour way. We focus on


making sure that kids in schools at the moment get the best possible


education. Except that in your own backyard, in Stoke, only 34% of


secondary school pupils attend a good or outstanding school. 148 out


of 150 of the worst performing local authorities and it is


Labour-controlled. Still terrible schools and yet you say parents


should not have the freedom to start a better school. We have great


schools in Stoke-on-Trent as well. We face challenges, just as


schools in Stoke-on-Trent as well. Wolverhampton does and the Isle of


Wight and Lincolnshire. Just like large parts of the country. What is


the solution to that? Making sure we share excellence among the existing


schools and making sure we have quality leadership in schools. Those


schools in Stoke-on-Trent are all academies. It is not a question only


of structure but of leadership. It is also a question of going back to


the responsibility of parents to make sure their kids are school


ready when they get to school. To make sure they are reading to their


children in the evening. We can't put it all on teachers. Parents have


responsibilities. I understand that but you have told me Labour's policy


would not be to set up new schools which parents hope will be better.


Parents continue to send their kids to bad schools in areas like Stoke.


Labour has had plenty of time to sort out these schools in Stoke and


they are still among the worst performing in the country. You are


condemning these parents to having to send their kids to bad schools.


Where we have seen the sett ing up of Derby, Suffolk, we have seen that


is not the simple solution. Is simply setting up a new is not a


successful model. What works is good leadership. I was in Birmingham on


Friday at a failing comprehensive is not a successful model. What works


Friday at a failing comprehensive is is good leadership. I was in


Birmingham on Friday at a failing comprehensive school and now people


are queueing round the block to get into it. You can turn around schools


with the right leadership, passionate and motivated teachers,


and parents engaged with the learning outcome of their kids. In


the last few years of the Labour Government, only four kids from your


this Government would set up the new school. In Birmingham, they got in a


great headmaster and turned the school around and now people are


queueing round the block to get into it. You can turnaround schools with


the right leadership, passionate and motivated teachers, and parents


engaged with the learning outcome of their kids. In the last few years of


a Labour Government, only four kids from your area of and you had plenty


of chances to put this right but only four got to the two and you had


plenty of chances to put this right but only four got to the two leading


universities. Traditionally young people could leave school at 16 and


walking two jobs in the potteries, the steel industry, the


traditionally young people could leave school at 16 and walking two


jobs in the potteries, the steel industry, the but also to get an


apprenticeship at Jaguar Land Rover, JCB, Rolls-Royce. That is why


Ed Miliband's focus on the forgotten 15%, which we have just not seen


from this Government, focusing on technical and vocational pathways,


is fundamental to Your headmaster was guiles Slaughter. Was he a good


teacher? He He never taught me. Over 90% of teeners in the private


sector are qualified. They look for not simply teachers with qualified


teacher status. Teachers with MAs. Teachers who are improving them


cephalitis. Becoming better educators.


cephalitis. Becoming better teaching. You were taught by


unqualified teachers. Your parents paid over ?15,000 a year for you


being taught by unqualified teachers. Why did you make such a


big deal of it? Because we've seen right around the world those


education systems which focus on having the most qualified teachers


perform the best. It cannot be right that anyone can simply turn up, as


at the moment, have schools at veritising for unqualified teachers


teaching in the classroom. We want the best qualified teachers with the


deepest subject knowledge, for the passion in learning for their kids.


It is absurd we are having arguments about this. Simply having a paper


qualification doesn't make you a great teacher. Let me take you to


Brighton college. It is gone from the 147th to the 18 18th best


private school in the land. Fllt the headmaster says:


This is the top Sundaytimes school of the year. The school in derby


where this Government allowed unqualified teaching assist taints.


We had teachers who could barely speak English. That is because if


you have unqualified teachers you end up with a dangerous situation.


The problem with that school was not unqualified teachers. People were


running that school who were unfit to run a school. We have an issue


about discipline and behaviour management in some of our schools.


Some of the skills teachers gain through qualifications and learning


is how to manage classes and get the best out of kids at every stage. It


doesn't end with a qualified teacher status. That's just the beginning.


We want our teachers to have continue it will development.


