21/09/2014 Sunday Politics Scotland


The latest political news, interviews and debate in Scotland.

Similar Content

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



Good morning from Manchester, where politicians and the Labour


conference are trying to work out what the independence fallout means


for the rest of the UK. Good morning. Welcome to the Sunday


Politics. Scotland's decision to vote no means more power is heading


north of the border, but what about home rule for England? Independence


for Scotland has been his life's work,. First Minister Alex Salmond


tells us why he is stepping down after losing Thursday's vote. And an


exclusive survey of what the people who want to be Labour MPs think


about immigration, the EU and their party. We will ask the Shadow


Business Secretary if he agrees. Coming up in


Sunday Politics Scotland: Alex Salmond accuses Westminster


of reneging on further devolution. We'll be talking


about the delivery of those extra for the capital? With me, the best


and brightest political panel in the business, at least that is what they


pay me to say every week. Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and, this week, we have


done some devolution ourselves to other areas, and we have Sam Coates


from the times. The union survived, but only at the cost of more powers


for the Scottish parliament and enshrining the formula that gives


Scotland a privileged position when it comes to public spending, which


has MPs on both sides of the Commons of in arms. The Scottish question


has been answered for now. Suddenly, the English question takes centre


stage, doesn't it? Absolutely. It has a grubby feel, when that vow was


put to the Scottish people, that they hoped would swing the vote,


there was nothing about English-only votes. It was unconditional? The


Tory proposal did talk very core justly about looking at the


proposals by a former clerk of the House of Commons that looked at this


issue. That was very cautious. -- cautiously. These proposals will not


get through Westminster unless David Cameron addresses the English-only


issue. You look at people like Chris Grayling in the Sunday Telegraph.


Alistair Darling on the Andrew Marr Show said you could not have a link


between what you are giving Holyrood and English-only MPs. Back on says,


is welshing on the deal. -- comic he They were furious that he gave away


these tax powers and inscribed the Barnett formula. They said they


weren't going to vote for it. It is a shameless piece of opportunism.


Now they can say that Labour are the ones that don't trust you and don't


want to give you more powers. He knows it is going to be a tight


timetable. The idea of getting a draft of this out by Burns Night,


most people would say, given they had six years to set up Scottish


parliament, the idea we will solve these huge constitutional questions


in four months is absurd. But they don't care about the constitutional


questions, the one they care about is English votes? There is a simple


reason they won that. If you look at the MPs in England alone, the Tories


have a majority of 59, an overwhelming bias, and if you strip


out Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland, so this has become a


partisan issue. The question is whether David Cameron can follow


through on the promise. He said he would link the two Scottish powers,


but it's not clear you will get either before the general election.


It's not but the purpose is to cause Labour Party discomfort, and it is.


You can see with date -- Ed Miliband this morning, they find it very hard


to answer the question, why shouldn't there be English votes for


English laws? Ed Miliband this morning was saying how London MPs


get to vote on London transport and English MPs don't outside of London


and it is confusing, but Labour is in a difficult position. They were


before the Prime Minister made his announcement. The yes side triumphed


in Glasgow, the largest city in Scotland, a Labour heartland, and


the Prime Minister is saying that if Labour don't agree to this by the


time of the general election, he is handing a gift to the SNP, that that


would be the party that the natural Labour voters would vote for to see


off the plan. It's not just Tory backbenchers. There are Labour


backbenchers saying there should be in which bodes for English laws.


Even people in the Shadow Cabinet think it is right. The cases


unarguable. If you say her chewing a partisan way, you can't sell it to


the country. Ed Miliband is on course to have a majority of about


20, and you take the 40 English MPs, and he hasn't got it. This is a


coalition government where the Conservatives haven't got really to


be in charge, they have put in sweeping laws. Labour should


probably take the bullet on this one. Let's leave it for the moment.


But don't go away. As they struggle to keep the United Kingdom in one


piece, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg promised to keep


something called the Barnett Formula.


It wasn't invented in Barnet, but by man called Joel Barnett.


And it's how the UK government decides how much


public money to spend in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.


It's controversial, because it's led to public spending


being typically 20% higher in Scotland than in England.


Well, some English MPs aren't happy about that.


I'm joined now by the Tory MP Dominic Raab.


Welcome to the Sunday Politics. How can the Prime Minister scrap the


Barnett Formula when he has just about to keep it on the front page


of a major Scottish newspaper? If we are going to see financial


devolution to Scotland, more powers of tax and spend, it's impossible


not to look at the impact on the wider union, and there have been


promises made to the Scottish and we should do our best to deliver them,


but there have been promises made to the English, Welsh and Northern


Irish. If you look at the Barnett Formula which allocates revenue


across the UK, it is massively prejudicial to those other parts. We


have double the number of ambulance staff and nurses compared to


England. The regional breakdown is more stark with double the amount


spent on social housing in Scotland than in Yorkshire and the North West


and the Midlands. The Welsh do very poorly on social services for the


elderly. What are we saying? That they need our children, patients and


the elderly are worth less than the Scots? That's not the way to have a


sustainable solution. I understand the distribution impact of the


Barnett Formula, but Westminster politicians are already held in


contempt by a lot of people and to rat on such a public pledge would


confirm their worst fears. Your leader would have secured the union


on a false prospectus. First of all, it's clear from the Ashcroft


poll that the offer made in the Scottish newspaper had zero effect


and if anything was counter-productive to the overall


result because two thirds of swing voters in the last few days voted


for independence. But we can't keep proceeding without looking at the


promises made to the English. We said in the referendum that we would


have English laws -- English votes on English issues. The Liberal


Democrats, in their manifesto, pledged to scrap the Barnett


Formula. We have to reconcile all of the promises to all parts of the UK,


and Alex Salmond talks about a Westminster stitch up, but what he's


trying to do is, with gross double standards, is in French stitch up in


rapid time, which would be grossly unfair to the rest of the rest of UK


-- is contrive stitch up. What is unfair about the current spending


formula? The extra money Scotland gets from Barnet, is covered by the


oil revenues it sends to London. Scotland is only getting back on


spending what it pays in tax. There is no analysis out there that


suggests it is the same amount. Having voted to stay in the UK. Let


me give you the figures. Last year revenues were 4.5 billion, and the


Barnett Formula was worth 4.5 billion to Scotland. It is awash. A


huge amount of British taxpayer investment has gone into extracting


North Sea oil, and if we move to a more federal system, we would need


to look at things like the allocation of resources, but the


Barnett Formula has been lambasted as a national embarrassment and


grossly unfair by its Labour Party architect, Lord Barnett. So what we


need is to change this mechanism so it is based on need. The irony is,


when the Scots allocate Avenue to the -- revenue to their local


authorities, it's done on a needs basis, and what is good for Scotland


must be good for the rest of Britain. One final question. The


Prime Minister is now making his promise of more home rule for


Scotland conditional on English votes for English laws. Why didn't


he spell out the condition when he made his bow to the Scottish people?


