17/01/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Was former London Mayor Ken Livingstone booted off


Or, as Mr Livingstone claims, did he step down


because he is at one on all defence matters with this lady,


Labour's new Shadow Defence Secretary, Emily Thornberry.


Like Mr Livingstone she's not a fan of Britain's


David Cameron has a plan to deliver some rabbits from the hat in his


renegotiation with Brussels. Another campaign has entered the fray on his


site, led by former Euro Tory sceptic. As it hots up, we will be


talking to a man who wants to be out, Nigel Farage and a man who


wants to stay in, Ken Clarke. Donald Trump and his former charm, Alex


Salmond, have been expending the week exchanging pleasantries. We'll


We'll be talking to the former First Minister of Scotland.


Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotand:


What will it mean to communities in the capital?


And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political


I won't have a nasty word said against them.


Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott and Janan Ganesh who'll be tweeting


So first today let's talk about Jeremy Corbyn,


who gave a wide-ranging interview on the Marr show a little earlier.


My question, with respect, was about sympathy action


and whether you would remove that legislation.


Sympathy action is legal in most other countries and I think it


should also be legal here. But remember this...


So you would repeal those Tory laws?


Yes, of course. Nobody willingly goes on strike.


They go on strike as an ultimate weapon.


The number of strikes is actually very small.


It's an ultimate weapon that is used.


Anyone that is going on strike is making an enormous sacrifice.


They don't get paid, they suffer a great deal as a result


of it, so let's look at the causes of people being upset rather


A policy packed interview with Andrew Marr on the Falklands,


Islamic State, secondary striking, even on the idea maybe we could keep


Trident but not any missile warheads on the missiles. I felt nostalgic. I


was back to a teenager in the 1980s, I remember these arguments in the


1980s and Michael foot put them in the manifesto for the 1983 election.


He was robust on the Falkland Islands. He was. The point for


Jeremy Corbyn is he has a mandate from the party to put forward these


arguments. He had a 60% vote and it is clear what he thinks of nuclear


weapons. He has been a member of CND since 1966. The challenge for Jeremy


Corbyn is to put forward ideas in a way that appeals beyond new members


of the Labour Party to the electorate as a whole who have


concerns about security of the nation, for example, possibly having


successor submarines of the Trident system without nuclear weapons. That


is the Japanese system, they talk in Japan how they have what is known as


the bomb in the basement. They are a non-declared nuclear state but could


arm themselves with nuclear weapons within minutes if needed. That is


what he is talking about. Sounds good in the leg party but he needs


to sell it to the country as a whole. It is clear a lot of what


Jeremy Corbyn says has the support of the grassroots, particularly the


new ones who have joined the party. It is clear a lot of this does not


have the support of the Parliamentary Labour Party. That is


the constant problem yet to be squared. I cannot see a way it will


be squared. I do not think many Labour MPs can either. His problem


is admirable, it is he is determined not to remove himself from things


said in the past. On the Falklands he is consistent with what he said


in 2013, when it did not matter, and how he is now repeating those views.


The problem is now Jeremy Corbyn matters and if you look at the


Falklands, the last time there was a vote of those on the Falkland


Islands, only three voted to change the system of administration, so he


is out of step with people living there. He sets out his left-wing


stall on these issues. Bit by bit, he is taking his time, doing it


astutely. He is taking the lead party in his direction, part of the


purpose I would suggest of the interview will stop no one could


question that. If you go into a general election with a leader who


says something like, let's have the return of secondary picketing, and


that is not the worst idea in the manifesto, also talking about


renewing the vanguard submarines without warheads and I think he


floated the idea of reasonable accommodation with Argentina on the


Falklands, he would go to the election knowing you have a white,


working-class base, which is already flirting with Ukip. How low can


Labour Singh? Technically it is impossible to get rid of him but


maybe politics is like water and finds a way to go around obstacles.


And if his ideas turn out to be popular? I think they will be


popular with the membership at every general election since 1983 would


suggest to us these ideas are outside the mainstream. Jeremy


Corbyn says there is a new world out there, I tapped into that in the


campaign, with thousands packing up meetings. We have the electoral test


in May, let's see how the ideas go down outside the party. Should


written keep its nuclear deterrent? -- Great Britain.


Jeremy Corbyn doesn't think so and neither


does his new Shadow Defence Secretary, Emily Thornberry,


who we'll be talking to in just a minute.


But first here's Adam on a multi-billion-pound question.


The Imperial War Museum is showing the work of artist Peter Kennard,


the creator of some of the starkest images of the campaign


This was in 1980, this is when cruise missiles were coming


to Britain and the idea was they were going to circulate


It's coming back into fashion because some time this year


the Government is expected to hold a Parliamentary vote


on whether to build a new generation of submarines to carry


The issue is dogging Labour, as Jeremy Corbyn made his first


speech of the year at the Fabian's campaign group conference.


I thank you very much for inviting me here today.


Jeremy Corbyn's speech focused on energy, Europe, rail prices...


no mention of Trident, which he has campaigned


The issue is - not all of his MPs agree with him.


My view at the moment is that the case in favour


of retaining is stronger than the case against,


but I think it's important we review this and look at all the options.


I'm in favour of keeping our nuclear deterrent.


I think it's important for keeping our country safe.


It's Labour Party policy, I hope it will stay that way.


Have you had an argument with Jeremy about it yet?


Definitely arguing with Jeremy this week, the boss of the GMB union,


who says building new subs will safeguard thousands of jobs


in places like Barrow, where they're built.


