28/09/2014 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics live


There'll be one less Conservative MP here after Reckless defected


joins us live from his constituency he's triggered a by-election.


It's not been the best of starts for the Prime Minister as he arrives


in Birmingham for the last Tory conference before the election.


On top of the Reckless defection, a junior Tory minister has resigned


RAF jets have carried out their first mission over Iraq


And should we be targeting Syria too?


Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland.


The referendum has prompted a dramatic rise He in political


engagement, but what where can political parties do to harness not


And joining me, three of the country's most loyal journalists,


who sadly have yet to resign or defect to our inferior rivals.


Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee and Janan Ganesh.


And, of course, they'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


And you too can get involved by using the hashtag #BBCSP.


At the current rate of Tory resignations,


Mr Cameron could be speaking to an empty hall when he makes his keynote


address to the Tory conference here in Birmingham tomorrow.


It's been a classic car crash of a start to the conference, with a UKIP


defection, a minister shamed into resignation by a sex scandal and


Ed Miliband's memory lapses now look like a little local difficulty.


Here's what the Prime Minister had to say


These things are frustrating and frankly counter-productive and


rather senseless. If you want to have a European referendum, if you


want to get the deficit down, if you want to build a stronger Britain


that we can be proud of, there is only one option, which is to have a


Conservative government after the next election.


And Mark Reckless joins me now from Rochester.


Welcome to the programme. Why did you lie to all your Conservative


colleagues and mislead those who elected you? Well, I am keeping


faith with my constituents and keeping my promises to them. You


heard the Prime Minister saying that the Conservative led government was


dealing with the deficit and cutting immigration. The reality is, we have


increased the national debt by more in five years than even Labour


managed in 13, and immigration is back up to the levels we saw under


Labour. I believe in the promises I made in 2010, and I want to keep my


words to my electorate, not least to deal with the deficit, cut


immigration, reform the political system, to localise powers back to


the community, particularly over house-building. The government has


broken its word on all those things are. I want to keep my word to my


voters here, and that is why I have done what I have done, by moving to


UKIP. You have not kept your words to your Conservative constituency


chairman. You assured him 48 hours ago that you would not defect, and


you left his voice mail on the Conservative Party chairman's office


telephone, missing to come to Birmingham to campaign for the


Tories. This is your voice mail... I have just picked up your e-mail...


So, Friday night, telling Grant Shapps you are coming to Birmingham


to campaign for the Tories. The next day, you are joining UKIP. Why did


you are a? I sounded a bit more hesitant on that call than I usually


do, and I am not sure if that was the full conversation. But you


cannot discuss these things in advance, you have to make a


decision. I have decided the future of this country is better served by


UKIP then it is by the Conservative Party under David Cameron. I made a


lot of promises to my constituents, and I want to keep those promises.


That is why I am moving to UKIP, so I can deliver the change this


country really needs. In May of this year, you said that Nigel Farage,


quote, poses the most serious threat to a Tory victory at the election.


So, you agree, voting UKIP means a Labour government? I think voting


UKIP means getting UKIP. While in the past a disproportionate number


of UKIP people were ex-Conservatives, now, they are


winning a lot more people, from all parties. People are so disillusioned


with the political class in Westminster, that they have not


voted often for a generation. Those are the people Nigel Farage is


inspiring, and frankly, he has also inspired me. What he has done in the


last 20 years, building his party, getting people from all walks of


life, sending up for ordinary people, I think deserves support.


