13/07/2014 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news and debate. Andrew Neil is joined by Scotland's deputy first minister Nicola Sturgeon to discuss Scotland's referendum.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Sunday Politics. Just two months to go until Scotland decides whether it


should stay in work with the UK. At the campaign has for the final


furlong, what are the issues an argument that will determine the


result? Nicola Sturgeon joins me live will stop David Cameron has


scheduled a major cabinet reshuffle on Tuesday. Many of those tipped for


promotion are women. At efforts to promote diversity in public life


barely started, or have they already gone too far?


I don't know whether to support Germany or Argentina in the game


tonight? Fear not. We are bringing you a political guide to the World


Cup. Coming up on


Sunday Politics Scotland: Plans to establish


the UK's first spaceport will be A number of sites


in Scotland could be in the frame. Yes, eat your heart out, ITV,


because for top football analysis we've got Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen,


and Alan Shearer. And


for top political analysis you may as well tune in to them too because


all we could come up with is Nick David Cameron will reshuffle


his cabinet on Tuesday. The Sunday papers are full


of stories telling us who'll be in and who'll be out,


though they don't really know. The Mail on Sunday has one


of the more eye-catching lines, reporting that former defence


secretary and right-winger Liam Fox is in line for a return to


the political front line. But there's general agreement that


women will do well and some of the old men


in suits guard will do badly. It's good to make parliament


Davis speaking to this programme. But you've got to do it


in a way that doesn't create injustices, and you can't put people


in a job who can't do the job. And I've seen that too over


the last 20 years, people being accelerated too far too fast


and they come to a screeching halt where they have to


catch up with themselves. I am not going to give an example.


Is this not a bit cynical? He is going to promote these women into


cabinet positions, but they will not be able to do anything. I am


sceptical of Cabinet reshuffle. It is an un-written pact in that the


media and the government have a great interest in talking it up. The


government says, haven't we refreshed ourselves? Generally it


doesn't refresh the government. David Cameron wants to send out a


new signal. You're going to see the old guard getting a P 45 and you


will see a lot of women come in and a lot of younger men. We will find


there will be a lot of resignations. A lot of, dear Prime Minister, as I


told you 18 months ago, I want to move on. Because the Conservatives


have this perception of not being very good with women and not being


good with black and ethnic minority voters, they are going to want to do


something about that. Why did he not do it before? This reshuffle might


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


ranks have been from the a list which was a half measure because


they knew they could not bring all of them in. You are going to see


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


not the world's most raging feminist. He is doing this for


practical reasons. He knows he has an image problem for the party and


he has to solve it. He was stung by that picture of the all-male bench


at Prime Minister's Questions because visibly it gave you the


problem that you have been talking about. I do not think he has allowed


it to be all-male since that embarrassing image. I can understand


the criticism made of this approach if it was the case that all the


women being promoted by talentless but you have to be very harsh to


look at them and say that they would have much less to offer than the


likes of Andrew Lansley. You can be pro-feminist. The tests for David


Cameron is that having raised expectations he has to give them


substantial jobs. They have to be given departments to run or big


portfolios to carry. If they are given media campaign positions in


the run-up to the election it looks perfunctorily. He is under some


trouble to perhaps suggest a female commissioner to the European Union


Commission. Jean-Claude Juncker has made clear that if he proposes a


woman candidate they will get a better job. Saying they would like


ten out of the 28 to be women. We are going to get the name of the


British candidate at the same time as the reshuffle. The first


face-to-face meeting, he will be able to put a name. There are other


names in the frame. People like Archie Norman. That come from? His


name is in the frame. There would be great scepticism of giving it to


Andrew Lansley. People would think he was the man who mucked up the


reform of the NHS. Who is it going to be? Either a woman or a man. I


would not be surprised if they go for someone believe dynamic. Someone


who would square the party. Would that not mean a by-election? It


might. She is a high profile Eurosceptic. She is a very competent


former banker. It would be the smart choice. I have no idea but my


favourite rumour is Michael Howard. That had some legs for a while.


The Mystic Megs of Fleet Street predict with confidence that the PM


is going to promote more women in his cabinet reshuffle.


The move can be seen as part of a move across British public life


to do more to make our institutions less male and less white.


But as the list of schemes to encourage diversity


grows ever-longer, have we abandoned the idea of appointment by merit?


Tunnelling. Hard hats, and all for new trains. It does not get more


macho than the Crossrail project. When Crossrail looked at the


construction industry they realise that less than 20% was made up


construction industry they realise women and they asked, can we fix it?


They are trying with a recruitment drive that has brought in female


engineers like this woman. She even has a tunnel named after her. Having


more female engineers and construction brings a bigger range


of opinions, a bigger range of ideas, more diversity, into the


industry, and makes it better as a whole. It is the issue being


grappled in another male dominated workplace, the Cabinet. There is


about to be a reach shuffle and the rumour is David Cameron is going to


promote a lot of female ministers. It was a lack of promotion that


annoyed Harriet Harman this week. She claimed Gordon Brown did not


make her Deputy Prime Minister because she was a woman. It was


strange that in a hard-fought highly contested election to be deputy


leader of the Labour Party, and having won against men in the


Cabinet, to succeed to be deputy leader of the Labour Party I


discovered that I was not to be appointed as Deputy Prime Minister.


