06/12/2015 Sunday Politics Scotland

Good morning, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Police say they're treating a multiple stabbing in London

As the RAF intensifies its bombing campaign over Syria,

is this the latest sign of an evolving threat on British streets?

Labour scored a significant win at this week's Oldham by-election,

but after a tough week for Jeremy Corbyn,

there are more reports of smears, abuse and even talk of a purge.

We'll be speaking to a member of the Shadow Cabinet.

And it's not just the Labour Party that has its rebels.

We'll be talking to the Conservative MP Heidi Allen, who hit

the headlines after delivering a bombshell speech against her own

Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:

With all 54 SNP MPs voting against extending air strikes

on Syria, we'll ask Stephen Gethins where that leaves the party now.

And joining me for all of that, three journalists who've dutifully

battled through the wind and the rain to get here,

even without the threat of a telling off from Andrew.

It's Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott and Janan Ganesh,

and they'll be tweeting throughout the show.

that police are treating an attack at a London underground station

A man carrying a knife was reported to have screamed,

as he injured three men at Leytonstone station

making it potentially the first terrorist attack on British soil

since the murder of fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013.

Mobile phone footage shows police officers

wrestling with a man after he had been tasered.

He was later arrested and remains in custody.

The Metropolitan Police said one man suffered serious knife injuries

but was not thought to be in a life-threatening condition,

while two other victims received minor injuries.

has this morning called the attack an "abomination",

and we can speak now to the local MP John Cryer

Your response? It is an appalling attack. And it is frightening, very

frightening for local people. I've been talking to some of the local

businesses this morning and obviously they are all very worried

about it now. What the background is, what the motivation is, I do

think it would be particularly helpful to speculate at the moment.

-- I don't think it would be particularly helpful. So I'd rather

not do that. But when something like this happens in your own area, it is

not something expect. Leytonstone is a peaceful area, a lot of

communities live together extremely peacefully and harmoniously, that's

one of the great things about this area. People will be scared and

understandably so, as you say, so what is your message to constituents

as they wake up to this news? I think the message is that we carry

on as normal, that we don't allow this sort of barbaric behaviour to

change our lives. And I think that's the important thing. And I think

people will continue as well. I'm not saying people will be blase

about it, people will be very concerned. But I don't think people

will allow this to change the way they live their lives on a

day-to-day basis, that's the impression I've had from the people

I've been talking to this morning. Now, this has happened just days

after parliament voted for air strikes in Syria, people are bound,

rightly or wrongly to draw a link between the two, what say you?

Welcome I was opposed to the air strikes in Syria, I voted against

air strikes in Syria, I think it will prove to be quite a major

mistake. I am not convinced that this will be connected to the air

strikes in Syria. Well I just don't know at the moment so we can only

speculate. But there doesn't seem to be immediately evidence that there

is a direct link. But we have to find out what the background is.

Police are investigating. I have been in contact with police this

morning. At I think it would be dangerous to say this is a direct

consequence of air strikes in Syria. And as I say I am a fairly major

critic of the government's activities. Thank you.

This comes after the so-called Islamic State

claimed a husband and wife who massacred 14 people

were supporters of the terrorist group.

So is this just the latest sign that the West faces a new type of threat?

Well, we're joined now by the security expert Will Geddes.