If anybody thinks that unions like the GMB are going to go quietly


into the night while tens of thousands of our members' jobs


are literally swaneed away by rhetoric, then they have


Meet the woman who's got to reconcile the two tribes,


the Shadow Defence Secretary, Emily Thornberry, a critic


of Trident who's doing the party's defence review.


But it's turning into a row about how Labour makes policy.


On one side, the people who feel the decision should be made by


We have a national policy forum, we have a process where the papers


go to our conference and are voted on.


They involve trade unionists, they involve affiliated


John Landsman, who campaigns for a bigger role for party


activists and founded the Corbynite group Momentum,


I'm not convinced the Government has to have a vote at all,


but if it decides to have a vote we obviously need to have taken some


soundings among party members and affiliates about what they think


So, Labour Party policy on Trident could change by the summer?


We will have had some process to consider our policy


before the summer, yes, obviously, we have to.


So Labour Party policy, when it comes to a vote,


by the summer could be voting against the renewal of Trident?


Look, I know that you're trying to get me to say very briefly,


you know, something very quick about how policy is made


in our party, the trouble is it's quite a complex process.


Policy is ultimately decided by party conference


in Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party but if we have to take quicker


decisions, we have to do it by other methods.


That might drive some Labour people into meltdown.


It could be war, not just over whether Labour supports the renewal


of Trident, but also who gets to make the decision.


And with me now, the Shadow Defence Secretary, Emily Thornberry.


Welcome. Did you drop Ken Livingstone from the defence review?


No, it was going to be my review and when I spoke to Jeremy about it I


said it was an honour to take an extraordinary job, to be able to


shadow a department where people are prepared to put their lives on the


line. Was he part of the defence review already? I said I would lead


the review and it will be my review, and it will feed into international


policy commission, co-chaired by Ken Livingstone, which will feed into


the national policy forum which will then feed into party conference. Mr


Livingstone said on defence matters he had lunch with you and you agree


on everything on the defence side and so voluntarily stepped aside, is


that true? I am a big fan of Ken Livingstone, that is not a secret, I


am also against Trident. I come in as a sceptic and also with the


ambition to listen to what people say, to be not afraid to ask


difficult questions and to come to a view on policy on the basis of


evidence. Did he step aside because you broadly agreed on defence


matters? Jeremy Corbyn put me in charge of the review and that is


what happened. Did Mr Livingstone step aside as he said? He is chair


of the commission I will be feeding my review into. I understand. Do you


agree on everything when it comes to defence? I agree with a lot Ken


Livingstone says but I do not agree we should pull out of Nato and I


will not review this on the basis of us changing any international


agreements or organisations we are signed up to. The review will take


place within the context of our continued membership of Nato? That


is right. On Trident? Ken Livingstone is against renewing


Trident. That has been your position. I think the days of


unilateral, multilateral, all of this sort of thing is from the


1980s. We should look at what are the 21st-century threats to Britain


and how should we best address them? It seems that is the best way to do


it, look at the threats and what is the best way of addressing that.


What I am more than anything is a moderniser. You voted against


renewal of Trident in 2007. Do you know what, in the 80s, I was in


favour of Trident because there were two macro sides, life was different,


but life has moved on since 2007. Certainly since the 1980s, and I


think the time has come for us to have a debate about what the


21st-century threats are, which includes whether or not it is the


appropriate response. What would change your mind? What could you be


told about Trident that would make you think we should keep it? Good


days and want to go into it with an days and want to go into it with an


open mind and look at evidence. You are against Trident? I am in favour


of making policy on the basis of evidence put before me and I have


had a large number of invitations to talk to people and pick their


brains. I want to be able to do that and bring the party with me. Are you


against drone strikes? No, I think in the future the role of drones is


likely to increase, under the sea and for air strikes. When you were


shadow Attorney General, did you question the legality under


international law? This is quite difficult, because the advice I gave


to the leaders... You have got that wrong. I was asking a question.


Have you questioned their legality or not? There is a difference


between their use and bare existence so therefore... I'm so sorry but


it's legally privileged and I cannot talk about advice I gave to the


leader. All right but you can talk to the electorate. Would you support


the use of drone strikes? I would support the use of whatever means


are necessary to keep the British people safe. Including drone


strikes? Yes, within the confines of the law. Do you have an end date


when you think you have got to have the review done by? No, I don't want


the strategic review to be anything like the Tories' which was very


short. They opened a website and only allowed people to put 200 words


in and in my view didn't look at it properly so it will take as long as


it takes. I have a lot to look at. I understand, we have a lot of ground


to cover and we don't have a lot of time this morning. In the meantime


it's almost certain there will be a major vote on Trident, which begins


the real spending on the renewal some time in the spring. What will


happen to Labour? Will you be whipped to vote in favour of current


party policy, which is pro-Trident? Will you be encouraging to -- people


to vote against it? The first question is, are they going to have


a vote, are they going to have a vote in the spring, and what will


the vote be? Will we have the Treasury and the MoD agreeing? If


there is a main gate proposal, comes forward to the Commons, how will you


vote? The rumour is they are not going to have anything more than


another vote in principle on whether or not we should renew Trident.


Pro-Trident people should be angry about that because we had a vote


about that in 2007, what have they been doing all this time? Labour


policy is to have a continual artsy deterrent but to have a review. We


are in the process of having a review, we need to look at when the


vote is, what it is about, then I will have a discussion with Jeremy


and the Chief Whip and did -- decision will be made. Jeremy has


said he wants macro to accommodate differences in views and I have said


my review has got to be done in an atmosphere of trust and respect. So


it will be a free vote. What do you say to those who say when it comes


to the Trident part of the defence review that it is a sham, that you


have replaced Maria Eagle who was pro-Trident. Your leader is a


lifelong unilateral disarmament. The party grass roots is increasingly


hostile to Trident, so the chances of this recommending anything other


than don't renew Trident is pretty impossible. I will begin this review


by looking at the threat to Britain because my overriding responsibility


is to make sure it is in line with what keeps Britain safe. We will


take it as the evidence takes us. That is how we will approach it.