You have taught as an unqualified teacher. I am delighted to do it. We


want unqualified teachers to gain qualified teacher status. If they


are not interested in deepening the knowledge I do not think they should


be in the classroom. But if a school has hired a teacher knowing that


they were unqualified, they would be in breach of the law? They are being


urged by us to make sure they have qualified teacher status. But if


they say they do not want to do it, will you fire them? Teachers should


have the qualifications to teach and inspire our young people,


particularly when we face global competition. He finds inspiring


teachers who do not necessarily have a teaching qualification. It is


different teaching nice young boys and girls in Brighton than teaching


different children with behavioural and educational needs. Do you think


that somebody called Tristram Hunt could ever lead the Labour Party.


Somebody called Ed is leading the Labour Party. It is great that David


Owen is back with us. Have you thought of switching to Tommy or


Tony? There is a long history in the party of people with funny names and


via love the Labour Party is that it accepts everybody including me.


You're watching The Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in


Scotland who leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland.


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up on the


programme. Join me on the battlefield of Bannockburn were


conflict has broken out. We'll be asking if the strategy is right for


success. And the thorny question over whether Doctor Who will be


regenerated in a post-independence Scotland. Bannockburn is the


"birthplace of the modern nation". The First Minister said that when


the new visitor centre opened this week. In just four months' time,


thousands of people are expected to assemble there for Bannockburn Live


to commemorate the event. But organisers are bearing the scars of


their own battles already, as questions are raised about a low


level of ticket sales and marketing, the tourist board's accountability


and concerns over the clash with Armed Forces Day, which is also


taking place in Stirling. Andrew Kerr has been to the battlefield to


find out more. The creation of a nation. Bannockburn that paved the


way for Scotland to secure its independence. 700 years later a new


visitor centre opened at this weekend and in June, the battlefield


will echo once more with Bannockburn Live. There are concerns the event


is being diluted and it will last for two days rather than three.


20,000 tickets are now available rather than the 45,001st planned.


The convener of the standing counsel of Scottish chiefs says that the


scheduling could put people off, particularly clansmen from abroad.


It has caused confusion amongst our friends overseas as to what is going


on because they need a clear-cut plan because they are buying air


tickets, booking accommodation, closing up their own homes in


Colorado or California and come here. It causes confusion and that


is nothing worse than a confused ancestral Scottish tourists because


they are the ones putting the money into this. It is a highly


politicised atmosphere and the pro union Stirling council leadership


deny hijacking an event some perceive as being pro-independence.


No one from stumbling Counsel was available but they did release a


statement saying that an application and be made last year to host the


even bigger and more spectacular Armed Forces Day event. It seems


that The National Trust gratefully handed over the administration to


Visit Scotland. But there is a feeling amongst some parties they


are being kept in the dark by the tourists board. It is concerning


that ticket sales have not gone well so far and the Scottish tunes on the


street is relying on it being a success and it will be very


disappointing if it does not live up to expectations. Concerns have been


expressed about low levels of marketing. In 2009, the organisers


of the Gathering event went to Northern America and promoted the


event and went around with leaflets and the like promoting the event. I


am not sure of Visit Scotland and the people organising Bannockburn


have actually done that. Visit Scotland says you cannot compare the


two events and are happy to address all the concerns and confident the


event will be happy and successful. It was always the case that


promotional committee would be built up as we work towards the event


itself. The largest tickets have already sold out 90% of the


allocation. All the indications are that ticket sales will go well as we


read up to the event. There may be dissent in the ranks and frequent


skirmishes then all will no doubt get behind the Bruce. Well, a little


earlier, I spoke to Bruce Crawford who is the SNP MSP for Stirling and


asked if he had concerns over the Bannockburn Live event. I have no


concerns, this will be a fantastic weekend and people should be excited


about this. On a Friday evening there will be uptight festival -- a


pipe Festival and the largest ever battlefield re-enactment. There will


be a storytelling area and a kitchen, and a armoury. It will be a


great event and something to get really excited about. What has gone


wrong with the organisation? Nothing has gone wrong. There has been a


transfer from National Trust for Scotland and Historic Scotland and


ticket sales are going well. We have not even got to the launch event yet


which is in two weeks time. It is a fantastic opportunity. I was at an


event in Stirling and there was a fantastic atmosphere. We were to


40,000 people were expected which has now been downgraded to 20,000.