At the moment it looks like a lone wolf, no accomplices, no

organisation in any major way behind it, is that how you read it? I think

pretty much so. It is incredibly difficult to say right now and again

it is dangerous to speculate too much until the police have

undertaken their investigations to determine how this individual was

motivated, under what particular an brother that might have been,

whether it was alone, whether it was a self radicalisation process --

what particular an umbrella that might have been. We have been

expecting an attack because we have had the Paris attacks, we have had

the attacks in Southern California, and there had been warnings about

it, and the terror threat is still extremely high. So we shouldn't be

that surprised. No, I don't think we are. And I think we are accepting

the fact that unfortunately we are at a very high risk level intervals

of these types of attacks. And this precedes the Syrian bombing

agreements in terms of the fact that there were seven significant plots

foiled this year. We have always been on the radar, it is just down

to the capabilities of the individuals. Sadly, certainly in the

wake of this most recent incident, it will be the platform of lone

wolves more than anything else. Do you think that is the case? That is

the most recent pattern, that might be what continues in, unfortunately,

capitals across Europe? I think we have to be pragmatic and accept

that. Ultimately we know that the individuals that are planning as

cells have a far higher chance of detection. So individuals working on

their own, whether it be in a very specific conceptual sort of agenda

and motivation or whether it be an individual that is simply aligned to

the ideologies of Daesh will add to the spectrum of Brett. Nick Watt,

what do you think the little reaction will be? We have had some

reaction from Jon Cryer saying stay vigilant but don't be blase. That

was an incredibly important contribution you had from John

Cryer, he is not just the local MP, E is the chairman of the

Parliamentary party. In that capacity Jeremy Corbyn invites him

to attend the Shadow Cabinet. He voted against air strikes and he is

being held up as how the majority of opinion in the Labour Party is

against air strikes. He was absolutely clear saying it would be

dangerous to say that this attack in Leytonstone is in any way linked to

the vote in parliament. The reason why that is significant is that

there will be some people and indeed we are already seeing some people on

Twitter saying that this attack in Leytonstone is as a result of that

vote. Well, the chairman of the PLP who voted against the air strikes

said it would be dangerous to make that conclusion. But people will

make those links and they will continue to do so particularly in

the light of Michael Fallon saying the bombing campaign is intensifying

in Syria and there are likely to be civilian cavities. They may well do

so but what strikes me about this attack, is awful and horrible as it

is for everybody involved, is that it is a rather pathetic and little

attack. Very happily the victim, as we understand it, is not going to

die as a result of this attack. What strikes me is, were we in America

and were the people who are prone to do these things able to get their

hands on guns, this would have been a mass casualties could well have

been a mass casualties attack. As it was, we're left with somebody just

randomly stabbing and not really getting anywhere. Do you think

people are ready for how long this campaign is going to go on for, and

we are going to live in the shadow indirectly or directly of a

terrorist threat? I don't know if people are ready for just Syria or

maybe five years worth of security being one of the top three issues in

the country. If you look at the issues index, most salient to voters

in recent years, it has been the usual economy, NHS, immigration to a

certain extent. I wonder whether, by the time of the next election

because of this fairly consistent terror threat, security is even

number one, two or three. We've got the investigatory Powers Bill going

through Parliament at the moment and I think that kind of legislation,

the presence of a terror threat, the kind of thing that is on the evening

news might overnight over five years will change what we consider to be

the most salient issues in British issues -- night after night. There

had been reports that one of the Paris attackers had travelled to

Britain earlier this year, and the chair of the Home Affairs Select

Committee said it is a real worry that people are able to get through

our borders without being detected. How worried are you by those

reports? I think we are playing a bit of a catch-up game and

unfortunately we have to appreciate it many capabilities in tens of the

border force a Metropolitan Police and police agencies across the UK.

Although there have been positive suggestions by the government in

terms of boosting numbers within the security services, for example, you

are still looking at approximately 18 months before those 1900 new

heads within GCHQ and security services will be operationally able

to fulfil their mission. Briefly on the police numbers, also a very

controversial issue in terms of the spending review, that didn't happen,

the cuts that people feared, the government will be relieved they did

not make those cuts? Iain Duncan Smith in condemning these attackers

as an abomination made that exact point, saying we kept those police

numbers and they will be important in terms of attacking the terrorist

threat. Now, the Prime Minister had hoped to

sign off his plans for a renegotiation of Britain's EU

membership later this month. have decided not give him an early

Christmas present, and that means the referendum on

whatever deal he does get Last month David Cameron sent a

letter to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council setting out the

EU reform demands. There were four main areas he once renegotiated.

Protection for non-Europe countries and safeguarding their rights.

Exemption from an ever closer union. And more powers for national

parliaments. Restore competitiveness in the EU which involves cutting red

tape and free trade agreements with other economies. And finally, the

one causing the most headaches, restricting benefits for EU

migrants. Under the Prime Minister's plans, EU migrants would

not be able to claim any in work benefits for four years. On Thursday

David Cameron abandoned hopes for an early referendum as early as May

next year after admitting he would not be able to get the deal he wants

at an EU summit in two weeks' time. Donald Tusk will on Monday published

an assessment of the British demands in a letter to the 27 other member

states. It follows a round of confessionals in which governments

have outlined their concerns. He said December's meeting will pave

the way for a deal in February. By then David Cameron will be forced to

decide whether to campaign for a Brexit or stay in the EU.

and committed eurosceptic Iain Duncan Smith

has been speaking on The Andrew Marr show this morning,

and he said the delay was a sign of strength, not weakness.

Well the mood is actually very upbeat. I'm involved in putting

together the package that the Prime Minister wants to take to the

council. So we've been deep in discussion about that. The Prime

Minister has been pretty clear throughout that he wants to take a

package that supports the manifesto commitment. In my area for example

on welfare it is very clear that he wants to have that commitment,

people living here and contributing to the system, and that will be one

of the key elements. We did ask for a government minister

to talk to us about the prime minister's renegotiation plans

but were told none was available. we can speak instead to the

Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, of the eurosceptic Conservatives

For Britain group and he joins us

from our Westminster studio. Welcome to the programme. Are you as

upbeat and optimistic as Iain Duncan Smith? No. Ironic, really, because

he and I were elected on the same day in 1992 and we both opposed the

Maastricht Treaty. We both spare about the direction of the European

Union. -- we both despair. And while he is gamely supporting the Prime

Minister's negotiation in its centre is, I think he knows in his heart

that this is a very lame renegotiation compared to what the

Prime Minister was originally promising. I mean, there are a whole

range of things that the Prime Minister wanted, like getting out of

all the home affairs and justice revisions of the Lisbon Treaty, like

getting a complete opt out of the EU Charter of fundamental rights, which

is, for example, gives the power to the European court of justice to

decide prisoner voting and not just the European Court of Human Rights,

and so it goes on. But, you know, you know Iain Duncan

Smith well, he is not known as a raging Europhile, and if he is

optimistic and competent, certainly, publicly, the chances of a

meaningful deal of a deal with Europe, -- meaningful chance of a

deal with Europe, then why cannot you be? He is bound by his duty to

the cabinet, but I am free to speak my mind, Iain Duncan Smith focus

very narrowly on a very circular way, on his own, on the Prime

Minister's own terms of reference. The European Union has changed so

Minister's own terms of reference. dramatically over the last 20 or 30

years, the question the British people are going to have to face, do

they want to carry on with this journey? There is no status quo, is

they want to carry on with the journey of integration, because what

the prime ministers negotiating about, will not change the course of

the European Union or the course of the United Kingdom within the

European Union. They are relatively trivial, rather complicated, but

relatively trivial negotiating demands. He's going to get the deal

by February. Even if he gets the deal by February, it will not change

the price of fish, it will not allow the UK Parliament to determine our

own laws and it will not restrict the European court of justice,

another of the Prime Minister's demands that he has now dropped. It

will not restore the opt out of the social chapter, which was gained by

John Major in the Maastricht Treaty, it will not achieve any of these

things. There was never going to be enough concessions... I am glad you

are making the point that this renegotiation was never really going

to address the fundamental problems... Or, you were never going

to be satisfied! The Prime Minister was making these much tougher

demands. He has dropped these demands. I would be supporting the

Prime Minister's negotiating position if he had stuck to his

demands. Which one in particular, if there was one thing you would like

to see him bring back which you could sell to your constituents,

what would it be? The fundamental one, restrict the ability of the

European Court of Justice to rule on almost anything. Risen a voting, I

mentioned, it is now moving to that area. And the whole question of the

relationship between those countries that do not want to be in political

union, do not want to be involuntary union, do not want to be in the

fiscal union treaty which has been redesigned by the call Eurozone

states. -- prisoner voting. What we have got to face, this is not a

status quo we are voting to stay in, it is a continuing development of

European Union integration, if you want to have choices, you must vote

Leave. It has been reported that the campaign will campaign for Brexit.

