22/06/2014 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Rachel Reeves discusses what reforms Labour would make to the welfare department.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Welfare reform is one of the government's most popular policies.


So Labour says it would be even tougher than the Tories.


We'll be asking the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary if she's got


Even Labour supporters worry that Ed Miliband hasn't got what it takes


Labour grandees are increasingly vocal about their concerns.


Over 50% of Labour voters think they'd do better with a new leader.


And what of this leader, he's apparently toxic on the doorstep.


The polls say Nick Clegg's more unpopular than Gordon Brown


We'll be asking a former Lib Dem leader, what is to be done?


Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland.


The latest analysis of setup costs for an independent state, we'll talk


to Professor Dunleavy who says March 2016 may be unrealistic.


promised an electric car revolution, why so little progress?


Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh, the toxic tweeters


First, the deepening crisis in Iraq, where Sunni Islamists are now


largely in control of the Syrian-Iraq border, which means


they can now re-supply their forces in Iraq from their Syrian bases.


Rather than moving on Baghdad, they are for the moment consolidating


their grip on the towns and cities they've already taken.


They also seem to be in effective control of Iraq's


biggest oil refinery, which supplies the capital.


And there are reports they might now have taken the power


Iraqi politicians are now admitting that ISIS,


the name of the Sunni insurgents, is better trained, better equipped and


far more battle-hardened than the US-trained Iraqi army fighting it.


Which leaves the fate of Baghdad increasingly in the hands


No good news coming out of there, Janan. No good news and no good


options either. The West's best strategy is to decide how much


support to give to the Iraqi government. The US is sending over


about 275 military personnel. Do they go further and contemplate


their support? General Petraeus argued against it as it might be


seen as the US serving as the force of Shia Iraqis -- continue their


support. Do we contemplate breaking up Iraq? It won't be easy. The Sunni


and Shia Muslim populations don't live in clearly bordered areas, but


in the longer term, do we deal with it in the same way we dealt with the


break-up of the Ottoman empire over 100 years ago? In the short-term and


long-term, completely confounding. Quite humiliating. If ISIS take


Baghdad I can't think of a bigger ignominy for foreign policy since


Suez. If Iraq is partitioned, it won't be up to us. It will be what


is happening because of what is happening on the ground. Everything


does point to partition, and that border, which ISIS control, between


Syria and Iraq, that has been there since it was drawn during the First


World War. That is gone as well. An astonishingly humbling situation the


West, and you can see the Kurds in the North think this is a charge --


chance for authority. They think this is the chance to get the


autonomy they felt they deserved a long time. Janan is right. We can't


do much in the long term, but we have to decide on the engagement.


And the other people wish you'd be talking turkey, because if there is


some blowback and the fighters come back, they are likely to come back


from Turkey. Where is Iran in all of this? There were reports last week


that the Revolutionary guard, the head of it, he was already in


Baghdad with 67 advisers and there might have been some brigades that


have gone there as well. Where are they? What has happened? I'm pretty


sure the Prime Minister of Iraq is putting more faith in Iran than the


White House and the British. I think they are running the show, in


technical terms. John Kerry is flying into Cairo this morning, and


what is his message? It is twofold. One is to Arab countries, do more to


encourage an inclusive government in Iraq, mainly Sunni Muslims in the


government, and the Arab Gulf states should stop funding insurgents in


Iraq. You think, Iraq, it's potentially going to break up, so


this sounds a bit late in the day and a bit weak. It gets


fundamentally to the problem, what can we do? Niall Ferguson has a big


piece in the Sunday Times asking if this is place where we cannot doing


anything. He doesn't want to do anything. By the way, that is what


most Americans think. That is what opinion polls are showing. You have


George Osborne Michael Gold who would love to get involved but they


cannot because of the vote in parliament on Syria lasted -- George


Osborne and Michael Gove. This government does not have the stomach


for military intervention. We will see how events unfold on the ground.


All parties are agreed that Britain's 60-year old multi-billion


The Tory side of the Coalition think their reforms are necessary


and popular, though they haven't always gone to time or to plan.


In the eight months she's had since she became Shadow Secretary of State


for Work and Pensions, Rachel Reeves has talked the talk about getting


people off benefits, into work and lowering the overall welfare bill.


her first interview in the job she threatened "We would


But Labour has opposed just about every change the Coalition


has proposed to cut the cost and change the culture of welfare.


Child benefit, housing benefit, the ?26,000 benefit cap -


They've been lukewarm about the government's flagship Universal


Credit scheme - which rolls six benefit payments into one - and


And Labour has set out only two modest welfare cuts.


This week, Labour said young people must have skills or be in training


That will save ?65 million, says Labour, though the cost


And cutting winter fuel payments for richer pensioners which will


Not a lot in a total welfare bill of around ?200 billion.


And with welfare cuts popular among even Labour voters, they will soon


have to start spelling out exactly what Labour welfare reform means.


Welcome. Good morning. Why do you want to be tougher than the Tories?


We want to be tough in getting the welfare bill down. Under this


government, the bill will be ?13 million more than the government set


out in 2010 and I don't think that is acceptable. We should try to


control the cost of Social Security. But the welfare bill under the next


Labour government will fall? It will be smaller when you end the first


parliament than when you started? We signed up to the capping welfare but


that doesn't see social security costs ball, it sees them go up in


line with with inflation or average earnings -- costs fall. So where


flair will rise? We have signed up to the cap -- welfare will rise? We


have signed up to the cap. We will get the costs under control and they


haven't managed to achieve it. The government is spending ?13 billion


more on Social Security and the reason they are doing it is because


the minimum wage has not kept pace with the cost of living so people


are reliant on tax credits. They are not building houses and people are


relying on housing benefit. We have a record number of people on zero


hours contracts. I'm still not clear if you will cut welfare if you get


in power. Nobody is saying that the cost of welfare is going to fall.