We are told only 2000 tickets have been sold and that is now no longer


a three-day event but a two-day event. From the outside, it looks as


if this is an event in crisis. There is a third day still happening,


which is an exclusive event for the clans on the Monday. The Saturday


and Sunday have been extended so it can dovetail with Armed Forces Day


which takes place in the city on the same day. That helps people with


concession tickets to. It is right to rearrange things as they begin to


unfold. We do not even get to the proper launch of the marketing until


two weeks time. The most expensive tickets have almost gone and I was


in the new Bannockburn centre which is a fantastic place. Businesses and


spelling are looking forward -- businesses in in Stirling are


looking forward to the event. Within minutes of this being announced, I


was one of the first to say I am entirely supportive of it. If you


are a business person in Stirling it does not matter to you who is coming


through that door, be it Armed Forces Day or the Bannockburn event.


Everyone in Stirling is supporting what is going on. It is important


that we make the two events dovetail with each other and that is what is


going on. Some people say that Armed Forces day being held at the same


time the same place is a direct challenge and this was a Unionist


challenge, holding Armed Forces Day on the same day. I hear you telling


me that but I have hardly met a single individual who has told me


that. I have not had this from businesses in Stirling. This will be


a fantastic Festival of papers -- of pipers sitting alongside Armed


Forces Day and people should be enthusiastic. It is also about


concern for public money, when we look at the homecoming event, an


event that lost money, people may ask whether we are encouraging


people to come to Scotland in the right way? This is a different event


to the homecoming event. That was focused on an international


perspective, this is much more focused on a domestic perspective.