LAUGHTER Would you welcome him leading the

campaign from the out? You have laughed... We would welcome him

joining the vote to leave campaign, but I don't think it is very likely,

at the moment he is convincing people he's being really tough but

we know that this is what happens in all EU negotiations, the government

pretends to be tough, pretends to be a showdown, and in the end, hey

presto, rabbit out of the hat, everything is marvellous. Game set

and match for the British. Is there any thing, do you think, that Iain

Duncan Smith will be able to sell once this renegotiation is done and

dusted? Sell to the backbench... ? I doubt it, I think... As Bernard has

suggested, in January, 2013, when David Cameron talked about

renegotiation, he meant something sweeping, even in addition to the

thing is Bernard has mentioned, even including flirting with the idea of

some deep reform to European free movement, that was what was being

suggested two years ago. There is not going to be anything approaching

any of that in any deal that urges early next year. As it stands a

number of backbenchers will find that hard to support. Tactic from

Downing Street, to leak the idea that David Cameron might conceivably

support the leave campaign, slightly misjudged, so transparent the

obvious that he will not. If anything, it was a message sent to

other European capitals, " if I don't do that smack if you do not do

this deal, I may join the sceptics. -- if you do not do this deal". I

agree with Jan, nobody will take seriously the idea that he will

campaign for out because fundamentally that is not what he

believes, he wants to stay in and has said seven the beginning.

Bernard is right, there is a feeling that the renegotiation will only

achieve something rather cosmetic. -- and has said so since the

beginning. David Cameron may pull a rabbit out of a hat and pretend that

he has got a concession but people will not be convinced. I leave it to

Nick to stick up for the Prime Minister in this particular

instance, what would the rabbit in the hat, the rabbit coming out of

the hat, be, for David Cameron, once this deal is done and dusted. It

will be examined as rabbit, because we will know about it! He cannot go

beyond what he wrote in the letter to Donald Tusk, the rabbit that he

takes out of a hat which says, isn't this amazing, isn't opt out from the

historic commitment to ever closer union, he will say it is

significant... He will say it has an impact on the European Court of

judgment rulings, but the point is, first, we know that is what he wants

to achieve, and also, people like Bernard, and we can see he is

nodding (!), he will say this is just a cosmetic change, it is not

going to change the fundamental privacy of EU law over EU law. --

fundamental primacy of EU law over UK law. If there were a concession

fundamental primacy of EU law over on in work benefits, many people

feel that is impossible, bearing in mind the laws, would that satisfy

you? It would not, in the end, the European Court of Justice will

always have the power to overturn Teva has been agreed, the problem

the Prime Minister has got, he started at the beginning with

grappling with quite some big things, but refusing to argue with

the overall architecture of the European Union. -- grappling with

some quite big things. If you do not change the architecture, nothing

will really change, except that the European Union will carry on

morphing into a state and we will be part of that, whether we are in out

of the Euro, ever closer treaty in the treaty -- ever closer union in

the treaty, not in the treaty, whatever. Thank you very much for

joining us. The real substance being debated

by MPs in the Commons on Wednesday may have been whether to extend air

strikes into Syria but it was the conflict inside

Jeremy Corbyn's party that ended up

grabbing just as many headlines. Even when the party finally arrived

at a position, it couldn't heal the rift between

the leader and some of his MPs. The party received

a much-needed boost with a comfortable majority

in Thursday's by-election. So when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn's

Labour, just what do the voters

make of it all? Labour won the old by-election and

comfortable, there are majority was reduced but they increased their

share of the vote, Jeremy Corbyn says it shows that Labour is

electoral. We, with the help of the pollen company populace, have

gathered together a group of people that once voted Labour but did not

at the last election. We are going to hear of what they think of the

new Labour Party and behind this screen, we have two seasoned Labour

advisers to pass comment on what they hear. Vets get started. --

polling company Populous. -- let's get started. All of the former

Labour voters are from London, and at the general election they spread

their approach to Ukip, the greens, conservatives and Lib Dem, all of

them felt Labour lost their vote over the economy, Ed Miliband and

being out of touch. What do they make of Labour today? -- Greens.

They are moving in the right direction, with a charismatic

leader, whose policies seem to be standing up for the average man. I

disagree, no disrespect, for me, I am quite a middle ground person,

going from the left to the right, they have gone far too left for me.

For me they are unelectable. He is very principled, I respect him for

that but I do not agree with his policies, particularly defence.

Initial impressions? Did people know who he was before he became the

Labour leader? I had not. Had you heard of him? I had heard of him...

He seems principled, compassionate... He has used a term,

the new politics... Have you heard that? Yes... Do you know what he

means? Not specifically, I presume he means a different attitude

towards leading the party and the way they make decisions perhaps.

It goes back to the same problem, if you have a vague catchphrase and no

substance behind it... Maybe I am not seeing the strong leadership --

leadership capability, I understand he's principled, but as a leader of

the country, I am not convinced. Does that sound like a good way of

changing things, giving them more freedom in the way that they vote?

It brings a more human feel, does not feel like everyone is a robot,

all of us in this room, we could all be voting for Labour but we would

all have different opinions on things. That is... That is a human,

you know, that is human nature. I think the fact that is being

respected, that is good. But, keeping it in line, how he's going

to manage that, that may be a problem. That woman has some up the

nub of the problem! That is pretty much their position right now. This

is a video clip... I'm not happy with the shoot to kill policy in

general, I think that is quite dangerous. That is woolly. You

cannot go from principled to Willy and evasive, that is a problem. --

woolly and evasive. You need crystal clear clarity on security issues.