That is a key reason why I am moving. UKIP are now the agents of


change. You said it poses them a serious threat to a Tory victory? My


ambition is not a Tory victory. We made all of these promises in 2010


as Conservatives, and they have been broken. We now hear from David


Cameron about English votes for English laws, supported by Nick


Clegg as well, but that is what we said in our manifesto in 2010, and


we have done absolutely nothing about it. It is not credible now to


pretend that you are going to do those things. They have omitted to


give every Scot ?1600 per year in definitely. If you want to stand up


for the English taxpayer, and really tackle the debt, then UKIP are the


party who will do that. But there is nothing principled about this, this


is just an attempt to save your skin. You said UKIP stopped you


winning in 2005 - UKIP did not stand in 2010, and you won. You are


frightened that UKIP would beat you in the next election, this is to


save your skin to me you think I am doing this because I am frightened,


you think this is the easy option, to abandon my position in


Parliament, but my principles on the line? On the contrary, you look at


MPs who have moved party before, almost none of them have given their


voters to chance to have a say on what they have done. I am asking


permission from my voters, and I am moving to UKIP because I believe


many of the people in my constituency have been let down by a


Conservative led government, and that what UKIP is saying appeals to


decent, hard-working people, who want to see real change in our


country. If they do not agree, then they can vote in a by-election and


have their say on who they want to be their MP. I am being open and


honest, giving people a say. I am trying to do the right thing by my


constituents, and whatever the risk is to me personally, I think it is


the right thing to do. It is what MPs should be in politics to try and


do for the people they represent. Your defection, coming after Douglas


Carswell's, confirms the claim that UKIP is largely a depository for


disaffected right-wing Tories like yourself, isn't it? On the contrary,


the number of people I met in Doncaster yesterday was


extraordinary. When I first went to Conservative conferences 20 years


ago, there was some enthusiasm for politics, I remember Norman Tebbit


speaking against Maastricht, people fought they could change things,


there was real politics. But I do not think you will see that at


Birmingham this week, it is PR people, lobbyists, corporate, few


ordinary members of. At Ancaster, people had saved up for months just


to get the rail ticket to Doncaster. People who believe in UKIP, who


believe in Nigel Farage, who believe in the team, as agents of change,


who can actually deal with a political class at Westminster which


has let able down. We want proper reform to the political system,


which David Cameron promises but does not deliver. Final question -


after the next election, the Prime Minister is going to be either David


Cameron or Ed Miliband, that is the choice, one or the other - who would


you prefer? Well, what we would prefer is to get the most UKIP


policies implemented. We want a first rate we want to deal with


immigration. I asked about who you wanted to be Prime Minister. We will


look at the circumstances. We need as many UKIP MPs as possible, to


restore trust in politics. If people vote UKIP, they will get UKIP. How


serious is this? I think it is very serious. It is the old Tory disease,


destroyed John Major, and it has been bubbling away again. It is


beginning to feel like the worst days of Labour in the early nineteen


eighties. It matters, because people care passionately. It is nothing


like Labour in the early 1980s, it is bad, but it is nothing like that.


There are these very strong strands. People like David Davis


writing a large piece in the Daily Mail attacking the leader on the


first day of the conference. That is the kind of thing that Labour used


to do. That is what David Davis does all the time! But this is authentic


in the sense that there is a real, genuine dispute about Europe. Some


of us were not around in the 1980s, but I imagine it is pretty bad.


There is the short-term problem of the by-election they might lose, the


media problem of the general election which they cannot win if


UKIP remain anywhere near their current level of support. But in


many ways the longer term question is the most pressing, which is, does


it make sense for the Conservative Party to remain one party, or would


it not be better for the hard-core of 20-30 intransigent Eurosceptics


to essentially join UKIP or form their own party? At least the


Conservatives would become more internally manageable. And probably


lose the next election. Probably, yes. That is what you are advising


them? If the reward is to have a coherent party in 15 years' time. It


is just as well you are a columnist, not a party strategist. I


was an anorak in the 1980s, who watched the Labour conference on the


TV. Were you wearing your anorak? Of course I was, that is how sad I am.


But once again the crisis from UKIP has forced the Prime Minister to


step in an even more Eurosceptic direction. Said on television what


he was trying not to say, which is that if he does not get his way in


the European negotiations, he will recommend to the British people that


we should go. He began by saying, as I have always said, and when they


say that, you know they are saying something new. He basically said,


Britain should not stay if it is not in Britain's interests. I think this


is big stakes for both the Tories and four UKIP. The Tories are able


to write off Clacton. Rochester is number 271 on the UKIP friendly


list. If the Tories win it, big moment for them. If UKIP lose it,


this strategy of various will be facing a bit of a setback.


To what extent are Mark Reckless's views shared by Conservative


The Sunday Politics commissioned an exclusive poll of Conservative


Pollsters ComRes spoke to over 1,000 councillors -


that's almost an eighth of their council base - and Eleanor Garnier


There is not a single party conference at the seaside this year,


and Sunday Politics could not get through them all without a trip to


the coast. So here we are on the shore in Sussex. There are plenty of


Conservative councillors here, and Tory MPs as well, but one challenge


they all face is UKIP, who have got their sights on coastal towns.


Places like Worthing East and surer and, with high numbers of


pensioners, providing rich pickings for UKIP. In West Sussex, the Tories


run the county council, but UKIP are the official opposition, with ten


councillors. We cannot lose any more ground to UKIP. If we lose any more


ground, if you look at the way it has swung from us to them, it is


getting near to being the middle point, where we might start losing


seats which we have always regarded as safe seats. So, it has got to be


stemmed, it cannot go any further. Our exclusive survey looked at the


policy areas where the Conservatives are vulnerable to UKIP. If an EU


Referendum Bill is called tomorrow, 45% say they would vote to leave,


39% would stay in. Asked about immigration...


It was those issues, Europe and immigration, that Mark Reckless said


were the head of his decision. I promised to cut immigration while


treating people fairly and humanely. I cannot keep that promise as a


Conservative, I can keep it as UKIP. When asked if Conservative


councillors would like an electoral pact with UKIP in the run-up to the


general election, one third said they support the idea. 63% are


opposed and 7% don't know. Conservative councillors who left


the party to join UKIP say it wasn't easy. I left because basically the


Conservatives left me. I saw it as a difficult decision to change, but


what I was seeing with UKIP was freed. Me being able to speak for my


residents. Back to our survey and on climate change 49% said it was


happening, but that humans are not to blame. Our survey showed that 60%


think David Cameron was wrong to pursue legalising gay marriage, with


31% saying it was the right thing to do and 9% not sure. In Worthing


councillors said gay marriage was divisive. That has really been an


issue here, it might have damaged the party slightly, and I think in a


way by setting a rule like that, it is a very religious thing and it is


almost trying to play God to make that decision. But some of the


party's toughest decisions have been over the economy. 56% in our survey


thought the spending cuts the Government has so far announced have


not gone far enough. 6% were not sure. They are prepared for


difficult decisions, but local activists say the party's voice must


be clearer. I think the message has to be more forceful, it has to be


specially targeted to the ex-Conservative voters who now vote


UKIP, especially in this area, the vast majority of UKIP people are


disillusioned Conservatives. The message has to be loud and strong,


come back and we are the party to give you what you want. With just


eight months until the general election, the pressure is on and


local Conservatives are searching for clues to help their party stem


the flow of defections. Joining me now is William Hague, the former


Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House of Commons.