The welfare cap sees that happening gradually. That is a Tory cap. And


you've accepted it. You're being the same as the Tories, not to. If they


had a welfare cap, they would have breached it in every year of the


parliament. Social Security will be higher than the government set out


because they failed to control it. You read the polls, and the party


does lots of its own polling, and you're scared of being seen as the


welfare party. You don't really believe all of this anti-welfare


stuff? We are the party of work, not welfare. The Labour Party was set up


in the first place because we believe in the dignity of work and


we believe that work should pay wages can afford to live on. I make


no apologies for being the party of work. We are not the welfare party,


we are the party of work. Even your confidential strategy document


admits that voters don't trust you on immigration, the economy, this is


your own people, and welfare. You are not trusted on it. The most


recent poll showed Labour slightly ahead of the Conservative Party on


Social Security, probably because they have seen the incompetence and


chaos at the Department for Work and Pensions under Iain Duncan Smith.


Your own internal document means that the voters don't trust you on


welfare reform. That is why we have shown some of this tough things we


will do like the announcement that Ed Miliband made earlier this week,


that young people without basic qualifications won't be entitled to


just sign on for benefits, they have to sign up for training in order to


receive support. That is the right thing to do by that group of young


people, because they need skills to progress. We will, once that. -- we


will, onto that. You say you criticise the government that it had


a cap and wouldn't have met it, but every money-saving welfare reform,


you voted against it. How is that being tougher? The most recent bout


was the cap on overall welfare expenditure, and we went through the


lobbies and voted for the Tories. You voted against the benefit cap,


welfare rating, you voted against, child benefit schemes, you voted


against. You can't say we voted against everything when we voted


with the Conservatives in the most recent bill with a cap on Social


Security. It's just not correct to say. The last time we voted, we


walked through the lobby with them. You voted on the principle of the


cap. You voted on every step that would allow the cap to be met. Every


single one. The most recent vote was not on the principle of the cap, it


was on a cap of Social Security in the next Parliament and we signed up


for that. It was Ed Miliband who called her that earlier on. Which


welfare reform did you vote for? We voted for the cap. Other than that?


We have supported universal credit. You voted against it in the third


reading. We voted against some of the specifics. If you look at


universal credit, they have had to write off nearly ?900 million of


spending. I'm not on the rights and wrongs, I'm trying to work out what


you voted for. Some of the things we are going to go further than the


government with. For example, cutting benefits for young people


who don't sign of the training. The government had introduced that. For


example, saying that the richest pensioners should not get the winter


fuel allowance, that is something the government haven't signed up.


You would get that under Labour and this government haven't signed up


for it. ?100 million on the winter fuel allowance and ?65 million on


youth training. ?165 million. How big is the welfare budget? The cap


would apply to ?120 billion. And you've saved 125 -- 165 million?


Those are cuts that we said we would do in government. If you look at the


real prize from the changes Ed Miliband announced in the youth


allowance, it's not the short-term savings, it's the fact that each of


these young people, who are currently on unemployment benefits


without the skills we know they need to succeed in life, they will cost


the taxpayer ?2000 per year. I will come onto that. You mentioned


universal credit, which the government regards as the flagship


reform. It's had lots of troubles with it and it merges six benefits


into one. You voted against it in the third reading and given lukewarm


support in the past. We have not said he would abandon it, but now


you say you are for it. You are all over the place. We set up the rescue


committee in autumn of last year because we have seen from the


National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, report after


report showing that the project is massively overbudget and is not


going to be delivered according to the government timetable. We set up


the committee because we believe in the principle of universal credit


and think it is the right thing to do. Can you tell us now if you will


keep it or not? Because there is no transparency and we have no idea. We


are awash with information. We are not. The government, in the most


recent National audit Forest -- National Audit Office statement said


it was a reset project. This is really important. This is a flagship


government programme, and it's going to cost ?12.8 billion to deliver,


and we don't know what sort of state it is in, so we have said that if we


win at the next election, we will pause that for three months and


calling... Will you stop the pilots? We don't know what status they will


have. We would stop the build of the system for three months, calling the


National Audit Office to do awards and all report. The government don't


need to do this until the next general election, they could do it


today. Stop throwing good money after bad and get a grip of this


incredibly important programme. You said you don't know enough to a view


now. So when you were invited to a job centre where universal credit is


being rolled out to see how it was working, you refused to go. Why? We


asked were a meeting with Iain Duncan Smith and he cancelled the


meeting is three times. I'm talking about the visit when you were


offered to go to a job centre and you refused. We had an appointment


to meet Iain Duncan Smith at the Department for Work and Pensions and


said he cancelled and was not available, but he wanted us to go to


the job centre. We wanted to talk to him and his officials, which she


did. Would it be more useful to go to the job centre and find out how


it was working. He's going to tell you it's working fine.


Advice Bureau in Hammersmith, they are working to help the people


trying to claim universal credit. Iain Duncan Smith cancelled three


meetings. That is another issue, I was asking about the job centre. It


is not another issue because Iain Duncan Smith fogged us off. This


week you said that jobless youngsters who won't take training


will lose their welfare payments. How many young people are not in


work training or education? There are 140,000 young people claiming


benefits at the moment, but 850,000 young people who are not in work at


the moment. This applies to around 100,000 young people. There are


actually 975,000, 16-24 -year-olds, not in work, training or education.