You need to give somebody a bit of time, let them lace up their running

shoes (!), they find their own pace, and they get a little bit of time.

It is early days, he has just started in the job. In time, he will

show, you know, a lot of strength will stop courage, I think. Why not

vote Labour this time? -- a lot of strength and courage. Labour was

giving benefits left right and centre, if somebody needs them,

fine, but they were in so much debt, the country was getting further and

further into debt. There was no end to it. Do you know the if Jeremy

Corbyn and John Madonna's government would spend more money, would they

put up taxes? -- do you know if they Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell

government. I bet there is not a single specific about how it is

different. Despite the debate about austerity. They have not mentioned

that word once. The fact Labour have not articulated anything... They

have asked a leading question, so not to give that response, that

suggest, well,... We will not make up our minds... We do not know...

These people are not the British electorate, nor can they alone give

Labour a victory, but there will be plenty to note, as lost Labour

voters, they seem prepared to give Labour and Jeremy Corbyn time to bed

in. STUDIO: And I'm joined in the studio

now by the Shadow Work and Pensions

secretary, Owen Smith. We have had plenty of evidence from

the pollsters, you saw and heard some of it, at the last election

Labour was not trusted on the economy, particularly when it came

to managing the welfare bill, do you think you are on the way to learning

that trust? If you take the evidence of the poll that matters, the poll

with the people, looking at Oldham, then perhaps we are winning back

trust. There is no doubt we did not have it at the last election, that

is why Labour lost and lost badly, but we did win a victory on Thursday

in Oldham, up 10%, the Tories were down 10%. Perhaps we are in the

foothills of starting to win back trust. I recognise and Jeremy Ross

recognises we have a long way to go, almost five years until the next

election and we will have to put in place policies and ideas to win back

trust fully. -- Jeremy recognises. It was a Labour victory but that is

a Labour heartland, you should not be surprised that you did well

somewhere like Oldham, that is despite the policies of the national

party, you could say, it you could say it is because of a strong Labour

parliament, that is not a Nuneaton which you need to win back. But in

the media we were talking about lots of suggestions that Labour was going

to lose that seat, or if we win, we would win only by 1000. Labour MPs

themselves were saying that! That is my point. But the pollsters were

certainly saying in their view, we were likely to struggle. For us to

hold it as well as we did, increase the share of the vote from last time

around, 11,000 majority, you cannot say anything other than it was a

good victory for Labour. I think it say anything other than it was a

has to be a vindication both of Jim McMahon, the excellent candidate,

now the MP for old, a good local guy who has been a council leader, very

well respected. -- Oldham. The kind of community-based politicians that

we produce in labour. -- community rooted politicians. But also a

vindication of Jeremy Corbyn and the rebuilding of trust. Nobody in

Oldham can be in any doubts as to who is the leader of the Labour

Party right now! Let's talk about welfare, we heard

the lady saying Labour was giving benefits left, right and centre and

leaving the country in so much debt, how do you address that? Well, I

think we've got to start by doing what we did not do well enough under

the last parliament which is call out the line from the Tory party

that the dead this country were in and are still in, let's not forget

the Tories have practically doubled debt. Let's talk about welfare

specifically. Happy to. The Labour Party under Harriet Harman clearly

felt it should move closer to the Conservatives on welfare and not

further away, the party did not vote against their bill introducing ?12

billion of saving and Harriet Harman said she was sympathetic to lowering

the benefits cap. You did not vote against the limit on child tax

credits for two children. In that vote we definitely were wrong and

that's why Labour has now voted against the welfare bill, and the

reason for that is the reason many people in this country, I

And a Labour Party to be abstaining on whether we make people, working

people put in this country. People want the Labour Party to stand up.

What is your evidence for seeing that people want you to do that.

Harriet Harman announced that did not oppose limiting tax credits to

two children because we cannot say to the public that you were wrong at

the election. Who is representing the people? Wii .2 Heidi Allen, who

you have on the programme later on, or any of the other 30 or so Tory

MPs boosted up against their own Prime Minister a few weeks ago,

saying they had got it wrong on tax credits. Let's have a look... The

Tories described that as welfare spending. That was part of their ?12

million election spending. It is legitimate for me to speak about

that. You said people want us to do this. I'm trying to get the evidence

for that. Yes, on tax credits, but more broadly on Labour's perception

of people of labour with welfare. We have seen leaks from opinion polling

in which people said that Labour was in thrall to the undeserving. It

needs to be for middle-class voters, not just down and outs, and the

Labour win would have been good for people on benefits and immigrants,

anyone claiming money. How will you win an election is people only see

you is representing those groups? We have got to win an election because

those groups and low and middle income earners in Britain, the very

people being hit by tax credit cards and now the universal credit cards

coming on stream next year, they need a Labour government in order to

introduce fairness. They also want to know that we are in favour of

reform. There is no doubt about that. We lose the evidence? This is

your own focus groups and opinion polling. It is not in line with what

the public want or the way that they view you. That is what I have said.

In addition to supporting in work benefits for people in low and

middle income jobs like tax credits and universal credit, we need to be

making an argument for a reform of the wider system. Do you accept your

not doing that? We are starting to do that. In the New Year I will be

announcing a big commissioned by the Labour Party to look at Social

Security, to present a Labour alternative for a reform Social

Security system. For generations people have increasingly become

mistrustful of the Social Security system. They think it is unfair and

inefficient, under Labour and Tory. We need to win back the trust of

people in it we cause it should be a massive positive for the country

that we have a generous welfare state. Which policy decisions so far

are going to back up that idea of reform rather than people's idea

that only four people on benefits if you're trying to broaden your

appeal? You have talked about tax credits but if you want to lower the

benefit cap, if you do not want to limit tax credits, which policy

areas back up what you have said about reform? We have said clearly

that we support the government in capping the overall spending on

social security, so they have introduced the cab. And the benefit

cap? The benefit cap, interestingly, we have reserved judgment on that.