It is a break even event. They're estimating they can take in ?230,000


or something in that order over that weekend to help cover the costs. It


will be a break even event. It has been well-managed. Visit Scotland


have the marketing skills and ability to make this take off. We


don't even get to the marketing strategy being announced until two


weeks. There is a long way to go. Visit Scotland, if they are the


right organisation, why were they in charge from the beginning? The


National Trust For Scotland on the site, they are still involved in the


planning group, we have a good partnership working in the city to


deliver these events. I think everything is working well, there is


a good synergy between the partnerships. When it comes to


promoting Scotland and encouraging people to visit different parts of


Scotland, do we need to think about -- think less about these formal


events, and think about people coming to Scotland for locks and


other parts of our history. Whoever comes to visit Stirling over that


weekend, whether they are going to Armed Forces Day, Bannockburn Live,


they'll be getting the opportunity to be exposed to the fantastic


scenery and surroundings around about them. My constituency right


alongside the battlefield here, we have the Trossachs and the mountains


of the Stirling area as well as the Wallace Monument. It is a great


backdrop. I can't wait for it. I cannot understand how Ebola aren't


more excited about this and I would encourage everyone to. -- why people


aren't more excited. If it does not work, who foot the bill? We are back


at the negative point of view. Visit Scotland have a solid experience in


the area. It will be a success, tickets for one of the days of


almost sold out, and that is the most expensive ticket and we don't


even get to the marketing opportunity for two weeks. It is


time for people to be more upbeat and excited. Thank you for joining


us. In a question and answer session at


the Oxford Media Convention this week, the UK government's Culture


Secretary Maria Miller is reported as saying that a vote for


independence would mean leaving UK institutions, including the BBC. The


Scottish Government's White Paper proposes replacing the BBC with a


new Scottish Broadcasting Service based on the assets and staff of BBC


Scotland. So does Maria Miller's intervention signal that Doctor Who


may have regenerated for the last time for Scottish viewers, or is it


all up for negotiation? Plenty of things will change as


Scotland votes for independence, but the Scottish Open says he able to


enjoy BBC programmes would be one of them. The Scottish governance


potluck white paper says that if Scotland votes for independence, the


BBC will be replaced by new Scottish and servers. This will be based on


the staff and assets of BBC Scotland initially. Its funding would come


from a licensed the end a share of the BBC's emotional income. It


proposes... A joint-venture where the Scottish broadcasting


service... How likely is such a deal? One


expert says the issue of content will be key. In the event of a vote


for independence, it seems to me in the longer term it is almost


inconceivable that viewers in Scotland will not be able to get


access to the BBC's services that like. In terms of the negotiation of


evidence you, this would be the BBC in dealing with Scotland as it would


with any foreign customer. The UK Government says any bid to use


existing services and content would need to be negotiated, taking into


account what the effect might be on the service the rest of the UK


receives. The BBC itself would be drawn. Broadcasting is the one area


of public policy were under a Royal Charter we are allowed to make


comment upon. However, to do so is problematic for us. Ramiro because


broadcasting and the future role of the BBC is an issue within the


current constitutional debate. -- primarily. For us to make comment


could be seen as a snaking comment on a constitutional issue. That in


turn could impact on impartiality on the debate, so we have chosen not to


make comment. What we have said basically is that we will not enter


into any public or private discussions about the future role or


shape or nature of the services of the BBC after the referendum until


that referendum has taken place. Some believe there should still be


radical change, even if Scotland votes to remain part of the union. I


think the audience research shows that there is a dissatisfaction with


how the BBC serves Scottish audiences with Scottish output. I


think when you come up to charter renewal, there needs to be a debate


about whether broadcasting should be devolved. How can the BBC itself


serve and fund output in Scotland better? Because Scotland is going to


be such a different place. If there is a no vote, there will be


increasing revolution, if the BBC wants to keep in touch with Scottish


audiences, it needs to think about change. -- increasing devolution.


Speaking about broadcasting, the First Minister made what he called


the Edinburgh declaration, Eastenders is safe. Asked how that


happens, for independence is a difference


deal, because the legal advice which the UK Government has and has made


clear says that if they leave the UK, we leave this reduces and the


BBC is one of those. What we have with the media argument is the same


as we had with currency, defence, everything. The Scottish Government


is making an assertion, what they will do. They may not have that


choice, because the BBC may say, actually, we are going to move


staff, assets, whatever to the UK. If all of that ?320 million is spent


in Scotland on Scottish output, does it not follow that viewers and


listeners get a better deal? The iMac as has been pointed out, there


will be a debate anyway. It is fair to say as he did that there is a


general unhappiness about the level of input that Scotland has on the


BBC networks. When I worked at the BBC, it was something that was


discussed then. That is a different argument. But only half of the


people surveyed show that the Scottish people think that the BBC


is value for money. That is a different argument. Yes, the


Scottish parliament should have more powers, perhaps we need to look at


the BBC during charter renewal and improve the service in Scotland.


That is a different argument is... Be arguing this surely that -- the


argument is surely that Scottish viewers are being short-changed.


Argument about that is different from the Independence. We don't know


what will happen to the BBC and its assets. The Scottish Government say


we will build on the assets. Do they mean you, Pacific key, Beech Grove


in Aberdeen? Those are things that the -- that belong to the BBC and


there no guarantee they would have access to them. I said based in


Scotland, but that does not mean they will get them. They can make


all the assertions they want. The other factor is that if they make


this Scottish Broadcasting Service, it will need a new framework, what


will that be? Will they still want Ofcom? They talk about the licence


fee, at the moment the ?320 million raised will not be enough for a


brand-new broadcasting service. Ie same people will not get the TV and


radio programmes that they currently receive? -- are you saying. If a


separate service was set up, it could do what other channels do in


other countries do, mine BBC programmes. I don't think that many


people will decide how they are voting on the referendum and whether


or not they get Doctor Who at 6pm on a Saturday or it is shown at ten


o'clock on a Sunday night because the Scottish broadcasters have


bought it and... Some people may be concerned about these things. There


have been stories suggesting that that may not be the case that they


are available, but as far as you're concerned, they would be available


to viewers in Scotland? Scotland could buy the programmes. The BBC


sells programmes throughout the world. If you look at Norway, which


is always the example that the Scottish Government gives, if you


look at Norway they buy programmes from all over the place, but their


licence fee is twice wet we currently pay. -- what we currently


pay. Like a lot of other countries, Canadians, Americans, the Irish by


BBC programmes. Television is a huge market. It is not just about the BBC


making programmes for viewers in Britain, they are making programmes


for countries all over the world. Some shows are a huge success.