Why has this condition been tacked on by the Prime Minister? In the


heat of the referendum debate lots of things were said, but the truth


is that Parliament must also look at this and make its views known, and


English MPs as well. You will find that conservative as well as a lot


of Labour MPs would say, we cannot just rush through a deal that is


unsustainable. It has to be good for all parts of Britain. Yes, we should


deliver on our promises for more devolution to Scotland, but let's


deliver on promises to be English, and Northern Irish. Why are they


locked out of the debate? Let's leave it there. Thank you for


joining us. The man responsible


for taking Scottish nationalism from the political fringes to within


touching distance of victory, Alex Salmond, has a flair for dramatic


announcements, and he gave us another on Friday


when he revealed he's to stand Friends and foes have paid tribute


to his extraordinary career. In a moment I'll be speaking to


Alex Salmond, but first here's Adam Fleming with


the story of the vote that broke The BBC's HQ on the Clyde, the whole


place converted into a studio for Scotland's big night. You know what


you need for big events, big screens, and there are loads of them


here. That one is three stories high, and this is the one Jeremy


Vine uses for his graphics. The other thing that is massive is the


turnout in the referendum, it is enormous. It was around 85% of the


electorate, that is 4 million ballot papers. First to declare


Clackmannanshire. No, 19,000. 19,000 and 36. The first Noel of the night,


and there were plenty more. -- the first no vote. The better together


campaigners were over the moon, like Jim Murphy, who had campaigned in


100 different towns. I don't want to sound schmaltzy, but it makes you


think more of Scotland. It makes you small tree. Yes, 194,779. Around


five a.m., the Yes campaign applauded as they won Scotland's


biggest city, Glasgow. Dundee went their way as well, but just for


areas out of 32 opted for independence. How many copies have


you had? This is my second cup of tea on the morning -- how many


copies. He was enjoying the refreshments on offer, but the yes


campaigners were not in a happy place. We are in the bowels of one


of the parts of the British establishment that, I've got to say,


has probably done its job in this referendum, because I think the BBC


has been critical in shoring up the establishment and have supported the


no campaign as best as they could. But there was no arguing with the


numbers, and by sunrise, the BBC called it. Scotland has voted no in


this referendum on independence. The result, in Fife, has taken the no


campaign over the line and the official result of this referendum


is a no. There we go, on a screen three stories high, Scotland has


said no to independence. As soon as the newsprint was driving north of


the border, the focus shifted south as the Prime Minister pledged more


devolution for Scotland but only if it happened everywhere else as well.


Just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish


Parliament on their issues of tax, spending on welfare, so to England,


as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on


these issues, and all this must take place in tandem with and at the same


pace as the settlement for Scotland. It began to dawn on us all that we


might end up doing this again. See you for an English referendum soon?


Northern Ireland. There could be another one in Scotland. But not


next weekend? Give me a break. There was no break for Nick, because Alex


Salmond came up with one last twist, his resignation was as leader, my


time is nearly over. But the Scotland, the campaign continues,


and the dream shall never die. So, the referendum settled, the


Constitution in flux, and a leader gone. All in a night work.


Alex Salmond is to stand down as First Minister of Scotland. He shows


no signs of going quietly. Last night, I spoke to the SNP leader in


Aberdeen and began by asking him if it was always his intention to


resign if he lost the referendum. I certainly have thought about it,


Andrew. But for most of the referendum campaign I thought we


were going to win. So, I was... Yeah, maybe a few months back I


considered it. But I only finally made up my mind on Friday lunch


time. Did you agonise over the decision to stand down? I'm not


really an agonising person. When you get beaten in a referendum, you have


to consider standing down as a real possibility. Taking responsibility


and politics has gone out of fashion but there is an aspect, if you need


a campaign, and I was the leader of the Yes Campaign, and you don't win,


you have to contemplate if you are the best person to lead future


political campaigns. In my judgement, it was time for the SNP


and the broader yes movement, the National movement of Scotland, they


would benefit from new leadership. In your heart of hearts, through the


campaign, as referendum on day approached, you did think you were


going to win? Yes, I did. I thought for most of the last month of the


campaign, we were in with a real chance. In the last week I thought


we had pulled ahead. I thought the decisive aspect wasn't so much the


fear mongering, the scaremongering, the kitchen sink being thrown at


Scotland by orchestration from Downing Street, I thought the real


thing was the pledge, the vow, the offer of something else. A lot of


people that had been moving across to independence saw within that, a


reason to say, well, we can get something anyway without the


perceived risks that were being festooned upon them. You were only


five points away from your dream. You won Scotland's largest city.


There is now the prospect of more power. Why not stay and be an


enhanced First Minister? Well, it is a good phrase. I'm not going away,


though. I'm still going to be part of the political process. In


Scotland, if people in Aberdeenshire wish to keep electing me, that is


what I will do. But I don't have to be First Minister of Scotland,


leader of the Yes Campaign, to see that achieved. The SNP is a strong


and powerful leadership team. There are a number of people that would do


a fantastic job as leader of the party and First Minister. I've been


leader of the party for the last 24 years, I think it is time to give


somebody else a shot. There are many able-bodied people that will do that


well. -- many able people that will do that well. I'm still part of the


national movement, arguing to take this forward. I think you are right,


the question, one of the irony is developing so quickly after the


referendum, it might be those that lost on Thursday end up as the


political winners and those that won end up as the losers. When we met


just for the vote, a couple of days before the vote, you said to me that


there was very little you would change about the campaign strategy.