Jeremy has already said, he said in the last few days that it may be


this won't be a binary decision, things are not must rarely black and


white any more, we are not going to the 1980s. What do you make of this


idea that he floated on the Andrew Marr Show this morning that we could


maybe renew Trident but not put warheads on the missiles? The


Japanese option, that is certainly one thing that needs to be looked


at. What would be the point? I'm not saying this is what we are going to


do, but the way that it works is that the Japanese have got the


capability to build a nuclear bomb if they need to, but you can then


use them in various delivery forms. That's a possibility, it is an


option. So you put the eventual warheads onto Trident submarines?


Trident missiles? I appreciate that you want me to speculate and I


understand that. Your leader spoke about it this morning. I have said


there are of options. When you file a ballistic missile at a country,


every early warning ballistic missile system will assume that is


an attack because ballistic missile is only carry nuclear weapons so we


will risk retaliation for something that is not using nuclear weapons,


isn't that very dangerous? You are welcome to take part in my review. I


am a kind of busy on the day job. Do you think the party membership


should determine Trident policy, not just be consulting on it, which I


know you'll want to do, but should they determined in the end such


important issue? Party conference will decide what our policy is. I


would like to have a review that will have party members feeding into


it, feeding into their views in a way we have not had before and I


will encourage that. You weren't in the end have a vote among party


members to determine your policy? Our rules are that party conference


decides our policy. Do you think you will have your ducks in a row by the


time of this year's party conference? If I can help the


national policy Forum by doing an interim report, I will do so. What


do you say to the trade union leaders who say you will put


thousands of jobs at risk if you don't renew Trident? I say I will


listen to what they say and I will look at whether there are other


alternatives. I understand, and I fully respect the concerns that have


been raised so we need to look at whether there are solutions to that.


You have taken substantial donations from a law firm that support clients


that took the British Army to court on what turned out to be deliberate


and miscalculated lies, holy and entirely without merit, where the


accusations against the army. Should you return that? What happened was


that Lee Day seconded people to my office because when your shadow


Attorney General you don't have any resources at all. You didn't get


?14,500 in donations? No, so I got very good bright lawyers and I have


returned all of them and they were very good and they helped us be a


good opposition. So there is no money to return? There is no money


to return and it was a pleasure to have them in my office, they were


very helpful to the Labour Party and interned to the country. We were


summarising legislation, helping with clauses, giving advice to the


leaders' office. Unfortunately the Government will now even cut the


money. Will you come back when your review is complete? Any time. We


will hold you to that. Now to the European Union


and Britain's membership of it. George Osborne appeared


quietly confident this week about the Government's chances


of impressing voters with the deal it gets from Brussels,


and even the European President, Jean-Claude Junker, appeared more


upbeat about the prospects Not good news for


those who want out? But they'll be buoyed by one poll


this morning that puts the "out" This morning there's news of another


group on the pro-EU campaign trail. The question may be fairly simple


but there are rather a lot of different campaigns


trying to bend our ears. On the side of those


who want us out of the EU, there's the Vote Leave campaign


headed by Dominic Cummings and Matthew Elliott,


who ran the successful They're also linked


to Business For Britain, which has the support of a number


of leading business figures, and to the groups Labour Leave


and Conservatives For Britain, Also campaigning for Brexit


is Leave.EU, which has links to Ukip and is funded by the Ukip donor


Arron Banks. They're vying with the Vote Leave


campaign to be the officially And to top it all, there is now Go,


a new grass-roots group made up of MPs including Kate Hoey


and David Davis which is designed to coordinate campaigning


on the ground. On the other side, the main group


is the Britain Stronger In Europe, headed by the former Marks


Spencer's boss Sir Stuart Rose. Then there's Business


For New Europe, led by Roland Rudd, Labour Yes, led by Alan Johnson,


and now there's a new group set up by the Tory MP Nick Herbert,


called Conservatives Even though some of the members


are Eurosceptics, they say they will support David Cameron's


renegotiation and will vote to remain inside the EU


if he's successful. Expect a few leaflets


through your door in the next And with us now is the Ukip


leader, Nigel Farage. With even staunch Eurosceptic MPs


like Nick Herbert campaigning to stay in, don't you worry the tide of


opinion is moving away from you and tour was David Cameron? I would


never regard Nick Herbert as a staunch Eurosceptic. He campaigned


to keep the pound, he was paid to do it. He has never once advocated


Britain should leave the EU so he is doing a job bolstering the Prime


Minister. There was lots of speculation, will Boris Johnson back


the outcome pain? What do you think? I don't know. Not Michael Gove, we


know now. I suspect lots of senior politicians will put their careers


before their conscience and back the Prime Minister. I am beginning to


see this referendum as the people versus the politicians, it might not


matter. Except your own side continues to be riven by


factionalism. We have vote to leave, Leave.EU, and they seem to be


spending more time attacking each other than the common enemy. You


have these groups vying to be the official bumbler group. I've been


trying to support both of the organisations, though I have to say


when I listen to Dominic Cummings on Friday... Who is on Vote Leave I


believe. Yes, and suddenly they are Friday... Who is on Vote Leave I


talking about a two referendum strategy which I don't like the look


of one little bit. Why not? The argue was, we can vote to come out


and then Europe will panic and make us an offer which will be


effectively associated membership and we could vote on that. We


effectively have that now, we had that since the euro was created. Dan


Harmon has criticised every government that has lost a


referendum. After the interview I saw the other day I wasn't sure.