Tories like Mark Reckless are defecting to UKIP because they don't


trust the party leadership to deliver on Europe, do they? They


believe people like you and David Cameron will campaign to stay in and


they are right. They said before they defected that people should


vote Conservative to get a referendum on Europe, and that is


right of course. The only way to get a referendum is to do that and this


is the point, the people should decide. However a future government


decides it will campaign, it should be the people of the country who


decide. Can you say to our viewers this morning that is not enough


powers are repatriated back to Britain, you would want to come


out, can you say that? Our objective is to get those powers and stay in.


The answer to the question is I won't be deciding, David Cameron


won't be deciding, you the voters will be deciding. But you have to


give us your view. If you don't get enough powers back, would you vote


to come out and recommended? Our objective is to get those powers and


be able to stay in. You just get endless speculation years in


advance. I will decide at the time how I will vote. Surely that is the


rational position for everyone to take but I want a referendum to take


place. I understand that. As you pointed out to Mark Reckless just


now, unless there is a Conservative government, people won't have that


choice. Under a Labour government they will not get a choice at all.


Our survey of Tory councillors shows that almost 50% would vote to leave


the EU in a referendum. I think it showed, wasn't it 45, and 39%, but


again, I'm pretty sure they will decide at the time. They will want


to see what a future government achieves in a renegotiation before


they decide what to vote in a referendum. Unless David Cameron is


Prime Minister and there is a Conservative government, there will


not be a renegotiation. That is a point you have made four times. I


think they have got it. Your Cabinet colleague says we should not be


scared of quitting the EU, but you went native in the Foreign Office,


didn't you? You used to be a Eurosceptic, you are now the Foreign


Office line man. No, I don't think so! We brought back the first


reduced European budget ever in history. Even Margaret Thatcher...


Leaving the EU scares you, doesn't it? Not much scares me after 26


years in politics but we want to do the best thing for the country.


Where we scared when we got us out of liability for Eurozone bailouts?


We were not scared of anybody. People said we couldn't achieve


things but we negotiated these things. We can do that with a wider


negotiation in Europe. Mr Reckless says he cannot keep the Conservative


promise to tackle immigration. You have failed to keep your promise to


keep net immigration down. You promised to cut it below 100,000,


you failed. It is over 200,000 people. We have cut it from 250,000


in 2005, the last figures were 240,000. I think we can file that


under F four failed. It includes students, we want them in the


country. You knew that when you made the promise. But has it come down?


Yes, it has. Have we stopped the promise. But has it come down?


coming here because of our benefit system? Yes. None of that happened


under Labour. If Mark Reckless had his way, it would be more likely we


would have a Labour government. They have an open door policy on


immigration. You are not just losing MPs to UKIP, you are losing voters.


Polling by Michael Ashcroft shows that 20% of people who voted Tory in


2010 have abandoned youth and three quarters of them are voting UKIP


now. We will see in the general election. Politics is very fluid in


this country and we shouldn't deny that in any way but UKIP thought


they were going to win the by-election in Newark, we had a


thumping Conservative victory, and I think opinion polls are snapshots of


opinion now. They are not forecast of the general election and we will


be doing everything we can to get our message across. Today we are


announcing 3 million more apprenticeships in the next


Parliament. I think this is what people will be voting on, rather


than who has defected. Your activist base once parked with UKIP. Our


survey shows a third of Tory councillors would like a formal pact


with UKIP. Why not? It shows two thirds are against it. No, it shows


one third want it. I read the figures, it showed 67% don't want


it. We are not going to make a pact with other parties, and they don't


work in the British electoral system even if they were desirable. You are


sharing the Cabinet committee on English votes for English laws. Is


further devolution for Scotland conditional on progress towards


English devolution? No, the commitment to Scotland is


unconditional. We will meet the commitments to Scotland but we


believe, we the Conservatives believe, that in tandem with that we


have to resolve these questions about fairness to the rest of the UK


as well. That will depend on other parties or the general election


result. Are you committed to the Gordon Brown timetable? Yes,


absolutely. So you are committed to producing draft legislation by Burns


night, that is at the end of January. Will you produce proposals


for English votes on English laws by then? We will, but whether they are


agreed across the parties will depend on the other parties. There


was no sign that they were agreeable at the Labour conference. We will


produce our ideas on the same timetable as the timetable for


Scottish devolution. You will therefore bring forward proposals


for English votes for English laws by the end of January? Yes. And will


you attempt to get them on the statute book before the election?