Only two weeks ago... That was not your view? Let me finish, please. We

had an opinion from a judge in London that the benefit cap was

discriminating against disabled people. There is further evidence

that it is is not doing what the government set out to do. It is not

saving money. Local councils are having to spend money on

discretionary housing payments to support people who been made

homeless as a result of it. Only around 4% of people seem to be

getting any benefit. What is this benefit cap for? We need to have a

limit on the amount of money that people can have individually. And as

households. It has to reflect need. That is important. It sounded like

you wanted to drop the idea of the benefit cap in principle. You still

support the idea of the benefit cap at ?26,000 a year? We do not. You

did supported at the election. At the election, we did and since then,

we have changed our view. Cutting it to ?23,000, from ?26,000, which is

what was included in the Welfare Bill, it is very complicated, that

would mean it would affect millions of people across Britain. What

should be cap be? We need to get back to principle that people use to

understand, the connection between the sort of support you might

receive from the state, the amount of money you contribute, getting

back to connection between contribution and reward. Also, it

needs. If you have got three children are you fall pregnant in a

period when you lose your job, you do not get penalised for having that

third child. It seems extraordinary that the government is penalising

people. You're not supporting the cap, you cannot give me a figure?

You are now reviewing the whole policy. You agree with Jeremy

Corbyn, it resulted in social cleansing? We said shortly after the

election we would oppose the reduction. That is not true. When I

spoke to your last, you said you were going to stick to the principle

of a benefit cap? I did not. You did. You said in September you

wanted to have the benefit cap in principle, you did not agree to

lowering it to 23000 and Jeremy Corbyn was against it. I said that

we were reviewing the concept of the benefit cap across the board. What

that we do except there have to be limits on the amount of money that

an individual household can get in benefits. We need to get to a point

where we have a much fairer set of criteria to analyse and understand

why we should be giving family eggs and not the other family. That

should reflect the number of children they have got, the nature

of work they are in, the relative security of that family, fundamental

principles we have at your two. Most viewers will not understand a

government that says that they will penalised children and take money

away from them on the basis of how many children you have. You did at

stain on that issue earlier. But you have changed your mind. In terms of

Shadow Cabinet colleagues, should your colleagues worry about being

sacked? I do not think they should be. I am not in charge of

reshuffles. That is a job for Jeremy. This is newspaper tittle

tattle. From what I have seen of the way that Jeremy has handled this in

Shadow Cabinet, he has been keen to stress that we have to be respectful

of the different views. I voted against, others voted in favour. Any

abuse that anyone has been subject to as a result of decisions taken in

good faith is disgraceful. We should not settle for it or allow it in the

Labour Party. Thank you very much. It has just gone 11:40am.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

MPs vote overwhelmingly to extend air strikes into Syria, but the SNP

So where does it leave the party now?

We'll put that to SNP MP Stephen Gethins.

Nicola Sturgeon will represent Scotland at the climate change talks

in Paris, but critics say the government's record

The First Minister tells the international community she has the

most ambitious targets in the world but will she remember to tell them

that she has not hit those targets once?

And it's 25 years since Margaret Thatcher stood down

SNP MPs took to Twitter and other social media swiftly

after Wednesday's Commons vote to extend air strikes to Syria,

to disassociate themselves from the decision.

All 54 Nationalist MPs voted against the motion with the First Minister

saying beforehand that giving them a free vote on the issue was

unnecessary as "everybody" in the party's parliamentary group agreed

that the case for air strikes had not been made. But with the

government at Westminster securing a significant majority for action,

Does it show a genuine fault line north and south of the border?

Well, joining us from London is SNP MP Stephen Gethins, who sits on the

Good morning. There seem to be some suggestions that the fact the SNP

did not vote for this meant it was somehow illegitimate in Scotland.

Can you explain what your party members were trying to say? 57 out

of 59 Scottish MPs, remember that the sole Labour MPs voted against

this as well. We are saying that a great chunk of ours voted against

bombing action in Syria because it was not the right thing to do. It is

a slightly odd argument to make. The reason there are so many SNP MPs for

a start is because of the first past the post system that you profess to

profoundly disagree with. We still do. It might benefit us now but we

still disagree with that. To say that somehow or other this is

illegitimate for Westminster to vote under behalf of Scotland on this

issue, because you have so many MPs because of the system that you have

accepted as a legitimate, that is a very peculiar writer meant. The

Westminster Parliament has responsibility over foreign affairs.

I'm in favour of independence. The Westminster Parliament has voted for

military action. I do not think it is the right decision and as part of

the Foreign Affairs Committee I have been arguing about this for months

and looking at the facts. Now we are in this situation, we need to get

behind our service personnel who are involved in that. Again, have you

any evidence that opinion, opinion is clearly divided on this issue

throughout Britain, is there any evidence that Scotland is

different? I think people have different views on this. I said in

the chamber this week, unlike David Cameron I respect people on both

sides. People voted for air strike is who did so for very legitimate

reasons. I disagree with them. My mailbox is full of people who

disagree with this as well based on the fact that we have. The only

opinion poll that was not an Internet opinion poll was done by

YouGov. It was 50-50. 44% of people in Scotland were in favour of air

strikes, 41% were against. You get different opinion polls but I have

had something like 100-1, 100-1 in terms of responses in my mailbox

from people who disagree what we are doing. We look at the military

impact and diplomatic initiatives, we looked at the legality and found

the case had not been made. This was a fact -based argument. Over the

last couple of weeks, the city of Sinjar has been retaken by Kurdish

forces from IS. It is widely accepted, including by the Kurdish

forces themselves, they could not have done that without the support

of American air power. Why was it wrong for American air power to

help? Sinjar was one of the towns populated by UCD is, who faced the

prospect of mass execution. Nobody said it was wrong. We said there was

a need for long-term strategy. You voted against the use of air power

in Iraq. This goes to the heart of the issue. There are no ground

troops at the moment. There are no ground troops to take Raqqa. A few

months ago, you voted against using the RAF in Iraq. I said there should

be a long-term strategy. You voted against using air power in Iraq. We

voted against because there was no long-term strategy. Why was it wrong

for air power to be used to liberate Sinjar? There needs to be a

long-term strategy and ground troops. There are no ground troops

in Syria. If I were living in Sinjar, and I heard what you had

said, I would but be impressed. I might well be saying, I am extremely

glad that the cards have taken over Sinjar.