There is now a third group called Go. It does lend itself to jokes


about the Judaean people's struggle. The point about Go is that it is


there to break the deadlock, and next Saturday there will be


Conservatives, Labour, Ukip and DUP sharing a public platform. There's a


big auditorium with 2000 people coming and we will start the ground


campaign in earnest. Should Vote Leave and Leave.EU amalgamate? Of


course. Leave.EU are brilliant at mass-marketing. Vote Leave are


Westminster -based group of people with some fantastic links to the


business community, some great academic back-up. They would be


complimentary, not contradictory. Meanwhile, as you still struggle to


get a united front, if I can put it like that, perhaps the United front


of the Judaean people's struggle... I would suggest from the better


together project, which proved so effective in the Scottish


referendum, shouldn't you fear Project Fear? Even Project Fear has


a problem because a Scottish minister said all of the big


businesses would leave Britain, but we would maintain our manufacturing


bases. Even though if we stay in there will be some uncertainty as


the euro zone becomes more united and we are likely to be part of


that, so you cannot be sure of the future, no one on your side can tell


us if we come out what will our status beach? What will our


relationship be? Because you have lots of differences. We have a whole


range of options. There are countries all over the world with


different relationships, the Swiss have bilateral relationships the


Norwegians have a relationship with the economic area. We are the


biggest trading partner the has in the world, trading at a vast trading


deficit. We want a British deal based on trade, cooperation and


nothing more. There is still the uncertainty as to


whether you can deliver. Every German car manufacturer, every


producer, will insist we do that deal as quickly as possible. You


hold that but it is uncertain. Under the terms of the treaties, on day


one nothing would change, we would have access to markets during the


time we renegotiate the British deal. Do you feel the ground moving


on to you as the forces of the British state, Alex Salmond felt the


same with the Scottish referendum, it is a formidable force and you are


up against it? In terms of our political class, yes, I think the


chances of many people currently in senior positions in politics,


perhaps they diminish, inevitably, but you cannot take away from


ordinary folk scene such as Cologne and saying to themselves, in three


years, all of these people will have EU passports and be able to come to


Britain. This campaign will be the people against the politicians and


the more the politicians clubbed together, perhaps more the people


will choose to vote against them. In any possibility of a relationship


with the EU out, will almost certainly involve continued free


movement and these people may well still be able to come to this


country under any deal you reach? We have free trade deals all over the


world that don't involve the free movement of people, it is only in


Europe we have the free -- pretence that we have to have free movement


of people. I want to control our borders and have an Australian style


points system where we can judge whether people will make a positive


contribution to society and I cannot do that as a member of the EU. You


have not had the best of times, since the election. It culminated in


what you designated a car breakdown as an assassination attempt. Has


that undermined, as the most famous person on the outcome paying, has it


undermined your credibility? I do not think it does. To say we have


had a tough time, it is interesting, Ukip has been written off by every


commentator in Fleet Street but the latest poll had us at 17%. The most


important issue, immigration, we are the most trusted party on 29% and we


go into this year with the expectation of winning seats in


Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and playing a big role in this


referendum. Let's talk now to former


Conservative Chancellor, Are you in any doubt the Prime


Minister is going to be the enthusiastic leader of the campaign


to remain in the EU? I think you will, because all the news, although


it is not really news, a lot of it is rumoured, is he will come back


with a reasonable deal. He has already got the things he first


talked about in the bag when he first announced he was going to have


a referendum and seek reforms. He has added one or two more. Nobody


knows the final deal but they are close to getting one and the debate


is getting more serious and I think David will advocate staying in. He


will put it, a reformed European union. Given this was the


predictable outcome, is the referendum process, promoted by


David Cameron, worth the candle? We shall see. You can see now, is it or


not? Wait for the outcome, which will determine the effect of the


referendum on British politics and the economy. All politicians of my


generation did not think a referendum was a good way to run a


modern, sophisticated country. You wish she had not done it? I do not


think anybody thinks... I was in favour of calling a referendum.


Margaret Thatcher denounced referendums in stronger terms than I


have and they are a gamble and I do not think the Scottish one has


resolved the Scottish independence issue. Let me come on to Scotland.


It is complicated and sometimes frightening. Our nations are now


ended on each other. We will be modern and independent state. --


dependent state. It'll be more moderate everything in. It is said


that Nigel Farage is a parody of a right wing nationalist, on both


sides, people are inclined to say there will be calamity if we leave.


There is huge uncertainty if we leave. I personally, strongly


believe that my grandchildren will discover... I understand. We know


you want to stay in so I want to ask you some questions about that. If we


do want to remain, should our membership of the euro, at some


stage, come back to the agenda? I don't think it will in my lifetime.