Is that still your view? Yes. There are one or two things, like any


campaign, there is no such thing as a pitcher campaign. I would refer


not to dwell on such things. I will leave of my book, which will be


called 100 Days, coming out before Christmas. Once you read that, I


will probably reveal the things I would have changed. Basically,


broadly, this was an extraordinary campaign. Not just a political


campaign, but a campaign involving the grassroots of Scotland in an


energising, empowering way, the like of which in on of us have witnessed.


It was an extraordinary phenomenon of grassroots campaigning, which


carried the Yes Campaign so far, almost to victory. If Rupert Murdoch


put his Scottish Sun behind you, would have that made the difference?


If ifs and ands were pots and pans... Why did he not? I would not


say that, you have form with him that I do not have. I'm not sure


about that. I was very encouraged. The coverage, not in the other


papers, The Times, which was extremely hostile to Scottish


independence, but the coverage in the Scottish Sun was fair, balanced


and we certainly got a very fair kick of the ball. In newspapers, I


would settle for no editorial line and just balanced coverage. We


certainly got that from the Scottish Sun and that was an encouragement. I


think you saw from his tweets, certainly in his heart he would have


liked to have seen a move forward in Scotland and I like that. He said if


you lost, that was it, referendum wise, for a generation, which he


defined as about 20 years. Is that still your view? Yes, it is. It has


always been my view. It's a personal view. There are always things that


can change in politics. If the UK moved out of the European Union, for


example, that would be the sort of circumstance. Some people would


argue with Westminster parties, and I'm actually not surprised that they


are reneging on commitments, I am just surprised by the speed they are


doing it. They seem to be totally shameless in these matters. You


don't think they will meet the vow? You don't think there will keep to


their vow? They are not, for that essential reason you saw developing


on Friday. The Prime Minister wants to link change in Scotland to change


in England. He wants to do that because he has difficulty in


carrying his backbenchers on this and they are under pressure from


UKIP. The Labour leadership are frightened of any changes in England


which leave them without a majority in the House of Commons on English


matters. I would not call it an irresistible force and immovable


object, one is resistible and one is movable. They are at loggerheads.


The vow, I think, was something cooked up in desperation for the


last few days of the campaign. I think everybody in Scotland now


engines that. -- recognises that. It was the people that were persuaded


to vote no that word tricked, effectively. They are the ones that


are really angry. Ed Miliband and David Cameron, if they are watching


this, I would be more worried about the anger of the no voters than the


opinion of the Yes Vote on that matter. If independence is on the


back burner for now, what would you advise your successor's strategy for


the SNP to be? I would advise him or her not to listen to advice from


their predecessor. A new leader brings forward a new strategy. I


think this is, for the SNP, a very favourable political time. There


have been 5000 new members joined since Thursday. That is about a 25%


increase in the party membership in the space of a few days. More than


that, I think this is an opportunity for the SNP. But my goal is the


opportunity for Scotland. I would repeat I am not retiring from


politics. I'm standing down as First Minister of Scotland. On Friday,


coming back to the north-east of Scotland, I passed through Dundee,


which voted yes by a stud -- substantial margin. There was a line


of a song I couldn't get out of my head, and old Jacobite song,


rewritten by Robert Burns, the last line is, so, tremble falls wakes, in


the midst of your glee, you've not seen the last of my bonnets and me.


So you are staying a member of the Scottish Parliament, shall we see


you again in the House of Commons? What does the future hold for you?


Membership of Scottish Parliament is dependent on the good folk of


Aberdeenshire east. If they choose to elect me, I will be delighted to


serve. I've always loved being a constituency member of Parliament, I


have known some front line politicians that regarded that as a


chore. I'm not saying they didn't do it properly, I am sure they did. But


I love it. You get distilled wisdom from being a constituency member of


Parliament that helps you keep your feet on the ground and have a good


observation as to what matters to people. I have no difficulty with


being a constituent member of Parliament. Can you promise me it


will never be Lord Salmond? Yes! Thanks for joining us. Great


pleasure, thank you. Now, the independence referendum is over, the


next big electoral test is a general election. It is just over seven


months away. In a moment I will be talking to Chuka Umunna, but what


are the political views of the men and women fighting to win seats for


the Labour Party? The Sunday Politics has commissioned an


exclusive survey of the Parliamentary candidates.


Six out of seven Labour candidates say that the level of public


spending during their last period of office was about right. 40% of them


want a Labour government to raise taxes to reduce the budget deficit.


18% favour cutting spending. On immigration, just 15% think that the


number coming to Britain is too high. Only 7% say we generous to


immigrants. Three in ten candidates believe the party relationship with


trade unions is not close enough. Not that we spoke to think it is too


close. Or than half of the candidates say want to scrap the


nuclear deterrent, Trident. Four in five want to nationalise the


railways. If they are after a change of leader, Yvette Cooper was their


preferred choice. Chuka Umunna came in fourth. And he joins me now for


the Sunday interview. Why is Labour choosing so many


left-wing candidates? I don't think I accept the characterisation of


candidates being left wing. I don't think your viewers see politics in


terms of what is left and right. I think they see it in terms of what


is right and wrong. Obviously, many of the things we have been talking


about, how we ensure that the next generation can do better than the


last, how we raise the wages of your viewers, who are currently working


very hard but not making a wage they can live off, that is what they are


talking about and that is what the public will judge them on. But they


want to raise taxes, they don't want to cut public spending, they want to


re-nationalise the railways, they don't think there is too much


immigration, they want to scrap Trident. These are all positions


clearly to the left of current party policy. But that is your


characterisation. If you look at our policy to increase the top rate of


tax to 50% for people earning over ?150,000, that is a central


position. It is something that enjoys the support of the majority


of the public. Trident? If you talk to the British public about


immigration, yes, there are concerns about the numbers coming in and out,


yes people want to see integration, yes, people want to see people


putting a contribution before they take out, the people recognise, if


you look at our multicultural nation, we have derived a lot of


benefits from immigration. I don't think your characterisation of those


positions, that is your view... It's not, it is their view. They are


saying... You describe it... You described those positions as left


wing positions. I am saying to you that I actually think a lot of those


positions are centrist positions that would enjoy the support of the


majority of your viewers. I don't think your viewers think the idea of


the broadest shoulders bearing the heaviest burden in forms of tax are


going to see it as a way out, radical principle. They want to


scrap Trident, not party policy? It isn't.


