08/11/2015 Sunday Politics Scotland

As evidence grows that the Russian passenger jet downed over

Egypt's Sinai desert last weekend was the target of

a terrorist attack, we look at how Moscow and the West will respond.

We'll have the latest from Egypt and Russia, and ask are we now

on the brink of an even more dangerous phase of Islamist

David Cameron says he's ready to lead Britain out of the EU

if he doesn't get what he wants from renegotiation,

Will his list of demands result in a good deal or turn out to be

And on Sunday Politics Scotland, The Scotland Bill is due to finish

We'll be asking the Finance Secretary John Swinney.

Speed and as a nation embarked on a Remembrance Sunday, we look at the

support of legends receive once they leave the Armed Forces.

the most anticipated TV event since the John Lewis Christmas advert!

It's Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee and Janan Ganesh.

We're not sure if they'll make you start thinking

But they may well bring a tear to your eye.

So, this week, we'll see what many eurosceptics and europhiles have

been waiting for with all the excitement of a child thinking about

their Christmas wish list, even though it's only early November.

David Cameron will publish his letter to the President of the

European Council setting out the "broad outlines" of what he wants

to achieve from his renegotiation of Britain's EU membership.

The upfront briefing from Ten Downing Street says that

he'll challenge both the in and out campaigns to be more

But, to assuage the eurosceptic majority in his party he'll use his

strongest language yet to say that if he doesn't get what he wants,

Whether they believe him is another matter.

This is what Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has to say this

The British people will not be fobbed off with a set of cosmetic

This is about fundamental change in the direction of travel in the

European Union, to make sure that it works for Britain, and that it is

an effective organisation for all the citizens of Europe, driving our

prosperity and competitiveness in the 21st century.

If we cannot do that, then we will not be able to win a referendum.

That was the Foreign Secretary. Janan Ganesh, is anything happening?

There is a problem the David Cameron, the things he is most

likely to get from his renegotiation are not the things that will move

the average voter, so what he is likely to get our protections for

non-euro countries within the EU, and that will be very technical

institutional stuff, double majority voting and so forth. That is doable,

the Germans don't want a fragmented EU in terms of the currency. Does

your average undecided voter decide on the basis of that? I think they

are more moved by free movement and immigration, maybe even economic

regulation, so the things he is most likely to get may not help him in a

year or 18 months' time when he is campaigning to win a referendum. You

get the feeling he has delayed telling us what he is really looking

for because he is bound to disappoint. Indeed, and he has to be

very careful to ask for things he can get. Three of the main things he

can get, but I don't think he will get the four years' delay for in

work benefits, it is discriminatory and goes against the basic

principles and yet he is asking again. We can only hope he has had a

nod and a wink from 27 other countries that they will agree to

that because if he fails to get it, it will agree to that because if he

fails to get it, it'll renegotiation and it is a good package, so we will

hope it is not a cavalier piece of speaking. What is your take? Philip

Hammond did say some of the changes would be introduced through domestic

legislation would be introduced through domestic

codify some recent would be introduced through domestic

judgments that have gone in favour of the UK and not embedded in treaty

change, but the hard language about treaty change, the reason they are

standing soaked up, is George treaty change, the reason they are

he is going to get a treaty treaty change, the reason they are

outs and Britain will get an opt out from an ever closer union. George

Osborne's the is that the protection for the Euro outs is the most

important thing he can get the benefit of Britain but he knows

politically the campaign, the most important thing he has to get those

migrant benefit restrictions. We will see what he says on Tuesday,

that is when the speech is being made.