Should it? The euro has got to be reformed. The crisis has still not


been sorted. Should come back onto the British agenda? In your I am not


going to start forecasting the future. I do believe that, if you


have a single market, this is an a trade deal, if you have a single


market, there is a single means of exchange. They made a mess of the


euro, they did not run properly. We may find that if we do want the same


currency, I can't tell. Do you worry? You're very pro-European. You


can be critical of it but do you worry now that, any future, every


vote to stay in, the future of the EU will very much we watch takes


place inside the Eurozone? That there will be, on the periphery, a


country club member? Does that worry It did when we started. There really


was an issue that needed to be addressed. We are always there, I


think. What we did not want is the decision of the British and one or


two others who will never join any foreseeable future, not to join. The


single currency was going to make a second-class citizens. The Eurozone


group should not start deciding things that adversely affected us. I


think it is nearly there. My understanding is, I am not directly


involved but I have been to Brussels a bit, I think it is is the most


important point. It will not feature in this campaign. They are really


important things, things that people like me was wanted. We have run out


of time but we do thank you for the short interview this morning. We


will come back you as the debate progresses. Just gone 11 30 5am. We


now say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now for Sunday


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


Unite boss Len McCluskey says the union will give its unequivocal


backing to Labour in the May elections.


And to staying in Europe Professor Anton Muscatelli is speaking to us


live about the biggest educational project in Scotland and his work


This road in Corstophine in Edinburgh is Scotland's most


polluted - how is it linked to a deferred vote


Now - in the independence referendum campaign Unite the Union,


as it likes to call itself - sat on the fence.


Its argument was that so many of its members wanted


independence it didn't want to split the union.


The general secretary, Len McCluskey, said yesterday that


about 60% of his members in Scotland voted SNP in the general


So, would Unite call for an SNP vote in May,


Well, I spoke to Mr McCluskey earlier.


I began by asking him about one of his other recent suggestions -


that Labour should apologise to the people of Scotland.


I think what I was trying to say is that the ideology of new Labour,


which is pretty prevalent in some of the leaders within Scottish Labour,


is that its drives Scottish working people away from Labour and towards


the S and P. Perhaps calling for an apology... -- SNP. We now have to


say that Labour is under new management so we have to regain your


trust and we have to try to make certain that Labour is once again


seen as the side of ordinary working people. Evidently, over a long


period of time, Scottish Labour lost that trust. It manifested itself on


the 7th of May last year and a way that was quite staggering. Yes, we


have to be honest and we have to understand what the Scottish


working-class are telling us. Now, Nicola Sturgeon, I believe, is


seeking at your conference later today. The SNP governments here say


they are fighting Tory austerity. Scottish Labour said they are


fighting issues like social care and catalogue authorities. The SNP, you


say, are implementing it. Which side are you on? I am on the side of the


Labour Party. What we have to do with the SNP is the gain to


Labour Party. What we have to do scrutinise what the SNP are doing.


The reality is that, we need to see, is there a difference between


rhetoric and reality? The SNP say that there may be, they have been


very pro-union -- they have to turn some of that rhetoric into policy,


and to practical policy. We want to see that being more active in


opposing the austerity that has been imposed by the Westminster


governments. Rather than just blaming Westminster, we want a


practical example of how they can oppose this. They want to change the


lives of Scottish people and we want to see this. Getty Dugdale, I think


is doing a first-class job in leading that challenge. -- Kezia


Dugdale. I think it is a question of trying to put it into some kind of


context. Labour has to start to deal with things. The Council house


freezing, that means there's a whole host of issues which are not being


dealt with. Cots are still being implemented. --, is. Kezia Dugdale


Has stated how much money is being spent. It is almost half of council


tax in Scotland being going to servicing the debt, rather than


paying it off. If we are going to have a campaign with the S NP, part


of that is pressing strongly for the debt to be dropped. Public services


are being threatened. Your union, will it be backing Labour in the


Scottish election in a? 100%. I will be saying that a little later on in


my speech here. Of course, we will work with the S NP Government. That


is Iraq thing to do far members. -- SNP. Many members of them voted for


the SNP. We will do all we can to help Kezia Dugdale and Jeremy


Corbyn. Why are you backing Labour when you have said that over 60% of


your members voted SNP at the last general election in Scotland? Why


don't you back then or do what you did in the independence referendum


and sit on the Our union is affiliated with the Labour Party.


That is all our members within Britain. That is the position and


until that position changes, within our rules, we are bound to Labour


and we are not bound to support any other political party. That is the


way it should be. It was the trade unions that created and gave birth


to the Labour Party. Remember, at one point of her story in Scotland,


80% of Unite members would vote Labour. Labour have got to do


something about it. It makes them never to look like Mount Everest.


The challenge they face. We will be supporting Jeromy and Kezia because


they offer something different. Unite members are coming back to


Labour and away from the S NP. Another poll it looks increasingly


likely that we may have this year is a referendum on the European Union.


What is your view on that? Are you for staying in the European Union


are you leading to what the cup campaign? We are united solidly as a


pro-European Union. We were slightly concerned when the Prime Minister


started to talk about renegotiating, because they knew he was looking to


take away more rights from British workers and we are against that. We


called for the Prime Minister to stop playing stupid games. We don't


want to take away more rights. It looks as if the Prime Minister has


seen common sense and has moved away from that. Of course, he was forced


into a corner by the right wing Tory MPs and in need by Ukip. He seems to


have moved away from that and all of our manufacturing companies that we


deal with believe we should stay in Europe. It is pretty likely that


Unite, along with most of the British trade union movement will be


supporting staying in Europe. On nuclear weapons, I know you are


concerned that there were suggestions that Labour might make


some kind of decision on the policy regarding balloting, that may


exclude the trade union involvement. Are you satisfied to have been given


assurances... Go on. Yes. I am completely satisfied. It has been


clarified for is what the process is. It will be a comprehensive


review of the sector, not just the nucleoside but conventional offence


as well. We think that is the right thing to do. The only political


party that is doing it. It is a good thing. The media of course will


watch to obsess about Trident because they see it as a division


within Labour. The truth is that the review will take place and, what is


absolutely critical for Unite is, that we are prone jobs and


pro-community. That will be a priority, that will be confirmed to


them. Everyone in Scotland can rest easy in their beds, as indeed can


defence workers... You say they can rest easy in their beds, but


presumably you are not exactly delighted that the two largest


parties in Scotland will be going into the May elections, Labour and


the SNP, where, in effect, they both have policies on nuclear


disarmament... I don't think that is the Labour Party... Well, they have


decided they are against renewing Trident. Know, if you really policy


carefully, you'll see that is a very queer caveat about guarantees --


clear. Given to protect jobs and immunities. This is important. Only


this time in years, think you have a leader of a political party in


Jeremy Corbyn who is serious about wanting to discuss diversification.