The commitment in Scotland is to legislate after the election. You


will publish a bill beforehand? We will publish proposals beforehand. I


don't exclude doing something before the election, but the Scottish


timetable is to legislate for the further devolution after the general


election, whoever wins the election. Have you given thought as to what


English votes for English laws would mean? I have thought a lot of it


over 15 years. I am not going to prejudge what the outcome will be,


but it does mean in essence that when decisions are taken, decisions


that only affect England or only England and Wales, then only the MPs


from England and Wales should be making those decisions. You can


achieve that in many different ways. Is that it for English


devolution, is that what it amounts to? That is devolution to England if


you like, but within England there is a lot of other devolution going


on and we might well want to extend that further. We have given more


freedom to local authorities, there is a lot of scope to do more of


that, but that in itself is not the answer to the problem of what


happens at Westminster. You haven't just given Scotland more devolution


or planned to do it, you have also enshrined the Barnett formula and


that seems to be in perpetuity. It is widely regarded as being unfair


to Wales and many of the poorer English regions. Why do you


perpetuate it? It will become less relevant overtime if more


tax-raising powers... It goes all the way back to the 1970s, we made a


commitment on that, we will keep our commitments to Scotland as more --


but as more tax-raising powers devolved, the Barnett formula is


less significant. If you transfer ?5 billion of tax-raising powers to


Scotland, 5 billion comes off the Barnett formula? It will be a lot


more complicated than that, but yes, as their own decisions about


taxation are made, the grand from Westminster will go down. And you


can guarantee that if there is a majority Conservative government,


there will be English votes for English laws after the election?


Yes, I stress again that there are different ways of doing it but if


there is no cross-party agreement on that, the Conservatives will produce


our proposals and campaign for them in the general election. Don't go


away because I want to move on to some other matters.


Now to the fight against so-called Islamic State terrorists.


Yesterday, RAF Tornado jets carried out their first flights over Iraq


since MPs gave their approval for air-strikes against the militants.


When you face a situation with psychobabble -- psychopathic killers


who have already brutally beheaded one of our own citizens, who have


already launched and tried to execute plots in our own country to


maim innocent people, we have a choice - we can either stand back


from this and say it is too difficult, let's let someone else


try to keep our country safe, or we take the correct decision to have a


full, comprehensive strategy but let's be prepared to play our role


to make sure these people cannot do not trust harm.


And William Hague is still with me - until July he was, of course,


Why have only six Tornado jets being mobilised? Do not assume that is all


that will be taking part in this operation. That is all that has been


announced and I do not think we should speculate. Even the Danes are


sending more fighter jets. There is no restriction in the House of


Commons resolution passed on Friday on what we can do. So why so


little? Do not underestimate what our Tornados can do. They have some


unique capabilities, capabilities which have been specifically asked


for by our allies. When you are on the wrong end of six Tornados, it


will not feel like a small effort. But there will be other things which


can add to that effort. We are joining in a month after the


operation started, we are late, we are behind America, France,


Australia, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, one hand tied behind our


backs cause of the rule about not attacking Syria - why is the British


government leading from behind? First of all, we are a democratic


country, and you know all about Parliamentary approval. You could


have recalled parliament. We have done that, with a political


consensus. Other European countries also took the decision on Friday to


send their military assets. Our allies are absolutely content with


that, and Britain will play an important role, along with many


other nations, including Arab nations. General Sir David Richards


Sheriff, who just steps down as the Nato Deputy Supreme Commander, he


condemns the spineless lack of leadership and the absence of any


credible strategy. It is embarrassing,isn't it? Of course,


they turn into armchair generals. We are playing an important role, we


are a democratic country. Your viewers will remember, we had a vote


last year on military action in Syria and we were defeated in the


House of Commons, a bad moment for our foreign policy. We have taken


care to bring this forward when we can win a vote in the House of


Commons, and that is how we will proceed. The air Chief Marshal until


recently in charge of the RAF, he says, it makes no sense to bomb Iraq


but not Syria. He calls the decision ludicrous. Of course, it DOES make


sense to bomb Iraq, because the Iraqi government has asked for our


assistance. This came up a lot in the debate on Friday, and the Prime


Minister explained, similar to what I have just been saying, that there


is not a political consensus about Syria in the House of Commons. When


we did it last year, we were defeated, and it was described by


all commentators as a huge blow to the government and to our foreign


policy. So, we will bring forward proposals when there is a majority


in There are several answers. Just


because you're not doing anything does not mean you should not do


something. The United States and other countries are involved in


action against targets in Syria. If we were to put that proposal to the


House of Commons tomorrow and it was defeated we would not have achieved


a great deal. You don't know what it would be if the case is strong. The


Labour Party holds hostage your foreign and defence policy? We are


democratic country and have to go through the House of Commons in


these things and the Labour Party is a large part. Is it not embarrassing


to be on the wrong side of so many of these military experts? Why


should we trust the judgement of here today, gone tomorrow


politicians against the expertise? We have military experts with us


now. This is the big difference from the last government. We have


national security council. Which you are cheering? It is cheered by the


Prime Minister and I am a member of it. We take decisions together. By


the people who have the information now. Chairing the committee, you


will know what British and American intelligence says about Syria. The


Prime Minister has said there's a danger the British-born jihadists


will come back and attack us but the intelligence reports are quite


clear, Al-Qaeda and its associates are selecting and indoctrinating the


jihadist sincerity not Iraq. -- in Syria, not Iraq. I cannot comment on


intelligence reports but Syria are direct threat to this country, and


have we excluded taking action? We have not. Could you come back and


ask? It was specifically said in the motion before the house that if we


wanted to take action we would come back to the House of Commons. That


could happen but we haven't taken any decision and we would not do so


as we thought we were just going to be defeated like we were last year.