For women in this country, no matter how able they are, the matter how


hard they might work, they are still not equal. There are initiatives to


make the world feel more equal. In the City the EU wants a quarter for


women in the boardroom but that goal of making 40% of the top floor


female. At the BBC the boss of the TV division says no panel show


should ever be all-male. In the ever glamorous movie business the British


film Institute announced their new thematic system to get lottery


funding projects improving diversity on screen and off and helping social


mobility. Employers like Crossrail are not allowed to positively


discriminate but under the quality act of 2010 if two candidate for a


job are just as good you are allowed to base your decision on


characteristics like race, sexuality and gender. Some worry it has


chipped away at the idea of hiring on merit. A woman and three men


going for a job, two of the men are really good and the woman is not


quite as good but she gets the job anyway. That will create injustice,


a feeling that she did not deserve the job, resentment. It does not


advance equality in society at all. On this project they want to leave a


concrete legacy of a more diverse construction industry. The question


is, what tools do you use when it comes to the rest of society?


I'm joined now by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown,


a columnist for the Independent, and by Munira Mirza, the deputy


mayor of London responsible for education and culture.


Cabinet wee shovel coming up punches though. Should David Cameron be


promoting women? He is going to do it anyway. He should have a long


time ago. It does not feel quite right that a few months before the


election it would do the party a lot of good to be seen as a party


properly reflective of the entire population. He should promote women


because they are women? I think he should think about lots of different


factors, whether the people he wants promote have proven themselves in


their current reefs, whether they are good performers in the media,


whether they represent different parts of the party, but the main


principle is to promote on basis of merit. There are many talented women


who fill that description. It should be that merit is the important thing


rather than what you were born with. The thing about positive


discrimination as it flies in the face of that kind of principle. You


are shaking your head. We have always had positive discrimination.