Your proposal only applies to 100,000 of them, why? This is


applying to young people who are signing on for benefits rather than


signing up for training. We want to make sure that all young people...


Why only 100,000? They are the ones currently getting job-seeker's


allowance. We are saying you can not just sign up to... Can I get you to


respond to this, the number of people not in work, training or


education fell last year by more than you are planning to help. Long


turn -- long-term unemployment is an entrenched problem... This issue


about an entrenched group of young people. Young people who haven't got


skills and are not in training we know are much less likely to get a


job so there are 140,018-24 -year-olds signing onto benefits at


the moment. This is about trying to address that problem to make sure


all young people have the skills they need to get a job. Your policy


is to take away part of the dole unless young unemployed people agree


to study for level three qualifications, the equivalent of an


AS-level or an NVQ but 40% of these people have the literary skills of a


nine-year-old. After all that failed education, how are you going to


train them to a level standard? We are saying that anyone who doesn't


have that a level or equivalent qualification will be required to go


back to college. We are not saying that within a year they have to get


up to that level but these are exactly the sorts of people... These


people have been failed by your education system. These people are,


for the last four years, have been educated under a Conservative


government. 18 - 21-year-olds, most of them have their education under a


Labour government during which 300,000 people left with no GCSEs


whatsoever. I don't understand how training for one year can do what 11


years in school did not. We are not saying that within one year


everybody will get up to a level three qualifications, but if you are


one of those people who enters the Labour market age 18 with the


reading skills of a nine-year-old, they are the sorts of people that


should not the left languishing. I went to college in Hackney if you


should not the left languishing. I you are -- a few weeks ago and there


was a dyslexic boy studying painting and decorating. In school they


decided he was a troublemaker and that he didn't want to learn. He


went back to college because he wanted to get the skills. He said


that it wasn't until he went back to college that he could pick up a


newspaper and read it, it made a huge difference but too many people


are let down by the system. I am wondering how the training will make


up for an education system that failed them but let's move on to


your leader. Look at this graph of Ed Miliband's popularity. This is


the net satisfaction with him, it is dreadful. The trend continues to


climb since he became leader of the Labour Party, why? What you have


seen is another 2300 Labour councillors since Ed Miliband became


the leader of the Labour Party. You saw in the elections a month ago


that... Why is the satisfaction rate falling? We can look at polls or


actual election results and the fact that we have got another 2000 Labour


councillors, more people voting Labour, the opinion polls today show


that if there was a general election today we would have a majority of


more than 40, he must be doing something right. Why do almost 50%


of voters want to replace him as leader? Why do 50% and more think


that he is not up to the job? The more people see Ed Miliband, the


less impressed they are. The British people seem to like him less. The


election strategy I suggest that follows from that is that you should


keep Ed Miliband under wraps until the election. Let's look at actually


what happens when people get a chance to vote, when they get that


opportunity we have seen more Labour councillors, more Labour members of


the European Parliament... Oppositions always get more. The


opinion polls today, one of them shows Labour four points ahead. You


have not done that well in local government elections or European


elections. Why don't people like him? I think we have done incredibly


well in elections. People must like a lot of the things Labour and Ed


Miliband are doing because we are winning back support across the


country. We won local councils in places like Hammersmith and Fulham,


Crawley, Hastings, key places that Labour need to win back at the


general election next year. Even you have said traditional Labour


supporters are abandoning the party. That is what Ed Miliband has said as


well. We have got this real concern about what has happened. If you look


at the elections in May, 60% of people didn't even bother going to


vote. That is a profound issue not just for Labour. You said


traditional voters who perhaps at times we took for granted are now


being offered an alternative. Why did you take them for granted? This


is what Ed Miliband said. I am not saying anything Ed Miliband himself


has not said. When he ran for the leadership he said that we took too


many people for granted and we needed to give people positive


reasons to vote Labour, he has been doing that. He has been there for


four years and you are saying you still take them for granted. Why? I


am saying that for too long we have taken them for granted. We are on


track to win the general election next year and that will defy all the


odds. You are going to win... Ed Miliband will win next year and make


a great Prime Minister. Now to the Liberal Democrats, at the


risk of intruding into private grief. The party is still smarting


from dire results in the European and Local Elections. The only poll


Nick Clegg has won in recent times is to be voted the most unpopular


leader of a party in modern British history. No surprise there have been


calls for him to go, though that still looks unlikely. Here's


Eleanor. Liberal Democrats celebrating,


something we haven't seen for a while. This victory back in 1998 led


to a decade of power for the Lib Dems in Liverpool. What a contrast


to the city's political landscape today. At its height the party had


69 local councillors, now down to just three. The scale of the


challenge facing Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems is growing. The party is


rock bottom in the polls, consistently in single figures. It


was wiped out in the European elections losing all but one of its


12 MEPs and in the local elections it lost 42% of the seats that it was


defending. But on Merseyside, Nick Clegg was putting on a brave face.


We did badly in Liverpool, Manchester and London in particular,


we did well in other places. But you are right, we did badly in some of


those big cities and I have initiated a review, quite


naturally, to understand what went wrong, what went right. As Lib Dems


across the country get on with some serious soul-searching, there is an


admission that his is the leader of the party who is failing to hit the


right notes. Knocking on doors in Liverpool, I have to tell you that


Nick Clegg is not a popular person. Some might use the word toxic and I


find this very difficult because I know Nick very well and I see a


principal person who passionately believes in what he is doing and he


is a nice guy. As a result of his popularity, what has happened to the


core vote? In parts of the country, we are down to just three


councillors like Liverpool for example. You also lose the


deliverers and fundraisers and the organisers and the members of course


so all of that will have to be rebuilt. As they start fermenting


process, local parties across the country and here in Liverpool have


been voting on whether there should be a leadership contest. We had two


choices to flush out and have a go at Nick Clegg or to positively


decide we would sharpen up the campaign and get back on the


streets, and by four to one ratio we decided to get back on the streets.