A senior US government official is quoted today by CNN saying they are

"99.9% certain" that the 224 passengers aboard the Russian jet

which crashed into the Sinai Desert last Saturday were the victims

That's the view in London as well as Washington and now,

draws up plans to repatriate 80,000 of its holidaymakers from various

locations in Egypt, after it suspended all flights there,

following in the wake of Britain's decision to suspend flights from

The downing of the flight is a tragedy for those who lost

than al-Qaeda, as a terrorist group capable of hitting targets far from

In a moment, we will speak to Steve Rosenberg in St Petersburg. First,

we are Rosenberg in St Petersburg. First,

now? The British were the first to stop flights, the Americans followed

another flights to Egypt except to get

people out, is it beginning to trouble the Cairo Government? The

Egyptian Government seems to be in a very tight situation, from an

economic perspective. very tight situation, from an

very important to the economy, it is a lifeline to the Egyptian economy,

which is already in a bad shape and the tourism industry depends mainly

on Russia and Britain, so the fact that no more to wrists, from Russia

or Britain, will be coming to Egypt is a huge blow to tourism here and

Egypt needs foreign currency and it depends on tourist spot that mainly,

so it is a major blow to the industry and put the Government in a

tight situation. On the other hand, the way the Egyptians have handled

security in Sharm el-Sheikh airport was a matter of great concern and

criticism from different countries around the world, even the tourists

I have spoken to, they told us when they first arrived, the security

measures were a mess, so now the measures have been tightened, some

to wrists I spoke to yesterday told me it makes them feel better -- some

to tourist. If the President Sese Government is feeling beleaguered in

Cairo and will take another economic hit because of the tourism, can we

expect further crackdown on the Sinai province terrorist groups? It

is hard to tell at the moment, but the Sinai military operation has

been going on for nearly two years now and every now and then, we hear

about major attacks carried by mainly the IS affiliated group

called the Sinai province, so the fact that the group have operated in

Sinai the nearly two years, it seems the insurgency group is still

gaining momentum and if it happens to be true they managed to smuggle a

bomb on board the plane, it is a major blow to the security

operators. Sally Nabil, thank you. Let's go to St Petersburg, we are

joined by Steve Rosenberg. Is there any indication yet of how, assuming

that it is shown to be a terrorist attack, any indication of how

Vladimir Putin is going to respond? No, not yet. I think it is important

to remember that despite the growing suspicion that this was a bomb, the

official Kremlin line still is that it is keeping an open mind about

this disaster, it is treating all theories equally and the Kremlin

says the fact that it has suspended all flights to Egypt does not mean

it favours the terror theory over any other. Having said that, if it

is proven to be a bomb, then judging by the way President Putin has

responded in the past to terror attacks, I think we can expect a

forceful response from him. How is the domestic politics? I know it is

hard to tell, because the media is so controlled by the Kremlin, but is

this an opportunity for Mr Putin to further strengthen his position with

a tougher crackdown, or is there their fear in the Kremlin that

having casualties as a result of his war on terror will not make him very

popular? It is an interesting question. I remember back in 2004,

when there was a string of terror attacks on Russian soil, there were

bombs in the Moscow Metro, two planes bombed out of the sky and the

year ended with the school siege in Beslan, where 330 people were

killed. None of that seemed to dent Vladimir Putin's popularity. Quite

the opposite, he used it to strengthen the power of the Kremlin.

Now, you could argue that if this doesn't prove to have been a bomb,

that could undermine the narrative that the Kremlin has been pushing

domestically about its military operation in Syria. In other words,

Russia has been saying it has been carrying out air strikes in Syria to

boost national security in Russia, to destroy terrorists so they

couldn't come to Russia and kill people there, that narrative will be

seriously undermined. But whether Russians would connect the dots and

say, President Putin said we would be safer but we clearly are not, I

don't think that would happen, because the Kremlin control so

tightly the media here, particularly television, and television is the

key to influencing public opinion. So if the Kremlin was to change the

narrative to something more like we have been attacked, we are the

victims of terror, we need to carry on our battle against international

terrorism, I think the Russian public would support that and from

the people I have spoken to on the streets of St Petersburg this

morning, I haven't heard a word of criticism of Vladimir Putin. Most

people have said to me, I understand Russia is at threat of terror

attacks and they don't seem to connect what may have happened to

the Russian air bus with Russia's military operation in Syria. Steve

Rosenberg in St Petersburg. We're joined now by the foreign

affairs analyst Tim Marshall, Dr Domitilla Sagramoso,

an expert in Russian security And joining us from our Plymouth

studio is the He sits on the

Commons Defence Committee, and is Tim Marshall, if, as the

intelligence suggests, this attack was coordinated with Islamic State

leaders in Iraq, and its affiliates in the Sinai called soon I

province, it means Islamic State has the capability to plot mass casualty

attacks outside of Syria and Iraq -- called Sinai province. I think in

the future, they will be able to do it globally and this is the first

sign of them doing it outside of the countries they operate in. The head

of the FSB came back the lead met Putin on Friday and Putin

immediately set ground the planes, Putin on Friday and Putin

that shows us what they truly believe. Britain is third, it is

that shows us what they truly Russia and Germany and France in the

amount of tourists there. President Sisi has been to Moscow three times

since he was elected. He is trying to pull Russia back from America. So

it is difficult for the Egyptians and Russians to come back out to

openly unsaved. So to come back to your original point, I think it is

pretty clear that the Isis affiliate in Sinai swore allegiance to Isis in

Iraq. They are under a lot of pressure from the Russians, 20% of

the bombing was against Syria. They have told their affiliate in the

Sinai, you are the ones who can do it from you do the operation, they

have killed the Russians and the Russians have to respond, I agree

with what the Moscow correspondent Russians have to respond, I agree

said, Putin does not respond -- not not respond, Putin responds and

response with violence. Johnny Mercer, if

response with violence. Johnny true and it was a planned attack by

Islamic State, it takes IS into what is called full spectrum terrorist

activity and it is better financed than Al-Qaeda, it is better

resourced and organised in Syria and Iraq and Osama Bin Laden ever was

sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, this takes the global war on

terrorism to a whole new level. This threat is existential. You can

see, if this is proved to be something that has originated from

so-called Islamic State, you can see their strategic region. This is why

the Prime Minister has been going on about this for so long. We have to

the Prime Minister has been going on State because the threat will only

get closer. We see State because the threat will only

outpouring of humanity with that little boy washed up on a beach. We

outpouring of humanity with that have had 30 of our own terrorists

massacred in Tunisia. I understand. Is the British

response which the Prime Minister has not managed to get Pollard to

agree to on has not managed to get Pollard to

jets into Syria, is that really has not managed to get Pollard to

adequate given what you have called has not managed to get Pollard to

We need to do what we are question of how much manpower or

machinery we are sending but the effect we can achieve on the ground.

machinery we are sending but the We have been asked to provide those

Tornado jets because they have a specific tactical and technical

capability to the coalition are asked when it comes to dynamic

targeting within Syria. We asked when it comes to dynamic

stand up to that and do our duty, and have the stomach for the fight.