Scotland could leave the UK, the BBC, and the BBC says you can have


two things, you can buy Strictly Come Dancing, or you can buy the


format and do-it-yourself. But it would probably have to be bought.


Well, listening to that interview is the Cabinet Secretary for Culture


External Affairs, Fiona Hyslop, who joins me from our Edinburgh studio.


Let's pick up on one of the points that was made there. In about... The


BBC would continue to serve, but a vote to leave the UK is a vote to


lead institutions, including the BBC. I think it reflects the


attitude of the UK Government. I think this idea that the UK


Government ministers are telling us what we can and cannot have, I think


that is a very patronising view of Scotland. You are being accused of


asserting, what is your evidence? In terms of the staff and assets, we


think they will be the foundation for a new broadcasting Corporation,


we will get the programmes we have just now. Just remember, other


countries like Ireland and Finland have twice the amount of original TV


production coming out of their countries than BBC Scotland has. It


is about content and making sure that people see what they want to


see, developing the skills and talent of our production companies,


but also about satisfaction. BBC Scotland is the only part of the UK


that has less than their own... Something needs to change. There is


no guarantee with a no vote that there would be anything on offer.


When you say it is about how we get the programmes, do you accept that


there is a degree of negotiation that has to be had and that actually


everything you have delivered might not be promised? You like it is due


to be replaced, the charter, talk about negotiations, the last time we


negotiated was 24 hours behind closed doors. That was far from


satisfactory and led to a reduction in the BBC budgets.


negotiating as a foreign customer? We think we could do it as a joint


venture of, that would make sense. A co-commissioned some of the best


productions. And who have the assets to the BBC worldwide as well. We


have contributed to this assets over many years. How long would you have


access to them? Your White Paper does not seem to make it clear, why


would you have access to those funds? We have helped build up the


BBC in terms of our contribution. We get a raw deal just now, the ?320


million the juice from licence fees in 2016 there will only be less than


that spent in Scotland. It is very much like the German model, for


example. We can deliver it, I think, it was BA better deal for Scottish


viewers. -- it would be a. I think people are fed up seeing the BBC 6pm


news with health and education stories that have nothing to do with


Scotland. We need stories for Scotland. What other set up costs of


a new broadcasting service? In terms of BBC Scotland, I don't think


Christine has read the white paper, one of the pages set out the details


of this. What is the figure? We would inherit in terms of... So


there will be no cost as far as you are concerned? Would have a share in


assets, we have estimated it all to be about ?345 million, the licence


fee figures comes from a policy statement issued by BBC Scotland, so


it is perfectly doable. In terms of budgets, we would have a strong


position and far more to invest in Scottish originated product than


some do have. Would you have two papers of the programmes that you


say would be protected? -- have to pay. Scottish viewers have access to


something like 50,000 hours via the IPlayer, it won't be a fair swap,


will it? Interest from BBC Scotland, they currently receive a


20% reduction, it is that 9%. I think it would be in their interest


to make sure that the contribution still is there in terms of


co-production and co-commissioning and developing programmes for


Scotland. Remember, the current Government in Westminster who don't


have much faith in public broadcasting, the chairman has been


questioning whether the licence fee should be protected. Far from being


an offer of more broadcasting for Scotland, it is probably going in


reverse. There is every indication from backbenchers in the


Conservative Party that you may not have public service broadcasting if


you vote no and there is no guarantee under devolution of more


powers. If you want change for broadcasting and a better service


for Scottish viewers, then a yes vote gives a clear way forward.


Thank you very much. You're watching Sunday Politics


Scotland - let's cross now for the news from Reporting Scotland with


Andrew Kerr. Leading figures on both sides of the independence debate


have marked the campaign entering its final 200 days. The Deputy First


Minister Nicola Sturgeon said only a Yes vote would secure the powers


Scotland needs. Backing a No vote, the Scottish Secretary Alistair


Carmichael urged people to use their vote on the 18th of September


"wisely". Accident and Emergency staff in Scotland have been the


victims of 774 attacks over the last two years. The figures come from


information obtained by the Liberal Democrats. They say it's "shameful"


that staff in A units were subjected to physical and verbal


abuse. The Scottish Government said it was working to continue to bring


down the rate of attacks. Boxing, and Ricky Burns suffered his first


defeat in seven years as he lost his WBO World Lightweight title. The


30-year-old Scot fought American Terence Crawford in Glasgow last


night, losing on a unanimous points decision. Burns said the "better man


won". Now a look at the weather forecast. Cloud will


continue to thicken up and will be outbreaks of rain through the


south-west and the central lowlands. The highest temperature


will be around seven Celsius with a fresh southeasterly wind. As we head


towards evening, the rain moves north.