Men of a certain class have appointed in their own image because


they feel most comfortable with that. We have had unspoken positive


discrimination in this country and every other country throughout


history. We are asking as women, all minorities, let us get into the same


game. What do you say? You cannot solve the racism or the sexism of


the past by more racism and sexism. It is not the past. There are


complex reasons why a smaller number of women will appear in certain


industries. It has a lot to do with childcare, education, expected. You


cannot short cut that by setting a target. That is not how you achieve


equality. Things are changing and more women are appearing in


engineering and so on but it will take time. My worry is that these


kinds of measures are counter-productive and undermine the


perception that women can do it on their own merit rather


counter-productive and undermine the perception that women can do it than


because they need a helping hand. It is not a helping hand. It is to say,


we are as good as men and these hidden barriers. Dot. Either they


are not as good or they do not want it, which is just how we persuade


are not as good or they do not want it, which ourselves that it is not


happening, or there are barriers. How we judge meritocracy is at the


heart of it. Are lots of industries won there are not that many women,


such as engineering. We need more engineers generally. I think it is


fine to try to encourage more women to study that subject. By setting a


target you put pressure on an organisation. You tried to ignore


the complex reasons why women do not go into those sectors. I think an


all-female short list achieved miracle in Parliament. This is


following up from having an injection of women coming up because


the system was changed and a large percentage of women went into


Parliament under the all-female short list were brilliant, so why


not? So if the Prime Minister is mailed the Deputy Prime Minister has


to be female and vice versa? Yes, absolutely, 50-50. We need to


reflect the population. If we want to play this as a symbolic gesture,


ideally we should have one of each. Why should a man get the job if you


have a great female prime minister and a great female Deputy Prime


Minister? I personally wouldn't mind this. I hear the disgruntled man and


I want to come -- them to come with us. You're choosing people on the


basis of traits they were born with. Are there too many Indian


doctors in the NHS? I would argue not. Given that we tend to have male


prime ministers rather than female ones, and we don't see another


female one coming down the pipe very quickly... In the time before women


short lists by the way. If you had a male prime minister with a female


Deputy Prime Minister, wouldn't that give some balance? Why women? Why


not working class person, which group do you prioritise? I would go


with you that we need something fundamental to change. This idea


that what we have now is a reflection of a genuine meritocracy


is highly questionable. I would argue that when you look at the


statistics things are changing. argue that when you look at the


statistics things There are more women appearing in parts of public


life, that is a long-term trend, but if you are trying to appoint people


on what they were born with... That is not the only reason but it is an


additional reason. She has to be able to do the job, obviously. I am


saying the policy of hazard to discrimination explicitly state that


you should choose somebody who is female because they are female. At


the moment there is already enough suspicion about women who are


successful to get to the senior position and if you institutionalise


it you reinforce that suspicion. Harriet Harman is still complaining


women are not being treated fairly. I think the policy reinforces the


prejudice that women are not getting there because they are treated on


the same basis. Although you may not want to have the all-female short


list forever, wasn't it the kind of shock to the system that made a


visible change in female representation, which the Tory side


hasn't got? Of course it will work short-term but longer term it has a


very degrading effect on the principle of equality and the fact


Harriet Harman is saying she wasn't treated equally, whether it is true


or not, the perception is still there. A number of women find this


position must be reserved for a woman lying patronising, and


speaking of patronising women, you spoken your Independent column, she


presses all of the buttons for white people... Was that patronising and


offensive? Probably. I wrote it because I felt that at the time but


the point is that I was a token when I was appointed. The paper brought


me in because I was a woman and I was a muslin or whatever. You are


not writing about yourself. I was writing... It doesn't mean you don't


criticise other women. We absolutely have to be tough, Manira is tough


and so am I. Do you want to take back what you wrote? No. Do you


really think positive discrimination has gone too far? I think there is


already a suspicion out there that in certain sectors women are being


promoted for the wrong reasons or ethnic minorities are being promoted


for the wrong reasons. That is a shame and my worry is that by tying


funding to your ethnicity or your gender, by saying you will get a


promotion if you check that box, but you feel that resentment and


prejudice and undermine the case for inequality. I wanted to be treated


equally, because I am capable of doing that job. Only two months to


go before Scotland takes its biggest constitutional decision in 300 years


- should it quit or stay with the UK? For some in Scotland campaign


has been going on forever. What has been the impact on the campaign to


date? Alex Salmond says Scotland would


remain part of the European Union with sterling as its currency in a


monetary union with the rest of the UK, but he has also promised more


public spending, increased child care provision and free personal


care for the elderly. The SNP claims it would leave people better off by


?1000 though that partly depends on the price of oil. With the Better


Together arguing against independence, it has naturally been


attacking the SNP on all fronts. George Osborne says there will be no


monetary union. President Barroso told the BBC it would be extremely


difficult for Scotland to join the EU after a yes vote. His successor


this week said he agreed. Unions claim Scotland benefit by ?1400 by


being part of the UK. A poll this morning shows a significant lead of


57% for the no campaign, leaving the SNP to claim it will go their way in


the last ten weeks. Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister of


Scotland, joins me now. You want an independent Scotland to keep the


pound, stay in NATO, stay in the EU, Scotland already has all of that


but you cannot guarantee it would have any of it in an independent


Scotland, why take the risk? All of these things should be the case


because they are in the best interests of Scotland and the rest


of the UK but we want the powers to enable us to grow our economy


faster, to be productive, and overtime increased the prosperity of


people living in Scotland. We also want powers over our social security


system so that we can create a system that meets our needs, one


that also has a safety net for the most vulnerable people in our


society. Independence is about letting us decide our own


priorities. You didn't answer my question, you cannot guarantee you


would be able to keep the pound within a monetary union, stay in


NATO and the EU, you cannot guarantee you could produce any of


these things, correct? I would argue that we can because these things are


also in the interest of the rest of the UK. No country can be prevented


from using the pound, I suggest we use that within a formal monetary


union. We have had the UK minister quoted in the Guardian saying the


position of the UK Government right now is one based on campaign


rhetoric and following a yes vote, of course there would be a currency


union. Who is that minister? The Minister is unnamed, but


nevertheless that story in the Guardian was a solid one and not


substantially denied. So you are basing your monetary policy on one


on named minister in one story? Basing it on Common sense because


monetary union would be in the best interests for Scotland but also


overwhelmingly in the interests of the rest of the UK, given their


trading relationship with Scotland and the contribution Scotland's


exports make. We are having a very good debate and the UK Government


and the no campaign, and this is not a criticism, want to talk up in --


uncertainty to make people feel scared, but after independence there


will be constructed process of negotiation. Let's stick with the


monetary union because most economists agree it would be very


good for an independent Scotland to have a monetary union but George


Osborne, Ed Balls, Danny Alexander are unequivocal, they say you won't


get it. You claim they are bluffing but again you cannot guarantee that


so why the risk? I would say the benefits of independence are


substantial but I would also say to George Osborne and his counterparts


in the other parties that it would be a very brave Chancellor that says


to businesses in the rest of the UK that they have to incur unnecessary


additional transaction costs of half a very brave Chancellor that says to


businesses in the rest of the UK that they have to incur unnecessary


additional transaction costs of half. What we are doing is making a


case that is based on common sense and voters in Scotland will listen


to that case being put forward by the other side as well, and they


will come to a judgement of the common-sense position. Let's look at


EU membership because you haven't been able to guarantee the monetary


union. When President Barroso said that a seamless transition to EU


membership for an independent Scotland was anything but certain,


and one said it could even be impossible, you dismissed him


because he was standing down, but been -- venue EU president says the


same, do you dismissed him? What we are doing... I should say at the


outset of this, we have said repeatedly to the UK Government,


let's go jointly and ask for a formal opinion on the EU


commission. The EU commission have said they will only do that at this


stage if the UK Government ask for it, they are point blank refusing to


do that, you have to ask why? It is in their interests to talk up


uncertainty. Scotland is an integral part of the European Union, we have


been for 40 years, we comply with the rules and regulations... Mr


Juncker knows all of that but he still says it will be anything but a


seamless transition. He said you could not join the European Union by


sending a letter, that is not our proposal. We set down a robust


proposal and the timescale we think is reasonable under these


circumstances. There are many nationals of other states living in


Scotland right now, if we were to be outside of the European Union for


any period of time, something the current treaty doesn't even provide


for, they would lose their right to stay here. The interests of Scotland


and the interests of European Union are in favour of a seamless


transition. It comes down to common sense and people in Scotland will


make sense and people in Scotland will


their own judgement on who is talking the common-sense. What about


NATO, two years ago you told Newsnight the SNP's position is that


we wouldn't stay in NATO. We had a democratic debate, we looked at


whether it would be in the interests of an independent Scotland, which


forms a significant part of the territory of the North Atlantic and


the party changed its mind. It did so in a thoroughly democratic way.