The idea we are asking people to do some mass bombing in Syria with no

strategy, some mass bombing in Syria with no

We should have got past this by now. some mass bombing in Syria with no

Mr Putin? To a certain extent, this has

Mr Putin? brought the ball back to Russia. I

would disagree with what the correspondent was saying, that the

Russians will not be particularly affected and critical of Mr Putin's

paper in the Middle East. On the one hand they understand, that is their

argument that the President Assad regime needed to be faced for stock

because it had fallen, then jihadists groups in Damascus and

western parts of the country weather and they understand that.

On the other hand, they will put brakes to any attempt to send ground

troops which I think they are not planning to do either. I imagine he

will have another response to the bombing.

He hasn't done much, Tim Marshall. He has been bombing the other groups

against President Assad. He may now extend the bombing to

Islamic State. If you look at the pattern of

bombing, 80% against the Free Syrian Army, it's changed on Thursday.

There was an increase on bombing on Isis targets and I think you'll see

more of that in coming days. There is no way the Russians will react.

The Russian public, if you look at 9/11 and the reaction of the

American public, lots of things have happened to lots of countries, the

immediate reaction in the first weeks and months is not, our foreign

policy is wrong, but revenge. The most potent of many of the human

emotions. I am certain in the short term the Russian public will support

more action. Your original point, Isis is in Libya, Syria,

Afghanistan, Iraq, India, growing very slowly in many other countries,

and it has become the poster boy for jihadists. It has replaced Al-Qaeda

and with that comes money and people prepared to kill themselves.

Johnny Mercer, the head of MI5 says the threat of terrorism to the UK is

the highest he has seen, that was before the jet went down over the

Sinai desert. We now know, we have had it independently corroborated,

that I S has been using mustard gas on civilians in Aleppo, not because

it is a very use to them, but as a sign, we have got it, a sign to the

West. Is that a response series SATs is

there a response seriously adequate to this?

Until now, we have not been militarily involved as much as we

should have. We are in a difficult place here, we are learning all

still healing from the mistakes in the last 15 years in terms of

foreign policy engagement. That can't mean we draw up the

drawbridge and think the way to keep safe at home and keep our way of

life is to have no strategic involvement overseas.

If it is proved this is done by so-called Islamic State, it

demonstrates their strategic reach and reinforces that argument that we

have to do something about this threat. It is only going to come

closer and it is not good enough for it to come closer, the something to

happen, and afterward for us to say, we should have done this and that.

We need an intelligent foreign policy such intervention strategy,

this is what the banister is trying to do and we should support him.

He referred to help Afghanistan and Iraq hang over this country's

foreign policy and military responses. Does Afghanistan, from

the Soviet era, does that hang over, is it a restraint on what the

Kremlin might do today? Totally, they are aware of the risks

that occurred when they intervened and the deaths and casualties in

Afghanistan. One of the reasons why the Civic union became so weak and

eventually led to its disintegration. There is only one

other point I would like to make which people in Russia are now

talking about, experts, is the fact that to a certain extent this attack

was also very much targeted against Egypt. I think a lot of the focus

has been on Russia. For me, it was always not very clear white Isis in

Egypt in the Sinai desert was going to attack if Russian plane, and why

not the people who were under the bombs?

It seems very much that we should not forget the dimension that to a

certain extent the Russians might The rebels will vote down so they

can't go. Because of Iraq, we are not going to go without

Parliamentary riddled. On the world spectrum, the 1 country that has

pushed harder than any other in the Western sense is the French, who are

putting the aircraft carrier back into the Gulf. It was therefore to

mums and sending it back. At the request of the Americans. This is

2007, the Americans don't have a carrier in the gold. It is not

because of the fire power. They would make a difference, it is

political to say, hand on, we as a culture, who have common things in

our belief systems, we are standing together. At the moment, they are

not. I will leave it there. At this point, we say goodbye to viewers in

Scotland to leave us. Good morning and welcome to

Sunday Politics Scotland. The Scotland Bill is poised to

finish its journey through But is the wrangling over

further powers finally over? And as the nation marks

Remembrance Sunday, we look at the support veterans

receive once they leave the forces. When you are in the forces, you are

looked after, but then it is a culture shock when you leave.

The Scotland Bill is back before MPs tomorrow - accompanied

by a shed load of amendments which are supposed to clarify,

among other things, the new welfare powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Alex Salmond has prompted a late controversy by tabling an amendment

saying Holyrood should be given the power to decide if and when there is

And, of course, there is a full scale political row going

on over how the Scottish government should use the new welfare powers.