We have been looking for that for a long, long time. We are engaged in a


number of initiatives and no one has ever taking it seriously. We see


what is happening with the defence review as something that is


positive. Our members can rest assured that, irrespective of who


the Labour leader on the Prime Minister is, we will defend their


jobs and their communities. Thank you for joining us this morning.


Education wasn't the first career option of Professor Anton Muscatelli


- his childhood ambition was to be an astronaut.


When that didn't work out, he became an economist and moved


from being a trainee in a bank to a one-year university lectureship.


He must have done something right because he's now been Principal


and Vice Chancellor of the University of Glasgow


He's also been a consultant to the World Bank and the European


Commission, a member of the Panel of Economic Advisers


of the Secretary of State for Scotland and an adviser


to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee -


in addition to serving as chairman for the Calman Commission.


Professor Muscatelli joins me now in the studio.


You could have been doing your first spacewalk this week. It would have


been great, but I am afraid I had to go for my second option. You have


produced this report on the economic impact at Glasgow University.


Astonishingly, you found it is very positive. Give us a 32nd gist of


what you think it is important. As I said in an interview to Holyrood


magazine, we have a huge economic impact as an organisation. 1.5


billion of Scottish output, we are responsible for up to 15,000 jobs.


Not just in Glasgow, but around the country, the Highlands, the Borders.


600 jobs in Edinburgh which we impact on. We are also about to


embark and unusually exciting expansion of our campus. About 1


billion spent over the next ten years, three quarters of which which


will be on capital facilities, which will generate another 2500 jobs and


another 30 million of gross value added for the Scottish economy. We


are a big player in innovation and in skills and innovation. -- skills


and education. The world of universities is becoming ever more


competitive. You are not just against the fact that universities


in England have fees, but also American universities which have


huge endowments and the sort of things English universities would


find unimaginable. You completely relaxed about the fee situation in


England? Yes, because we are a globally competitive university. We


are one of two or three in Scotland that are in the global top 100. We


have seen demand for our courses grow, not only in Scotland, but from


the rest of the UK and internationally. We have grown our


international numbers in Glasgow by between 80 and 90% in the last five


years. The other thing about universities in America... There has


been talk for 30 years in Scotland about universities becoming engines


of economic growth, spin off companies and the rest of it. The


model was always Stanford in California and its connection with


silicon valley. I'm sure you could tell me lots of things that Glasgow


and other universities have done that have led to businesses, but hit


it has never quite happened in the way it has in America. Your macro I


would contest that. If you look at our own performance in terms of spin


outs, in terms of jobs over the last few years, which year by year are


still producing up to ?240 million of output for the Scottish economy.


If you look at Scottish universities, they are indeed places


for. We could do better, joining up much better the whole of the


innovation landscape. That is something we are on the case to


doing with our partner universities, with government, with other


agencies. We have to continue to improve because other competitors in


the US are continuing to up their game. You played quite a role in the


devolution business. You work adviser to the common commission --


Calman Commission. Are you concerned about this? I am very concerned. As


I have said in the press quite a bit over the last few months, the fiscal


framework is as if not more important than the bill itself,


because it will set the physical parameters around which Scottish


Government in future will have to decide our options. As I pointed


out, if we choose the wrong formula for adjusting the block grant after


the settlement, the Scottish parliament could lose up to 7


billion over ten years if the wrong formula is used. I intervene to


support a per capita index, a way of trying to protect Scotland from


those demographic risks. The fear is, is it, that, should, for


example, we changed tack tax rates -- tax rates appear, if it grows


slower than it does in the rest of the UK, Scotland could lose out? The


fear is this. Even if our tax base grows at the same rate as the rest


of the UK, if we choose the wrong formula, we could still lose because


of the growth in population in the south-east of England. The way the


Smith Commission framed the agreement is that it said Barnett is


central to the new Scotland act. There should be no detriment. If we


were to choose the per capita method, we could end up losing


hundreds of millions of pounds a year. The problem is, this phrase,


no detriment, is itself a tremendously ambiguous, isn't it? I


can imagine some people would say, well, if the East of England


managers to get lots more people wanting to go and stay there than in


Scotland, well, tough. The Scottish woman should implement policies that


mean people want to live in Scotland. We can't be expected to


pay for that. The UK is a very peculiar country in the European


context because London and the south-east are such a magnet for


population, and because the Scottish Government arguably does not have


any tools at its disposable to try to offset that. It still creates the


right incentive. It does mean that we have to keep up our tax base


growth within those parameters. It is actually, I think, a good


compromise and fair to Scotland and the rest of the UK. The finance


secretary, John Swinney, has threatened not to approve the fiscal


framework and, in effect, have said no to further devolution. Unless he


gets what he wants out of it. What he thinks is fair. Do you think that


is a realistic option for the Scottish Parliament, given that the


SNP's opponents would say, hang on, the SNP are refusing Morfa Scotland?