That is the nature of democracy. Would you accept the protection of


the NATO nuclear umbrella? There is no doubt the SNP's position is that


we do not want nuclear weapons in Scotland. That is not what I asked.


The world rid themselves of nuclear weapons. One of the interesting


point is of the 28 member countries of Natal 25 do not have nuclear


weapons. An independent Scotland... I asked if you would accept the


nuclear umbrella. The key feature of NATO's military dog train is now


clear shrike. We would accept the basis of which NATO is founded but


we would argue two things. We want Trident removed from Scotland rather


than have a situation where might we are spending ?100 billion over the


next generation replacing Trident and we would argue within the


international community that the world should move much more quickly


to rid itself of nuclear weapons. That is the principal position and


won the SNP has held consistently for many years. You would get rid of


one of the key parts of the NATO deterrent based in Scotland. You


would kick that out. You would not accept all of the club rules because


you do not like the idea of nuclear. Why would they like a member like


you in? Because Scotland is a significant part of the territory of


the North Atlantic. You do not subscribe to the rules. 25 of the


member states of NATO are non-nuclear members. You are saying


you do not follow the doctrine. NATO has said it wants to move away from


reliance on nuclear weapons. An independent Scotland would be


entering the majority mainstream of NATO as a country that did not have


nuclear weapons. By leading by example our moral authority and


encouraging others to do likewise would be increased. Money and oil,


the finance minister has said that an independent Scotland would


increase public spending by 3% a year. He would pay for that by


borrowing. Your First Minister says he is going to stash money in an oil


fund. You're going to borrow and save. How does that work? There are


two points. Firstly in terms of the outlook for finances and what is one


of the central debates of this referendum campaign, austerity that


we know will continue if we stay as part of the Westminster system


versus prosperity. The economy can afford a higher level of increase in


public spending while we continue to have deficit levels at a sustainable


level. What is the point of borrowing and saving at the same


time? People who have a mortgage and the savings account would not


themselves what the wisdom of that is. This is based on recommendations


of our expert fiscal Commission that as borrowing reduces to sustainable


levels it makes sense to start saving a proportion of our oil


wealth. In Norway, which has many similarities to Scotland, they have


an oil fund worth ?500 billion. Scotland is part of the Westminster


system is sitting on a share of UK debt. We can continue to allow our


oil wealth, our vast oil wealth, to be mismanaged or we can decide we


are going to manage that resource better in the years to come. Your


figures do not add up unless you are about oil prices and revenue and you


have been consistently wrong in your predictions. Last year you forecast


that revenues would be the .7 billion more than they actually work


-- 3.7 Production in line with industry


estimates would be a real terms reduction. The Department of Energy


and Climate Change in the UK Government is estimating 128


dollars, so our estimate is compared to that a cautious one. These are


robust estimates based on robust assumptions.


They have recently been wrong. But let me move into the final point. We


hear a lot from you and your fellow nationalists that you want a


Scandinavian style social democracy. You certainly have the spending


plans, spending like a social Democrat, but you never tell us


about social democratic levels of taxation. All social democracies


have higher levels of tax that Scotland have the, so what taxes


would go up? We are not proposing tax increases. I want a Scottish


style of social democracy. Our government has injuries policies


like free education and medicine, and balance the books every single


year we have been in government. We want to get more people into work,


raise the level of participation in the level market -- labour market


and make our economy more productive to increase the overall tax level


government. Over the last 33 years, we have generated more tax per of


population than the rest of the UK. Those last 33 years, oil prices will


have been high in some, and low in some of this. We will also take


different decisions. A report published last week shows that if we


go as part of the Westminster system down the route of replacing


Trident, the cost of that over the next generation will be as high in


some years in the 20 20s as ?4 billion. Let's get our access to our


own resources, so that we can make different and better decisions about


how we spent the resources we already have. So let me get this


clear, you are promising Scandinavian style social democratic


levels of public spending, but you say you won't need a top rate of tax


of 60%, as Scandinavia has, a VAT of 25%, as they have, and VAT on food


between 12 and 15%. So you give us all the spending but none of the


taxes that make that possible in Scandinavia. I'm sure for purely


mischievous reasons you are misrepresenting me. We won levels of


public spending in Scotland that the Scottish economy can afford, and I


can also help us generate more wealth. We want to use Scotland's


existing resources. We are the 14th richest country in the world in


terms of what our economy produces per head of population. We don't


want to waste resources on Trident replacement, we want to spend the


resources we have on the priorities of people in Scotland, and these are


the benefits and opportunities we only get we take the opportunity of


voting yes in the coming referendum. Thank you for joining us


will stop it is 11:35 a.m.. Viewers in Scotland leavers now for


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


Plans to establish the UK's first spaceport are to be announced at


Several Scottish sites are in the running.


Lib Dem MP Michael Moore has secured the rarity of a private


He'll be talking to us live this morning.


Scotland commemorates Srebrenica - 8,000 men


and boys were massacred by Serbian forces 19 years ago this month.


The Labour MP Ann McKechin talks to us about her visit to the town.


The UK government will use the Farnborough Air Show next week


to lay out plans for a spaceport in Britain.


On Tuesday, ministers from the departments


of Business and Innovation Skills, the Department of Trade


and officials from the UK Space Agency will come together to reveal


eight potential locations across the UK which have been shortlisted.