I think that 73... Well, we will have 400 Parliamentary candidates at


the time of the next general election, not including current MPs.


This is 73 out of over 400 of them. I think we also need to treat the


survey with a bit of caution. They are not representative? You are


basically quoting the results of a small percentage of our


Parliamentary candidates. It's pretty safe to say when you look at


their views, they might be right or wrong, that's not my point, it's


fairly safe to say that new Labour is dead? Again, I don't think people


see things in terms of gold -- old or new Labour. We are standing at a


Labour Party. We are a great country, but we have big challenges.


We want to make sure that people can achieve their dreams and aspirations


in this country. Too many people are not in that position. Too many


people worry about the prospects of their children. Too many people do


not earn a wage they can live off. Too many people are worried about


the change. We have to make sure we are giving people a stake in the


future. That is a Labour thing, you want to call it old or new come I


don't care. It's a choice between Labour and the Conservatives in


terms of who runs the next government. That one of your


candidate we spoke to things that the party's relationship with the


unions is to close. 30% of them think it should be closer. You have


spoken to 73 out of 400 candidates. Why should the others be any


different? It's a fairly representative Sample. Many people


working on this set are the member of the union, the National union of


journalists. People that came here to this Conference would have been


brought here by trade union members. Do you think the relationship should


be closer? I think it is where it should be. It should not be closer?


I think that trade unions help create wealth in our country. If you


look at some other success stories we are in the north-west, GM


Vauxhall is there because you have trade unions working in partnership


with government and local employees to make sure we kept producing cars.


I'm not asking if unions are good or bad, I'm asking if Labour should be


closer. You are presupposing, by the tone of your question, that our


relationship is a problem. Let's turn to the English question. Why do


you need a constitutional conversation where you have to


discuss whether English people voting on English matters is


unfair? We want to give the regions and cities in England more voice,


but let's get it into perspective, we have had a situation where the


Scottish people, as desired buying rich people, have to remain part of


the UK -- by English people. What is the answer to the question? I don't


want to get to a situation where people have voted for solidarity


where you have a prime ministers talking about dividing up the UK


Parliament. Let me put this point you. Most Scottish voters think it


is unfair that Scottish MPs get to vote on English matters. That comes


out in Scottish polls. Why don't you see it as unfair? If the Scots see


it as unfair, why don't you? This is an age-old conundrum that has been


around for 100 years and it's not so simple. You're talking about making


a fundamental change to the British constitution on a whim. It's not


just an issue, in respect of Scottish MPs. As a London MP, I can


vote on matters relating to the transport of England and transport


is a devolved matter in London. In Wales, there are a number of


competencies that Welsh MPs can vote on and they've been devolved to


them. So with all of these different votes, you will exclude different


MPs? I think the solution is not necessarily to obsess about what is


happening between MPs in Westminster. That turns people


politics. We need to devolve more. I think we should be giving the cities


and regions of England more autonomy in the way that we are doing in


Scotland, but I've got to say, Andrew, it's dishonourable and in


bad faith for the Prime Minister to now seek to link what he agreed


before the referendum to this issue of English votes for English MPs.


That is totally dishonourable and in bad faith. You have promised to


devolve more tax powers to Scotland. What would they be? This is being


decided at the moment. I cannot give you the exact detail of what the tax


powers would be. Could you give us a rough idea? There is a White Paper


being produced before November and there will be draft legislation put


forward in January. Your leader has vowed that this will happen. And you


haven't got a policy? You can't tell us what the tax powers will be? I


can't Per capita spending in Scotland is


way ahead of per capita spending in Wales, yet per capita incomes in


Scotland are way ahead of Wales. Why is that fair for a Labour


politician? We have said is we want to have more equitable distribution.


You said you were retrying the Barnett Formula. The other McKerr


I'm not sure necessarily punching Scotland is the way to go. I have


two say, what message do this -- does this send to the Scottish


people? I am absolutely delighted with the result we have got, the


Unity, the solidarity we are maintaining across the nations of


the UK, and I think all of this kind of separatist talk, setting up


different nations of the UK against each other, goes completely against


what we have all been campaigning for over the last two years. We


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


the minimum wage. You will increase it by ?1 50, to take it to ?8. That


would be over five years. Over five years, that is all you are going to


do, and have you worked out how much of this increase will be clawed back


in taxation and fewer benefits? Work is being done on it. So how much? I


can give you an exact figure. The policy absolutely pays for itself,


and the way we have looked at this, we have looked at the government's


own figures, because of people are earning more, they therefore would


be paying more in income tax, they will be receiving less in benefit,


we will have to pay out less in tax credit. So we are absolutely


confident that this will pay for itself. I'm not asking you about the


payment, but what it means for low paid workers. They are going to get


an extra 30p an hour. How much of the 30p did I get to keep? I'll tell


you what it means. In terms of what they actually get in the first


instance, somebody on the minimum wage now with our proposal will be


getting in the region of ?3000 more per year than they are at the


moment. That is before tax and benefits. How much do they get to


keep? We are confident we the modelling on this, and I can give


you an exact figure. If you have done the modelling, why can you give


me a figure? We are talking about some of the lowest paid people in


the country. We are confident they would be better off. I would suggest


that with this route, they would face a marginal rate of tax of 50,


60, or 65%. They would not keep most of this increase you are talking


about. I don't accent your figures, and we are confident that... I don't


have any in my head which I can give you right now! Do you think up


policies before you announce them? Of course we think of that would up


policies before we announce them. We think people will be better off with


the change we are proposing, and we are also seeking to incentivise


employers to pay a living wage as well. At the end of the day, as I


said, the economy is recovering, great. But we know at the moment, it


is still delivering for a huge number of your viewers, and we are


determined to do something about that. The status quo isn't enough an


option. Thank you for joining us. Twice in three days! You can have


too much of a good thing! I am mad! He said that not me. It has just


gone 11:35 a.m.. We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, but not for


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


After Scotland votes decisively to remain within the UK, the


First Minister seems to suggest the public were tricked into voting No.


