:01:27. > :01:29.Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:
:01:30. > :01:34.on the fiscal framework is "within reach".
:01:35. > :01:44.So, with goodwill flowing, will this week bring agreement?
:01:45. > :01:48.And joining me as always, three journalists who've got more
:01:49. > :01:51.opinions than the campaign to leave the EU has splinter groups.
:01:52. > :01:54.Yes, it's Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.
:01:55. > :01:58.We'll see if they're still on speaking terms by the end
:01:59. > :02:04.Let's start today by talking about what the Government in England
:02:05. > :02:07.is or isn't going to do about a sugar tax.
:02:08. > :02:09.Health experts have been calling for one, to tackle
:02:10. > :02:13.is a crisis in child obesity - but so far ministers
:02:14. > :02:17.Well, this morning the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver said
:02:18. > :02:20.to "get ninja" to force the Government to act.
:02:21. > :02:22.Here's the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, responding
:02:23. > :02:24.on The Andrew Marr Show this morning.
:02:25. > :02:35.It has to be a game changing moment, a robust strategy.
:02:36. > :02:41.The issue here is, do what it takes to make sure
:02:42. > :02:43.that children consume less sugar, because we have got
:02:44. > :02:48.We are the most obese nation in the EU
:02:49. > :02:54.Well, we are going to be announcing in due course -
:02:55. > :02:58.David Cameron has said, if it isn't a sugar tax,
:02:59. > :03:00.it needs to be something that is equally robust.
:03:01. > :03:02.But he hasn't taken a sugar tax off the table.
:03:03. > :03:08.Will there be a sugar tax? His instinct is to say no, I do not want
:03:09. > :03:15.to run the nanny state that Jeremy Hunt says his one-year-old daughter,
:03:16. > :03:20.by the time she is an adult, one third of the population will be
:03:21. > :03:24.clinically obese and Public Health England shows if you introduce a
:03:25. > :03:28.sugar tax, you will reduce that some Jeremy Hunt is in favour but the
:03:29. > :03:34.Prime Minister is inching towards some decision, whether that is a
:03:35. > :03:45.sugar tax or not... Regional and devolved governments, Wales has been
:03:46. > :03:50.very keen on that. I feel I am at liberty to say this but Scotland
:03:51. > :03:57.also has greater tax-raising powers so he could get outflanked. Or wait
:03:58. > :04:04.and see how it does in Scotland and Wales and then decide to follow?
:04:05. > :04:09.Yes. I want to make the liberal case against this but that ship has
:04:10. > :04:19.sailed decades ago, we tax alcohol and tobacco and this is more like a
:04:20. > :04:24.revenue raiser because that isn't -- a justifiable cause, we have a
:04:25. > :04:31.population with a sweet tooth that you can hit the revenue. That is the
:04:32. > :04:37.reasoning to deal with rather than the more censorious reason of
:04:38. > :04:40.monitoring behaviour. And junior doctors, scheduled to be back on
:04:41. > :04:47.strike on Wednesday in England, which means that some of the talks
:04:48. > :04:52.so far have failed? There is bad feeling but as Andrew Marr was
:04:53. > :04:58.saying, the turnout on the vote was very high, and the 8%. The
:04:59. > :05:03.government is really struggling to shake this debate and it is
:05:04. > :05:07.interesting with that interview, Jeremy Hunt has said until now that
:05:08. > :05:11.the cost of the new contract would be revenue neutral, he now admits
:05:12. > :05:14.there would not only be a transitional cost but longer term
:05:15. > :05:20.and the government is really struggling on this. It is not affect
:05:21. > :05:24.emergency services this time. It was a big week for
:05:25. > :05:26.David Cameron's renegotiation He once promised a fundamental
:05:27. > :05:30.change in that relationship as a condition for backing
:05:31. > :05:33.the campaign to stay in. Well, there are changes -
:05:34. > :05:37.but perhaps not quite as fundamental And what he has achieved still needs
:05:38. > :05:42.to be agreed by EU leaders at a summit in a fortnight's
:05:43. > :05:44.time, where it could be But Mr Cameron says what he's
:05:45. > :05:50.achieved is so significant that if Britain was not an EU member,
:05:51. > :05:54.this would make him want to join. Here he is speaking
:05:55. > :05:59.earlier in the week. I can say, hand on heart,
:06:00. > :06:02.I've delivered the commitments that I made in my manifesto,
:06:03. > :06:04.and I think the whole country knows that if you, for instance,
:06:05. > :06:06.pay people ?5,000, ?10,000 additional to their wages,
:06:07. > :06:10.then that is a draw to Britain, and that's one of
:06:11. > :06:11.the reasons why we've seen such high levels
:06:12. > :06:16.of migration and movement. So David Cameron says it lives up
:06:17. > :06:18.to everything that was promised in the Conservative
:06:19. > :06:20.election manifesto. I'm joined by former Cabinet
:06:21. > :06:31.minister Eric Pickles. Welcome back. You said this week the
:06:32. > :06:32.Prime Minister has kept to the letter and spirit of his manifesto
:06:33. > :06:37.promise. Let us look letter and spirit of his manifesto
:06:38. > :06:42.promise. The manifesto said we will insist that EU migrants who want to
:06:43. > :06:48.claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to the
:06:49. > :06:52.economy for a minimum of four years. The emergency rig on tax credits
:06:53. > :06:52.does not achieve The emergency rig on tax credits
:06:53. > :07:03.must bear in mind the things we can The emergency rig on tax credits
:07:04. > :07:04.do through domestic law, a job-seeker from Europe
:07:05. > :07:06.do through domestic law, a find a job within six
:07:07. > :07:12.do through domestic law, a are obliged to leave and that has
:07:13. > :07:19.been achieved through domestic law. The manifesto promised no in work
:07:20. > :07:26.benefits until The manifesto promised no in work
:07:27. > :07:30.for four years. The reality is graduated, they rise, and after four
:07:31. > :07:39.years you get the full benefit? That is not unreasonable. After four
:07:40. > :07:42.years to get full benefit but we know that the criteria for putting
:07:43. > :07:47.on the brake for four years has already been passed and the largest
:07:48. > :07:51.political party in the EU agrees that has happened and we should have
:07:52. > :07:56.this in place after the next referendum. It will have to be
:07:57. > :08:04.approved by the European Parliament and the other 27 members and what
:08:05. > :08:11.constitution, emergency, the cost to migrants is five billion pounds
:08:12. > :08:17.every year, we are 1.6 5 trillion economy, public spending is 750
:08:18. > :08:27.billion pounds. Why is ?500 million and emergency, only 1.6% of the
:08:28. > :08:31.bill? My earlier answer was, we already know the political leader of
:08:32. > :08:39.the largest political party in the Parliament of Europe has said it is
:08:40. > :08:44.the fact that we have arrived at those conditions and an emergency
:08:45. > :08:51.brake will be placed. What emergency? It is an emergency in the
:08:52. > :08:59.views of the European partners, they have accrued -- agreed to this
:09:00. > :09:02.emergency brake but in terms have the mechanism of Britain future for
:09:03. > :09:07.other countries, that will be decided over the next two weeks but
:09:08. > :09:15.what we do know as far as the UK is concerned, we will get that
:09:16. > :09:21.emergency brake. If a migrant Eilidh Child lives abroad, they should
:09:22. > :09:25.receive no child tax credit or benefit, no matter how long they
:09:26. > :09:31.have worked in the UK or how much tax they have paid. There it is. The
:09:32. > :09:37.sentiment does not deliver on that either? What it does deliver is
:09:38. > :09:42.harmonisation of benefits so the level of benefits will be exactly
:09:43. > :09:51.the same as it would be in their own country. You are going to have 28
:09:52. > :09:56.different levels of child benefit! In many cases it can be as much as
:09:57. > :10:01.the quarter. And in some cases, more? Not many people to pay the
:10:02. > :10:09.same level that we don't but the point I was making is that in Poland
:10:10. > :10:15.it is a quarter of the level as it is here. You promised no child
:10:16. > :10:21.benefit for migrants and you're delivering index linked child
:10:22. > :10:26.benefit for migrants? It is a big improvement on the current
:10:27. > :10:31.situation. When you go into negotiation, but do precisely that
:10:32. > :10:36.and I think it is within the spirit of what we said. The manifesto said
:10:37. > :10:43.that you will control migration from the European Union by reforming
:10:44. > :10:48.welfare rolls and Mr Cameron at one stage said that reducing immigration
:10:49. > :10:53.from the European Union would be at the heart of this. Can you give us
:10:54. > :11:00.an idea of how much these changes will reduce European Union
:11:01. > :11:04.migration? I am not part of the negotiating team so all I can go
:11:05. > :11:11.wrong is what I have seen in newspapers and given that we know
:11:12. > :11:16.that in work benefits, 40% of new arrivals are supported by that and
:11:17. > :11:23.given that the average is ?6,000 in addition and can be as much as
:11:24. > :11:26.?10,000, it will have an effect. You said 40% but that is not the figure,
:11:27. > :11:31.we know from the Freedom of Information release that if there
:11:32. > :11:36.had been any emergency brake in the last four years it would have
:11:37. > :11:44.affected 84,000 families. That is it, not 40%. I said that 40% of the
:11:45. > :11:50.new immigrants that, in, new migrants, claiming in work benefit,
:11:51. > :12:00.you are comparing apples and pears? I am not. 80,000 families is nowhere
:12:01. > :12:06.near 40%. Last year, 180,000 net migration from the EU. Do you have
:12:07. > :12:12.any idea by how much the figure will be reduced as a result of the
:12:13. > :12:16.settlement? Were not trying to prevent people living inside the
:12:17. > :12:23.European Union, we are trying to stop people coming for something for
:12:24. > :12:27.nothing, to claim from our innovative system and secondly, to
:12:28. > :12:32.ensure there is an equalisation inside the market of people coming
:12:33. > :12:38.here just because of our in work benefits. Since this will apply only
:12:39. > :12:42.to new migrants and not those that are already here, is unlikely to be
:12:43. > :12:48.a rush to come in before these restrictions in? And the figure
:12:49. > :12:55.could rise? As part of the negotiations we have to ensure that
:12:56. > :13:00.doesn't happen. We would have two ask as part of the negotiation... To
:13:01. > :13:08.ensure that there isn't this new influx. In the manifesto you also
:13:09. > :13:13.said that we want national partners to be able to work together to block
:13:14. > :13:18.unwanted European legislation. In the Lisbon Treaty there is an orange
:13:19. > :13:26.card system that does that and we have the red card with Mr Cameron,
:13:27. > :13:30.is this an improvement? The Orange card has been used twice. That was
:13:31. > :13:38.yellow, orange has never been used. I beg your pardon. It is confusing!