The government says its ambition is to have


A number of sites in Scotland have been suggested


Among them is the former RAF base at Kinloss in Morayshire,


although operational flights ceased there in 2011.


It's now an army base but its runways have been maintained.


RAF Lossiemouth, home to Tornados and from this


summer, Typhoon squadrons, had been mooted when it was threatened with


The former MoD base at Machrihanish was handed over in the mid-1990s.


In 2011 the Defence Secretary announced the closure of


RAF Leuchars, though the base will be transferred to the army.


I'm joined now by Craig Clark, who is the Chief Executive


Craig, I was kind of hoping you would be called Boz! We should


explain ClydeSpace. You built the first made in Scotland satellite,


didn't you, which has just been launched? Yes, on Tuesday. In


Kazakhstan. And that has done successfully? Yes, very


successfully. We used a rocket which was similar to one of the ones that


launched people into space, a very reliable rocket, and everything went


perfectly. First, this idea of a spaceport. Is that a good idea, do


you think? I think it is a fantastic idea. Only there are no such launch


sites in Europe, said to have one in the UK, it puts is miles ahead of


European sense of capability of putting a spacecraft into orbit, so


it would attract lots of business to the UK. These sites we have been


talking about in Scotland, it would seem that something like six of the


eight potential sites are here. Yes, well Scotland is ideally


placed, because when you launch a satellite into orbit, there is a


technical explanation, but basically, you want to go north. So


in the UK, Scotland is ideally placed. You also want to launch ever


see, when nobody is living, in case anything goes wrong, and you don't


want about any lives in jeopardy. So the idea of Kinloss or Machrihanish


is, you go north and there is nothing there. Then this is


presumably in case of accidents. Yes, that is right. OK. What would


we launch from a UK space Port? We don't have any rockets, do we? There


is a capability in the UK. We have missile capability, which most to


other now about. We can also buy rocket technology from other


countries like the US, or we could even have US companies locate


themselves in the UK to launch spacecraft from here as well. When


you say we have missile technology, do you mean we have technology that


could launch something like UKube-1 into space? That's correct. The


launch vehicle we were run on Tuesday was very day, and actually


had a very large satellite, including our satellite, the size of


a large car. You need a very large launch vehicle to take that sort of


thing into orbit, but the typical spacecraft, it you can make it about


the size of a shoe box. Other companies make satellite is the size


of a washing machine. That those sorts of sizes, the launch vehicle


technology is a lot simpler. So it is possible. So we could have


business technology doing that? Yes. Will presumably, as you say, you


could buy some rockets from the Russians of the same model that you


used. Plenty of people do that already around the world. Tell us a


bit more about UKube-1. The first one went up, it had experiments on


it. Using space particles to generate random numbers. What on


earth is that all about? Well, in space, we have radiation, and one


type of radiation will cause a zero to go to a one in memory, and I will


basically cause a random number to be generated. So the radiation


particle hits the Itronix... I presume eventually, the idea is that


you have space particles generating random numbers, which can be as for


something like internet security purposes? That's right, so maybe


military satellites or something like that. Is that feasible? Are we


talking far future or is that something that could be in a few


years? We use random number generators are ready for secure


communications, but it is all done on software, so there is a limit to


how random they are. To take that further, they are trying different


techniques. What difference would it make to have a company making these


things if we had a space base? I think it would track lots of


business to the UK. We are in the business of making very small


satellites. So if you had a regular series of these little missile


launchers you're talking about, that would be easier? Absolutely. To


launch our satellite, travelling to Moscow and Kazakhstan, there were


lots of issues. The Scottish Government, when it commented on


this story said, the Scottish space industry can only develop further if


we become independent. Is that how it looks from where you are? From my


point of view, we are maybe an export business, so most of our


customers are worldwide, and about a third of our sales are in the US, to


NASA and organisations like that. So whether we are independent or not


would not really make much difference to us. Well, thank you


very much. Now, one of the coalition


government's proudest pledges was that Britain's overseas aid budget


would be protected from George In fact, last year Britain met


for the first time the international target of spending


0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. But should that target be enshrined