I am actually not surprised that they are reneging on commitments. I


am only surprised by the speed at which they are doing it. They seem


to be totally shameless in these matters.


All three parties pledge themselves to further devolution, but will they


Scotland's political firmament was shaken on Friday.


An unforgettable week in which a majority of


It lead to the departure of one of the most outstanding politicians


With Alex Salmond gone, Scotland and the rest of the UK now


But the referendum result leaves large question marks hanging over


the future leadership and direction of the Scottish National Party,


Bute house, the First Minister's official residence. On Friday, the


setting for a surprise statement. After the people of Scotland had


made their views clear on independence, the First Minister


ended speculation about his future. I believe that this is a new,


exciting situation that is redolent with possibility. But in that


situation, I think that the party, Parliament and country would benefit


from new leadership. Therefore, I have told the national secretary of


the SNP that I shall not accept nomination leader at the annual


conference in Perth on the 13th to 15th of November. In poetic


language, the fight was clearly not.


For me as leader, my time is nearly over, but for Scotland, the campaign


continues, and the dream shall never die.


But with that charismatic, electorally successful leader Don,


who can now succeed him? Well, Nicola Sturgeon is the obvious


answer. Likely to be crowned with no contest. The external affairs


Minister has tweeted his support. He is in the frame for the deputy's


post, and he is politically close to Ms Sturgeon. Derek Mackay, the local


government minister, might want to challenge him, and Alex Neill will


be closely watched. He stood for the leadership in 2000. So, how does the


party move on? Squabble with Westminster over more powers, or


offer some more radical approach, claiming the power of the 45% behind


you? A Yes vote would have been an impressive win for the master of


Bute house, but the new First Minister will have to settle for


less, at least at the moment. Well, a little while ago I spoke to


the Finance Secretary, John Swinney, I asked him


whether it was wise that the First Minister has been quoted this


morning saying that the Scottish I think it pretty accurately sums up


what has been going on over the last three days. It is a very solemn


commitment that was given by the UK political parties during the


referendum, and they were decisive, in my opinion, because I met many


people who are contemplating voting Yes, but decided to vote No because


they thought they would get more powers, and so it had an affect on


the outcome in my opinion, very strongly. And we now find ourselves


looking at all sorts of comments that have been made by the Prime


Minister, by various figures within the Labour and Conservative parties


that suggest there is more than a little backsliding going on.


I am sure you did meet people who changed their mind, but there will


be very many people watching this programme who voted No, and might


want to say to you, look, we weren't misled or gold or conned in some


way. We have had a two-year debate. We have had a 500 odd page white


paper from the Scottish Government, telling us your prospectus for


independence, and we decided we did not want it. The danger for you is,


you might start looking as if you are doing another variant of saying


to people in Scotland, you were too stupid and to scared to vote yes. No


not in the slightest. I don't know how many interviews I have done


since Thursday night on Friday morning, and I have accepted


unreservedly that we did not win the referendum on Thursday. I think we


did fantastically well, we got 45% of the public to vote for


independence, 1.6 million people, and at -- the only point I'm making


to you is that some people were going to vote for independence but


decided that the opposite is more powers given by the three UK leaders


were more a more attractive proposition, and voted No as a


consequence, and therefore they are entitled to be taken seriously by


those three UK leaders and have what they voted for delivered, and that


is what we will hold them to account for.


Would you agree that whatever happens in the next few weeks, the


Scottish National Party needs to have a long think about what kind of


party it wants to be? For the last ten, 15 or 20 years, every time


there is debate on any subject in Scotland, the SNP says, yes, but of


course, if we had independence, we would do X, Y and Z. That is not an


option that is available any more, so what does the SNP become? Do you


become a gradualist party, sort of like Plaid Cymru? Is that the idea?


I wouldn't accept your characterisation of the SNP, because


we have been in government for seven and a half years, and have delivered


a whole range of different policy commitments to tackle inequality, to


create jobs in Scotland, to create better prospects for individuals, to


deliver free education... I'm not denying that, just saying that the


SNP has to be fundamentally different now, doesn't it?


I did think so, because what we have done is actually rolled our sleeves


up, worked very hard as a government to tackle issues that matter to the


people of Scotland in their everyday lives, and we will return -- we were


returned in 2011 and decisively to continue their job.


Yes, but the one absolutely distinctive policy of the SNP is now


off the agenda for a generation, so surely, you have do start to rethink


what kind of party you wants to be? Well, there are undoubtedly will be


a tactical debate within the Scottish National Party about how we


advance our agenda, but my answer to your question is that there is no


way the SNP will ever be a party that does not believe in and support


and argue for Scottish independence. You will never change my mind on


that. That is my deeply held view. But the problem is you can't do it


on a day-to-day basis as you have been doing, because people will be


fed up with it. People will turn round and say, we are fed up to our


back teeth with this stuff. We just had a vote on independence and we


rejected it. Please can we talk about something else give macro that


is why I completely reject your characterisation of what we are


about. Let's take welfare, for example. The


UK Government is changing welfare arrangements in the UK, and I could


say in all of that, OK, that is a UK responsibility, I can't do anything


about it until we get independence. But that is not what we are saying.


We have put ?23 million into tackling the issues of welfare


reform as they attacked council tax benefit, money to tackle the bedroom


tax, and so on. We're not sitting and twiddling our thumbs and waiting


for independence, but tackling issues that matter to people in


Scotland. That is why I reject your characterisation of the SNP in that


fashion. Nicola Sturgeon - next leader?


Well, I certainly hope so. I am encouraging her to do so, and I will


be an enthusiastic and energetic supporter of Nicola's. I look


forward to her taking a campaign through the party to become our next


leader, and then to be nominated to be First Minister. Nothing will give


me more satisfaction than to see under the glass ceiling in Scotland


shattered when Nicola Sturgeon, as I hope she will be, successfully is


elected as First Minister in Scotland.