We are bruised and battered but we are still here, the orange flag is


still flying and one day it will fly over this building again, Liverpool


town hall. But do people want the Lib Dems back in charge in this


city? I certainly wouldn't vote for them. Their performance in


Government and the way they have left their promises down, I could


not vote for them again. I voted Lib Dem in the last election because of


the university tuition fees and I would never vote for them again


because they broke their promise. The Lib Dems are awful, broken


promises and what have you. I wouldn't vote for them. This is the


declaration of the results for the Northwest... Last month, as other


party celebrated in the north-west, the Lib Dems here lost their only


MEP, Chris Davies. Now there is concern the party doesn't know how


to turn its fortunes around. We don't have an answer to that, if we


did we would be grasping it with both hands. We will do our best to


hold onto the places where we still have seats but as for the rest of


the country where we have been hollowed out, we don't know how to


start again until the next general election is out of the way. After


their disastrous performance in the European elections, pressure is


growing for the party to shift its stance. I think there has to be a


lancing of the wound, there should in a referendum and the Liberal


Democrats should be calling it. The rest of Europe once this because


they are fed up with Britain being unable to make up its mind. The Lib


Dems are now suffering the effects of being in Government. The party's


problem, choosing the right course to regain political credibility.


We can now speak to form a Lib Dems leader Ming Campbell. Welcome back


to the Sunday Politics. Even your own activists say that Nick Clegg is


toxic. How will that change between now and the election? When you have


had disappointing results, but you have to do is to rebuild. You pick


yourself up and start all over again, and the reason why the


Liberal Democrats got 57, 56 seats in the House of Commons now is


because we picked ourselves up, we took every opportunity and we have


rebuilt from the bottom up. least popular leader in modern


history and more unpopular than your mate Gordon Brown. You are running


out of time. No one believes that being the leader of a modern


political party in the UK is an easy job. Both Ed Miliband and David


Cameron must have had cause to think, over breakfast this morning,


when they saw the headlines in some of the Sunday papers. Of course it


is a difficult job but it was pointed out a moment or two ago that


Nick Clegg is a man of principle and enormous resilience if you consider


what he had to put up with, and in my view, he is quite clearly the


person best qualified to lead the party between now and the general


election and through the election campaign, and beyond. So why don't


people like him? We have had to take some pretty difficult decisions,


and, of course, people didn't expect that. If you look back to the rather


heady days of the rose garden behind ten Downing St, people thought it


was all going to be sweetness and light, but the fact is, we didn't


know then what we know now, about the extent of the economic crisis we


win, and a lot of difficult decisions have had to be taken in


order to restore economic stability. Look around you. You will see we are


not there yet but we are a long way better off than in 2010. You are not


getting the credit for it, the Tories are. We will be a little more


assertive about taking the credit. For example, the fact that 23


million people have had a tax cut of ?800 per year and we have taken 2


million people out of paying tax altogether. Ming Campbell, your


people say that on every programme like this. Because it is true. That


might be the case, but you are at seven or 8% in the polls, and nobody


is listening, or they don't believe it. Once


is listening, or they don't believe doubt that what we have achieved


will be much more easily recognised, and there is no doubt,


for example, in some of the recent polls, like the Ashcroft Pole,


something like 30% of those polled said that as a result at the next


something like 30% of those polled general election, they would prepare


their to be a coalition involving the Liberal Democrats. So there is


no question that the whole notion of coalition is still very much a live


one, and one which we have made work in the public interest. The problem


is people don't think that. People see you trying to have your cake and


eat it. On the one hand you want to get your share of the credit for the


turnaround in the economy, on the other hand you can't stop yourself


from distancing yourself from the Tories and things that you did not


like happening. You are trying to face both ways at once. If you


remember our fellow Scotsman famously said you cannot ride both


remember our fellow Scotsman to the terms -- terms of the


remember our fellow Scotsman coalition agreement, which is what


we signed up to in 2010. In addition, in furtherance of that


agreement, we have created things like the pupil premium and the


others I mentioned and you were rather dismissive. I'm not


dismissive, I'm just saying they don't make a difference to what


people think of you. We will do everything in our power to change


that between now and May 2015. The interesting thing is, going back to


the Ashcroft result, it demonstrated clearly that in constituencies where


we have MPs and we are well dug in, we are doing everything that the


public expects of us, and we are doing very well indeed. You aren't


sure fellow Lib Dems have been saying this for you -- you and your


fellow Liberal Dems have been saying this for a year or 18 months, and


since then you have lost all of your MEPs apart from one, you lost your


deposit in a by-election, you lost 310 councillor, including everyone


in Manchester or Islington. Mr Clegg leading you into the next general


election will be the equivalent of the charge of the light Brigade. I


doubt that very much. The implication behind that lit you


rehearsed is that we should pack our tents in the night and steal away.