in law Michael Moore, the Liberal Democrat


MP and former Scottish Secretary, He'll be putting down a private


members bill to that effect, and it Michael Moore, the obvious problem


with your bill is that, as I understand it, the importance of it,


and there are some Conservative MPs who have already said so, they can


just talk it out? They could. There are all kinds of parliamentary


tricks that could be used to prevent it from getting through all its


stages, but I think the important point here is, this is an issue on


which the important point here is, this is an issue on which there is


cost party consensus. Labour, the Conservatives, the SNP and ourselves


will support the principle of putting this target in law, and it


draws attention to a really important issue, that aid for people


in the least developed parts of the world, people who are really


suffering, is still very important, and we in the UK are rightly proud


of having reached the target, but we have to make sure we keep reaching


the target. When you asked by the Lib Dem leadership to pick this


topic? No, I was considering a range of different bills, and a Private


Members' Bill has to be one that has a good chance of getting through by


getting cross-party consensus. I know there is a strong consensus for


this. I respect the fact that there are people in other parties who


oppose it. I am happy to meet them and argue the case. The reason I ask


you is because enshrined in this in law was in the coalition agreement


between yourselves and the Conservatives, and David Cameron


decided not to proceed with that, even though it was in the coalition


agreement. So cynics would say that apart from your concerns about the


third World, which I don't think anyone would doubt, this looks like


a ploy to expose divisions in the Conservative Party. There are


certainly people in the Conservative Party who are opposed to this. Some


of them oppose all Private Members' Bills, some have an ideological


opposition to government money being spent on aid. However, to give


credit to the many in the Conservative Party alongside Liberal


Democrats and the SNP and Labour who are very strongly supportive of


this, including successive secretaries of State, and one key


back of my bill is Andrew Mitchell, who is the first Conservative


Secretary of State for International development back in 2010. I think it


is to their credit along with others that this has got consensus to go


forward. The obvious argument against this is that you are tying


the hands of future governments, perhaps in the middle of a financial


crisis, and also, for many in this country, times have been very tough


recently. For example, why not write a law saying you can't cut the NHS


budget? The reason I have drawn attention to this, and generations


of campaigners and politicians have argued for this, is that the


disparity, the gap between the very wealthy of the world and those in


abject poverty in the developing world is huge, and sadly, not


getting closed quickly enough. There has been a United Nations target to


get to this level of government spending since 1970, so we are not


exactly rushed to get here. We are seeing, let's get a floor under


which we do not go in terms of development. It is not .7%. Not a


huge amount of money, and then we can start making short, doubling our


efforts to make sure it is well spent and well targeted. Briefly,


the other criticism that is made is that we give money to some countries


that arguably should not receive it. Let me give you one example. Nigeria


has just rearranged its GDP in a way many economists think is credible,


making it the richest country in Africa, Richard and South Africa,


yet it is receiving British aid. Although there are problems in


Nigeria, people would say it is to do with governance, not lack of


money. Their economy is growing faster than ours. That is


legitimate. We need to focus our assistance on the right countries


and the right bits within countries, because property is not universally


experienced, and I don't think we will shy away from having a close


focus on development aid and how it is spent, but we can't escape the


fact that millions of people are in extreme hunger, millions do not get


access to clean water, millions do not get vaccinations that could save


them and their children, and I think well that remains the case, we


should be focusing our efforts in this way. There is also also talk


about a Cabinet reshuffle tomorrow. You don't have fond memories of the


last one. You think Nick Clegg should reshuffle himself? Do you


think he should lead the Lib Dems into the next election? Of course he


should. I think it is absolutely right that Nick should take is


through to the next election. I think he is the right guy to do it.


By your poll ratings are disastrous. They are dire, but they will not be


changed by a leadership election largely featuring people who like


Nick and me have been in coalition. You describe Radio 1 poll ratings as


dire. How could he be any more dire by having a new leader? My personal


judgement which I know is shared by most colleagues is that Nick is the


right guy to be leading us and a distraction of a leadership contest


right now when the electorate are expecting us to set out our


programme for the next Parliament would be completely self-indulgent


and wrong. With the benefit of hindsight, do you think the Liberal


Democrats should have gone into coalition? I do. The country was on


our financial precipice in 2010 and we had real questions to be answered


about our economic viability. We needed the government to have the


commitment and strength to go through five tough years. For us to


have avoided that and sat in the comfort zone of the opposition


benches would have created more difficulty. You betrayed personal


pledges. You made a personal pledge not to increase tuition fees. That


was the moment in which the credibility of the Liberal Democrats


was shot and you have never recovered. I appreciate that and I


have apologised for the reasons behind that strong change of


position. We continue to argue with people the length and breadth of the


country about what we have put in place that we believe actually is


better at getting students from poor background into higher education and


it is a fire system. Really? Nonetheless, I am not ducking your


central point. We said we wouldn't and we did. In the process of


explaining that to the public, we have the set out the other things we


have achieved, not least out of ensuring pensioners get a fair deal


from the state. Liberal Democrats have delivered some good things. Let


me just caught you on the subject of betraying the pledge on tuition


fees. You said, I signed a pledge that promised not to do that. I have


done the worst crime a politician can commit. I have had to break a


pledge very publicly in what is a car crash and it is deeply damaging


to my party, me and lots of others. You're absolutely right, weren't


you? If you recall, that was a private conversation which the Daily


Telegraph recorded. But I stand by what I said. I perhaps put it more


colourfully in private than I would have done in public. Nick Clegg,


myself and others have apologised for that. There were senior Liberal


Democrats including Charles Kennedy and so Ming Campbell who refuse to


do what you did. They said -- sur Menzies Campbell.


Vince Cable brought the policy for bird. Nick Clegg as leader and our


Cabinet colleagues were going to support this. It would have been


ridiculous for us not to. We believe the solution we brought forward was


the best available in the circumstances and prevented huge


cuts in the higher education spending in England and Wales. I am


not getting away from the difficulties of that and the legacy


it has left. It is much more profound than that. Ming Campbell


said my credibility would be shot to pieces if I did anything other than


stick to the promise I made. He was right, wasn't he? Your personal


credibility as a politician has been shot to pieces. Each of us is


accountable to our electorate and our constituents across the country.


We have do explain decisions which are different to what we have said.