Did you consider may be going in for it, or did you decide you weren't


really a glutton for punishment to that extent?


Several weeks ago, I was asked the question by a journalist in


Scotland, and he very fairly reported my reaction, saying, Mr


Swinney did not quite close the door, he slammed it shut and then


nailed it shot for absolute security and definition that it would not


happen. There is no way I would contemplate going back into the


party leadership. I had my chance, and enjoyed it. I would not be going


back in there, and I will be a totally enthusiastic supporter.


If I were Nicola Sturgeon watching this, I would think, given what he


has just said, I'm not sure I want to do this?


I'm quite sure she knows where she would be letting herself in for, but


she will have many many people giving her enthusiastic support to


take forward what I am certain will be excellent leadership.


John Swinney, we will have to leave it there. Thank you very much. Thank


you. In a statement early on Friday


morning, the Prime Minister said he was "delighted" at the outcome


of the referendum, but acknowledged that a significant number of Scots


had expressed dissatisfaction with Mr Cameron said he was committed to


delivering additional devolution, not just to Scotland


but to the rest of the UK. Well, to talk about how difficult


that task will be, I'm joined now by our Westminster


correspondent David Porter, who's David, you get about a bit, don't


you? Is this reconcilable? We have had Alistair Darling this morning


and Ed Miliband this morning saying, look, devolution for England and


devolution for Scotland are separate issues. We have pledged to the


people of Scotland that we will do it, and be in Sirius trouble if we


don't. Yet we have David Cameron saying, we can't do devolution for


Scotland unless we addressing this matters. How do you reconcile that?


It will be a tough one and a very thorny question to solve. If they


are going to get some kind of deal on this, they will have to be a


compromise. David Cameron has said he wants more devolution to


Scotland, but it has to be linked with the English question. Ed


Miliband says he wants more devolution for Scotland, but it


should not be linked with the English question. That needs a


constitutional convention. I think what we're now seeing is, following


the event on Thursday night, the speeches on Friday morning, and a


huge sigh of relief from the Unionist parties that Scotland did


not decide to vote for independence, they are now wrestling with some


very difficult problems, not just be constitutional once, but also


internal party management problems. Add to that that we are in the


run-up to a general election, and it just proves how difficult this whole


question of UK wide constitutional reform is going to be. They will not


be quick or easy. Thank you very much for that.


Over recent days, the former Prime Minister Gordon


Brown has been a key figure in trying to convince the public that


In a speech in his constituency yesterday, Mr Brown said that


processes were already under way at parliament and in


the civil service to bring forward legislation by the end of January.


A little earlier I spoke to Douglas Alexander, shadow Foreign Secretary,


And to ensure that there is proper scrutiny by the rest of the world,


so everybody knows that this deadline will be adhered to. I have


called on the commission of the Speaker of the House of Commons,


which will take place on the first week back in Westminster, on


Thursday, October 16, and in the debate, I will want to ensure that


the instructions to deliver have become a plan to deliver and not


just a timetable to deliver, but a certainty that we will deliver.


A short while ago I spoke to the Shadow Foreign Secretary,


Douglas Alexander, who was in our Edinburgh studio.


I put it to him that every area that voted yes in the referendum was


a traditional heartland of Scottish Labour - and asked him whether that


meant his party was in crisis here. I would not accept that. People


moved and shifted from past party allegiances during this result. That


is why areas like Murray and the Western Isles and Perth and Kinross


recorded significant nor majorities. But if you are asking me if we have


work to do to offer at the Scottish people then absolutely. We spent two


years towards making this decision. The challenge for all of us is to


challenge the same kind of energy that was unleashed by this campaign


to tackle poverty and building up our services. There will be plenty


of opportunities for post match analysis but it is clear Scottish


Labour was central to a campaign which recorded a decisive ten point


difference between the two parties like a significant turnout of 85%


and the resignation of the First Minister. From the Labour point of


view every area that voted yes is a traditional Labour heartland. Labour


has been incapable of developing a narrative to do with equality,


poverty and deprivation which breaks away from the terms on which it is


claimed by the Scottish Nationalists. You have not convinced


you're on people that the Nationalist way of looking at this


is wrong. Offered the offered the 640 page white paper which had one


policy for redistribution. This is approximately true but why did the


vote yes in some parts? You are not letting me and the question. Whether


it is the fact they have put money to the richest, whether the fact


they have taken money out while in office, they are resisting the top


rate of 50p and an increase for the big energy companies. There will


continue to be big differences between the SNP and Labour, I


welcome that contest. There was a prior question which had to be


resolved, are we in or out of the UK, that has now been decisively


spoken for by the people of Scotland. That is to stay within the


UK. If what you have just said has any credibility, why have all been


traditional heartlands of Labour support in Scotland trooped into the


polling booths to vote yes to the prospectus route across by the SNP?


I represent the community of Renfrewshire where we recorded a


clear mandate for Scotland staying within the United Kingdom, as we did


in Hall sweeps of the country which you are not talking about today.


Fife for example, a decisive majority in favour of staying within


the UK. It was the final vote which delivered Scotland's place in the


UK. Of course I accept the dark challenges which Scotland faces


along with old people" partly responding to this. The fact is that


2 million Scots on Thursday made clear our view that the way to


advance is to stay within the UK. Do you think he meant an organisation


should be set up or what? For the last two years we have had the most


extraordinary civic engagement but it has not created a single job or


lifted a single child out of poverty. If we were to challenge the


same energy that was boot into the constitutional question I think we


could serve Scotland more effectively. To build the community


you get people a common task. By doing what? To improve the will and


well-being of the people of Scotland. You are talking about


setting up an organisation? If the focus can shift from trying to end


Britain to trying to end poverty. There has to be a reappraisal from


the people on the other side of the argument who argued for many years


that Scotland actually wanted independence. They must now


reconcile the fact that we want demolition to work. It is by doing


that we can empower communities and tackle poverty. If I was the SNP I


would say this sounds very grand but what you are asking us to do is join


with you in diffusing nationalism on your traditional support in areas


like Glasgow while these are in fact the new people supporting us so,


thank you, but no. We have seen the settled will of the SNP for decades


long wanting a separate sovereign state being defeated by the


sovereign will of the Scottish people. A clear mandate for Scotland


to stay within the UK. I accept that there is a painful and difficult


reckoning but the truth is we can now build a common cause with in


Scotland as to what we are trying to do. To move our nation forward with


a process of democratic reform but also social and economic reform as


well. Given that there were points about tackling unemployment and


improving the health service I think we can now come together and try to


make those improvements happen. You are about to be going to church to


be reconciled with John Swinney. Thank you very much. Thank you.