I'm joined by the Deputy First Minister John Swinney - who's also

Cabinet Secretary for Finance, the Constitution and Economy.

I suppose we should point out you have been a senator in Glasgow,

there used to seeing you with a silly picture of Dundee. I am in

Glasgow at this point, but it silly picture of Dundee. I am in

this amendment, Alex Salmond who has come up with it. I busy in the

government would back him come up with it. I busy in the

Robinson in saying the Scottish government should have control over

when there is another independence referendum. They legislated for the

independence referendum in 2014, and I think everybody acknowledges that

legislation was well handed, it was crafted carefully, it was

legislation was well handed, it was referendum which was beyond

illustration that on this issue of significance, the Scottish

parliament should be able to determine how this issue is

handled. The counter would be to say you can't have one part of the UK

with an indefinite right, when ever it decides, to break up the UK. We

had a it decides, to break up the UK. We

the legislation that was it decides, to break up the UK. We

the Scottish parliament. To me that sets a strong president on how these

issues should sets a strong president on how these

exercised its competence with such care and effectiveness on this

question should allay any of those questions that are raised about

whether it is right for the Parliament to hold that power. What

we've seen in the course of the last 15 years has been a transfer of

additional response military is beyond the ones that were originally

conceived of in the Scottish act when the reservation on a

constructional policy was put in place. On the Scotland Bill Alec

Neill seem to be saying that you now accept that under the Scotland Bill,

you will have the powers over things like tax credits. That's right, is

it? There are two amendments which will be relevant, one from the UK

government and want on the Scottish National Party, which will give the

parliament the power to exercise responsibilities. The amendment

dolls the macro devolves the tax system, so there can be no doubt the

fact the Scottish Parliament can exercise these responsibilities, and

the UK amendment sets out responsibilities that enable new

benefits to be created in Scotland. Those are the elements in the bill

which were not in the bill when it was first put to the House of

Commons and when it was published, so the UK Parliament has the

opportunity tomorrow to strengthen those powers further. And you want

those powers so you can do what? Do you want to mitigate the effects of

tax credit cuts? We have mitigated some of the effects of welfare

reform, in relation to the bedroom tax. Do you want to do it in full?

Anyone that thinks the Scottish Parliament has the financial

capability and skills of resources to mitigate in full, in the

entirety, the welfare reform agenda... The tax credit cuts. That

is different is on the whole of the agenda, it would inconceivable... Do

you want to mitigate in full? What we have set out on tax cuts

specifically is that once we know the scale of the challenge we face,

because we don't yet know that, the UK Chancellor has been sent home to

think again after the House of Lords interventions, so we're not the end

of this month, and we'll know what changes George Osborne will make.

Once we know that, we will bring forward our proposals. They are

designed to protect the incomes of low-income families. Is that your

intention to mitigate, as Labour: four, for you to mitigate the

effects of the tax credit cuts? What we will do is look at the scale of

the challenge that faces us once we know the extent... Let's take as of

now, as the situation now, which may be mitigated by George Osborne, but

as of now, what is your estimate of how much it would cost you to

mitigate in full the effect of cuts crash mark the starting costs would

be 400 million, and it will rise to 630 million. That is the full cost

base of George Osborne put to the House of Commons. We don't know the

extent on which you will undertake changes by the time we set our

budget, which will though: Macro follow the spending review. This

minister made it clear that it is our intention to protect people in

low-income households, who will be affected by these changes and we

will see what the Chancellor says, and then design a properly costed

and worked out system that will support low income. Even the worst

case scenario as unmitigated by George Osborne, ?400 million

initially, why can't you saying now... It is your party which has

been shouting loudly. Why can't you saying now, we commit, we will work

out something which will mean no family in Scotland loses as a result

of the tax credit cuts? For the simple reason people expect the

government to bring forward properly organised and operated systems that

can address these issues, and that is what we will do. The first

minister could not have been clearer in Thursday in setting out the

commitment of the government to support low income households.