People are giving us a clearer hearing than perhaps you are


suggesting. Yes, the Paul rating remains dire and we need to do


better. Over the next nine months, we will have our opportunity to set


out our stall for the next elections. Are there any red lines


left for the Liberal Democrats? Suppose the Conservatives did well


in the next general election but again didn't have an overall


majority and wanted going to coalition with the Liberal Democrats


again, David Cameron might say that he needed the EU Referendum Bill


stop would you let him have that? There are a number of stages before


we get to any coalition negotiations. I don't want there to


be a referendum that is on different terms to the one we agreed in this


parliament with the Conservatives which is to say were there to be a


major transfer of powers to Brussels then there should be a referendum. I


am not in the position to say there is a red line on anything. Nobody


believes there is one. Everybody sees every political party,


including labour, the Conservatives and the SNP, they have to make


compromises. We will set out our position in the build-up to the


election and on that basis we will submit colleagues which we hope will


be elected to Parliament. I think it is fair to say you were probably not


delighted when you were replaced as Secretary of State for Scotland. Is


it helpful that Alistair Carmichael is rumoured to be replaced after the


referendum? Having been through various boats of speculation, you


learn to Don thick skin very quickly. Alistair is doing a superb


job and there are lots of talented colleagues. He is not going to be


replaced in September? That is not my decision. That is a decision for


the leader. In my personal view, I think Alistair is doing a fantastic


job and I hope he continues doing it. Thank you for joining us.


You're watching Sunday Politics Scotland.


Scotland could become the base for the UK's spaceport, the first of


The UK Government will reveal eight potential locations for the


Its ambition is to have the port fully operational by 2018.


Kinloss in Morayshire, RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Leuchars


have all been mentioned as possible locations in the past.


The First Minister has said the North Sea oil industry would be


a bonus, not the basis of an independent Scotland's economy.


He is responding to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny


Alexander, who has accused him of promising milk and honey after the


UK Office for Budget Responsibility revised down the amount of cash it


expects to be raised from oil and gas revenues. Mr Salmond argued


the industry has been neglected and undermined by successive UK


A project to reduce the cost and time it takes to establish


offshore wind farms is to benefit from ?2.2 million of Scottish


Nine developers with around 70% of the UK's offshore energy


capacity will work to share knowledge and best practice


in areas including the maintenance of turbines and cable installation.


It has been confirmed that Rod Stewart will headline


the opening ceremony of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.


He will perform in front of 40,000 people at the event at Celtic Park.


Susan Boyle, Nicola Bennedetti and Amy MacDonald are also included


in the line up which is expected to be watched internationally


Many of us saw some range of in the overnight period. That has cleared


from the mainland although it will linger over Orkney and Shetland.


Elsewhere, it looks predominantly dry. Some servers breaking out


towards more eastern parts of the country. We could see some highs of


21 degrees. A fairly pleasant afternoon for most. This evening,


drive a clear spells. Last Friday,


Scotland marked Srebrenica Memorial Those involved commemorated


the massacre of 8,000 men and boys It was the worst atrocity in the


three and a half year war that broke out following the disintegration


of Yugoslavia involving Bosnia, 100,000 people died during the


conflict, 80% of whom were Bosnian, Labour MP Ann McKechin visited the


town earlier this year and she's One of the things that struck me as


most disturbing and what you said after you came back in February was


that there was little sign of any reconciliation in the town itself? I


have visited a number of sites were genocide has occurred. Auschwitz,


Rwanda and Buenos Aires where the disappeared were tortured and


killed. When I visited Bosnia, the atmosphere was distinctly different.


People are not allowed to grieve properly in the town were this


dreadful massacre took place. One of the site is still used as a school


by the Serbian population. People are not allowed to lay flowers were


people were shot and killed. The distance between the communities in


this small part of the world is still growing. When you see people


are not allowed to lay flowers, how does that work? Technically, this is


all Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is the Serbian Republic part of it


effectively working as an autonomous unit? That's right. The threatening


to join Serbia. The fact that there is an agreement which set up the


political structure within Bosnia-Herzegovina and that was


really there to stop the killing and have a cease-fire. It is not a


serious long-term political settlement for that country and it


is not engendered the necessary grassroots reconciliation which


allows people to grieve for their dead properly, to move on and start


to live and grow together. That is why it demands our attention. What


you think needs to be the European Union has understandably had a focus


in Ukraine. But the leadership needs to show focus here in encouraging a


mum on to -- a momentum for change. Do you think there can be


reconciliation within the new state of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or do you


think they would only ever be reconciliation if the Serbian


Republic would be allowed to break away? I think that would be


disastrous. People are very afraid that could occur. What we require is


encouragement to the government of Bosnia and surrounding countries to


work together for a new political process which will not happen


overnight. This will be a very long process because the horror of


Srebrenica and that war which lasted for four Mac years and affected the


whole country when thousands of people lost their lives, that will


take a long time to forget. The past is not sorted out. As I understand


it, there are still investigations into missing people? People are


still being identified as we speak. Bones were scattered over a wide


radius. These need to be properly interred. People were directly


involved in the killing and have never been brought to justice. They


are living and working, in some cases holding senior positions.


Quite openly. What about the Dutch role in this? Apparently, a criminal


case was not possible as the UN has immunity. But do you think the Dutch


role should just be put in the past, or do you think it is a live issue?


We need to understand the strength of feeling within the Bosnia


immunity in Srebrenica about what occurred, and the total failure of


the international community to protect them adequately. The UN must


except this issue and take responsibility for it, because


people need to have trust in the United Nations and international


organisations if we are to achieve the type of peace and resolution and


security we all seek. In the first of a series,


we've been asking people on both sides of the referendum


campaign for a personal account Chris Agee, author,


poet and writer-in-residence at Strathclyde University,


begins by giving us his account. I stay in Partick and will be voting


Yes in the referendum, but I grew up in the United States and have lived


most of my life in Ireland. I have yet to meet a single Scottish Scots


resident writer who does not intend to vote Yes. Writers tend to take


the long view, both in terms of the future, but in relation to the past.