Because you have Kurdish round true. The party previously noted

against grand strategy. -- Kurdish true is. You have no exit strategy

but you have got ground troops. Last week in Parliament beware debating

about the fact we had no round troops. I'll hope I am wrong and

that just air strikes work in putting an end to Daesh but I do not

think that will be the case. Other experts do not think that will be

the case either. Argue against the United States and France bombing in

Syria? I think without a long-term plan, you need some kind of

long-term plan here. We quite deliberately narrowly looked at the

UK cause that is the Avia we are looking at what the needs to be a

long-term plan. With the United States and France and other places

you need a long-term plan because I struggle to see the difference air

strikes will make. You are looking to liberate Sinjar because you were

worried about British troops being used the. We have form about taking

military action which was a disaster in Libya, in Iraq and did not work

well in Afghanistan either. You voted for bombing Libya. That did

not pan out too well because of the long-term effects. This is something

the MoD have to answer questions on. We spent ?25 million on

reconstruction in Libya. For every ?30 we spent bombing he spent ?1 on

reconstruction and for me those numbers should have been the wrong

way round. It could have been a humanitarian situation on the

ground. What we probably should have done was interrogate further. That

is over what the long-term plans where. This is a mistake the MoD

have made time after time from Iraq on words. It is a field you to have

a long-term plan in strategy. When you talk about the context of

extending the bombing plane into Syria, what is the construction of?

This is why diplomats and is so important. And the Siena process.

You need some kind of agreement between BBN process partners. --

Vienna process. Everyone wants to see an end to Daesh but bombing is

not the way to do it. Either the spread of poisonous propaganda. When

you are talking about reconstruction... Reconstruction has

become and you have to have a long-term plan. I am talking about

the commitment of 20 two 30 years. You talk about reconstruction of the

Syrian state is that it is around. We were gradually talking about

Libya a moment ago. You cannot create a vacuum. No one is

suggesting using military action against a sad and the Syrian state.

The wearer two years ago. We have changed their minds now. Daesh

President Assad. The lack of being for reconstruction for something

nobody is proposing to bomb is a reason for attacking, that seems

wrong. You need a long-term plan and commitment. That has to be the

lesson. If we have learned anything from the disaster in Iraq it has to

be that you need to win the peace as well as having won the military

conflict. You need to start planning that from the moment you enter into

the military conflict. We need to end the year, thank you for joining

us. 25 years ago, Margaret Thatcher

was beginning a new career. After 11 years at Number 10,

her behaviour and her policies were concerning colleagues, as they

feared for the Conservatives' As she complained about "

treachery with a smile on its face", But she was safe

in the knowledge that she'd made her A quarter of a century on,

our political correspondent, And steal food to differing now in

Ravenscraig. Now the busy ?52 million sports centre. It is a

world-class centre we have put on the site of Ravenscraig and we have

a wide scope of events taking place, local, Scottish, European. It has

had a fantastic response. Heavy industry declined and collapsed in

the 1970s, it 80s and Ravenscraig chat in the 1990s. Arguments still

rage about who is to blame for the failures. A generation of critics

blame one person. We are leaving Downing Street for the first time

after 11 and a half wonderful years. Wonderful for some but not others.

Many in Scotland made their voices heard particularly over the

introduction of the poll tax. A symbol that she feel to get

Scotland. For Scotland industrial devastation, social disaster and

politically she paved the way for a devastation, social disaster and

new kind of Scotland. At the end of the day that might be a big plus but

it has been a very, very heavy price Scotland as paid. The big plus the

say is this please. The Scottish Parliament. There is a view that she

left another political legacy, too. Scotland are still seen as second

best which I think is to do with Mrs Thatcher. I suspect that for a long

time to come the those naughty lot the Tories can do about it. The

Conservatives who have been in the party for quite some time argue Mrs

Thatcher had a hard job and she did it well. It was the time of great

economic and social change which was painful for people but in the 1970s

the economy was backward and outdated and needed modernised. At

the end of Margaret Hatcher was my DD den offers we had the much more

diverse party with opportunities articulate for young people. I will

hand out where as a little broken. Our right to buy policy was hugely

popular, an instrument of social change. Some say it would be fair to

reassess our legacy and combat the mess. Ravenscraig she did not shut,

it shot up after she had moved on. Now wanted have kept it open. It was

not making steel competitively. The mythology of fracture lives on and

people continue to hate her but frankly they should be grateful for

Margaret Thatcher. It depends on your point of view but one thing has

not changed, when to five years on we are still talking about Margaret

Thatcher. The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon,

will be in Paris tomorrow, to attend this year's UN climate change

conference as it enters its crucial, Governments from around the world

are attempting to thrash out a deal Meanwhile, at home,

the Scottish government has faced renewed criticism over

its failure to achieve its own On Thursday,

Labour leader Kezia Dugdale used First Minister's Questions to attack

the government's record. She is going to Paris to show our

world leading targets set the benchmark the world community needs

to match. This parliament unanimously set those targets in

2009 so when the First Minister tell the international community she had

the most ambitious targets in the world will she remember to tell them

she has not let those targets once. I would encourage Kezia Dugdale to

study in some detail of the facts and information around this. In

particular I would encourage her, I hope she can continue to come

together, as one on this global issue, that when we set a target for

2013 in 2010, the reduction in carbon that we anticipated at that

time was 31.7%, that was the target we anticipated we would have do

reduce emissions by. What we have achieved is 30.4% from the 1990

baseline. The only reason why that means we still have not met the

target is because of the increases to that baseline. Fixed annual

targets were mess because of improvements to the way the data was

calculated which added megatons to the 1990 baseline.