The government supports strikes on silly as and you must believe they


are legal. The legal base differs from one country to another. You


must believe the US is involved in legal action otherwise you would not


support it. They are taking action legally and we support action but


really, I entirely understand it is a legitimate question, but you are


asking why Iraq and not silly? The answers are those I have given. --


and not Syria? We support our allies in what they do and we are also


engaged in building up the political strength of the more moderate


opposition in Syria and trying to bring about a piece solution. Has


the government got legal advice that if we were to attack Syria that


would be legal? The way it works as if we propose doing something we


seek for the specific legal advice. Why would you not look for it


anyway? Because you have to be sure of the legal advice at the time and


we do not comment on the advice given to us. Tony Blair ended up


publishing houses. He did so because there was a huge public dispute. You


have not had legal advice that Britain attacking Syria would be


legal? The legal situation is likely to be the barrier, let me put it


that way, because within international law, you can act in


the face of extreme distress and collective self-defence, so you can


imagine legal justification for this. We will take the advice at the


time in detail. You're watching Sunday Politics, goodbye to viewers


in Scotland who leave us now. Good morning and welcome to


Sunday Politics Scotland. How long will be Spike and political


engagement last? Will the political parties continue


to feel the love from new members And what do additional powers


look like when it comes to Can governments


actually create jobs? It's the week after the big vote


and while posturing over powers and leadership continues


the number of people joining political parties in Scotland has


reached an unprecedented level. With a turnout out of almost 85%,


the referendum undoubtedly stirred up interest in Scottish politics


but without independence as a focus, how can the parties hold


on to this renewed enthusiasm? As the light faded, the queue grew.


Fresh Greens joined the party's Glasgow branch, so many that it


exceeded their expectations. I am utterly overwhelmed, thank you. At


the last count, more than 4000 signed up to the party in the seven


days after the referendum taking total membership up to 5600. Tom is


one of the new joiners. The whole referendum has energised me and my


friends. We had such a feeling of hope. Your vote actually meant


something last week and hopefully we can carry that on. The Greens are


not alone in that boosted popularity. Since the referendum,


membership has grown to almost 70,000 making it the third largest


party in the UK but as the hangover lists, will new members lose


interest? There will inevitably be some who are brought back down by


life and in some cases some can be disaffected and there may be


financial reasons or emotional reasons, but I do not believe it


will be a great deal. You cannot turn the clock back. The awakening


of people to real power and real change. Once that has happened it is


a march forward. Suzanne used to support the Labour Party and is not


the only member to switch allegiance. Although the party will


not publish membership and feel we are told that has increased by


hundreds during the period. The Scottish Socialists have reported an


increase as well with no data available for Conservatives Liberal


Democrats. How long will this renewed enthusiasm last and what can


politicians do to capture it? We have seen fantastic engagement on


both sides. It has engaged people. The situation now looks like a


different challenge, because in challenge, you mobilise over


Scottish interests, and what is very clear is that so far the parties


that were supporting the yes side seemed to be doing a better job at


this, which makes sense because people were brought on who now want


to stay on board, whereas the No site have to create a new topic that


grabs people passionately, and they have to make the Westminster


election is not just about Westminster but about Scottish


interests. The hopes of the new card carrying members join those of the


party faithful and a Scotland's politics continue to change it seems


there is renewed pressure on the party faithful and a Scotland's


politics continue to change it seems there is renewed pressure on the


parties not to disappoint. I am joined by Patrick Harvie now,


and from Birmingham studio, David Mundell. Were you as disconcerted


that that meeting as you appeared to be? I was blown away completely.


Normally the Glasgow branch meets in the backroom of a pulp and if we get


50 people that is great, so we moved to a bigger venue because we thought


might get more than that but even that venue was mobbed before the


meeting began with a huge queue stretching down the path. We had to


have a separate meeting outside. If these figures are accurate that your


membership has tripled. Quadrupled. There is an issue for you as the


leader of the Greens in Scotland. In what sense do you own the party? I


never did. They knew people who have joined could quite easily tangling


policy in a different direction? That has always been the case that


the membership control the party. We do not use leadership, I am the core


convener, and that simply means we cheer at the National Council and


are elected every year. We do not dictate policy strategy. The council


and the annual conference make those decisions and that will continue to


be the case. One obvious example, perhaps unlikely, but let's say all


these said that Watkins used as was the green bit of your policy and we


do not like the independence but so can we scrap that? I know for a fact


there have been yes and No voters who have joined us in the wake of


the referendum, which is partly because although we were clear about


the majority position, we were always comfortable challenging the


SNP on AV as we disagreed. My point stands. That would have been the


case even before this. According to you it is quadrupled the case now?