:13:39. > :13:47.How many different cards? Three, yellow and orange and this red card.
:13:48. > :13:52.In what way would the red card be any improvement on the existing
:13:53. > :13:58.Orange card, which means 51% of national parliaments can make the
:13:59. > :14:03.commission rethink? We can move much quicker in terms of trying to knock
:14:04. > :14:09.out any deal between European Parliaments and secondly, national
:14:10. > :14:15.parliaments are becoming much more assertive in terms of their session
:14:16. > :14:21.and that is a massively important step in the re-establishment in the
:14:22. > :14:25.importance of national parliaments. It is not just our Parliament, we
:14:26. > :14:30.would need to get 56% of national parliaments, at least 15 others, and
:14:31. > :14:36.in many cases we would only have 12 weeks to ask them to vote against
:14:37. > :14:42.the policy of their own national government. That is not credible? Of
:14:43. > :14:47.course it is. I think this is a very important step on the way of
:14:48. > :14:53.ensuring national parliaments are much more assertive and don't
:14:54. > :14:55.forget, read this in line of stopping them moving towards ever
:14:56. > :15:02.closer union and protecting sterling. Let us look at that. It
:15:03. > :15:07.was meant to be one of the big wins for the Prime Minister, Donald Tusk,
:15:08. > :15:13.the President of the Council, says we have always had that, it need not
:15:14. > :15:14.mean integration for Britain, the settlement confirms only the status
:15:15. > :15:22.quo. It is very interesting for him to
:15:23. > :15:27.say that but on every programme that I've ever been on, it has been this
:15:28. > :15:31.drift towards ever closer union, political union, that has been
:15:32. > :15:34.important. If it means we have now re-established that it is about give
:15:35. > :15:44.and take and cooperation, that is a great thing. Given how little the
:15:45. > :15:48.prime and this has achieved -- the Prime Minister has achieved, would
:15:49. > :15:50.his position not be undermined, or become untenable, if this draft
:15:51. > :15:57.settlement was further undermined before being finally agreed? I'm
:15:58. > :16:00.very confident, given that this Prime Minister is the only Prime
:16:01. > :16:04.Minister ever to take powers back from Europe, that it will be
:16:05. > :16:09.successful. But could you stomach of further watering down? It would
:16:10. > :16:13.depend what the overall position is but my position comes not from any
:16:14. > :16:19.enthusiasm for Europe. It's just a lack of any decent ideas that we
:16:20. > :16:22.would be better off outside. To come back to this business of the
:16:23. > :16:25.European Parliament, there are number of areas in which the
:16:26. > :16:30.European Parliament has to approve this settlement, including the work
:16:31. > :16:34.benefits, child benefit element, perhaps even the red card. What
:16:35. > :16:38.guarantees can you give, because the European Parliament won't to do
:16:39. > :16:44.this, if it does it at all, until after the referendum... So how can
:16:45. > :16:47.you guarantee that we will vote to stay in and the European Parliament
:16:48. > :16:50.will not pass the legislation? We've had indications from the European
:16:51. > :16:57.Parliament that they will do precisely that. What I would hope...
:16:58. > :17:03.Where? Just a second. The leader of the largest party has said that. I
:17:04. > :17:09.think what we would want to see over the next couple of weeks are more
:17:10. > :17:15.codification in terms of how this would come to operate, not just for
:17:16. > :17:18.us but for other parties. But if the European Parliament doesn't pass
:17:19. > :17:23.this, it is not legally binding. The Prime Minister has told us that. It
:17:24. > :17:25.can only be eagerly binding under the existing treaties with
:17:26. > :17:30.legislation through the European Parliament. You are asking the
:17:31. > :17:33.British people to vote blind, to vote yes, without really knowing
:17:34. > :17:38.what the European Parliament might do down the road in the autumn at
:17:39. > :17:45.the end of the year. I'm very confident that will be the case. --
:17:46. > :17:49.won't be the case. It will be an appalling abuse of trust and would
:17:50. > :17:54.undermine the European Union, were it not to do so. But sooner or
:17:55. > :17:57.later, we are going to have to go on to discuss, what would the
:17:58. > :18:01.consequences be thus leaving? Because that would not be a
:18:02. > :18:05.pain-free experience. I really want the guarantees for those that want
:18:06. > :18:09.us to leave to say that my constituents and my constituents'
:18:10. > :18:13.children will be materially better off by leaving. Not just the same
:18:14. > :18:15.but better off by leaving. Eric Pickles, thanks for being with us
:18:16. > :18:18.this morning. Thank you. In recent weeks we've been debating
:18:19. > :18:21.some of the big issues at the heart We've covered immigration
:18:22. > :18:24.and the economy. Today we're going to look
:18:25. > :18:26.at Britain's sovereignty within the European Union and ask,
:18:27. > :18:29.is the EU a democratic club There are about 500 million people
:18:30. > :18:32.across the 28 member states Voters from these countries go
:18:33. > :18:36.to the polls every five years to elect 751 members
:18:37. > :18:38.of the European Parliament. The UK currently has
:18:39. > :18:42.73 MEPs, who have some say over the EU budget
:18:43. > :18:46.and new legislation. But it's the unelected Commission,
:18:47. > :18:49.led by President Jean-Claude Juncker, that is responsible
:18:50. > :18:53.for day-to-day management, plus proposing and
:18:54. > :18:57.implementing new laws. Later this month, David Cameron
:18:58. > :18:59.will attend a crucial meeting of the European Council
:19:00. > :19:02.to press for his draft settlement, the outcome of his
:19:03. > :19:07.efforts to renegotiate our terms The Council is made up of the 28
:19:08. > :19:13.heads of state or government of EU members and decides
:19:14. > :19:16.the Union's overall political But it's not to be confused with
:19:17. > :19:22.the Council of the European Union, where ministers from each
:19:23. > :19:25.country meet to discuss, There's always been
:19:26. > :19:30.concern about a so-called democratic deficit and at the last
:19:31. > :19:34.elections in 2014, turnout In the UK, where few people can
:19:35. > :19:41.even name a local MEP, I'm joined now by former Respect
:19:42. > :19:51.MP George Galloway - he's said this week he'll campaign
:19:52. > :19:54.for Britain to leave the EU - and by the Labour MP
:19:55. > :20:02.Stephen Kinnock, who wants Stephen Kinnock, let me come to you
:20:03. > :20:09.first. Turnout at the last election was under 36%. Only 11% can name
:20:10. > :20:12.their MEP. Richie Gray the EU has a massive democratic deficit and the
:20:13. > :20:16.Cameron settlement does nothing to address it, does it? On the
:20:17. > :20:22.democratic deficit, of course it would be good if more people voted
:20:23. > :20:24.in democratic elections but let's not forget there is another
:20:25. > :20:27.democratically elected institution in Brussels and that's the council
:20:28. > :20:31.of the vistas and the European council. They are ministers. Our
:20:32. > :20:35.Prime Minister, directly elected by the British people, going to
:20:36. > :20:39.Brussels to exert influence for Britain. The democratic deficit
:20:40. > :20:42.sometimes gets tied up with the European Parliament. That's an
:20:43. > :20:46.element of it but the council is a major part. On the renegotiation, I
:20:47. > :20:51.think the really important point is that this referendum is not about
:20:52. > :20:55.David Cameron's renegotiation. This referendum is about the future of
:20:56. > :21:01.the United Kingdom as a trading nation, as a proud nation in terms
:21:02. > :21:04.of a diplomatic big player and where we are actually going in terms of
:21:05. > :21:10.the long-term future of the country. It's not about the precise details
:21:11. > :21:14.of David Cameron's renegotiation. Mr Cameron think that is important.