Let's cross to the French capital now, and join BBC Scotland's

environment correspondent, David Miller, who'll be covering

First on these talks more generally, Copenhagen was a complete

wash-out, is there any reason to suspect this will be more positive?

That is putting it mildly in terms of Copenhagen. All the signs that

this speech, the midway point at this weeks summit are indicating

real progress has been made. We are right a very different ways to that

which raised us back in Copenhagen in 2009. Vince the world leaders

departed Paris at the start of the week when they came in to get this

conference on the road, delegates from 195 countries have been working

steadfastly to come up with a draft text to present to ministers when

they arrive here tomorrow. That work is completed in the words of the

French climate ambassador, nothing has been decided and nothing will be

left behind. She said this text marks the well of all to reach an

agreement. Clearly there are major stumbling blocks which remain and in

particular over the next few days we have to keep a very close eye on

negotiations between the developed world and the developing world. We

are seeing real division beer as always that these summits but

particularly here over who has two cut and make the biggest sacrifices

and crucially over who he is the most. What does Nicholas Durden

think she can bring to the party? The First Minister we heard still

believes Scotland has a positive story to tell. Still believes

Cortland can lead by example. The real danger here is we constantly

parrot this line about Scotland's world leading climate change targets

and perhaps we give ourselves too large a part on the back. That is

certainly the argument of Kezia Dugdale as we have heard and it is

interesting that when you come to these climate summits you do tend to

get the white from international delegates who generally genuinely

are interested in those Scottish targets, 80% by 2050, they are very

ambitious targets which still attract attention internationally.

Yes, of course, Scotland is failing to hit those international targets

but the growing of confidence among Scottish Government ministers and

their advisers and statisticians and the Scottish Government that

Scotland is very definitely on track to hit that 42% target. The is still

interest in Scotland's story and Nicholas to urge and will be using

that example to encourage others to act. -- Nicola Sturgeon. The

resonant port of way of implementing those policies around the world and

B will hear more tomorrow from the First Minister about the work of the

states and impact and how that is helping deliver climate change

policies internationally. She will also be talking about climate

justice to make sure the world's oeuvres people are not most likely

to suffer climate change consequences most acutely. Despite

having had the lowest emissions over centuries. Thank you for joining us.

Last Thursday was International Day Of Disabled People.

In recognition of under-representation

in political life, the Scottish government announced

The aim is to identify barriers people with disabilities face

Some rules have already been changed concerning disabled candidate

This pilot project will hopefully lead to improved representation

in elections in Scotland over the next couple of years.

Jack Ashton lead, who's no longer with us, and bang, former

Westminster MP, David Blunkett, retired, and Robertson, current MSP.