-- that litany. And if you heard in that piece that preceded the


discussion, people were saying, look we have to start from the bottom and


have to rebuild. That is exactly what we will do. Nine months is a


period of gestation. As you well know. I wouldn't dismiss it quite so


easily as that. I'm not here to say we had a wonderful result or


anything like it, but what I do say is that the party is determined to


turn it round, and that Nick Clegg is the person best qualified to do


it. Should your party adopt a referendum about in or out on


Europe? No, we should stuck to the task, not is what is


going to happen in May 2015. Thank you for joining us. Now, let's say


goodbye to the viewers in Scotland. Good morning and welcome to


Sunday Politics Scotland. The cost of independence,


the latest analysis puts the Ed Miliband has unveiled his


proposals for benefit reform, we'll ask the Shadow Scottish Secretary


how that will play on the doorsteps. 700 years on next weekend,


Robert the Bruce will ride again How successful will this event be


as Armed Forces Day takes place A row broke out at Holyrood this


week about whether the Scottish Government were working on set up


costs in the event of a yes vote. Last month it insisted that civil


servants had not even begun to work on the calculations


because much would depend But on Friday it emerged that the


government had advertised a number of business critical posts and


were fast tracking applications. The Scottish Government claims it's


ensuring The Liberal Democrat leader Willie


Rennie and Conservative leader Ruth Davidson tabled questions to


the First Minister on the subject last Thursday and asked why those


figures wouldn't be available to the We know from the finance secretary


in 2012 that he ordered work to build a competency overview of the


institutions, gusts and staff numbers required in the event of


independence. Last year, the deputy first minister confirmed that work


was underway, telling a Commons committee, and I quote, we are doing


substantial work on this just now. Suffice to say, it covers not just


running costs but the issues around setup. But then, last month, the


first Minister's official spokesman said, there was no overview, no


document, just, and I quote again, e-mail and jottings. And then this


morning, a week after the chief economic adviser said he had done no


work, we read reports that the government is rushing out figures to


paper over the cracks. They say the work is substantial, then they say


it is not. They say it will be published before the referendum but


then they say they will not. The people of Scotland have to know,


what is going on? The start-up costs of setting up


independent institutions have been In May the Treasury claimed they


would amount to ?2.7 billion. It cited a study carried out


by Professor Patrick Dunleavy He, however, said the figure badly


misrepresented his research and that any contribution to the public


debate needed to be accurate. In turn, the Scottish government


quoted a figure of ?250 million, Today Professor Dunleavy has


published a new analysis, It suggests that there would be


immediate setup costs of up to ?200 million to create new


administrative structures that Several hundred million pounds would


need to be spent on new IT systems Costs would increase


if negotiations were hostile. And it notes that agreeing


the transition to independence Earlier this morning I spoke to


the professor and I began by asking him what the total cost of


setting up a new country might be. I think we need to keep clear what


is a setup cost, and what is some other kind of cost. For example, the


tax and benefit system, those contracts, they are continuously


coming up for renewal in the UK. So over the next several years, a large


portion of all of the UK's major IT contracts will have to be


re-elected, and that will cost a lot of money. I don't think we can count


Scotland setting up its own tax and benefit system as being just the


setup costs, it is part of the investment cost. In that


transitional period, would it be possible for an independent Scotland


to have a different taxation, for example, or a different benefit


system from the rest of the UK? Until the new systems are set up


which you seem to be suggesting would be about 2020, 2021? Benefits,


according to the Scottish government timetable, would be domesticated in


2018, and personal income tax in 2020, and other bits of taxation


would take longer. What about something like corporation tax? It


is one of their flagship policies, they want to cut that. When could


that be done realistically? You have got to choose between making wasn't


-- policy choices and changing whole systems. It is possible, it might be


difficult and it could be systems. It is possible, it might be


difficult and it could expensive to change policy. So to say, we will


keep the same corporate tax policy, but we will levy a different level


on Scotland. But when you get to benefits, it is quite complicated to


have policy variation between the UK and Scotland. The Scottish


government has said a couple of things they would not proceed with.


But essentially, that is why you need to domesticated your IT,


because modern policy relies on IT systems. The existing UK systems are


very big, complex legacy systems, very costly to operate. You say


there are grounds for ordering, and I am quoting you, the swift


transition in busy from a yes vote to an independent Scotland by March


2016 is unrealistic or unlikely to happen. Why you say that? That is a


footnote! You know, I think when anybody puts forward a timetable,


people query the timetable. To go from September this year to March


2016 would be quite minding. So -- quite demanding. So you think it


would have to be put back a bit? I think Scotland would have to


negotiate independence with the rest of the UK. In the process of that,


some issues that come up, but it might well be that if Scotland has


voted yes, then everybody accepts that this is a top political


priority and this timetable will stick after all. We are saying,


there is an issue around it as there is about almost every aspect of the


transition. You had a meeting with the Scottish government this week,


are you officially involved in them trying to do work with setup costs?


What is your understanding what their plans are of this issue? I had


a whole set of meetings with people in Scotland including and up to the


first minister not this week but last week. What is your involvement


from now? I don't have any involvement at this point with the


Scottish government. Is your understanding the Scottish


government itself is now doing work on this? I think that there has been


a lot of, kind of, chasing bogeyman here. The idea that the Scottish


government has a secret dossier or a set of information that they are


hiding has been suggested in the Scottish Parliament, and hinted at


by Danny Alexander. This is ironic really, because the person who knows


a lot more about what the transition costs for Scotland would be if David


Cameron. The big uncertainty is what the UK would do in negotiation.