So it is much more exciting! The first thing we should ask viewers


are you going to defect to UKIP? I most certainly am not. We have a big


job to do in Scotland in terms of bringing and delivering more powers


to the Scottish Parliament. We have had a very successful campaign. When


you say we, you mean the Conservatives? The Conservative


party in Scotland have played a very significant role in the referendum


campaign. Ruth Davidson has led from the front and that was ignored from


commentators on all sides of the argument. We made a passionate case


for Britain as a positive case for Scotland's future and everyone


acknowledges Ruth Davidson was the game changer in relation to more


powers for the Scottish Parliament for her bold proposals. I am not


sure everyone does agree with that. The Conservative party recruitment


drive in Scotland, how's that going? The number we have made


available throughout this campaign is the 80,000 people who signed up


to our Conservative friends of the union campaign. But how many new


members? Focused on actually getting people active in politics, and Ruth


Davidson led that. We want to continue that. We want to keep these


people active in their own localities and nationally and some


have gone on to join the party and want to be candidates. A lot of


those people want to be active. We have about 11,000 members and new


members during the course of the campaign. How many? The people who


signed up to friends of the union, that is what I think is the


positive. You have said that, I am asking how many new members? Several


hundred new members. About 11,000 at the moment, but 80,000 have been


willing to sign up to our campaign to keep Scotland and the union. That


is the third time you have said that. You're not using these


old-fashioned methods like getting people to join your party? We are


clearly moving forward into a different political environment and


people want to be members of the party. They want to influence policy


and perhaps stand for election. There are also people who want to be


active in their local communities and I think that is one of the big


challenges in Scotland because under the present Scottish government we


have seen a centralisation of power. Even if they want to be active in


their local communities they have little opportunity. The problem is


that no one is going to deny that getting more members is a good thing


from your point of view, but the question for you and the SNP as well


is what this really means, whether these people are just coming on


because there's a bit of excitement after the referendum? Or whether you


can convince them to become activists? Of the people we have met


not just in the Glasgow branch, there's a real appetite and


enthusiasm for getting involved, but we do not know exactly what our


membership will be a year or two from now but we hope it will


continue to grow. It goes beyond just the numbers. The next link


coming up as the general election. The next thing as the debate about


where devolution goes next. Can I just say one thing. Back do you have


ambitions of having a Green MP? Of course, why would you stand on


election if you do not want to get elected. We do you think that might


be? There are target seats we're going to announcing shortly. We will


be announcing target seats shortly, but the point I want to make, and


this is really important, the connection of people with politics,


and we need to find ways of political parties being more open to


that and not just saying we have left number, you have that. This is


about a political process. Briefly, David, do the Conservatives have


ambition? A lot of areas where you used to have seats, some of them


SNP, voted 60 - 40 against independence. Do you see that as an


opportunity? A significant target for us as those who have


Conservative values but have been voting SNP. I think the referendum


demonstrated that at a lot of people have come to understand that if you


vote SNP you are voting for independence and a focus on


constitutional issues, and if you want to see Conservative policy


implemented you should vote for the Conservative Party. Which is your


main target to be the second Conservative seat in Scotland? I am


not going to fall into that trap. We have been there before. The analysis


and focuses entirely about the numbers. What we want to do is get


good candidates in place and all the seats in Scotland and fight as hard


as we can. Don't go away, we will come back to you.


We've seen the grass-roots, but the people


in suits are left arguing about more powers for the Scottish Parliament.


Lord Smith, the chair of the cross-party


commission in devolution, is asking the parties for their proposals.


We heard in the campaign about job-creating powers.


But what are these drivers to employment?


Can governments push a lever and create jobs?


As Andrew Kerr reports, there's no rest or relaxation,


as those carrying on the campaign for constitutional change want to


see proposals for powers taking-off, rather than stalling.


creaming off holidays after a long, hard battle. Unless they have jetted


off, more for Parliament has been in people's brains. The turbofan engine


is responding in this era craft, no doubt politicians wish they had this


kind of instantaneous control. Governments have to rely on


different levers to pursue policies. It sounded like there was a simple


manoeuvre for employment. Alistair Darling struggled but fundamentally


do governments create jobs? The implications seem to be that there


are laws which need to be passed or powers handed over from Westminster


to Holyrood that somehow instantly and magically lead to job creation.


I think it says something about how instinctively on the left many


Scottish politicians are that that assumption was not challenged more


frequently. Year passenger duty could be set at a local level to


help businesses, say some. Powers are only important in so far as they


allow businesses to create jobs. A range of tax powers for Scotland


which allow government to create the environment to allow businesses to


create jobs. Our members have consistently highlighted business


rates as one of the key taxation factors for the businesses but that


has already been devolved for 15 years. Governments can react on the


tax system and insight ways to get out of the current system to help.


Ultimately the people who create jobs are at those who start new


businesses and expand existing businesses, employ people, grow and


make money. Not so for this independence leading commentator.


More powers are useful to give government a strong guiding hand.


Jobs depend on your skills base and how much investment there is.


Britain has one of the lowest levels of industrial investment in the


Western world because we put all our money in banks and send it abroad.


It would be useful if there was a way to encourage investment.


Critically, what does the Scottish government need to get to create


jobs? Key powers over two things, some degree of control over the rate


of business taxation which is normal in most industrialised countries. It


needs powers to borrow in its own right which feeds directly into


business productivity. Aiming high or perhaps too tall an order? The


Westminster parties need to deliver. I am joined again by Patrick Harvie


of the Green Park Day and a Conservative MP in about Birmingham


studio. Corporation tax which was mentioned there, is that off the


agenda as far as you are concerned for more devolution? I do not see


the benefits of devolving corporation tax because I think you


see the model from the US where you get into a race to the bottom


basically if you have different levels of corporation tax within the


United Kingdom. The Smith commission is up and running and people can


submit views and ideas. I would argue against corporation tax. What


I do want to see is the full devolution of income tax which we


argued for because I think that is most significant. You are a member


of the government and the government will have to implement this


legislation. If the British government you are representing says


we do not think corporation tax should be included it is not going


to happen, is it? I am setting out a view among parties. I am not setting


out the government possession. It is the conservative position which is


we do not think the devolution of corporation tax within the UK would


be beneficial to the Scottish economy. We think the full


devolution of income tax would and that would assist many of the most


small businesses in Scotland which are not part of the corporation tax


regime in any event. One of the commentators after that exchange we


saw between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond said you would think we