That's it. Back to Gary. Thanks, Andrew. Now in a moment, we'll be


discussing the big events coming up this


David Cameron and his cabinet met in Aberdeen to press the case of the


union and to discuss the importance of the all industry. The Scottish


Government was right cabinet also met. Production costs and oil have


risen steeply but investment remains high. Standard Life says it is


moving staff to England if there is a yes vote in the independence


referendum. The Chief Executive of the international airline group says


it could benefit from a yes vote. The Scottish Government could get


rid of air passenger duty. Gamekeepers want to end the ban on


docking working dog's tales. That was the week gone by. Let's take a


look now at what's in the Sunday papers and what's happening in the


week to come. Joining me this morning is the writer and columnist


Katie Grant and the author and Scotsman columnist George Kerevan.


The Sunday Times headline. It says that the Better Together campaign


has failed to raise even half of its funding murky. Is there a crisis? It


is a bit of a concern. The Yes campaign have lots of money,


particularly from lottery winners. I think that the Yes campaign and the


SNB Aaron slight disagreement about who actually owns the money. -- SNP


are in slight disagreement. The London press has insane headlines


every day about what will go wrong if we vote yes. If you put the


propaganda and the money that is Better Together has, you can see


that the union side has the big money. Scotland On Sunday says that


to lottery winners are handing over a seven figure sum to the yes


campaign. They are putting their money where their politics is. Here


we have a debate and the entire London media is on the Unionist


side. I do not think that is democratic affair and it shows you


the kind of difficulties that we have in having a debate in Scotland


on a roll in. Do we need to look at how the media is behaving in all of


this? I think it is true to say that the media coverage on both sides is


pretty awful. One side is doom and gloom and the other is away with the


fairies. The Yes side has no major media. We need to have a more


balanced board. It would be good to have one newspaper really good goal


that was not just about politics but was also about the issues. Perhaps


no one would read it. Are you saying that newspapers should not express


an opinion? I do not think we will ever get the magic moment when there


is complete objectivity that we need both sides arguing it out in the


media. We do not have the same kind of weight of argument for the yes


vote in the media as we do for the no vote. It is coming from London.


Scottish newspapers do not argue the yes vote. There could be more papers


in Scotland and Scotland is capable of generating newspapers are self


but perhaps the Yes campaign is not entirely convincing. There is


coverage in Scotland On Sunday about Labour's plans for Hollywood. --


plans for Holyrood. We do not have any major London parties saying that


in the event of a no vote that they will expand powers for Scotland.


These are the parties of the United Kingdom. I do not think it is fair


to say that London is seeing this and Scotland is being dumbed down.


-- 's London is saying this. Once you get beyond a certain number of


powers, why not have independence? It is a difficult balance to draw


and I think everybody is in a stew. Those divisions are clearly played


on by the Yes campaign. A divided opposition is a weak opposition.


This is what everybody will have to do and say what they believe rather


than keeping on playing politics which puts most people. 200 days to


go until the referendum. The front page of the Sunday Herlad. Herald


speaks about Nicola Sturgeon's speech tomorrow. There are divisions


in the yes campaign, too? I suspect that the majority of opinion in


Scotland is centre-left and social democratic. I think that in England


things are going in the opposite direction. Why do you think that


Alex Salmond needs to go to London to make a speech? If I was him, I


would do the same and it will get coverage in all the newspapers.


Maybe David Cameron will come up north and talk to Alex Salmond.


Thank you for joining us. That's all from the us this week. I'll be back


at the same time next week. Until then, goodbye.


Political magazine presented by Andrew Neil and Andrew Kerr.

Download Subtitles