People need to look into the history of the good men to see how we have

supported people in vulnerability. We supported people affected by the

bedroom tax,... You saying you can't find the money? No, not in the

slightest. What I will say is that we will look at what the Chancellor

sets out at the end of the month. That is the responsible thing to do

so we can work out the circumstances of people who are affected, and

addressed that. We will set those details are the Chancellor has

resolved the difficulties he has about the operation... The changes

George Osborne has proposed the tax bands, which will mean you don't pay

the 40p rate until your winning ?50,000, do you agree with those

proposals? We will set out the details of our tax stands for the

years beyond 2016. Do you agree in principle by people on higher

earnings, and the point is that over the years inflation has eroded these

bands so people who are on whether to low incomes than ?42,000 are

having to pay the higher rate, what George Osborne is saying is that he

wants to raise the threshold at which you pay higher tax. Labour

said they would not do in Scotland. Whether the macro would you

implement those proposals? -- would you implement those proposals? If

you look at the changes I've have brought in, you saw me taking

decisions which the sifted the burden of taxation from low to

moderate households to higher earners. That is me turning into

practical reality the principles of this Scottish National Party... What

does that mean for tax band? I'm addressing it in principle. We

believe people on higher earnings should pay their fair share of

taxation, and I deployed that principle as part of the transaction

tax. Word comes to specific commitment around about taxation, my

duty as the finance minister is to set out to Parliament exactly what

changes we will make. These areas will come to us in due course. We

won't be able to exercise those changes in relation to tax bands in

2017 because the powers will not be with us by then. They will be with

us by 2017 because the powers will not be with us by then. They will be

with us by what Labour is saying is that they think it is not

unreasonable to ask people in Scotland to pay, and they would end

up paying more tax than they are now... We think it is reasonable for

them to do that to help people on welfare. Do you agree? I think I

have said already the point in principle, that I believe people on

higher earnings should pay their fair share of taxation. That is why

we supported the existence of the 30p tax rate when the Conservative

government was taking it away. We will set out our specific proposals

to Parliament, where I have a duty will set out our specific proposals

and obligation to do that. There is a legitimate argument which has to

and obligation to do that. There is higher earnings should pay their

and obligation to do that. There is they will receive a substantial tax

cut, there is an issue to be addressed as to whether or not that

is the right thing to do. Lots of people in this area of the country

voted for you, both in the referendum and four Yes to

independence. They voted SNP because you claimed you were the party

buffet would stick up for the brewer and with a party of

anti-austerities. What would you apply if they said, we are getting

clear answers from Labour, who say they will mitigate in full the

effects of tax cuts, they do think it is more important to do that than

to let people who are better off have tax breaks. Why is it suddenly

that the SNP can't give us clear answers? The Labour Party is not

being clear, because they are spending the money they want to

spend... They will spend the money they want to spend to deal with tax

credits twice. They won't spend it on education. The one thing I have

learned is that you can't spend money twice, you spend at the once.

Labour has been caught out spending it twice. You weren't committed to

mitigating the effect of tax credit cuts. You could... You would have to

make ?400 billion of cuts. I am not going to commit on BBC

television... I might commit to it in the Scottish parliament, where I

should set out my stance. That is what I will do. Critics will say you

are a bit like a chef who fusses in the kitchen demanding you don't have

the right ingredients, but now you have the right ingredients and you

don't want to make anything. I will set up the position when I get the

budget later on this year. We will set out clearly what the stance of

the government is. We have pressed and pressed the

United Kingdom government to improve the Scotland Bill, which did not

deliver the Smith commission and which has resulted in as exerting

significant influence to ensure we have a bill which will enable us to

take a whole range of decisions on behalf of the people of Scotland. We

will leave it there. The nation paused today to remember

those who've given their lives In 2011, the UK government

introduced Signatories are expected to

recognise and try to alleviate the particular problems faced by serving

and former military personnel. But finding a job

and a home can still be difficult. Our reporter, John McManus, has

been to a support centre in Govan Coming together to remember those

who have fought on the nation's behalf and especially to pay tribute

to those who made the ultimate sacrifice. For many former

servicepeople who have hung up their marching boots, the transition to

civilian life can be tough. This is one solution. The coming home Centre

in Govan, a place where former servicepeople can come for support

and help. 40 rolled Martin Gilbert is one of them. With tours of Iraq

and Northern Ireland under his belt, he has still found he had few

transferable skills to find a new job. So where were the politicians?

All the help that I have had since coming out the Army has been through

charities. I would like what the Government are meant to be doing?

You're meant to get priority treatment on the NHS. You have to go

to the start of the queue at the doctors. But when I am unwell,

iPhone the doctors and I can't even get past the person on the phone.

Ian Hopkins is a former Royal Marine who founded the centre. Says a wide

variety of robins are in evidence. The vast majority of people who come

through these doors tend to have a mental health issue of some kind.

And all the baggage that goes with it. Some are homeless, sofa surfing,

or sleeping under the bridges, there are financial problems.

Occasionally, problems with addiction and self-medication. Like

Martin, Ian also questions whether the Armed Forces Covenant has made

an impact. In some cases, yes, but quite often, that does not

materialise until later... We recently had to help a veteran who

lost a leg in Afghanistan. Through the NHS, he had been offered

something he did not need. Until he went along and quoted the Armed

Forces Covenant and said what he needed, they then changed their

tune. This 29-year-old aunt his liver dog left the forces in

December. He benefited from an Army resettlement plan and careers

advice. He found life outside the Army's cocoon very different. I am

not seeing you get baby-sat, but everyone looks after you. When you

do leave, it is a culture shock, really. You don't realise, you need

to go and do everything for yourself. You don't know what places

are what called or how to with things. Should veterans then be

given more help to adjust to life out of uniform? How far should they

be prioritised? For example, when searching for somewhere to live? The

approach we have taken and the veterans organisations in Scotland

have taken, is we do not want to see particular advantages. I can get a

negative reaction. Many veterans themselves do not want to be given

an advantage but they certainly do not want to have a disadvantage. If

you're in Civvy Street, you can regulate pointedly want to get

social rented housing. Many of our personnel don't realise that while

they are in the Armed Forces, they can accumulate points through that

time as well, so leave the forces, they would already have those points

to help them access a property. Back at the centre, Ian would like to see

his methods spread across the country. I would duplicate what we

do all over. Without a shadow of a doubt. Help centres, where people

can do meaningful work and help veterans to get resettled in their

communities. When it comes to organising and funding that help,

have we struck the right balance between charities and the state?