:21:15. > :21:18.George Galloway, you said you believe in a union of the peoples of
:21:19. > :21:22.Europe but surely the only realistic way to achieve that is to work for a
:21:23. > :21:33.reformed EU. Anything else is just rhetoric. No, because I think it is
:21:34. > :21:36.in the Brits of the EU. You pointed to the visibility of the European
:21:37. > :21:39.Parliament, its credibility and standing but you didn't add that the
:21:40. > :21:42.European Parliament itself, even if AT the centre people were turning
:21:43. > :21:48.out to vote for it, has almost no power. The power lies in this
:21:49. > :21:53.council of ministers and in a bureaucracy well entrenched, very
:21:54. > :21:58.lavishly funded, which has meant of its own. I could answer your
:21:59. > :22:06.question in two words - Catherine Ashton. Never heard of her? No. Ever
:22:07. > :22:08.elected to? No. She was the European Foreign Minister, dictating to other
:22:09. > :22:14.countries outside the world with no democratic mandate of any kind. I
:22:15. > :22:19.think we have to be more sensible about the way we talk about these
:22:20. > :22:22.things. There is a process of co-decision which is enshrined in
:22:23. > :22:26.the treaties of the European Union. The vast majority of the legislation
:22:27. > :22:30.which goes through has to be agreed by both the European Parliament and
:22:31. > :22:32.by the European council on the basis of proposals from the European
:22:33. > :22:40.Commission. Not necessarily all the council. Politics is the art of the
:22:41. > :22:43.possible and when you are part of a system of pooled sovereignty is,
:22:44. > :22:46.when we come together as nation states because we believe our
:22:47. > :22:50.sovereignty is actually strengthened through cooperation, of course you
:22:51. > :22:54.have to make compromises. You don't win absolutely 100% of everything
:22:55. > :22:57.that you go for but actually, I believe that through corporation and
:22:58. > :23:01.pulling our sovereignty our sovereignty is strengthened. There
:23:02. > :23:04.has been a lot of talk by the Prime Minister about asserting the
:23:05. > :23:09.sovereignty of Parliament. It seems to be one of the carrots to attract
:23:10. > :23:13.Mr Boris Johnson to come onside. But surely you have to accept that in
:23:14. > :23:16.many areas, the EU and the European Court of Justice, they are sovereign
:23:17. > :23:21.and Parliament has to recognise that sovereignty or we have to leave. I
:23:22. > :23:26.think that we have to also look at the likes of Google or the big
:23:27. > :23:31.multinational companies. They don't recognise the concept of
:23:32. > :23:36.sovereignty. For people on the left, such as George and myself, the key
:23:37. > :23:39.point of the European Union is, it's a transnational body that regulating
:23:40. > :23:44.transnational business. Not very well. It is not regulating them very
:23:45. > :23:49.well. Much better than we could do them alone. I don't think so. The
:23:50. > :23:55.bottom line is... And this is to be, on the left. Mr Kinnock senior and I
:23:56. > :24:01.shared many platforms on this, as well as the late Mr Benn, the late
:24:02. > :24:07.Mr foot. This was commonplace on the left. We don't want to be dictated
:24:08. > :24:13.to by other countries. We want our people to choose our government and
:24:14. > :24:17.thus our direction. And I'd rather take my chance with changing things
:24:18. > :24:23.in Britain than waiting for a change in Bulgaria or in Poland. But you
:24:24. > :24:29.are nationalists and doesn't but inevitably involve some kind of
:24:30. > :24:33.pooling sovereignty? The whole basis of the European Union... As we
:24:34. > :24:38.always said from 1975 onwards, on the left, the European Community,
:24:39. > :24:43.now the EU, is actually built on neoliberal economic principles,
:24:44. > :24:49.which are ironclad and unchangeable. However people want to vote. Are you
:24:50. > :24:52.comfortable with the manner in which Greece's sovereignty was overturned
:24:53. > :24:58.by the European institutions and above all by companies -- countries
:24:59. > :25:03.like Germany? We live in a highly globalised, interdependent world and
:25:04. > :25:06.the idea that the UK alone can exert influence and regulate the big
:25:07. > :25:10.multinationals on its own is absurd. The other key point on Greece is,
:25:11. > :25:14.how would we help the people of Greece by leaving the EU? Our
:25:15. > :25:18.principles are about solidarity, a key value on which European Union is
:25:19. > :25:23.founded, which is a value of the left. What was the solidarity that
:25:24. > :25:27.the EU showed Greece? I think what we need is a Labour Prime Minister
:25:28. > :25:33.in Brussels arguing against the politics of austerity. We are not
:25:34. > :25:41.part of the eurozone. This was a eurozone argument. We can still
:25:42. > :25:44.exert our influence. What many would think is your natural allies on the
:25:45. > :25:49.European left, so reads the increase, and a party in Spain, want
:25:50. > :25:54.to stay in the EU. Why are you right and your comrades wrong? The people
:25:55. > :25:59.of Greece were crushed underfoot by this neoliberal consensus on which
:26:00. > :26:04.the EU and administrations are built. Portugal actually had an
:26:05. > :26:10.election and elected a majority of left-wing MPs and we're told by the
:26:11. > :26:12.European Union, the president of Portugal was told, you mustn't
:26:13. > :26:16.summon these people to your palace to allow them to form a government.
:26:17. > :26:20.This is unconscionable. It's not because I love the people of Greece,
:26:21. > :26:26.though I do, or the people of Spain. I don't want us to face the same
:26:27. > :26:30.fate as them. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonell's economic policies, which
:26:31. > :26:35.I believe in and which are badly needed, are illegal under the EU. If
:26:36. > :26:39.we were to save our steel industry, for example, we would be acting out
:26:40. > :26:43.with the European Union's legal framework. You've been closely
:26:44. > :26:49.involved in the steel industry. What do you say to that? I fail to see
:26:50. > :26:52.how our principles of solidarity and reaching out to our brothers and
:26:53. > :26:55.sisters in other parts of the year are helped by the idea that we
:26:56. > :26:58.suddenly leave. But to me seems to be going against the founding value
:26:59. > :27:03.of the Labour Party, which is solidarity. On steel, this is a
:27:04. > :27:06.classic example but it is up to your member state government to play the
:27:07. > :27:10.game properly. Unfortunately, we have a government that has been
:27:11. > :27:13.asleep at the wheel on steel for four or five years. An energy
:27:14. > :27:16.compensation package should have been put in place years ago. The
:27:17. > :27:21.government has done nothing about it. The massive flooding of Chinese
:27:22. > :27:24.steel into the British market has only been happening over the last
:27:25. > :27:28.four years. That could only be done by Europe, not Britain. It took them
:27:29. > :27:31.for years to get the stated clearance because nobody was
:27:32. > :27:35.knocking on the door properly in Brussels and because we are cosying
:27:36. > :27:40.up to Beijing. Cameron and Osborne seem to be putting the interests of
:27:41. > :27:43.our relationship with China ahead of British industry. We are allowing
:27:44. > :27:48.them to damp massive amounts of Chinese steel in the market. The
:27:49. > :27:49.European Court of Justice is preventing us from deporting
:27:50. > :27:54.Moroccan citizen, the daughter-in-law of Abu Hamza, Abu
:27:55. > :27:59.Hamza himself convicted of 11 terrorist offences. She has done
:28:00. > :28:03.time, too, for a terrorist elated offence. We still can't deport her.
:28:04. > :28:07.That is a pretty serious intrusion of our sovereignty. I don't know the
:28:08. > :28:11.details of that case but I do know we live in a very interdependent
:28:12. > :28:14.world... You said that. What people want to know is if we can deport
:28:15. > :28:18.foreign citizens who have terrorist criminal convictions. We did manage
:28:19. > :28:23.to do it with Abu Hamza, so there are ways. The EU is a rules -based
:28:24. > :28:28.organisation. It sets the rules of the game. It's up to the member
:28:29. > :28:31.states to play that game properly. Unfortunately, we have a government
:28:32. > :28:35.that has failed to build alliances and coalitions in Brussels. That's
:28:36. > :28:40.one of the reasons we have a difficult relationship with the EU
:28:41. > :28:44.now. When you look at this leave site and the various factions of the
:28:45. > :28:51.time they seem to be spending more time knocking lumps out of each
:28:52. > :28:54.other, does that make you happy you joined? I campaigned against
:28:55. > :28:57.breaking up Britain and for a no vote in the Scottish referendum.
:28:58. > :29:02.That didn't mean I was with the Tories, didn't mean I was with the
:29:03. > :29:10.Orange order. So are you solo again? There used to be a commonplace view
:29:11. > :29:14.from the 1970s, and still standing now, for a democratic future for
:29:15. > :29:18.Britain. We decide how many immigrants we have, who we deport,
:29:19. > :29:21.what our levels of taxation are and what our foreign policy should be.