Listening to that was the shadow Scottish Secretary Margaret Curran


who joins me now. Whatever we make of the Professor's latest estimates,


the basic point here is that the UK government document that said the


setup cost of independent Scotland would be ?2.7 billion was just


nonsense. You know, I think it is interesting, and the viewers


watching this and people throughout Scotland will be questioning now why


they are having to look at the Sunday Post this morning to find out


the latest stage of where we have got to this. I will come onto what


you think the Scottish government will do in the moment. But the basic


point is, in outing to the accepted that the figures put out by the


British come and work rubbish. -- government were rubbish. Today, we


have got the 200 million costs, but they have gone on to say that there


are substantial other costs. He said ?700 million. He did not dismiss the


?900 million which is setting up the IT systems. That does not get you to


?2.7 billion. But the ?900 million for the tax and benefit systems


alone, you are in that territory. We are looking at millions of pounds in


terms of setting up an independent state and that is just tax and


welfare. We know there are other issues, the Ford talks about


convocations around EU and NATO and suchlike. It is not unreasonable for


us to say, here we are 90 days away from it, the government have been


planning, but we do not even know who the staff were working on it.


What I do not quite understand is when the Conservative Liberal


Democrat coalition puts out figures which are widely accepted now to be


inaccurate, to put it mildly, which are said by Professor Dunleavy


himself to mislead his -- misrepresent his research, why you


want to defend these figures. I just rang to say what people are trying


to say out there, what are the reasonable figures which will be


involved in setting up an independent Scotland. What do people


want to see the Scottish government doing, then? I think we need a


degree of transparency, we have had John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon


saying, we would get some sense, they have not fulfilled that. We


have now got the first Minister saying we need to set up these civil


service jobs looking at it. But another point... Your demand is


what, they should publish them figures? Certainly let us know what


is going on and who is involved. Professor Dunleavy also said you


should never associate transition costs with assets, they should be


divided from each other. That is often the stock answer we get from


the first Minister, when we just get the general response. We need


clarity about... You would expect and demand that the Scottish


government publish some figures? Yes, what figures they have they


should publish. They could -- they should take a step-by-step through


the work they have done and be transparent and public about this.


Including about spending. This week, Ed Miliband outlined his proposals


for young people. We have been talking to some young people. I


think it is difficult, he is busy trying to appeal to swing voters who


might have voted Labour before, but he has got to make cuts somewhere.


It could do well for him because older people tend to vote for. As a


young person, I know people who are on jobseeker's allowance and I know


can be difficult. It is a good idea, it will encourage people to go into


training rather than sitting around not really doing anything. Young


people should be encouraged to work or do training. I am not sure about


whether it should be based upon how much money your parents have.


Especially if you're looking to go into work, looking to support


yourself more. I welcome the proposals around training. I think


it is important government give support to young people when they


are out of work to get into the work place. I do not like it means


testing the benefit, you would not deliver those over 25 so I do not


see why you would do it for those under. Once you are 16 and 18, you


are a full system with full rights. When the IPPR year or so ago


proposed a similar learning or dining scheme, Rachel Reid, your


front bench, rejected it, she rejected it, saying, we should not


be blaming young people for Tory failure. What has changed? The IPPR


was much more wide ranging in its report, it related to young people


up to 25. And yours applies only to 21? So if you talk about people from


18 to 25, we are blaming young people for Tory failure, but when we


talk about 18 to 21, we are not blaming? What the proposal that Ed


Miliband and Rachel Reid is very -- has put


We know young people have a difficulty with new Morrissey and


literacy. But what you are saying is if you are in this particular group


and you do not agree to go into further training or education you


will not get any benefit. -- new Morrissey and literacy. You will get


youth allowance if you go into training. And if you do not you will


get nothing? We know what happened to people who do not go into


training, they are condemned to a life on benefits without


opportunity. Often young people who did not do well at school want a


second chance. Encouraging people to go into education everyone would


agree is a good thing but you are effectively saying to parents who


have problem youngsters who refused to do this that they are going to


have to finance those young people because the well-known longer be


entitled under Labour to any benefits at all. I think you will


find that goes against the stream of argument. Some of these young people


who do want to go to college do not get the financial support to go to


college. We know there is a problem. Young people who do want to go to


college, the way the current benefits system works will not do


that. The current system would rather have young people in training


than on benefits. I think most parents would encourage their young


people to go to college and get financial support. In a few minutes


we'll be asking Cabinet secretary Fergus Ewing for his response. But


first, Scotland's most famous battlefield will echo to the cries


of war next weekend, and the shouts of burger stall holders and t-shirt


sellers, as thousands attend Bannockburn Live. It's become a bit


of a political football as MSPs speak about concerns over ticket


sales and questions arise over the surprising decision to hold Armed


Forces Day in a field next door on the same day. Others ask why so much


is being spent on one event when other areas of ancestral tourism


could do with funding. Here's Andrew Kerr. The stage is being set for


what is being built as two spectacular days of medieval


re-enactments. Music, food and fashion as organisers prepare to go


into battle, they will be hoping for a day like today. Bannockburn


secured the way for Scotland to go into independence. The politics of


the battlefield have spilled into the present day. Over the past few


months MSPs have been ailing concerns over what they saw as low


ticket sales, poor marketing and a lack of accountability. The National


Trust for Scotland handed over at the event to visit Scotland when


they held -- heard through the media that Armed Forces Day would be held


on the same day by Stirling Council. Progress has been made. With


taxpayers money at stake the local MSP guaranteed success. Visit


Scotland have a good solid experience in this area, I am sure


it will be successful. Capacity was for 45,000 people to attend over


three days. It is now a two-day event with a target of 15,000.