It is difficult, but you cannot accept it at any price -- additional


powers at any price. Over the next ten years, you might lose 7 billion


of that, it is not a great deal because it was was Scotland to make


choices which are not in its economic interest. Rather famously


and controversially, during the referendum campaign, you wrote a


piece in the Financial Times arguing for currency. Do you think that is


still a viable option, should there be in the referendum campaign? I


think it is. If you remember, I argued it from the point of view


also from the rest of the UK's point of view. Volumes of trade between


Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are so vast that it


would have been hugely destructive to break that currency union. I also


pointed out it was not the only option. There were a range of


options and all have advantages and disadvantages. There have been


mutterings from people in the yes campaign to the fact that given


everyone else in Britain said, no, you can't have that, it wasn't the


best idea to be trying to convince people to vote for independence.


There seems to have been not very much discussion about practical


alternatives. Obviously, I cannot comment on these argument is, I was


making the argument of what would have been in the interest


economically... What is your favourite alternative to that? The


most immediate would have been a Scottish currency pegged in some way


to UK pound to try to avoid major currency fluctuations. That was the


heart of that original discussion. Now, given that oil prices have


collapsed, where would you go into that model now, you think Scotland


can borrow at reasonable rates? Since the Euro crisis, the idea that


you can just borrow at the same rate as your quietening currency has gone


out the window. Small countries do this all the time. If you look at


the Baltic economies, the Scandinavian economies, that is not


an issue. The debate has to go beyond one element, which is the


currency. Thank you very much indeed.


The latest Friends of the Earth survey has revealed that


St John's Road in Edinburgh is Scotland's most polluted.


It's closley followed by Glasgow's Hope Street.


The relationship between car emissions and ambient air quality


is a fundamental issue with vehicles contributing significantly


to pollution in our towns and cities.


So testing those emissions under real conditions is critical element


in monitoring and controlling pollution.


Against this backdrop, there's concern that a key European


vote on testing roadside emissions - due to take place this week -


Everyone is used to the site of cars on our roads. They are a vital part


of everyday life. But at what cost? The fumes which come out of vehicle


exhaust pipes play a big role in the rise of air pollution, a problem


which is linked with thousands of deaths in Scotland each year. This


is St John's Road in Edinburgh, it is like many other streets across


Scotland. There are businesses here and people live here. But it has


also been given the unfortunate title of Scotland's most polluted


road. So, what do the people who live and work you make of that? I


was smoking, I was going out every week and because of the air


pollution, I never got down to zero. Age doesn't affect me at all. I go


outside for fresh air, but you can't get fresh air. The claim that St


John's Road is Scotland's most polluted street is made by the


environmental group Friends of the Earth Scotland. It is based on


figures gathered by monitoring stations like this one. On the day


we filmed here, pollution levels were described as low, but Friends


of the Earth say that, on average, legal limit in air quality are being


breached. If you are breathing in air pollution day in day out, you


are more likely to have a stroke, a heart attack. If you are asthmatic,


you might find your symptoms worsened. Air pollution causes 2000


early deaths in Scotland every year. It is a serious public health crisis


and tackling it should be top priority for the Scottish


Government. The annual average European legal limit for the


pollutant nitrogen dioxide is set at 40 micrograms per cubic metre. New


research from Friends of the Earth say the level on St John's Road in


2015 was 65 micrograms. Elsewhere, the nitrogen dioxide level on Hope


Street in Glasgow was 60 micrograms. The figure for Dundee's Seagate was


50. What is being done about it? Two months ago, the Scottish Government


set a target to make Scotland's at the best in Europe. Ministers want


councils to play their part, but councils say, to do that, they need


more cash. Is being made very clear to the civil servants and the


Scottish Government that we are talking about a strategy in terms of


low emissions. As local government, we need those resources. We are


making cuts this year and therefore we need resources. If you want us to


work in partnership with you, we need the resources to be able to


implement that low emission strategy. The pressure is mounting.