Our guests today are David Clegg, who's Political Editor at the


Daily Record, and the journalist and economic


commentator, George Kerevan. Is that for old times sake that you


have the badge on? I met yes campaigners who had taken the


posters down on Friday and started putting them back up on Saturday.


Because actually we won. We are getting home rule that we have


argued for for 100 years. That means we can do all the things we want in


terms of social justice. It looks also like England will get home


rule. If we look at Scotland going towards social democracy which is


what we all want and if England goes the way it once which is more


towards Nigel Farage, tell me be will be together in ten years, I do


not think so. Would you mind after the programme fawning the SNP and


telling them what you have said because that does not appear to be


there idea. Now, the promises made by the Westminster leaders are going


to have to be delivered or else there will be anger. The SNP are


right when they say the anger will spill over to people who voted in


the referendum. The best guarantor of these powers is the prospect of


another referendum which all the Unionist parties will be determined


to avoid. It was very conclusive, the turnout was fantastically high


and the result was clear. Independence is not something the


Scottish public want but they do want more powers in Edinburgh. Alex


Salmond, one of the major figures in Scottish politics, he has earned the


right to decide when he weaves as first minister but I wonder if it


was in the interests of the SNP to design on Friday. Cause they want to


frame things as they got 40 5%. As soon as he stepped down it became


the Nationalists lost. The thing I got excited about when I read the


Daily Mail quote about the 2016 Holyrood election saying the SNP was


on course to win a third victory. To secure that electoral victory we


needed to change the readership. I am looking forward to having all


three political parties in Scotland led by women and I think that will


lead to the SNP strength. Alec has been around for 23 years more or


less. What you think of the timing of this? I thought he would leave in


November at the party conference, I thought he might take a week or two.


One of the reasons is that there are a lot of disappointed independence


supporters at the time and it sort of keep it up on the sorrow that the


First Minister was leaving. I Cannes and this morning there is chat among


SNP members for their quest urgent, Colin Fox and Patrick Hardy sweeping


the general election next May. I think that is far-fetched. There is


no doubt the Labour Party will have some problems in the West of


Scotland are been areas. Clearly was the largest yet bought coalesces


almost exactly with weird labour has previously been strongest. They will


need to address that. One way is to get the powers sorted out in the


long-term. Douglas Alexander was arguing with me in which areas did


what but it does not go away, does it? The precedence is set for an


all-party alliance in Canada. In Canada they realised the


difficulties of getting the mass of the population to vote for the


national election, the National party. I find that in Scotland in


2010 when I stood as an SNP candidate. If we could follow the


cubic example and create a block of pro-democracy and pro-independence


parties in Scotland, that might solve the problem. It proves the


debate is moving forward, the momentum and impetus is still with


the yes side. I'd much wrote do not go away. They will be with you to


any couple of minutes. Let's cross for the news now with Andrew Kerr.


Good afternoon. As the fall-out from the referendum


continues, the First Minister says the three pro-union parties tricked


voters into opting for "no".Alex Salmond claimed they were reneging


on the pledge they made on new powers in the days before the poll.


He said No voters would feel "misled and tricked".


On the Andrew Marr Show, the Labour leader Ed Miliband said


the extra powers which he pledged, along with David Cameron and


Nick Clegg, will go ahead. A service of reconciliation


following the referendum is being Moderator of the Church of Scotland


is leading worship. He's expected to ask Scots to put


their differences aside and work together to redefine


the country's place within the UK. Party representatives will light


a candle, symbolising commitment. Now let's take a look


at the weather with Gillian. If in. A lovely afternoon across


most of the country, as high-pressure establishes itself


across the UK. Crisp sunshine, the best of it across central and


western Scotland. More cloud across the North. For the Northern Isles,


temperatures on the cool side, just 12 Celsius, but up to 17 or 18 in


the best of the sunshine in the south-west.


There's been much discussion over the last few days


about the timetable for greater powers at the Scottish Parliament.


There's continuing disagreement over the nature of further devolution


and whether legislation will be in place by next year.


But earlier today, Alistair Darling told the BBC the vow made


The agreement reached by the three bodies, as far as I'm concerned, is


non-negotiable. It was promised, it's got to be delivered, and anyone


who welshes on that will pay a very heavy price for years to come. It is


simply non-negotiable. I believe it will be delivered. The process is


already underway. By the end of next January, you will have a bill ready


to go and become an act of Parliament. Of course, there is a


separate issue about what further constitutional change comes to the


UK, but to be very clear about this, you cannot hold up or delay in any


way at all what was promised. The three leaders gave an absolute


commitment, and I am confident they will deliver on it.


Joining us from Edinburgh, Professor Charlie Jeffery,


director of a research programme on Devolution Constitutional Change,


There is an emerging and rather fascinating clash of right against


right here, isn't there? Labour are absolutely right to say, a vow was


made and that has to be kept, irrespective of what happens in the


broader issue of constitutional change for the rest of the UK. But


on the other hand, the Conservatives are right to say, well, you can't


expect the people of England to axe at a shed load more power is going


to Scotland unless the West Lothian question is addressed?


Indeed, Gordon. I think at the moment, we are in something like a


constitutional change reaction, which was prompted by those polls


before the referendum which pushed the No side into firming up this


timetable for additional powers. That in itself prompted some


discontent in England, especially on the Conservative backbenches, which


made Prime Minister Cameron's announcement on English votes for


English laws in the House of Commons something like a necessity to


maintain the unity of the Conservative Party. Wales was also


showing some discontent over that commitment on the Barnett Formula.