were in East Germany in the 1970s the way they go on about this. The


idea that governments create jobs and they are powers which can be


handed over which will transform the economy in Scotland, that is


ridiculous, isn't it? Of course they read the relationship between


government, the public sector and the private sector. Many of the jobs


lost our jobs we're hours have been restricted and he has been cut in


the public sector. The government's ability to decide how much money it


spends and borrows determined jobs and wages in the public and private


sector. It is obvious if what you are saying is spent more public


money and give people more jobs in the public sector, that will create


jobs. It is the idea that somehow or other the government can have more


powers which will create jobs in the private sector, just that is not the


way this works? Government decisions, not just investment in


industries but government decisions about regulation on industries do


affect the ability to create jobs and have quality jobs. For example,


there are a great many decisions in relation to the energy industry


which are still made at UK level even though they have a very local


impact. More renewable energy in public and community levels. That is


almost entirely dependent on hand-outs the electricity bills.


Most private sector industry does not need subsidies. The call


industry does, the oil industry and aviation industry get massive tax


breaks. But things not to do with energy, surely it is the general


economic environment that creates jobs? Much of it is regulated by the


government, the banks is another example. A great many European


countries have banks that have a natural investment in the real


economy, that is what they do instead of putting it on the casino


economy. The ability to ensure the economy functions for the common


good, works for people's interests rather than those who suck value out


of the economy. What about this idea that it is all about the powers the


government has? I do not agree with that. Governments create the


environment in which jobs and prosperity can come about. These


Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament already have significant


powers to do that. If you block to the north-east, Aberdeen, the oil


industry, the key issues able raise the about what is holding the


industry back is the infrastructure around about Aberdeen, the road


network. We lack of housing in the area and the lack of skilled people


have. These are three things already within the remix of the Scottish


government. Hopefully now we have got the referendum out of the way we


can have a focus on the significant decisions that can really affect job


opportunities on the ground. Let me ask you about small industries. The


rate of business formation has been relatively low for a long time not


just computer other parts of the UK but compared to other countries


around the world. Who knows, if we voted for independence may that


would have changed but it seems a fairly intractable problem and I am


not sure there is anything governments can do to address it, do


you disagree? One thing we can do is take the burden of paperwork off of


small businesses. It is easy for politicians but it is the one thing


that I think would make a significant difference. What you are


saying cannot be explanation because the paperwork praised by businesses


in England is the same. I was not setting it out as something to


change particularly in Scotland but the way people have to set up small


businesses they identify that as the biggest impediment. I think we have


maybe a lot of progress in Scotland in promoting a more entrepreneurial


culture in Scotland and we have to do that whether independent or not.


You're watching Sunday Politics Scotland.


Let's cross now for the news with Andrew Kerr.


Good afternoon. On the first day of the


UK Conservative Party conference, the Prime Minister has repeated his


pledge to deliver more devolution. Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr


Show, David Cameron replied "Yes" FOUR times after he was asked


if he would stick to the cross-party vow made before the vote.


The SNP say their post-referendum surge in party membership shows


people are putting their trust in THEM to hold Westminster to


its promise of new powers. A cyclist has been seriously injured


in a hit and run collision in Stirlingshire.


The 47-year-old man was on the Kippen to Fintry road yesterday


afternoon when he was hit by a van. It failed to stop.


Police are now appealing for witnesses.


Andy Murray has halted the 15-month title drought that had


become a real worry after engineering a spectacular turnaround


in the Shenzhen Open final. The Scot faced four match points


in a second-set tie-break but saved them with some of


his best tennis on his way to a 5-7 7-6 6-1 victory over Tommy Robredo.


Let's look at the weather now, here's Gillian.


Hello. A load of dry weather to come across the country this afternoon


but a good deal of cloud and not much brightness. A band of showery


rain mainly affecting Argyll and spreading into Perthshire and


Speyside. A few bright spells across the south, perhaps the best or the


Northern Isles and far north of the mainland. Mainly like winds will see


things feel cool. That's all for now, back to Gordon.


The Conservative party conference gets underway at


Birmingham International Conference Centre today.


Yesterday brought only bad news, with the defection of Mark Reckless


to UKIP, and the sudden resignation of Brooks Newmark, minister


for Civil Society, following his involvement in a sexting scandal.


The double disaster is an unwelcome distraction for the


party, as David Cameron tries to seize the initiative with further


reform to the benefits system.I'm joined now by our


Westminster Correspondent, David Porter, who's at the International


Conference Centre in Birmingham. David Mandel has just assured has he


is not about to defect to UKIP so you can take the glad tidings to the


delegates. What is the feeling there about these defections? I think they


think if this is how you want to get publicity for a party conference


eight months before a general election this is probably not the


way to do it. The headlines today are all about one who is reckless by


name and the other reckless by nature. Mark reckless defected to


UKIP and the other who resigned after a text message row and


allegations about his private life. You talk to representatives here and


those who followed the Tory party quite closely and they think there


might be others who could be considering this. They could either


do it this week at the conference, just see for instance on Wednesday


morning ahead of David Cameron's speech, think of the adoptions.