The revelation that the car-maker faults wagon -- Volkswagen fitted


emission deceiving devices to its cars. A vote on the issue, due to


take this place -- take place this week has been postponed, as


politicians decide whether to make those limits even tougher. For


residents living in congested cities like Edinburgh, that means further


delay. The local council here says 97% of its streets actually pass at


quality tests and it is working on the rest. Assurances like that have


not persuaded campaigners, who argue that air pollution is now at the


heart of a major health crisis. I'm joined in our London


studio by Alan Andrews, who is an air quality lawyer for


the ClientEarth environmental group. ClientEarth was involved in a legal


case against the British government over air quality. There has been


talk of a legal case against the Scottish comment. I'm not clear


whether that is just an idea whether this is something you do intend to


do. ClientEarth fought a five-year legal battle against the UK


Government over illegal levels of air pollution, but the Scottish


Government, the Scottish ministers, are responsible for protecting


Scottish people from air pollution. They could find themselves in the


firing line in the future if other organisations like ClientEarth


decided to take action. For the moment, ClientEarth is very much


focused on the UK Government. We are pushing for a new air quality plan


which will tackle pollution from dirty diesel vehicles as soon as


possible. You have no present intention of taking a legal case


against the Scottish Government. Our present intention is to focus on the


UK Government, but that case will improve Scotland, the supreme court


order covered Glasgow because pollution in Glasgow is at illegal


levels and the plans to achieve legal limits were not adequate. The


UK and Scotland is very much in our sights. What is a government or


local authority supposed to do? They seem to be particular streets, Hope


Street in Glasgow, there are a lot of bosses. Tall buildings either


side. What are they supposed to do to ameliorate this? You mentioned


buses, the also taxis, vans, and diesel cars. We need to ban diesel


vehicles from the road unless they meet the new emission standards on


the roads. You can imagine a lot of people saying, "Hang on a minute,


are you saying we need to stop using buses? " No, we need to see cleaner


vehicles on the roads. We need to see a will emission buses on the


roads. That'll require a major investment. We need to see money


invested and given to local authorities so they can have the


tools in front of them to this problem. How significant a player


our cars that households use in this converged to buses and trucks Lewes


some local authorities have been accused of not doing roadside


emissions testing. It is now part of MOT for cars. We should now have to


do that. LOSS OF SOUND


Diesel cars -- diesel cars are a massive part of this. We do need to


take action against diesel cars. That is what we need to be looking


at. Parking rights schemes and major investment in public transport, so


people have a realistic alternative to driving the dirty diesel car into


the town centre, where we know it does much damage to humans. Does


this connects to the Volkswagen scandal? Because obviously we have


been told some whoppers about the actual emissions about nitrous oxide


from diesel cars. I'm not clear whether these hotspots, if you like,


of bad emissions across Britain, whether that has anything to do with


cars giving off more nitrous oxides than the manufacturers say they are


or whether there are just too many cars and buses on the roads. The


Volkswagen scandal is very relevant year. The levels on a mission


pollution, we are seeing in these hot spots from diesel cars and


buses, the Volkswagen scandal shoulders that diesel emissions are


far higher than the legal requirement. -- showed eyes. What we


need to see is action at the EU level to make sure that EU


regulations are fit for purpose and directly delivering real world


emission cuts and that they are not breathing in this for years to come


thank you. Well, joining me is the MEP


Alyn Smith, who's in our Hyde, Gordon. You are tightening up


nitrous oxides in Europe and how they are outlined in documents. Any


documents they have produced, they seem to be allowed to exceed the


limits that haven't been introduced yet. This is my letter that has been


called in as part of the scandal, I am also involved, not just laid a


legislator but also as a consumer. I am hopping mad about it. When I got


my car, I did look at diesel emission levels, and I was told that


they had improved and I was safe to buy one. We are actively misled as


consumers by industry. The proposal we had was not actually contingent


to the Volkswagen scandal, it actually started much earlier. We


need to tighten up emission scandals and we needed to tighten up how we


test. What was the result was a pretty toothless package. That is


why we responded and was restored by only a month, because they were


thought they were going to lose it. We have been on a systematic


industrial scale, misled by industry that we trusted on a long-term


basis. Just a nice proposed changes, you call them mealy-mouthed, an EU


rules, the car manufacturers will be allowed to exceed these levels, the


new maximum levels. By 110%. That is why I said it was not good enough of


it for purpose. What power of the European Parliament have, can you


just say no and that is it? Yes, we are the legislators. It is not law


unless they say it is long. What ClientEarth has been referring to is


how these emissions levels were achievable. We have seen a lot of


failure as to what we think we should be getting a new way of


emission testing in our atmosphere, and that is not adding up and


aligned with what industry has told us. We have seen a massive


discrepancy in that. What is even more significant is that it was


discovered by the Scottish, British, German, European authorities. It was


discovered by an American authorities. It is the US Federal


levels was not a different case about this. There will be huge


ramifications of this going forward. We have been actively misled by a


major, major industry. That is why we are having the abortion problem


that we are having. Is it your suspicion that this is scandal


Michael Fuller? -- pollution problems. Is your suspicion that


this goes wider than Volkswagen? It is so fundamental that this calls


into order all the numbers that we have approving. In 2004, I approved


the current emissions levels because we were led to believe that they


were achievable. We were allegedly decided by the industry who know


what better than the legislator do. It is the problem that we have been


less said by a great chunk of automotive companies. -- misled. The


European Parliament decided in November that we will be setting up


a enquiry. This will set up how we do the testing and measure the


standard. We have to move to a new testing regime, it is ridiculous


that we haven't. This is a huge global scandal. Again, just explain


to people have not been following this too closely, when you say real


world, that is different from last testing. You can do at testing and


it looks fine but when you taken out of the street, you get different


numbers. It is exactly that. It is down to the extent of which


computers actually run cars on their software. It is much less mechanical


and more about computers. These cars have a software that identifies when


a car is only rolling road. The thing that you have or MOT centre


will demonstrate it is on a rolling road. Otherwise, the cavalry


reacting as if the car was having some kind of scared. -- skid. That


changes the power output of the car to a more emissions efficient way of


doing it. It was woefully misleading. To convey a much bigger


issue, good and? I'm Tuesday and what you think of this. We in Europe


have gone for diesel cars in the way that consumers in America have not


done so to the same extent. If it turns out that these figures are


wrong, one of the reasons we went from diesel cars right across Europe


is because they were supposed to be fuel-efficient and the emissions


were supposed low. Good people industry, do you think, the change?


The whole industry has to change. It has to change full stop. I bought my


car on the basis that I thought it was safer in terms of emissions than


it is. A lot of people have been misled. Not least, in terms of tax.


But at the different tax regimes we have entered is a pedal buses


diesel. A lot of the market signals -- petrol versus diesel. Full a lot


of the figures have been different to what we were told. We have been


woefully misled. Emission standards away with them they have been. This


is not just a Scottish thing. I am sorry to bring you to a halt but we


have ran out of time. We will leave you to go stir woefully actual tax




Download Subtitles