:29:22. > :29:23.We will leave it there. Thank you both.
:29:24. > :29:26.Labour says it faces losing more than a quarter of its funding,
:29:27. > :29:29.thanks to Government plans to change the way the party gets money
:29:30. > :29:31.from trade union members, along with moves to cut state
:29:32. > :29:35.In a rare TV outing, the party's general secretary
:29:36. > :29:37.Iain McNicol has told us just how damaging the changes could be.
:29:38. > :30:21.In an in and is this have raised cash in the past. I started my
:30:22. > :30:25.constituency in Bradford raising ?1000, and other constituencies
:30:26. > :30:32.asked me to do the same thing. We have raised ?100,000. It is just as
:30:33. > :30:38.well, because the Labour Party could be about to lose ?8 million of
:30:39. > :30:38.funding if government plans to change the
:30:39. > :30:42.funding if government plans to from trade union members goes
:30:43. > :30:49.through. And they say it is no laughing matter. It is an affront on
:30:50. > :30:51.British democracy. If you look at any previous agreement which
:30:52. > :30:53.British democracy. If you look at the funding of a
:30:54. > :30:57.British democracy. If you look at was done on a consensual cross-party
:30:58. > :31:02.basis, and agreement because of the effect it had. Is this an
:31:03. > :31:05.existential threat to the Labour Party? It would be very difficult
:31:06. > :31:15.for the party. Around 30% Party? It would be very difficult
:31:16. > :31:18.our funding would mean we would not be able to operate in the current
:31:19. > :31:21.way that we do, holding the government to account
:31:22. > :31:26.way that we do, holding the Majesty's opposition. It is unfair
:31:27. > :31:31.and unjust. The cash goes towards staffing, reportedly around half its
:31:32. > :31:37.costs, and campaigning. Things like party election broadcasts, battle
:31:38. > :31:42.buses, and headstones. At the moment trade union members have to actively
:31:43. > :31:48.opt out. In the future they would have to opt in, in writing, within
:31:49. > :31:51.three months. Something Labour fear people will not get round to doing.
:31:52. > :31:58.It also coincides with the 19% cat to so-called short money, cash given
:31:59. > :32:01.to all parties to help with costs of Parliamentary business, a sort of
:32:02. > :32:05.concession for not having the civil service like the government does.
:32:06. > :32:09.But the man who used to be in charge of the civil service says the
:32:10. > :32:15.Government's plans are at best partisan. It goes to this wider
:32:16. > :32:18.question of what I would see as a worryingly authoritarian streak in
:32:19. > :32:23.government that finds it difficult to live with and accept challenge.
:32:24. > :32:26.And that is something the people of all parties, I'm a crossbencher, not
:32:27. > :32:33.in any party, but I think whichever party you are in you should be
:32:34. > :32:36.concerned about this. There is nothing authoritarian about having
:32:37. > :32:42.something like in our manifesto, voted for in a majority government
:32:43. > :32:47.and delivered on. If you are a Labour Party support the and you are
:32:48. > :32:51.a member of the trade union, you actively choose to do it rather than
:32:52. > :32:54.having it forced upon you. The Labour Party needs to get out and
:32:55. > :32:58.convince members it is a good use of its money to give that money to the
:32:59. > :33:00.Labour Party, just as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats
:33:01. > :33:07.have to convince people to give money directly. We do not rely on
:33:08. > :33:12.people accidentally giving us money. Back in Kentish Town, organisers say
:33:13. > :33:19.a night like this is about raising awareness and morale as much as
:33:20. > :33:21.raising cash. Jeremy Corbyn's leadership campaign relied on
:33:22. > :33:26.grassroots support, and as funding dries up it could well need to rely
:33:27. > :33:29.on people like this, people willing to come to a night about Jeremy
:33:30. > :33:41.Corbyn that he himself is not even at. In fact, generally, may prefer
:33:42. > :33:43.appealing to people like this rather than big donors, and number of whom
:33:44. > :33:51.have already abandoned the party anyway. But fundraising and only 3%
:33:52. > :33:55.of the income last year, and the spotlight, following her liver pays
:33:56. > :34:00.its way in the future. We now say goodbye to viewers in Scotland to
:34:01. > :34:03.Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.
:34:04. > :34:08.Talks on the fiscal framework resume tomorrow.
:34:09. > :34:10.The Scottish Secretary says "both sides have done the dance,
:34:11. > :34:17.And Labour puts its new candidates for the regional lists on show,
:34:18. > :34:28.Looks like we're not going to get a deal before Valentine's Day
:34:29. > :34:30.on the fiscal framework that'll sort out the flow of finance
:34:31. > :34:32.between the Westminster and Scottish governments.
:34:33. > :34:35.It's not clear if there's a mountain or a molehill in the way.
:34:36. > :34:37.The Chief Secretary to the Treasury Greg Hands
:34:38. > :34:41.is in Edinburgh tomorrow for more talks with John Swinney,
:34:42. > :34:46.If you're not a policy wonk the negotiations might seem highly
:34:47. > :34:51.But there's been a warning that if they produce the wrong result
:34:52. > :34:53.they could cost the Scottish Government billions of pounds.
:34:54. > :34:55.We'll hear from both sides in a moment.
:34:56. > :35:11.Spiderman. The Reverend John Cumming of Aberdeenshire. Today is Victory
:35:12. > :35:15.in Europe Day. And Winston Churchill all said it, or something like it.
:35:16. > :35:21.With great power comes great responsibility. Holyrood is soon to
:35:22. > :35:26.get the power to collect around ?5 billion in income tax, newly ?3
:35:27. > :35:28.billion in rates, as well as billions in council tax, meaning
:35:29. > :35:33.that the block grant from Westminster will go down, but by how
:35:34. > :35:38.much? And in case you were wondering, this really matters. The
:35:39. > :35:42.fiscal framework in some respects is about very technical things, about
:35:43. > :35:47.how to adjust budgets, but these have fundamental consequences for
:35:48. > :35:51.the amount of money that a future Scottish Government will have at its
:35:52. > :35:55.disposal, the amount of taxes that the population will be expected to
:35:56. > :36:02.contribute, about the level of services that they can expect to be
:36:03. > :36:06.provided. It has fundamental implications for the everyday things
:36:07. > :36:11.that we expect a government to be able to deliver. Crucial to
:36:12. > :36:15.negotiations, the no detriment rule, that is the promise that whatever
:36:16. > :36:20.system is agreed it will not put Scotland at a disadvantage. The no
:36:21. > :36:23.detriment principle can be modelled by economists in a number of
:36:24. > :36:27.different ways, and there are billions of pounds at stake here in
:36:28. > :36:33.terms of which model of the no detriment principle you prefer. It
:36:34. > :36:39.was always going to be complex and difficult, but the complexity is
:36:40. > :36:42.compounded by our political commitment to abide by the Barnett
:36:43. > :36:47.formula for the duration of the current UK Parliament, until 2020,
:36:48. > :36:50.squaring the Barnett formula with the no detriment principle and the
:36:51. > :36:53.various commitments given by both governments in the Smith Commission
:36:54. > :37:00.agreement and everything else is difficult and takes time. As
:37:01. > :37:03.University of Basel alumnus Adam Smith looks on, a short seminar on
:37:04. > :37:07.the rival systems that have been suggested for making this work. The
:37:08. > :37:13.three options are per capita index deduction which eyes have supported,
:37:14. > :37:19.which insulates Scotland against demographic risk, then this simple
:37:20. > :37:23.index deduction method which simply looks at our attacks take relative
:37:24. > :37:26.to the UK, and then there is the levels deduction method which
:37:27. > :37:31.potentially actually is trying to do it Barnett on taxation which
:37:32. > :37:37.actually erodes the Barnett formula even more. These are the three
:37:38. > :37:41.methods, but per capita is the one that works best in terms of a fair
:37:42. > :37:43.deal on both sides. And that is because you see the Scottish
:37:44. > :37:49.population has distinct challenges that are different from the UK as a
:37:50. > :37:52.whole, or England in particular. Our population will grow slower than the
:37:53. > :37:55.rest of the UK because we do not have the powers to control that,
:37:56. > :38:00.would not have a revision policy in our control. But the no detriment
:38:01. > :38:04.principle cuts both ways, so the deal has to be fair to the taxpayers
:38:05. > :38:08.and the rest of the UK as well. The Scottish Parliament has a tax policy
:38:09. > :38:13.that generate additional income for Scotland, that is for Scotland, but
:38:14. > :38:15.likewise if it generates or has a policy which generates less income
:38:16. > :38:19.and why should taxpayers in the rest of the United Kingdom expected to be
:38:20. > :38:24.allowed Scotland? With the increased powers that we see in the Smith
:38:25. > :38:26.Commission agreement and the Scotland Bill come increased
:38:27. > :38:30.responsibilities, and that is what the haggling is about. But for now
:38:31. > :38:32.it seems like we might need someone with superpowers to get a deal done.