Turning to my own particular reasons, the removal of nuclear


weapons, the ending of the half nation for the full nation, the


obvious, pate and better prospect for social justice and democratic


participation. Avoidance of what is sometimes called political capture


by special interests or classes, as in the City of London. Continued,


secure membership of the European Union. Altogether, these potential


changes or developments will have an enormous impact, obviously, on


England in general, and London in particular. Small, well off


democratic polity is like the Nordic countries do social justice and


democratic participation better than the large, loose federal structures


structure is embodied by Russia, China, US, and to a certain extent,


the UK, which are now riven with the most enormous social inequalities,


as exemplified by what might be called the citystate of London.


Scottish independence does not represent a move towards insularity,


but a move towards international is. Imagine all the distinct,


independent Scottish voices that can exist in international bodies, and


at the same time, Scottish independence has the potential for a


major, positive influence on the reconciliation of two parts of


Ireland, and the reordering any more natural way of the various parts of


this planet. Next week, we'll have


our second guest to explain what's shaped his decision to vote No


in September's referendum. Now, time for a look at what is in


the papers and what is happening in the week ahead.


I am joined by Penny Taylor and by Andrew Pickering. Let's start with


Scots in space. There might be a space based in Scotland. Exciting?


My initial reaction is, is this another indie referendum bribe,


because they cannot afford their own space programme, I think, so I am a


little curious of this timing. I think the scepticism is fairly well


founded, but it is quite exciting. It fires the imagination. It is


July, when these sort of stories traditionally happen. But this is


not speculation, it is announced by the government. We sent up our first


satellite, launched in Kazakhstan. Yes, one made in Scotland. And this


has been on the go for a couple of years. A couple of stories in the


Herald. Better Together have the wrong address. You mentioned the


silly season! You get about halfway through this, and you realise it is


really not a story, because the Electoral Commission are saying, it


is fine with us, there is not a problem. So I am not entirely


convinced by this. I have been reading and rereading it, looking


body significance. I cannot understand what it would mean if the


Electoral commission has said, you have registered your address in


Glasgow instead of Edinburgh. Does it mean there is No a? What would be


the indication? I presume there would be at implication, if you


remember that the CBI was technically not registered properly.


I guess that is the comparison. Scotland on Sunday, arguably, there


is a new poll, Penny Taylor. Yes, and polls leave me a little bit


cold. This one shows 2% gain for the Yes campaign, and 80% loss for the


No camp will stop I am not a statistician, but I wonder as


statistically significant that is. However, the detail in this is


really interesting. It shows for the first time, for instance, that more


women are declaring for Yes than men. Up until now, we have thought


that women were the ones who were hanging back. This says differently.


Something I am also finding very interesting, there has been a loss


of 9% in the No vote from people aged over 65, according to this


poll. I think it is maybe pinch of salt stuff. On the face of it, good


news for the No camp. I think the Yes camp or will consult themselves


with 21% and undecided. The one jumped out at me was 86% of No


voters would still reject independence if there wasn't any


offer of more powers. Presumably, the concern for the Yes camp is that


there has now been a series of polls which, at best, showed No particular


movement. Yes. But what it does show is, they are still in the race. Even


with weeks to go, which is what I think they are working towards. Two


months on Friday, and it is still incredibly tight, so the game is for


the playing. So they will be hoping a bit last Bush can turn it around.


I think we will see quite a few polls after the Commonwealth Games


as well, to take that into a new era. Cabinet reshuffle. Exciting?


More women? Yes, it is saying in the Sunday Times that David Cameron has


lined up a dozen women to be the new faces at the Tory party in the


run-up to the general election. A lot of me wants to say, about time,


but when you are looking at the detail of some of these women, you


are wondering what difference it will make to party policy or the


acceptability of a party in this neck of the woods. Penny is right in


terms of about time. It begs the question, why have they not done it


before now? Voters will probably look at it that way. What about some


of the big positions? Any changes there? It is saying that the


employment Minister Esther McVey is being lined up to replace Kenneth


Clarke, that he is preparing to stand down as Minister Without


Portfolio. Yes, although another rumour is that Esther McVey could


replace Iain Duncan Smith. It is just a rumour. Even at the time of


the last reshuffle, I was taught that George Osborne wanted to get


rid of Iain Duncan Smith, because he took his own wealth reforms


seriously, instead of just saving money. There has been a lot of


conflict between those two camps. The one that intrigued me was Lynne


Fawkes possibly making a return after three years in the wilderness.


It will be interesting to see what happens there. Possibly Ed Davey


replaced by Jo Swinson, though it seems a road is now denying that. I


think we saw the response of Michael Moore to that, Yes. It has been


mooted that Jo Swinson will be in the Cabinet, but possibly in


September. Do you think she is deserving? She is certainly a


popular MP, but what is interesting to me as a woman in Scotland as, the


relevance of this to the Scottish debate at the moment. It feels quite


remote. We will have to leave it there. Thank you both very much


indeed. I'll be back at the same time


next week. Until then, goodbye.


Download Subtitles