All political figures with a disability. 20% of Scotland's

population has a disability. Campaigners say they are

underrepresented in politics. A pilot project launched last week by

the Scottish Government hopes to put this right. The access politics

project aims to avoid practical, direct but not financial support for

disabled people to come forward and participate in democracy, elected

office in particular, overcome summing -- overcoming some of the

barriers, providing things like mentoring, opening up meetings and

documents to be more accessible. That is under the United Nations

Convention, it is recognised as a human rights. We want to make that

real. Inclusion Scotland, which represents people with

disabilities, will administer the community empowerment front. We hear

lots about a fairer Scotland, about democratic renewal participation,

has labelled people having the right to be involved in all aspects of

society and that most definitely includes politics and political

representation. They want a UK budget to support people with

disabilities into politics, at the access to elected office fund has

been stopped as it was underused. That fund really only kicked in when

someone wanted to stand to be selected to be a candidate. By the

time you got to that point, the likelihood is you will have already

found a way around all manner of barriers. It was ticking into late

in the process. Of the 129 MSPs in the building behind me, only six of

them have declared having a disability. To be representative of

Scotland it would have to be 26. Only four out of 650 MPs at

Westminster have declared a disability. Can I give you a leaflet

for the SNP? One in five was set up to encourage greater participation

in politics. The group, which covers all political parties, campaigned

for this new Scottish initiative. The good news about the pilot

project is it will be an opportunity for disabled people across Scotland

to flag up the interest to Inclusion Scotland and take advantage of the

support they can offer. As something like this has never been done

before, we will have to wait and see what the results are. If many people

put their names forward for the support, I am confident we will be

able to continue and this will lead to the creation of the access to

elected office fund which will break down the main barrier disabled

people face, Finance. It is not always about the money. Some

potential candidates believe that different ways of working could make

a difference. I have several disabilities, some potential

candidates believe that different ways of working could make a

difference. I have several disabilities, summer for me, the

barrier is that the job is completely inflexible. If we could

have shared workloads and teleconferencing, it would make the

job more easy for me to get involved. During this pilot period,

Inclusion Scotland 120 with people from disabilities who are interested

in a political career. It's time to look back over

the events of the week and look Joining me now is the Scotsman

journalist and political commentator Joyce McMillan,

and the former special advisor to the SNP and public relations

consultant Kevin Pringle. Obviously, Joyce, Syria has been

dominant. At the end of it, do you think anything has advanced or gone

backwards? Britain is now involved in that bombing campaign, for better

or worse and that is the political reality that everyone has to deal

with. It has been a fairly thorough debate, to be fair. On the side of

the pro-bombers, it has been a very emotional debate. Hilary Benn's much

discussed speech struck me as being 90% emotion. Its appeal was very

faint historical analogies, and one that was ridiculous in the case of

the International Brigade, but delivered with emotion, the need for

Britain to be part of the struggle against fascism. It was acclaimed in

the hothouse of Westminster. All the talk was this is some sort of huge

moment in parliamentary history. I just wonder if it was. We are

already involved in an IVF campaign in Iraq. Britain is already involved

in so many different strands of this, humanitarian, diplomatic, to

other aspects of the military. Germany made a decision this week to

send a few vessels. They will not take part in direct combat but they

will be involved. I do not believe that whole line of the argument. One

of the problems with these kinds of discussions in the UK context is

that people overestimate the significance of our role. We have a

role to play. We are not a small country, but 12 planes, it will

might be make or break for any west and effort anywhere. It would help

us to make more rational decisions if we were to get a sense of

proportion. There was a double-stranded, Kevin, it was

partly about military action, but the results were sense that this is

about having a seat at the top table. The supporters of bombing

would say, it is not two different things. If you want to be taken

seriously in the diplomatic process in Vienna, you have to be seen to be

part of the coalition which is now fairly broad. I think Joyce is

right. That narrative comes through too often in such issues. It was

similar when Trident was debated recently in the House of Commons. As

well as the actual case for Trident, which I do not think exists, rather

than any military rationale, what comes across all the time is the

political, the diplomatic need for the UK to have clout. There was an

analogy between that debate and the debate on Syria this week. It seemed

to not be settled on the military realities but on the issue of

Clyde. Is that not a valid argument? I do not think it is. If

you're going into military campaign, sending servicemen and women into

conflict, the case has got to be signed on military grounds. This one

is not. The fatal flaw, and I think this is a point that Stephen Gethins

made earlier, there is no credible ground force they are. One of the

good aspects of the debate in the House of Commons was a good expose

in that particular regard the floor in the Prime Minister's case. That

aspect of the ground force was not in the government motion, the fact

there are supposedly 70,000 moderate troops. They are not there. It is

like saying unless something retail scenario exists, which is never

going to exist, we will do nothing? We use that as an excuse? It is not

about doing nothing, it is about doing what is effective. It would be

highly effective to starve -- of funding. They are extraordinarily

wealthy. -- starve Daesh. We could do a lot through the banking

system. The military case was lost because of the spurious diplomatic

clout adamant. -- argument. Labour got bound up in this whole Syria

thing and then they seemed to bounce back at the end of the week against

everyone's expectations with the by-election victory. It was a very

interesting results. I thought that Labour did not do well out of the

debate on Syria because they appeared so divided, even if some of

them were making pretty strong arguments on either side. There you

go. Obviously the voters they did not seem to mind so much about

Labour are being divided. It was a very low turnout. I wonder if there

is an element, this thing that parties cannot be divided, it is

something that political commentators say. When you speak to

people about this issue, they seem to be more interested in the issue

of Syria. They say, if people have different views, that is fine. The

important thing is who is right and who's wrong, not whether are

divided. That is an interesting question that we do not know the

answer to yet. Historically being divided has not served political

parties well. One of the interesting things about Jeremy Corbyn is that

he is trying to change the language of it. He is trying to speak in a

different way about having debates within the party and the rest of it.

Admittedly it has turned nasty this week, for similar reasons to what

happened during the independence referendum campaign, where one

particular side was smeared by association with a few loudmouths on

the Internet. That is not Jeremy Corbyn's line. He may be succeeding

in making people think how much they value unity in a party, and how much

of a party, and how much they value honesty. Kevin, you used to be a

spin doctor. If you were advising Jeremy Corbyn, what would you be

seeing? Would you be saying, we cannot have this division? I think

you have got to lead. What Joyce says is correct, and obviously the

by-election was successful, probably for a mix of local and national

reasons, arguably more local because the candidate was a particularly

strong local candidate. Certainly the national dimension did no harm.

The very least that Jeremy Corbyn supporters can say is, hang on a

minute, everyone said having this man as leader would be a disaster,

even in our core areas. Irrespective of whether Corbyn can win in the

south of England, the very least Corbyn supporters can say is that

you were wrong when you said that we could not even win over our

traditional heartland. Clearly Labour can win in traditional areas

like Oldham. It was well served by Labour can win in traditional areas

Michael Meacher for a long time. The candidate now seems to be

particularly strong. That is OK in terms of where we are now. As we get

closer to the next general election, in 2020, at that point Jeremy Corbyn

has got to be a leader, he has got to lead. We will be well beyond the

time from letting everybody say everything they like. There will

come a time where there has to be collective Shadow Cabinet

responsibility. That is an essential aspect for any government in

waiting. Between now and 2020, Jeremy Corbyn has got to be a leader

in the true sense of the term. I do not know if we have got the front

page, but there was a story in the mail today. SNP hypocrites. He was

involved in some sort of Jimmy Carter style tax avoidance. What did

you make of this? He is saying that the kind of package he had, with tax

avoidance, not illegal invasion, it was standard in the industry that he

was working in at the time. We have heard that before. That is what he

says. Now he is not in that industry, he will use his knowledge

of that to try and get them to change the regulations so that

people like the person he used to be cannot get away with it any more.

That is the line. That is rather wonderful. He appears to be saying,

because I was involved in this, I will use it to slack off the British

government because I have inside knowledge. He would not be the first

poacher turned gamekeeper. It seems to be alone that has been repaid.

There is a desire to make it another story about an SNP MSP. I am not

sure it really measures up. There is no suggestion that Mr Boswell has

done anything illegal. It is an attempt. I would have thought that

there were bigger issue is this week to put on the front page. The

climate change conference, very briefly, are you optimistic? Yes, I

think there is a view that the international community has got to

arrive at a deal this time. It did not do before. I think Scotland can

have a role to play by influence. Eurosceptical. I would say it is

pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. It is hard to believe

they will do anything that will make a difference but we have to believe

that we can try. OK. That is all we have time for this week.

I'll be back at the same time next week.