:38:33. > :38:34.A short while ago I spoke to the Secretary of State
:38:35. > :38:37.for Scotland David Mundell who came into our Edinburgh studio
:38:38. > :38:40.and I began by asking him what was "ludicrous"
:38:41. > :38:44.about the Scottish Government's demands.
:38:45. > :38:53.What I meant was that when we get a fiscal framework, and I am quite
:38:54. > :38:57.confident that we will, it needs to be fair to people in Scotland than
:38:58. > :39:02.30 people in the rest of the United Kingdom. And what that means is that
:39:03. > :39:06.the Scottish Government as their part of the deal have to take the
:39:07. > :39:10.risks that come with new responsibilities, but also if they
:39:11. > :39:15.are able to grow the Scottish tax base they also get to keep that
:39:16. > :39:19.money. So it is a balance of risk and responsibility, but it is not
:39:20. > :39:24.just keeping the Barnett formula, keeping any additional revenue
:39:25. > :39:29.raised in Scotland, having risk underwritten and maybe even getting
:39:30. > :39:39.tax funding from the rest of the UK as well. That is the parameters of
:39:40. > :39:43.our position. In your view, in what way was what John Swinney is arguing
:39:44. > :39:47.for a ludicrous? What is he demanding that you find so
:39:48. > :39:53.ludicrous? What John has said in the past is that he accepts that the
:39:54. > :39:58.deal has to reflect the Scottish Government taking on risk for policy
:39:59. > :40:01.choices, so that if they make good policy choices and raise additional
:40:02. > :40:06.revenue they keep that revenue, but if they make a policy choices and
:40:07. > :40:10.the revenue is less than anticipated then they have to bear the
:40:11. > :40:13.consequences of that. And that is basically at the core of the
:40:14. > :40:19.arrangement that I think we need to reach. And that we are capable of
:40:20. > :40:23.reaching. We are at the position now, both sides have done the dance,
:40:24. > :40:28.now we need to do the deal. Are you saying that the Scottish Government
:40:29. > :40:32.is demanding a system which would mean that Scotland would not have to
:40:33. > :40:39.bear responsibility for its own decisions? I think that some of the
:40:40. > :40:44.public comment has suggested that the Scottish Government did not want
:40:45. > :40:50.to take on the risk associated with their own policy choices. I think
:40:51. > :40:55.that that was a clear part of what the Smith Commission wanted to see
:40:56. > :40:58.in this arrangement, that you benefited from good policy choices
:40:59. > :41:04.but you had to take the consequences of poor policy choices. We have
:41:05. > :41:07.looked at it from a UK Government position, we have looked at the
:41:08. > :41:09.issues and concerns that the Scottish Government have raised,
:41:10. > :41:15.they have raised some legitimate issues that are legitimate issues
:41:16. > :41:20.about population growth in Scotland, issues around the ageing population
:41:21. > :41:25.and we have, and we are quite willing to look at accommodating
:41:26. > :41:28.those within these discussions. But the Scottish Government will also
:41:29. > :41:34.have significant levers to grow the population of Scotland if they get
:41:35. > :41:39.the policy choices right. If they make Scotland an attractive place to
:41:40. > :41:43.come to the tax regime, if they make it attractive to businesses. It is a
:41:44. > :41:47.balance. There are institutional issues in relation to population
:41:48. > :41:50.growth, but there are also issues that they can influence, and they
:41:51. > :41:57.need to do that with proper policy choices. But again, I just want to
:41:58. > :42:00.be clear, because the problem with this whole negotiation is that
:42:01. > :42:06.partly it is being done in secret and partly that even if it was not
:42:07. > :42:12.his fantastically complicated. The argument that John Swinney seems to
:42:13. > :42:16.be putting forward is basically that the deduction from Scotland's grant
:42:17. > :42:22.to compensate for the fact that Scotland is raising its own taxes
:42:23. > :42:27.should be based on a per capita share rather than a straightforward
:42:28. > :42:32.percentage share. Using that the new proposals would you have put on the
:42:33. > :42:37.table accent that? The point about the per capita share is that it
:42:38. > :42:40.would shield Scotland from the publishing growing slower than in
:42:41. > :42:45.England. Using you have changed your proposals to compensate for that to
:42:46. > :42:49.some extent? I am saying that we want to reach an agreement. We are
:42:50. > :42:54.taking forward issues that the Scottish Government have raised in
:42:55. > :42:59.relation to population, but it comes back to the point... But what is new
:43:00. > :43:02.about what you are proposing? You have said this week there is a new
:43:03. > :43:08.proposal on the table. What is new about it? We're not going to do the
:43:09. > :43:14.negotiations on this programme. There is a meeting tomorrow with
:43:15. > :43:21.John Swinney and the Treasury. I am asking you to tell me what is new.
:43:22. > :43:26.We have moved, we are looking to move to ensure we can take on board
:43:27. > :43:31.issues that have been raised about population growth, but getting that
:43:32. > :43:33.balance, taking account of Scotland's ageing population on one
:43:34. > :43:36.hand but on the other hand the Scottish Government and accepting
:43:37. > :43:40.that they have the capacity with these new powers to grow the
:43:41. > :43:46.population. They can make Scotland an attractive place to come to with
:43:47. > :43:51.the tax regime, the regime for business, and I am sometimes quite
:43:52. > :43:56.surprised how pessimistic the SNP seem about their ability to use
:43:57. > :44:00.these new powers in a positive way. These are really significant powers
:44:01. > :44:04.that can change Scotland's economy and the need to use them to do so.
:44:05. > :44:08.They would say Scotland has no control over immigration policy, and
:44:09. > :44:11.immigration is the most likely way to get the population to increase.
:44:12. > :44:18.So if you have a system whereby Scotland loses out if its population
:44:19. > :44:22.grows at a slower rate, that is not... May be at the margins with
:44:23. > :44:25.the policies you're talking about Piggott have an influence, but with
:44:26. > :44:29.no control over immigration policy Scotland could lose money through no
:44:30. > :44:34.fault of its own, and that is the problem. You seem to be accepting
:44:35. > :44:41.that they have a point. I do not accept that immigration is the only
:44:42. > :44:45.way to grow the population. If you make your economy attractive, if you
:44:46. > :44:51.make your tax regime attractive then people will come, and I don't accept
:44:52. > :44:56.the immigration argument. What I find rather odd is that when the SNP
:44:57. > :45:00.asked to just three months ago for full fiscal autonomy, that is an
:45:01. > :45:05.arrangement which independent experts say would leave Scotland
:45:06. > :45:09.with a ?10 billion annual black hole, they did not ask for
:45:10. > :45:14.immigration powers along with full fiscal autonomy. They were quite
:45:15. > :45:20.happy to take on board that huge gap in the Scottish budget without
:45:21. > :45:24.asking for any of the so-called levers that they need in relation to
:45:25. > :45:31.growing the economy. Are you suggesting that if the Scottish
:45:32. > :45:34.Government went along with your... Again I don't want to comment index
:45:35. > :45:37.reduction methods, that presumably is the basis of what you're
:45:38. > :45:41.suggesting, that the British government would be prepared to
:45:42. > :45:44.discuss giving Scotland powers over immigration. Is that what you're
:45:45. > :45:49.suggesting? I am certainly not suggesting that. Immigration is one
:45:50. > :45:54.of the reserve powers. It was not part of the Smith Commission
:45:55. > :46:00.arrangement. What I am suggesting is that the two sides are really quite
:46:01. > :46:08.close together. I am confident that our accommodating the various needs
:46:09. > :46:12.that we both have and what the Smith Commission set out as the parameters
:46:13. > :46:15.for a fiscal framework, that we can get that deal. I think people in
:46:16. > :46:19.Scotland want to see us get that he'll because they want to see these
:46:20. > :46:24.sweeping new powers in relation to tax and welfare coming to Scotland.