10,000 tickets have been sold, two thirds full. ?392,000 of taxpayers


money has been ploughed into it. Perhaps the concerns have been


expressed because of the apparently unsuccessful gathering in 2009.


Taxpayers had to fit the overall bill and some were not paid. We are


confident the event itself will break even through ticket revenue


and other commercial revenue streams. I do not think there is any


worry at all for the taxpayer. All the suppliers are committed to being


paid and I think at the end of the day it will be a great event and we


will generate sufficient revenue to cover the costs. There is always a


risk with any quick sector spend it but we have advanced ticket sales of


between two thirds and three quarters. There is a whole surface


of things to do at the festival from music to the arts, retail to food.


It will showcase the best of Scottish produce, creativity and in


a destination that tourists need to discover. With a large amount of


public money going into one event there is also a call to spread the


largess around to other related areas which could also benefit. It


is interesting, it is an area of focus for the tourism industry but I


also think it would be good if some smaller centres and museums could


get some funding because they are a crucial part of the tourist speedy


and is. -- tourist experience. Many Scots and English well next weekend


stand on the battlefield where their ancestors fought but when the battle


cries died down the could still be some skirmishes. I am joined now by


the Cabinet Minister for energy, enterprise and tourism. How many


tickets have you sold? Around 10,000. We are very confident we


will reach the target of 15,000 for what will be a terrific feast of


music, history and food on the 28th and 29th of September. That weekend


we also have white vest and Armed Forces Day. It will be a great


weekend for Stirling. 50,000 is the target for Bannockburn. I think they


are expecting something like 50,000 to turn up for Armed Forces Day. The


symbolism and iconography of that is not terrific for you as a supporter


of the yes campaign? I am hoping people will have a great weekend


out. Quite by giving 50,000 will turn out to support Armed Forces Day


and only 15,000 to support Bannockburn? Your viewers can go to


Bannockburn live .com for the details of what will be an


absolutely tremendous event with singers, re-enactments of the


battle... You are turning into a used car salesman in front of my


eyes. How about cancelling the question. There will be a


magnificent chance for children to hear Rory tellers. People can look


up what is on. -- storytellers. To answer your question, of course we


remember the Battle of Bannockburn which led to the growth of


independence which gained freedom for Scotland and also we remember


the sacrifice of the Armed Forces and the First World War who gave so


much to preserve freedom. I think we should remember and preserve all of


our history. You might be concerned with profits rising doom but I think


we can make this weekend a great weekend for all abuzz, not


necessarily for politics but for family fun. One of the main reasons


they will be 50,000 that Armed Forces Day is because it is free.


Why not make an burn free? It is only costing three quarters of ?1


million, you could easily justify that as public spending, why not say


now, just turn up, it is free and we will get everyone who has read


already their money back? I think the way you asked the question is


why you are doing your job and I am doing mine. We have planned an


excellent weekend with tickets that are competitively priced. Dublin


Council decided to seek and hold Armed Forces Day, we are


contributing to that, it did not cost free. We are contributing


?80,000 and we have worked closely with them to make sure extra train


carriages are laid on so people can get there. Why not make it free?


While some commentators wish to make political capital out of this for


some reason we are determined to make it a success. There are


substantial costs than running these events and it is appropriate people


be towards enjoying it. But Armed Forces Day is free. That is to make


sure it is a success. Why doesn't the Scottish Government put money


into Bannockburn and make that free? We are doing what we have planned to


do. We put money into homecoming events to make sure they are


successful. On one day we are working with planning chiefs in


Scotland and have a very special choir and the on Monday for


Bannockburn. -- planned day. Let us move on. ?200 million plus several


hundred million pounds over a period of years for setting up tax and


benefits, are we now revising the Scottish Government estimates? Is it


now ?200 million plus several billion more? The Scottish


Government has always said there would be an element of setup costs.


We set a reasonable figure would be set up. The UK estimate which Danny


Alexander brought forward of a 12 times greater amount has been


completely discredited. What is completely absent from this debate


is the Scottish Government doing the calculations itself and bringing


them in a document to put in front of the Scottish people before the


vote in the referendum. They could then say this is what we think, is


that going to happen? Firstly, that is not quite fair to ours. We have


said they will be an element of cost. People want us to be candid


about this. We have said they will be costs of the reasonable order. We


were ready to negotiate and remain ready to sit around the table and


have reasonable discussions as I do in my daily job with UK ministers.


What is your best estimate? Tell Makro the UK Government refused to


sit down around the table and negotiate these points which is why


it is not possible. You have produced documents over the past few


weeks which talk about what might happen if Rod activity in the


Scottish economy was increased and what then hypothetically that would


mean in terms of the size of the Scottish economy. You have put


figures on them and publish the document saying vote for


independence and it will be brilliant. You can do that which is


entirely speculative yet you cannot give the best assessment of what the


start-up costs of independence would be? We have put forward the fact we


believe the initial start-up costs would be of the order of 200


million. That is just something you picked up from Professor Dunne levy.


The UK figures were 12 times that which were completely discredited


and probably the biggest exaggeration in the wall of the


referendum campaign. You need to come up with some of your own.


People cannot understand why you find this so difficult. We have put


forward some detail in our white paper and more details in response


to the debate as we heard the first minister in the Scottish Parliament.


