06/12/2015 Sunday Politics Scotland


Jo Coburn and Gordon Brewer present. Jo speaks to security expert Will Geddes on the terrorism threat to the UK.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Jo Coburn and Gordon Brewer present.

Jo Coburn speaks to security expert Will Geddes on the terrorism threat to the UK, and prominent Conservative backbencher Bernard Jenkin gives his thoughts on David Cameron's negotiation with the EU.

Shadow work and pensions secretary Owen Smith is also on the show, as well as new up-and-coming Conservative MP Heidi Allen.

Janan Ganesh of the Financial Times, Isabel Oakeshott of the Daily Mail and Nick Watt of the Guardian are on the political panel.

Download Subtitles