:46:25. > :46:29.I am putting all my energy into getting a deal UK Government is, and
:46:30. > :46:33.I am confident we can get one. If you cannot get a deal the SNP say
:46:34. > :46:39.they will walk away. RU prepared to walk away? No. We will not walk
:46:40. > :46:43.away. We will stay until a deal is done. You might not have much
:46:44. > :46:51.choice. It takes two to reach a deal. We not walking away. I know
:46:52. > :46:53.the people of Scotland want to see the Scottish Parliament have
:46:54. > :46:58.extensive new powers over tax and welfare, come that powerhouse
:46:59. > :47:01.parliament. We have seen the transformation already when the
:47:02. > :47:04.Scottish Parliament is debating tax issues, the vitality that has come
:47:05. > :47:08.into the political debate in Scotland. They do want to see that
:47:09. > :47:16.continue and get even more coherent and relevant with these extensive
:47:17. > :47:23.new tax powers. I'm not walking away, I want to get a deal,. What
:47:24. > :47:31.about this deadline of February the 12th? There was not a deadline. That
:47:32. > :47:36.is an arbitrary date. It is not even necessary for any Scottish
:47:37. > :47:38.parliament process because the following Monday both the Scottish
:47:39. > :47:44.Parliament and Westminster Parliament are in recess. We're not
:47:45. > :47:48.working for any arbitrary date. We are working to get a deal. Of course
:47:49. > :47:56.he won't that deal as we possibly have it. But I do not see the 12th
:47:57. > :48:02.or the 14th as being a deadline. The economists who have looked at this,
:48:03. > :48:07.very complicated formulae that are being bounced around, include that
:48:08. > :48:10.part of the problem is the Barnett formula. Because the Barnett formula
:48:11. > :48:14.is at the centre of this. We would not be better if we are going to
:48:15. > :48:18.have some sort of quasi federal UK to get rid of any deadlines and just
:48:19. > :48:23.put everything on the table? Perhaps get rid of the Barnett formula. If
:48:24. > :48:27.it is the problem that causes of these complications, why not just
:48:28. > :48:29.sit down over a period of months and some sort of constitutional
:48:30. > :48:31.convention and say, let's work something out? Lots of other
:48:32. > :48:41.countries do this, can we not do it? There have been various attempts in
:48:42. > :48:46.the past to look at different funding mechanisms within the United
:48:47. > :48:50.Kingdom at all the major PATCO parties went into the general
:48:51. > :48:54.election committed to detain the Barnett formula. We are going to
:48:55. > :49:01.work within the parameters of the Barnett formula. If it simplifies
:49:02. > :49:06.matters, why not get rid of it? I am sure academics and economists and
:49:07. > :49:09.others will continue to argue about the Barnett formula, those people
:49:10. > :49:14.have to come up with something else. One of the reasons the Barnett
:49:15. > :49:18.formula has stayed in place at is very easy to criticise it but
:49:19. > :49:25.difficult to come up with a viable alternative. Argue very much for
:49:26. > :49:27.joining us this morning. -- thank you very much.
:49:28. > :49:30.Listening to that is SNP Deputy Leader Stewart Hosie who's
:49:31. > :49:39.You heard David Mundell suggesting these new proposals the government
:49:40. > :49:43.have put forward go some way to addressing this issue that Scotland
:49:44. > :49:50.would lose out if the population did not grow as fast as England. What in
:49:51. > :49:55.your view is about what he is opposing that is new? I have not
:49:56. > :49:58.heard any new proposals in the same week David Mundell is not privy to
:49:59. > :50:03.these negotiations neither am I, all we can talk about is what is in the
:50:04. > :50:06.public domain and all that seems to be in the public domain at the
:50:07. > :50:10.moment from the UK Government is a mechanism that would lead perhaps to
:50:11. > :50:16.a ?7 billion loss to the Scottish block grant over a decade. That
:50:17. > :50:18.clearly breaches the Smith commission principle of no detriment
:50:19. > :50:23.and if that is where we are even with a little bit of tinkering, that
:50:24. > :50:27.we clearly be unacceptable to size with because it does not adhere to
:50:28. > :50:32.the principles upon which these powers were supposed to be
:50:33. > :50:34.delivered. Yes, but the other principle that the British
:50:35. > :50:40.government is understandably trying to protect is that they don't want,
:50:41. > :50:43.for example, increases in taxation made at Westminster to fund schools
:50:44. > :50:49.and hospitals in England to leak through to increased taxation
:50:50. > :50:54.increased spending in Scotland when Scottish taxpayers haven't had to
:50:55. > :50:59.pay any extra taxes on it. You presumably would accept that as a
:51:00. > :51:02.legitimate concern for them to have? Indeed, the no detriment proposals
:51:03. > :51:06.as you said in the package cup both ways. That is absolutely right.
:51:07. > :51:11.Let's remember what is at the heart of this. There is a modest set of
:51:12. > :51:15.taxes to be devolved. If the Scottish Government make the right
:51:16. > :51:20.choices and that yield goes up we benefit from that. If they make the
:51:21. > :51:23.wrong choices and dealers a shortfall in the Scottish Government
:51:24. > :51:27.need to take responsibility for that. But the bulk of funding still
:51:28. > :51:32.comes from the rock rant and that will still be driven by the Barnett
:51:33. > :51:37.formula. That is what was agreed by all the parties in the Smith
:51:38. > :51:41.commission so, if we accept that and everybody has in what we are arguing
:51:42. > :51:48.about in essence is how the block grant is adjusted in the future to
:51:49. > :51:52.take in the devolved taxes. What we are suggested that the academics are
:51:53. > :51:56.proposing and again this was the package is that this is the clearest
:51:57. > :52:03.and best way to do it that involves no detriment to side. Hang on. There
:52:04. > :52:09.are other academics. The problem with, again I do not want to get
:52:10. > :52:14.into much into the jargon but the per capita proposals that you are
:52:15. > :52:17.putting forward is that they would protect Scotland if its population
:52:18. > :52:23.grew more slowly than in England but it's better click -- perfectly
:52:24. > :52:28.legitimate for the government to take some responsibility for that.
:52:29. > :52:33.If you want more powers then if you are Scotland, in Scotland's
:52:34. > :52:36.population grows slower than England you have to be some of the
:52:37. > :52:40.responsibility. That is what you want more powers for. It is
:52:41. > :52:45.precisely these things you want more control than Edinburgh. That is
:52:46. > :52:49.right so what we want to do is use the powers we have and the modest
:52:50. > :52:53.powers to be devolved in order to make Scotland even more attractive
:52:54. > :52:57.than it is to grow the population. It is no issue with that at all. If
:52:58. > :53:04.we broke the population income tax increases and the share of VAT
:53:05. > :53:06.increases for example but we cannot have Unionist politicians running
:53:07. > :53:11.around making an argument about growing the population when the Ark
:53:12. > :53:14.resisting at every turn the devolution of immigration powers
:53:15. > :53:19.which are the quickest way to grow the population. You heard David
:53:20. > :53:24.Mundell the sea you never even asked for that. This is a UK Government,
:53:25. > :53:28.Unionist political parties who are even proposed to a post study what
:53:29. > :53:32.these so that people who work and study and learn in Scotland are able
:53:33. > :53:38.to stay for a few years to contribute to the economy. They are
:53:39. > :53:41.even saying no to that so I think this argument about population
:53:42. > :53:45.growth is simply a smoke screen for the fact they are trying to embed
:53:46. > :53:52.deeper cuts in the block grant than Scottish tax raising powers could
:53:53. > :53:55.possibly deliver. That is detrimental to Scotland and clearly
:53:56. > :54:01.breaches the Smith commission proposals. Yes, but the counter to
:54:02. > :54:05.that is if you index this on a per capita basis Scotland is completely
:54:06. > :54:08.shielded from its population growing at a slower rate so there is no
:54:09. > :54:11.incentive for the Scottish Government to do anything about
:54:12. > :54:15.that. But there is an incentive because as I have said if we grow
:54:16. > :54:20.the population the income tax yield would increase and the assigned VAT
:54:21. > :54:23.would increase and many other taxes would increase. It is a good thing
:54:24. > :54:30.to do anyway. Economic activity would rise. We are not seeking to be
:54:31. > :54:34.shielded from decisions we take. If we get a decision right in Scotland
:54:35. > :54:38.and the devolved tax yield goes up we benefit. If we take a decision
:54:39. > :54:42.and the devolved tax yield goes down we have two face the consequences.
:54:43. > :54:46.What we are talking about here is the overall level of the block grant
:54:47. > :54:51.which makes up the bulk of Scotland's funding is still supposed
:54:52. > :54:55.to be delivered by Barnett. That is agreed by all parties and we cannot
:54:56. > :55:00.have the UK Government seeking to undermine that and undermine
:55:01. > :55:06.Scotland's block grant any systemic way we above anything any devolved
:55:07. > :55:10.tax goods compensate for. That is wrong, it is unclear and beaches the
:55:11. > :55:16.spirit of all the negotiations. You also heard David Mundell saying the
:55:17. > :55:20.two sides in all this, taking the rhetoric away, art pretty close
:55:21. > :55:26.together, is that your view? Now, from what I have seen, neither David
:55:27. > :55:30.Mundell or myself are privy to these negotiations, but from what I have
:55:31. > :55:33.seen publicly they've is a considerable distance to go. The
:55:34. > :55:38.Scottish Government want to stick to the no detriment principle but the
:55:39. > :55:42.UK Government want to stick to systemic funding. I think that is
:55:43. > :55:50.quite a week ago and I hope a deal can be struck. What happens if the
:55:51. > :55:54.is no deal? Well the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have
:55:55. > :55:58.been absolutely clear, if we cannot get a deal that adheres to the no
:55:59. > :56:02.detriment caused them a bill pull on the handbrake or rather they will
:56:03. > :56:07.and they will not sign off a legislative consent motion for these
:56:08. > :56:11.powers. That is the responsibility and the power of the Scottish
:56:12. > :56:14.Parliament has and if they heart to wield that in those circumstances
:56:15. > :56:19.against UK Government intransigence then the government will well
:56:20. > :56:24.understand we are not prepared to sign of a deal that embeds cuts to
:56:25. > :56:28.Scotland. Would you be happy as an SNP politician going into the May
:56:29. > :56:32.election saying Scotland has been offered full control of income tax
:56:33. > :56:37.but as you are the Nationalists party we have said no, we do not
:56:38. > :56:41.want it best to mark the is a national party. We have been offered
:56:42. > :56:45.the modest set of powers. I would like to see them but I am not
:56:46. > :56:49.prepared to go into any election, any time, the mere legend
:56:50. > :56:53.notwithstanding, and say we have signed up to a 7 million at in
:56:54. > :56:57.Scotland's systemic funding over a decade will stop that would be
:56:58. > :56:59.ridiculous in terms of what the Scottish Government was then able to
:57:00. > :57:03.ridiculous in terms of what the find than do over the next ten
:57:04. > :57:09.years. So, you were just say that is it an what? The discussions are
:57:10. > :57:14.finished on until after the election or what? I hope we can get a deal
:57:15. > :57:17.done within the time set. If the parties or governments are required
:57:18. > :57:21.to negotiate a little longer let them negotiate a little longer but
:57:22. > :57:25.what we cannot sign up to is the systemic factors Scotland's funding.