Professor You're watching


Sunday Politics Scotland. Let's cross now


for the news with Andrew Kerr. A new academic study puts


the immediate start-up costs of an independent Scotland


at ?200 million. Professor Patrick Dunleavy,


of the London School of Economics, said the costs in the event


of a yes vote would arise from the need to set up operations


like tax and benefits services. SNP ministers said


the estimate has blown out of the water the Treasury's start-up


figure of more than ?2.5 billion. Better Together said the Scottish


government must now set out A woman's been rescued


after swimming in the sea off one The incident happened after


a party on the island of Egilsay. Two kayakers who went to her


aid also got into difficulty. The woman was taken to hospital


in Kirkwall, One of the oldest surviving copies


of a poem detailing the Battle of Bannockburn has been restored


in time for the 700th anniversary. The 1400 line epic poem was written


by the Archdeacon of Aberdeen It covers the Scottish wars of


independence under Robert the Bruce. A 15th-century copy has been


restored by a team at It's day nine of the Queen's Baton


relay for the Commonwealth Games and it's making


its way through South Lanarkshire. The relay started in Lanark


and will carry on throughout the area before eventually finishing


the day in Hamilton. A man was arrested in Kilmarnock


last night after he attempted to Good afternoon. A fairly clear-cut


North-South split for the afternoon, with northern Scotland cloudy,


patchy rain and drizzle at times, and Shetland look like predominantly


dry. From the lowlands southward, mostly dry. A bright afternoon as


well. Temperatures responding to the heat. Up to 20 Celsius across


southern Scotland, cooler across the North. It will remain rather


cloudy. Now it is time for the look at what


is coming up in the week ahead. Tom Gordon from the Sunday Herald


and the writer Katie Grant away with me now. -- are here. Let's start


with this start-up costs it fascinating or does it put you to


sleep? It slightly puts me to sleep but it makes me disbelief both


sides. All I can think of is any estimate is always too low. Look at


the Holyrood Parliament building, we have so many examples of things


saying, it's going to cost this amount, and it cost 67 times that.


-- six or seven. Everybody knows 200 million is not going to be of the


real cost. Most people are hazy about the figures, but they know it


is going to be expensive, and the people who are going to clean up our


administrators, lawyers, tax collectors. That is the message that


comes through. The British government's paper on this rather


blew up in their face, because the Professor Dunleavy's report. Yes,


they said 200 billion -- 2 billion, and he blew that up. It has taken a


Sunday newspaper, and full crest -- credit to them, to commission a


report. The Scottish gunmen should have done that. -- the Scottish


government. Obviously, they are now going to be under pressure to give


something to people. Yes, Professor Dunleavy turned this paper around


very quickly. It could be very heavily caveat heavy, but it is


clear, saying what the ups and downs are, the time frames for phasing in


these taxes etc, he has done a dry quickly, and why has the Scottish


government not done it? This is independence 101. Now don't get


overexcited about this, but apparently, Better Together, they


are producing leaflets and they are going to send them out to every


household in Scotland. You could be on tenterhooks. I am waiting for


mine to drop through the door! I can't wait! I wonder if anyone has


done a cost benefit analysis on leafleting. Most people will stick


them on the bend. I suppose they feel they have got to do them


because they -- stick them in the bin. Because campaigns have always


done this. I don't think they do make much difference. Perhaps it


would make a difference if they did not do it. It is going to cost some


enormous sum of money to send them out. Do you think they do any good?


I might get a dog to sit next to the letterbox! I don't know how much


impact this has. Every time I open a newspaper, a leaflet for that


debate. People see this stuff all the time. I do not think eight F


will make a big difference. -- a letterbox drop. What you think about


this latest thing that David Cameron should debate with Alex Salmond?


Alex Salmond said he would debate with Alistair Cameron but only if


David Cameron refuses. The damage from David Cameron not doing it is


far less of the damage that would be doing if he does do it. All it would


say is, Tory toff with David Cameron's accent, which is just like


mine, Tory toff against plucky Alex Salmond. I am curious that you say


that, you are broadly right of centre in your beliefs, there is an


argument from your point of view to say, it is wrong to say that David


Cameron... People might not vote Conservative in Scotland, but it is


wrong to think that David Cameron is not seen as a credible figure in


people in Scotland so he should do it. People would not listen to


anything that wasn't said. There would only be this juxtaposition,


for the better Cameron -- of David Cameron and Alex Salmond. Pictures


do far more than the words, people would stare at that picture and that


would be their abiding memory. I think years much better to debate


against Alistair Darling who is a Scot. It is practical, I cannot


think he would make any other decision. It is not amazing he would


agree to a debate with Alex Salmond -- Alistair Darling, because he


wants to debate. He had taken his time, at least there will now be a


debate. Do you think David Cameron should or should not? I think he


should but I understand why he should not. Most sides of the


campaign are homing in on Labour voters, and David Cameron presses


all the wrong buttons for those people. So you are saying it is the


specific audience that up and decided, that they need to appeal


to? They are going to have a laser-like focus on undecideds.


David Cameron is the wrong person to put up for those people. Are you an


armed forces they person or a Bannockburn person? I suppose I


would be an Armed Forces Day person, I am a medieval historian, I like


that stuff, but the Bannockburn stuff this year, it has a


cartoonlike character. Where is the Armed Forces Day is about serving


personnel and has more relevance. Which are you going to? I am going


to sit them both out, I'm doing to take the kids to the botanic Gardens


as usual. If you were going? I would probably go to the free one, it is


?60 for the family tickets, you cannot take buddies in, you can't


take professional -- buddies in, you can't take professional photographic


equipment, it is not selling raided. I will be back next week.


Goodbye. Good afternoon. A fairly clear-cut


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by Labour's work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves to discuss what reforms Labour would make to the welfare department. Plus, what Nick Clegg needs to do to keep his grass roots happy.

Download Subtitles