I'm joined from Edinburgh by the Scottish Veterans Commissioner,

I am curious to know, your take on this, there seemed ten to their

between what Keith Brown was saying, that veterans themselves do not want

preferential treatment and the interpretation that some of the

former servers personnel had of the Armed Forces Covenant, which is that

they should get preferential treatment. What is your

understanding? I have spoken to many veterans and people who support them

over the last year. The point that they don't want preferential

treatment is absolutely spot on. However, you have to acknowledge

that the transition process from being in the services, and I think

the gentleman in the film used the words "cocooned" to something which

is quite stark. In one day, you lose your job, your way of life and you

have to find a new way. There is definitely a struggle there. That is

where a lot of the stress comes in. We have to look at a balance of what

can be provided from the statutory services and the charities, but also

from society as a whole. Right. And what is your view about whether

we're getting that balance right? Some people in the film seemed to

feel as if they had been left on their own. Yes. There is a small

number who are seriously affected by the transition process and do need a

lot of help. The majority make the transition perfectly well. Either

through their own efforts or those of the MoD or local government, the

NHS, whatever it happens to be, they help them get through the first

hurdle. But there is definitely a group, perhaps featuring some of the

individuals in that film, who do need help. There are organisations

which provide help. We heard from Govan, but there are other

organisations relating to employment issues or mental health aspects, who

do provide help. The difficulty is often in getting the message across

that these initiatives are in place. I am still not clear on, if it is

the case, and you seem to agree with Keith Brown, that the veterans

themselves do not want preferential treatment, what difference then is

the Armed Forces Covenant supposed to make? The Armed Forces Covenant,

and various other documents as well, what they have done is highlighted

the difficulties and indeed the advantages of service men in your

community. It has brought it into the open that some of them, a small

percentage, do have issues, something to do with Chloe ability,

mental health, physical problems -- employability. It has opened peoples

eyes to the fact that you have this great asset. The vast majority of

people who leave the Armed Forces have a huge skill set. This idea of

giving service, which is instrumental in the community and

workplaces and for the economy. We heard the young man they're saying

that there is a problem that in a way, in the Armed Forces, you're

institutionalised, you don't really have to take the initiative.

Everything on the outside, you have to organise yourself when you leave.

You have to pick your life in danger in combat of course but nonetheless,

the point being made was it is difficult to come out of that and

certainly do everything for yourself in a world that you are perhaps not

as familiar with as in a world that you are perhaps not

around you. People around you know how to

around you. People around you know contact with particular advice

local hospital or whatever but you don't know any of that. No, and

there are some younger members of the Armed Forces who

in their late teens or early 20s, who may well struggle. I make the

point that the vast majority do know how to access the public services,

point that the vast majority do know the charities, if they need to. The

point I would make is that there are a lot of mechanisms in place, some

relatively new, which should be a lot of mechanisms in place, some

there to make that pathway that bit a lot of mechanisms in place, some

smoother, throwing out some of the hurdles they have had to get over in

the past. Still along way to go, in particular in areas where we have to

pass on information. It is very difficult for some of these

individuals to find out what information and support is

available. In my first year, I seemed to spend a lot of time trying

to recommend and get changes to the way information was chaired, the way

knowledge is put out, so that young servicepeople in particular though

what they can hook into, by way of local authorities and various other

bodies, to really make it clear what is out there for them. More broadly,

how do you think the whole poppy movement, Remembrance Sunday thing,

will develop over the next ten or 20 years? Sadly, many of the people,

originally the whole thing was set up to commemorate, or the living who

were helped, but survivors of the Second World War, for example, are

no longer with us. Well we still have veterans of places like Iraq

and Afghanistan, the numbers are nothing like the kind of numbers of

people coming back from conscripted armed service in the Second World

War. Do you think the whole nature of the thing will stay the same? Or

will it change over the next few years? I think it probably will stay

much as it is at the moment. Change is unlikely. The military and

commemoration process is a fairly conservative thing. I have just come

back from Saint Giles this morning, where the late wreaths and had a

two-minute silence. A lot of young people there were involved in

service. The contribution that they have made, whether it is recent wars

like Afghanistan or something in the Falklands, or in the Second World

War, I think that will endure. I am at pains to do in my role, as

Commissioner, is to make the point to anyone who will listen that we

really have a huge asset. All of these people who have served in our

Armed Forces over many years, men and women, and their spouses, really

do contribute a huge amount. You may not see them in society but they are

there. I really do think we could be making more of that. Perhaps making

more of a song and dance about it at times. But at the end of the day, I

believe do think the public in Scotland respect and want to

acknowledge the sacrifice that so many people have made over so many

years. Packs us. Thank you very much indeed.