:57:26. > :57:31.You have said that. Let me put the point to you that I put to David
:57:32. > :57:34.Mundell. The issue here, what makes this all so complicated as keeping
:57:35. > :57:39.the Barnett formula. If you get rid of that it becomes much easier.
:57:40. > :57:42.Wouldn't it be more sensible rather than politicians running around
:57:43. > :57:45.setting arbitrary deadlines to have some sort of constitutional
:57:46. > :57:50.convention where everybody sits down and says we want to reorganise the
:57:51. > :57:53.way the UK is run let's think about this any rational week? What is the
:57:54. > :57:57.judgment against doing it that way? We would love to see the finances of
:57:58. > :58:01.these islands run in a rational way in the. If we took full
:58:02. > :58:05.responsibility for everything and called it independence that would
:58:06. > :58:09.make perfect sense but we lost that referendum. What the matter that was
:58:10. > :58:15.the Smith commission and the Smith commission, all six parties signed
:58:16. > :58:20.up to Barnett continuing to fund the block grant with the exception of
:58:21. > :58:24.the devolved hours. That is where we are. That is what we are negotiating
:58:25. > :58:28.about. Let's have unions politicians in the UK Government stick to some
:58:29. > :58:31.of the promises they made and deliver this devolution on the
:58:32. > :58:33.principle of no detriment to Scotland. Thank you for joining us
:58:34. > :58:37.this morning, Stewart Hosie. The battle for second votes
:58:38. > :58:39.in Holyrood's May election is ramping up as a recent poll
:58:40. > :58:42.suggests that Labour will lose all of its 15 constituency seats,
:58:43. > :58:44.meaning the party is reliant on the regional lists
:58:45. > :58:46.to return MSPs. Insiders also reveal
:58:47. > :58:48.that the Conservative will pour resources into a campaign for list
:58:49. > :58:51.seats, as the gap between them Well, yesterday Labour released
:58:52. > :58:54.the names of the candidates Joining me is former MP
:58:55. > :59:10.and Public Affairs consultant, Are you beside yourself with
:59:11. > :59:14.excitement when you look at Labour's list candidates? Yes, I am managing
:59:15. > :59:21.to pick a calm face on it but it is hugely exciting. You explain to us
:59:22. > :59:24.why. Well the Labour Party, Scottish Labour is any very difficult
:59:25. > :59:28.position. You may have noticed were not exactly on the front food that
:59:29. > :59:33.the party had a choice where we had the list candidates trying to bring
:59:34. > :59:38.in new talent and I noticed Kezia Dugdale has been criticised in some
:59:39. > :59:40.quarters for not doing that. The alternative was trying to secure
:59:41. > :59:46.some of the more experienced and well known names. It could not do
:59:47. > :59:50.both. It has gone for the latter option to secure the well-known
:59:51. > :59:55.people. Many of whom have been here for a long time. I understand why
:59:56. > :59:58.the party has done that. I do not think a Scottish Labour Party group
:59:59. > :00:05.of MSPs in Holyrood without the likes of Johann Lamont and James
:00:06. > :00:09.Kelly, people like that, I think it's good that they are likely,
:00:10. > :00:13.likely to be back, we do not know yet. It does mean we had in the
:00:14. > :00:18.position within is very little new talent. The new candidates have come
:00:19. > :00:23.through our people who lost their seats from Westminster last May. The
:00:24. > :00:27.problem, Kezia Dugdale bid talk about some idea of having new people
:00:28. > :00:31.who had perhaps ever been involved in politics coming through to be
:00:32. > :00:34.candidates and get into parliament and this would make the Labour Party
:00:35. > :00:41.look like a completely different organisation. That is not going to
:00:42. > :00:44.happen, is it? It is not. It is a very good aspiration and ambition to
:00:45. > :00:48.have but it is incredibly difficult. If you're going to put the list of
:00:49. > :00:52.candidates out to a ballot of members which is what has happened.
:00:53. > :00:55.If you are the Labour Party candidate you are going to recognise
:00:56. > :01:01.the name of someone who has served as an MSP for years rather than the
:01:02. > :01:05.person who was an academic or the business person from another part of
:01:06. > :01:09.society you are going to put the number one against the names of the
:01:10. > :01:13.people you recognise which is why we have a list of people who have gone
:01:14. > :01:16.the whole been here for some time. That is not necessarily a bad thing
:01:17. > :01:20.because the next five years at Holyrood are going to be really
:01:21. > :01:23.difficult for the Labour Party at Holyrood the going to need people
:01:24. > :01:26.who had experience but the problem is without the new talent coming
:01:27. > :01:33.through Wien in the same position the SNP was in in 1990 97 years ago.
:01:34. > :01:39.That is a huge step back for the Labour Party. Perhaps the problem
:01:40. > :01:43.was Kezia Dugdale saying this in the first place because it raised
:01:44. > :01:47.expectations. The model I think she was using is the victory the SNP had
:01:48. > :01:52.in the general election but they got so many MPs that they could have an
:01:53. > :01:57.experienced hard-core and they could have fresh faces as well. Labour are
:01:58. > :02:01.not quite in that situation. Fresh faces that they had appeared would
:02:02. > :02:05.be replacing expedience. I think the problem goes back further than that.
:02:06. > :02:10.There are two reasons. Nobody prepared for the succession to do
:02:11. > :02:15.Donald Dewar. All led as an opposition, you let the convention
:02:16. > :02:20.he was prime demolition and nobody prepared for who would take over
:02:21. > :02:24.from Donald. More importantly the Scottish Labour Party has never had
:02:25. > :02:29.a strategy on the list. The SNP has right from the very beginning and
:02:30. > :02:33.worked it very well. Scottish Labour were so arrogantly thought they had
:02:34. > :02:37.to do was pay attention to who won the first past the post seats. Now
:02:38. > :02:42.we are reconciled to losing all, possibly all of the first past the
:02:43. > :02:46.post seats and concentrating everything on the list. Frankly it
:02:47. > :02:50.is doing everything 15 years too late. That is a strategy that should
:02:51. > :02:51.have been put in position from the very birth of the Scottish
:02:52. > :03:03.Parliament. In Deadwood. Do you think there will
:03:04. > :03:08.be a change. In your view, will Labour look more dynamic at least?
:03:09. > :03:15.Or is just the old, same old? I think what you had five years ago,
:03:16. > :03:18.because the party paid so little attention to who was on the list,
:03:19. > :03:23.you have some additional members, a very mixed bag. There were some
:03:24. > :03:27.brilliant ones, there were others that frankly should not have been
:03:28. > :03:31.there. You're being very polite. You mean because either did not expect
:03:32. > :03:34.to lose so many constituency seats. A bunch of people that no one
:03:35. > :03:39.thought would get got elected. Your words, not mine. But now the party
:03:40. > :03:42.has concentrated on getting the best people at the top of the list. On
:03:43. > :03:49.the whole that is what we have. Unfortunately we will have your
:03:50. > :03:51.MSPs, but standard will be significantly higher, and it has to
:03:52. > :03:54.be because will be fewer of them. significantly higher, and it has to
:03:55. > :03:59.Tom Harris, thank to the campaign group
:04:00. > :04:01.Scotland Stronger In Europe which will be launched
:04:02. > :04:06.in Edinburgh this week. to gather support for Britain's
:04:07. > :04:08.renegotiation of its relationship In Denmark, he won the backing
:04:09. > :04:14.of the prime minister who said The Polish prime minister backed
:04:15. > :04:19.Mr Cameron's proposals Here, there's been a mixed reaction
:04:20. > :04:34.to the deal with MPs discussing I am not arguing and will never
:04:35. > :04:37.argued that Britain could not survive outside the European Union.