Wales feels underfunded. So what we see now is a chain reaction, which I


think is inherently unstable, and I think it is beginning to pit the


nations of the UK against each other, but also to pit the parties


against each other in different ways. That Better Together unity is


gone, very, very quickly. Yes, but the problem is surely that


if this just turns into a political squabble tween Labour and the


Conservatives ahead of the next general election, there could be


quite dire consequences here. Obviously, we can't have another


referendum, but you have a lot of people genuinely feeling, hang on,


we voted No, and we really have, as Alex Salmond suggested, been conned.


Well, we just had Alistair Darling saying that the timetable is


non-negotiable, and I believe him entirely in his commitment to that,


but I do think there are tremendous challenges for delivering that


timetable. There is a very, very small window for public consultation


set out in that timetable. There is very little mention of the Scottish


Parliament's own rights to begin salted on UK legislation, affecting


the Scottish Parliament. We would expect the parliament to set up a


committee to take evidence, to be due to report. There is absolutely


nothing there. The technical details around welfare devolution are


immense. Just ask Iain Duncan Smith about the difficulties in changing


arrangements around welfare benefits. All of these things are


really tremendous pressures on that non-negotiable timetable.


Yes, and added to that long list of problems, the parties don't agree,


do they? Even on the more powers for Scotland bit. It is actually the


Tories who have got a radical devolution review, for example, on


income tax, and Labour is proposing something much, much more modest,


and they are going to do so is something them.


What we have seen is precisely that. The Liberal Democrats and


Conservatives have by some way the most ambitious proposals on tax


devolution, and labour, by some way, have the least ambitious. And that


is another dimensional of this constitutional challenge that we


have at the moment, and that is that the Labour Party, in its Westminster


and in its Holyrood incarnations, is this United. The Westminster level


party is deeply sceptical about further tax devolution. The Holyrood


party is not, and we will have to see which one wins out.


Is there a danger -- dangerous complacency here? The leader of the


Labour Party might be tempted to think, what is coming next? It is a


general election. We always do well in general elections in Scotland,


the SNP always do badly. So even if these problems you have just


described are still there, we don't really need to worry that much?


Well, that would probably be an ill-advised way of thinking about


the matter. If there is slippage from this non-negotiable timetable,


or if what emerges from it is a rather modest form of additional


devolution, not that maximum home rule that was just talked about,


then we suspect the Labour Party above all of the others will be the


one that is punished at the UK general election in Scotland.


Thank you very much. We're joined again by our guests,


David Clegg and George Kerevan. Let's talk a little bit about what


has been promised by Gordon Brown. A lot of people, particularly on the


Yes side, are saying this morning, hang on, this guy is a Labour


backbencher. Why is he suddenly Mr Scotland? What is he doing going


around signing things with David Cameron? I think there is an element


of truth in that, in that he doesn't have any power specifically to


deliver any of these things, but what he has been doing is Carl


Allingham become known as the Val now, after the front-page Reid had


on the daily record, and Gordon Brown was instrumental in bringing


together that platform. -- Vo. But it will be down to the parties to


deliver it, is the central point. But deliver what? Let me make an


analogy, if I could. When David Cameron said I am delivering more


powers to Scotland, but of course, I want English votes for English MPs,


Labour immediately thought, hang on, this is a trap. Even if we have a


Labour government, we might not control what happens in England. If


you look at what Gordon Brown said, he is effectively saying, I want a


happy clap the coalition with the Scottish Government and the Scottish


National Party in order to convince working-class people in the West of


Scotland that they have nothing to do with nationalism.


Yes, the biggest loser, I think history will show, on Thursday, with


the Labour Party. They have been snookered, and Gordon Brown has been


wound up by the media to offer all this and to try and drag in the


working-class into staying in the No camp. He did not succeed. He


galvanised the middle class, yes. He now seems to want to get the SNP to


help them do that. Yes will stop if I was Gordon, I would have woken up


today wishing that I had gone with Wendy Alexander's proposal to have


the referendum six years ago, because he would still be prime Mr.


But he did not do that, because he always bottles it. The problem now


is, Labour has lost its heartland in Scotland, now we have David Cameron,


who is really serious about pushing this English agenda. It sees off


UKIP, and his right wing, because he is cloaking himself in English


nationalism. And it does away with Labour, the only UK wide National


party. The Tories are corralled in England. Labour is the only


significant political party across the whole UK. If Labour can be


broken, Cameron is safe and the Tories are safe in England, but the


downside of that for them is that of course, that could break up the


United Kingdom for sure. Is there not an issue for labour that, in


Scotland, it always seems to be arguing within the framework of the


Nationalists are happy with? They are still doing it. It is now, more


powers for the Scottish parliament. They seem incapable of managing to


do get out of that, if you like, and develop a story about social


solidarity across the UK, and say, of course we were more powers for


the Scottish parliament, but it is not the most important thing. We are


not petty nationalist like the SNP are. Why can't they do that? I'm not


sure if I accept your analysis about they haven't done that. If they


have, it hasn't worked! They may be social solidarity argument


throughout the referendum campaign, with varying levels of success. The


problem is, if there is an appetite for more devolution, it would be


foolish not to be on that territory. So they have come to the conclusion


that more devolution is what Scotland wants and good for


Scotland, so they are attempting to deliver it. That is a very, very


different concept to saying you want an independent Scotland. There is a


vast difference, so to suggest that because they are calling for more


powers, that is in some way capitulating to Scottish naturalism,


they don't accept that. I wonder... We are getting terribly excited


about this. The game is still on. All this talk among the SNP about


getting together the common folks, and Bruce Croall foot, he responded


to that by saying, can we not just shut up for a few days? -- Bruce


Crawford. Wouldn't that be sensible? Actually, no. What was great and


fascinating as an exercise in democracy about the campaign was, it


came from the bottom up, and it is not the leaderships of any of the


parties that can control this. The people want to move on. This is


about power, not devolution. Why Glasgow voted for independence, they


want power. There is not time. You have to come back in future. Thank


you. I'll be back


at the same time next week.


Download Subtitles