Words we hear used all the time in public and political life.

But what do they really mean, and how do we do these things well?

Someone with plenty of views on the subject is Susan Deacon.

Her career's taken her from Government, as Scotland's first

health minister after devolution, to the private sector and academia.

And she's just become the new Chair of the Institute of Directors

in Scotland - the first woman to hold the role.

She joins us now from our Edinburgh studio.

Susan Deacon, an obvious first question, why do you want to do

this? My passion and interest over 30 years, throughout my career, has

been about how we can have effective leadership in Scotland, how we can

make our country a better place and work together to do that. The

Institute of directors in Scotland is a growing organisation that

brings together some 2000 leaders from right across businesses, big

and small, the charitable sector, the public sector, it really is a

fantastic gathering place for that leadership community to grow and

develop. I am proud to take on this role as it's Chair. Despite the

reconciliation between business and Blairism that went on after 1997, it

is not immediately obvious why a former Labour minister would want to

run an organisation which, in the past, I think it was fair to say,

was seen as somewhat to the right of the CBI? There is a diverse mix of

people in the organisation with all sorts of different political views

and number. The organisation itself is strictly nonparty political. I

have been like a cracked record for many years, to say that we have to

get better at working across boundaries. Weather across sectors

or parties, universities and business and Government... Having

organisations like the eye of the that can join some of those dots and

look at how in Scotland we can work together to bring about the change

that we all want to see. It is important. If we're going to have an

effect of transport infrastructure, the skills we need for the future,

vibrant businesses, big and small, that means we must work together. We

are small country. All too often, he pulls it and point the finger at

others. We need to be around the table, not across it, if we're make

a difference. Why do they want you? You would need to ask others why

they want me. I would like to think the pretty eclectic mix of

leadership roles I've had over the years gives me a capability to head

up the organisation as its chair, but also to build some of the

much-needed connectivity we need here in Scotland and a crass our

leadership. I'd like to be a team player and what is nice about an

organisation is that it is individuals who choose to be part of

it, who want to work with others to develop themselves, their

organisations, and in the main I think they are strongly motivated by

wanting to make Scotland a better place. The stuff that you are saying

earlier. A lot of people listen to that and think it sounds terribly

grand but vague as well. Specifically, your ideal collecting

people together and showing leadership, realistically, what

could the IOD do, or I'll organisations like the IOD, that

they're not doing? In specific terms. I have often said, including

back when I was in Parliament, that you can have all the fancy

strategies in the world, all the great plans and analysis and

statistics you like, but unless you actually have... The government you

were part of what is good at producing grand plans. I have the

agreed, and one of the lessons I learned was about the limitations of

top down government action, and I have criticised as being over relied

on that. That was very much from that experience was if you take

something like the skills gaps we have in Scotland, we have had no end

of reports, we have agencies and expert groups, the kind of skills

will need in the future, whether in our care sector or the IT sector, in

engineering, get the amount of analysis we have done is not the

portion of the two the amount of action we have had done. I accept it

is not the stuff of headlines, but we need to have employees working

hand-in-hand with colleges and universities, making sure the

courses on offer at the ones that will equip people better for the

future. Just on that. As it happens, I was speaking to people in the IOD,

and what they were saying is that there is a problem now in certain

areas that the world is changing so fast, courses are not giving up word

so the problem is not generalities about getting people into colleges,

it is that even if they are in there doing marketing, for instance, the

world is changing faster than their courses. Is that what you are

thinking that the IOD complainer rolling? Exactly. We live in a world

where the only certainty is uncertainty. The generation, the now

have to be flexible and adaptable, and those who provide education and

training to them how to make sure and those who provide education and

they fleet of foot and are moving with the times for the world around

us. As I say, you do that I having fancy policy statements, you do it

by making sure employers and education providers are working

together day to day. It is not the stuff that grabs headlines, but it

is the stuff that makes a difference. We said you were the

first woman chair of IOD Scotland. Do you... There is a problem with

women in public life in Scotland. There are many women in leading

positions in Scotland, but my sense is not as much as down south. I

don't know, is not as much as down south. I

you look at the political leadership in Scotland, women are very much in

the ascendancy. If you look at a host of businesses in Scotland you

will see a growing number of women leaders. They are at the helm, both

in executive roles and in our boardrooms as non-executives. But

there needs to be more. It should not be an exercise about numbers.

there needs to be more. It should Women, more than anyone, we want to

be sure we are doing the jobs we do on merit and recognise full is that

discussion about diversity, it is not just about numbers, it is not

making sure our boardrooms have the skills and ability to do the job. We

are making progress, but we have 2 do more work. OK, we will leave it

there now. I'm joined by Shabnum Mustapha,

who was a special adviser to the Liberal Democrats in government, and

by Paul Hutcheon, the Investigations Shabnum, let's talk rubbish tax

credits Raoul. What do you make of it? I find it bizarre that the SNP

did not know there were powers coming through that would allow them

to top it up, but they... They would say they could not know about the

amendments until they saw the amendments. Everyone else seemed to

be aware of it. The SNP were playing catch up and it was embarrassing for

Alex Neill in the middle of the six minute speech having to make a

U-turn about what they can and can't do with new powers coming forward in

the bill. At the same time this week, they seemed clear on their

demands for powers in Scotland to hold another referendum. It seems to

be that it is odd... You heard what John Swinney was saying, they will

help the low paid and worst. The issue is that they have had to be

tried into this. It is quite an usual for the SNP to be on the back

foot. They should have been there from the start saying no matter what

happens at Westminster, people in Scotland who lie on these tax

credits will be no worse off. They should have been front putting this.