:04:38. > :04:41.We are the fifth largest economy in the world, the biggest defence
:04:42. > :04:44.player in Europe with one of the most extensive and influential
:04:45. > :04:48.diplomats ignored works on the planet. The question is not good
:04:49. > :04:52.Britain succeed outside the European Union, it is how will we be most
:04:53. > :04:57.successful. I will Britain be most prosperous. How we create the most
:04:58. > :05:00.jobs. How we will have the most influence on the rules that shape
:05:01. > :05:05.the global economy and affect us. How will we be most secure. And I've
:05:06. > :05:09.always said the best answers to those questions can be found within
:05:10. > :05:13.a reformed European Union. But let me say again, if we cannot secure
:05:14. > :05:17.these changes are ruled out nothing. Second, even if we secured these
:05:18. > :05:23.changes, you'll never hear me say that this is now fixed. Far from it.
:05:24. > :05:28.There will be many things that remain to be reformed, and Britain
:05:29. > :05:31.would continue to lead the way. For all the sound and fury, the prime
:05:32. > :05:34.minister has ended up exactly where he knew he would be, making the case
:05:35. > :05:37.to remain in Europe which is what he always intended despite
:05:38. > :05:44.renegotiation spectacle choreographed for TV cameras over
:05:45. > :05:46.the whole continent. As his own backbenchers to telling us, the
:05:47. > :05:51.proposals from the European Council are simply tinkering around the
:05:52. > :05:57.edges. They have little impact on what you delivers for workers in
:05:58. > :05:59.Britain or British businesses. What is at stake is much bigger than his
:06:00. > :06:01.recent discussions. is at stake is much bigger than his
:06:02. > :06:02.whether we're in the is at stake is much bigger than his
:06:03. > :06:07.that is what the debate is at stake is much bigger than his
:06:08. > :06:09.UK will be in the run-up to the referendum. The timing of
:06:10. > :06:12.UK will be in the run-up to the referendum really matters to the
:06:13. > :06:13.electorate and the governments of Scotland, Wales
:06:14. > :06:16.electorate and the governments of Ireland, as well
:06:17. > :06:23.electorate and the governments of there are elections in May. How does
:06:24. > :06:26.it help to try and fit a couple of emergency brakes that lie within the
:06:27. > :06:31.control of the year and not as? Isn't the only way to get control
:06:32. > :06:35.our borders, our tax and our welfare system to leave and be a good
:06:36. > :06:37.European and let them get on with their political union?
:06:38. > :06:40.Time now for a look at the week's big stories and what's coming
:06:41. > :06:51.I'm joined by the Press Association's Scottish political
:06:52. > :06:53.reporter Lynsey Bews, and by the Sunday Herald's Scottish
:06:54. > :07:05.Tom, Europe, briefly. I sense something odd going on. All the
:07:06. > :07:07.politicians on the yes side think they need to deal with the
:07:08. > :07:11.Europeans, get on with that hand have a quick referendum, meanwhile
:07:12. > :07:15.the opinion polls are going in the opposite direction. It is a very
:07:16. > :07:19.interesting picture coming out at the moment. The public seems to have
:07:20. > :07:24.a very certain opinion about what is happening, because if you look at
:07:25. > :07:28.the campaigns, the no campaign, the out campaign, and the state
:07:29. > :07:34.campaign, the embryonic and chaotic, particularly the Out campaign. It is
:07:35. > :07:39.different either side of the border. It is largely for leaving site of
:07:40. > :07:43.the border. But the public seemed to be making up their own minds
:07:44. > :07:48.already. Do you think the Yes campaigners have something to worry
:07:49. > :07:54.about? I think the Yes campaigners are benefiting at the moment, as Tom
:07:55. > :08:01.said it is quite chaotic on the other side. They do not seem to have
:08:02. > :08:06.a coherent... In England, the get out people are streaking ahead, even
:08:07. > :08:11.when the no campaign is a model of how not to run a campaign. You
:08:12. > :08:17.think, what could happen if they got their act together? Absolutely. I
:08:18. > :08:21.think when it comes to the crunch, when you look at Scottish campaign,
:08:22. > :08:24.the campaign for staying in is much stronger. If you look at it purely
:08:25. > :08:30.from a Scottish perspective the campaign appear for staying in will
:08:31. > :08:33.do very well. But what happened in Scotland will not determine the
:08:34. > :08:39.result. Can you see the Mil people getting their act together? It may
:08:40. > :08:44.not matter, because the body of opinion is already in favour of an
:08:45. > :08:48.outlawed. If I were David Cameron, we saw reports in the newspapers
:08:49. > :08:53.this morning about panic at number ten, I would be worried, because
:08:54. > :09:04.despite the self sabotage of the Mill site, they are head. -- the
:09:05. > :09:12.chaos in the No side. In the newspapers, we saw this. That was
:09:13. > :09:18.John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor. It is clear what is
:09:19. > :09:25.going on here with this new policy of decreasing tax, that Labour are
:09:26. > :09:29.trying to stick some territory. Yes, they are trying to do a lot to
:09:30. > :09:33.puncture the SNP's self mythologising that they are the new
:09:34. > :09:36.party of the left, the anti-austerity party, and labour are
:09:37. > :09:39.saying, this is not the case. Look at what they do in practice. They
:09:40. > :09:45.are quite conservative, especially on tax. That might help Labour feel
:09:46. > :09:50.good, but I think the public already know this is how the SNP are and the
:09:51. > :09:54.support what they do. It might give Labour a warm glow but I do not
:09:55. > :09:58.think it will bring them any more votes. Is that your view? Yes, I
:09:59. > :10:04.think it was interesting the budget debate last week, Jackie Baillie
:10:05. > :10:07.wanted to do about principle, the principle of salvaging public
:10:08. > :10:12.services by making people pay more tax. She did not want to talk about
:10:13. > :10:15.what John Swinney wanted to talk about which was the detail of how
:10:16. > :10:20.you go about doing this. And Labour's plan for this ?100 rebate
:10:21. > :10:23.which they do not seem to be able to explain exactly how it will work.
:10:24. > :10:29.And the other problem for Labour, they have put this 1p on for every
:10:30. > :10:33.year, not just the first year when the initial tax powers come forward,
:10:34. > :10:38.but every year after that, when actually the SNP will properly come
:10:39. > :10:42.forward with some proposals when they powers over rates and bands
:10:43. > :10:46.come in. Liverpool have a problem looking at how this 1p rise across
:10:47. > :10:55.the comes into that. -- Labour will have a problem. Some people say,
:10:56. > :11:00.look, the 45%, as they like to call themselves, are written off for
:11:01. > :11:04.Labour in this election. It is the 55% where they might have a chance
:11:05. > :11:08.of inroads, and you will not win them over by seeing you will put up
:11:09. > :11:13.taxes. It is more of a survival strategy for Labour. We were talking
:11:14. > :11:16.about how perilous these elections look for them and how they are
:11:17. > :11:20.turning to the list vote. They just have to get through these elections
:11:21. > :11:22.were some sort of credibility on the far side, severe try feel robbed
:11:23. > :11:28.their own base vote. They're trying to leech a few votes away from the
:11:29. > :11:32.SNP, maybe people who voted yes because there's probably some sort
:11:33. > :11:36.of left-wing Nirvana underwater pool those people back. But really it is
:11:37. > :11:49.about trying to get through this election. Add line from the
:11:50. > :11:54.Telegraph about 30. -- about Turkey. This is a refugee crisis on top of
:11:55. > :12:00.the refugee crisis we have already because of what is happening in the
:12:01. > :12:07.area around Aleppo. Yes, it is very worrying for people who are in Syria
:12:08. > :12:11.and trying to escape from the atrocities and the attacks that are
:12:12. > :12:16.going on, and again it serves to highlight what a mess that country
:12:17. > :12:20.is in and how we collectively have failed to really make inroads to
:12:21. > :12:25.addressing any of the issues that are going on. And other side of
:12:26. > :12:31.this, of course, is that it is possible, perhaps not likely, but
:12:32. > :12:40.possible that the Assad- Britain strategy could win outright. --
:12:41. > :12:43.Assad-Vladimir Putin. If they take Aleppo, most of the urban areas will
:12:44. > :12:52.be back under the control of the Syrian government. Possibly, but it
:12:53. > :12:55.will not get our out of Syria or anything like that. Lindsay is
:12:56. > :13:00.right. This is a terrible tragedy that is happening right now. One
:13:01. > :13:06.could easily imagine Assad and Vladimir Putin getting that and
:13:07. > :13:09.saying, we will turn our weapons on Isis, and you in the West who sit
:13:10. > :13:15.around wringing your hands about how terrible it all is, we've done this
:13:16. > :13:19.and we are now go to tackle IS, and you have done nothing. You are
:13:20. > :13:24.braver man than I am because I would not like to predict. I'm not
:13:25. > :13:29.predicting, it is just one scenario. Nothing is simple in that country.
:13:30. > :13:34.And I hope we can avoid another tragedy in Aleppo, as I don't know
:13:35. > :13:39.how it is going to pan out. There is pressure already on Turkey to open
:13:40. > :13:44.its borders. Absolutely. And these people are in a perilous situation.
:13:45. > :13:46.This is another humanitarian crisis on quite a large scale. I do both
:13:47. > :13:47.very much indeed. I'll be back at the
:13:48. > :13:52.same time next week.