Order as many people think at the turn of the year when the Tory high


command will think they have got over this. That would cause huge


damage as well. It is not the way any party wants to generate


headlines. I think what they will now be trying to do is hope they can


draw a line under it and start the conference and talk about policies.


There must be a certain sense of anger. It is one thing for people to


say I have changed my mind and I'm disillusioned with my party. This


looks like it has been deliberately targeted to cause the maximum amount


of damage to David Cameron and his heartache. -- party. I am sure if


Mark Reckless were to walk along here, many representatives would


quite happily shoved him in the canal. They have had assurances from


Mark Reckless that he would stay in the party and this can only damage


the Conservatives. It is what we are all talking about at the moment and


the Conservatives feel that after Labour had a downbeat conference


last week, they have the opportunity with the economy improving to get


some of the messages all that they wanted to. They are now having to


fight this and try to get this out of the way before getting the


message across. We shall have to leave it there. You look at death, I


do not know of is a medical going on, but you'll do that you're


standing on the canal! Thank you. I like to think I can walk on water


but unfortunately I cannot. Now funny look at what is coming up.


I am joined by Alex Massie and Isobel Lindsay. Let's talk a little


bit about the political landscape. Opportunity for the Tories? David


Mandel seemed chipper. The people defecting to UKIP are sort of cancer


at the heart of the Tory party and nobody thinks he has that sort of


problem for the Conservatives. The thing for the Tories in Scotland, do


you measure their progress and shield of the vote or numbers seats.


It seems to be possible that Tories will increase their vote by two or


three points without dramatically increasing the number of seats. The


party leadership says it is seats not share of the vote and by that


standard that will be difficult to see progress. Presumably what they


are thinking is hang on a minute, we have just had this referendum and


everyone is saying Labour is in crisis but there's a problem the


SNP, because in the heartland areas, there was heavy voting against


independence. If I were a Tory strategist, given these are former


Tory seats... The there's an opportunity and as you note the SNP


heartlands are lapsed Tory areas. Never underestimate the ability of


the Conservatives not to take advantage of it? It remains a


branding issues so when you see that turnout matters as well, and the


people who voted most decisively in favour of yes was the people who


came of age politically during the Thatcher years. That remains a


problem for the Conservatives. Tory ideas are much more popular in


Scotland but I am not sure it will necessarily be as dramatic a


unification of these things as they would like to think. I know you


cannot speak for the SNP but I am curious as to what you make of the


situation in the West of Scotland? Some areas like Glasgow voted yes


but again that does not necessarily translate into a vote for the SNP in


a general election, or does it? I think all bets are off. The only


historical situation I can compare this to is probably 1967 after the


Hamilton by-election where you had a huge increase in SNP membership.


Immediately after that, I got elected for Dalmarnock in the city


council elections but there was major gains across Labour seats. Of


course, things went down, came up, went down, but it was a game changer


in that period. I think this could very well be a game changer and that


is going to be fascinating to see the general election campaign in


Scotland because I think it is wide open. Everyone was assuming as usual


it is a choice between Tory and Labour at Westminster so we have to


vote labour whether we want to or not, but if the SNP can tell the


story, if the narrative could provide a big block of SNP and


greens, they could hold the balance of power at Westminster. Radical


change of subject. Iraq and Syria. Are we now involved in the long-term


effort? William Hague was saying there may be a return to the House


of Commons to ask for permission to take military action in this area --


in Syria with no endgame. You cannot have an endgame until the end of the


game by definition and we do not know how or when that will be the


case. There is a lot of nonsense being talked as though Britain is


going to war in Iraq for the third time. This is a of half a dozen


fighter jets, it is a police action from the year designed to assist the


Iraqi forces combating ISIS. We are only involved in one part and it is


important to date in a sense of perspective about the depth and


longevity of British importance. There's a massive international


effort and you can see contributions from the and Belgium. -- the


Netherlands. There's a general recognition that ISIS a threat not


just to the legion but in terms of the philosophy, the wider world.


What do you make of this? Everything we have done in the Middle East and


North Africa over the last half decade has been disaster after


disaster. We have shown ourselves to be so ignorant and unaware of all


the tensions. I actually was not opposed initially to the US, UN


approved, of the initial air strikes in Libya which were supposed to just


protect against Colonel Gaddafi's forces. And then what happened?


America, France and the UK to get us an opportunity to bomb the place to


create regime change and we are in a situation now where we have had to


withdraw troops. If you were initially in favour of the reasons


given, presumably you are in favour of the argument that this is a


police action. That they are people, refugees in danger of being


massacred by these Islamic state militants. Even if the only effect


of a bombing campaign is within a mile to stop them advancing and


killing these people, limited though that is, is it not worthwhile? One,


I don't think it will work, but to, let's remember Syria. Are you saying


the Assad regime has been less destructive than ISIS? It has killed


many many more people. What we are doing now is propping him up. We had


any situation with no simple answer but what I would say is why are we


in there along with Saudi Arabia, which has been financing the


jihadist and encouraging them and now they are out of control and they


are not taking the lead, let them take the lead. We will have to leave


it there. Thank you both very much indeed. That's all from us this


week, back at the same time next week, until then, from all of,




Download Subtitles