Instead they are on the back foot and scrambling around. Do you agree

with that, Paul Hutcheon? I was trying to suggest that the SNP is

that they are anti-austerities, and Shabnum says they should be saying,

we should do this and that. But they are saying, I can't say until I get

the budgets. I agree the SNP have been on the back but in this issue.

There is a brutal political reality underpinning this. Labour will not

win the election, so they can afford to make adventurous and bold

spending commitment on tax credits, because they know they would be in

the position to implement it. The SNP will win the election, so what

ever they say on tax credits, they're going to have to deliver on

it. They will have to find the money. That explains their

reluctance. One criticism of labour, I presume, is that they are saying

it might appeal to people affected by the tax credit cuts, but Middle

Scotland might say, we quite like the idea of the tax changes George

Osborne is bringing in. There has been good politics from the Scottish

Labour Party and that they are showing that this dwindling thing.

But where is the money going to come from? They say they won't raise

taxes on middle income earners, it would push ahead with cuts and

fiddle with tax bands. There are questions over that. Given that

Labour would win the election, they won't be subjected to too many

detailed questions, it will all be about what the SNP will do. You can

understand the SNP wearing about these things. I bet you don't find

the Lib Dems are rushing to say they don't think people should not gain

from the changes. In government you how to make difficult decisions, but

on welfare, the Lib Dems have made it clear they won't introduce

sweeping reforms that George Osborne wanted. We block them in government.

The SNP should have been front putting this issue. What about Paul

Hutcheon's point. John Swinney says it will cost ?400 million if the

situation were as now. Where will they find the money from? You don't

have the worry of about that in opposition. As Paul offline, Labour

have made those choices as to whether money will come from. The

SNP can find the money at the will is there. So you have to question

where their political will is there in helping the brewer in Scotland.

Someone else would just come up is David Cameron getting tough on

Europe. Come on's exit warning on EU reform will stop he will tell they

might generally leave the EU if he does not get what he wants for some

credible? No, it is a blood which people will see through. It has the

makings of a quagmire for the Prime Minister. I can't see anything he

can bring back that will persuade his Eurosceptic colleagues. Even

more importantly, even if he does bring back powers, there's no

guarantee that if the referendum is successful for the Prime Minister,

that these governed will sign of two and agree to it. You might have a

change of government it one of the eastern European countries and they

won't back. You have governments that are accountable to their own

electorates, not to the UK. I think he is getting sucked into a

situation he can't control and has been left with headlines like this

which are bluffing. He might mean it. I'm not sure. One of the

proposals that he has come forward with is to ban migrants from

claiming benefits for four years. Even his own Cabinet Secretary has

told them it is illegal under EU law. He will fail at the first

hurdle on that one. You how to astral self, where is he going with

it? Will he have to campaign leaving the EU question what I did think it

is what he wants or George Osborne. They have not properly thought this

out, and it a mess. Adding to the mix that with Davidson has said

exquisitely that she wants to stay in the EU -- Ruth Davison. It is

incongruent with saying I might leave if I don't get what I want. On

face value there is difference, but everyone expects the Prime Minister

to be arguing for Britain's placed in the EU. No one expect him to beat

campaigning for an exit abode. He is trying to ramp up the rhetoric, give

the impression this is what he wants. No one expects him to be

serious. What about Syria? It is bubbling under the issue. One figure

saying you are letting down allies by not bombing Syria, but the

government saying they would intend to go back to the House of Commons

but only when the mood is right. What do you make of these

developments? The mood is not there, the mood is not the amongst all the

political parties, including the Conservative side. We saw foreign

affairs select committee report, which the majority of Conservative

MPs said the case has not been made for military intervention. The focus

should be more on coming up with a kind of regional solution, bringing

in people from across the Middle East together to try and come up

with a more peaceful solution. And also taking in refugees who are in

with a more peaceful solution. And not doing. You can see the twin fun

tree people, because it is almost part of the definition of what

Islamic State is -- you can see the argument. The argument is that, they

don't recognise these bodies, yet we are making some artificial

distinction. are making some artificial

-- has happened. You then have the are making some artificial

intervention of Russia. It is a complex situation. The political

mood is not there, so complex situation. The political

focus efforts on other complex situation. The political

military. You can't Sunday Politics is back in a

fortnight at the usual time, 11am.