07/02/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew's guests include MPs Eric Pickles and Stephen Kinnock, plus George Galloway.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:


on the fiscal framework is "within reach".


So, with goodwill flowing, will this week bring agreement?


And joining me as always, three journalists who've got more


opinions than the campaign to leave the EU has splinter groups.


Yes, it's Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.


We'll see if they're still on speaking terms by the end


Let's start today by talking about what the Government in England


is or isn't going to do about a sugar tax.


Health experts have been calling for one, to tackle


is a crisis in child obesity - but so far ministers


Well, this morning the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver said


to "get ninja" to force the Government to act.


Here's the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, responding


on The Andrew Marr Show this morning.


It has to be a game changing moment, a robust strategy.


The issue here is, do what it takes to make sure


that children consume less sugar, because we have got


We are the most obese nation in the EU


Well, we are going to be announcing in due course -


David Cameron has said, if it isn't a sugar tax,


it needs to be something that is equally robust.


But he hasn't taken a sugar tax off the table.


Will there be a sugar tax? His instinct is to say no, I do not want


to run the nanny state that Jeremy Hunt says his one-year-old daughter,


by the time she is an adult, one third of the population will be


clinically obese and Public Health England shows if you introduce a


sugar tax, you will reduce that some Jeremy Hunt is in favour but the


Prime Minister is inching towards some decision, whether that is a


sugar tax or not... Regional and devolved governments, Wales has been


very keen on that. I feel I am at liberty to say this but Scotland


also has greater tax-raising powers so he could get outflanked. Or wait


and see how it does in Scotland and Wales and then decide to follow?


Yes. I want to make the liberal case against this but that ship has


sailed decades ago, we tax alcohol and tobacco and this is more like a


revenue raiser because that isn't -- a justifiable cause, we have a


population with a sweet tooth that you can hit the revenue. That is the


reasoning to deal with rather than the more censorious reason of


monitoring behaviour. And junior doctors, scheduled to be back on


strike on Wednesday in England, which means that some of the talks


so far have failed? There is bad feeling but as Andrew Marr was


saying, the turnout on the vote was very high, and the 8%. The


government is really struggling to shake this debate and it is


interesting with that interview, Jeremy Hunt has said until now that


the cost of the new contract would be revenue neutral, he now admits


there would not only be a transitional cost but longer term


and the government is really struggling on this. It is not affect


emergency services this time. It was a big week for


David Cameron's renegotiation He once promised a fundamental


change in that relationship as a condition for backing


the campaign to stay in. Well, there are changes -


but perhaps not quite as fundamental And what he has achieved still needs


to be agreed by EU leaders at a summit in a fortnight's


time, where it could be But Mr Cameron says what he's


achieved is so significant that if Britain was not an EU member,


this would make him want to join. Here he is speaking


earlier in the week. I can say, hand on heart,


I've delivered the commitments that I made in my manifesto,


and I think the whole country knows that if you, for instance,


pay people ?5,000, ?10,000 additional to their wages,


then that is a draw to Britain, and that's one of


the reasons why we've seen such high levels


of migration and movement. So David Cameron says it lives up


to everything that was promised in the Conservative


election manifesto. I'm joined by former Cabinet


minister Eric Pickles. Welcome back. You said this week the


Prime Minister has kept to the letter and spirit of his manifesto


promise. Let us look letter and spirit of his manifesto


promise. The manifesto said we will insist that EU migrants who want to


claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to the


economy for a minimum of four years. The emergency rig on tax credits


does not achieve The emergency rig on tax credits


must bear in mind the things we can The emergency rig on tax credits


do through domestic law, a job-seeker from Europe


do through domestic law, a find a job within six


do through domestic law, a are obliged to leave and that has


been achieved through domestic law. The manifesto promised no in work


benefits until The manifesto promised no in work


for four years. The reality is graduated, they rise, and after four


years you get the full benefit? That is not unreasonable. After four


years to get full benefit but we know that the criteria for putting


on the brake for four years has already been passed and the largest


political party in the EU agrees that has happened and we should have


this in place after the next referendum. It will have to be


approved by the European Parliament and the other 27 members and what


constitution, emergency, the cost to migrants is five billion pounds


every year, we are 1.6 5 trillion economy, public spending is 750


billion pounds. Why is ?500 million and emergency, only 1.6% of the


bill? My earlier answer was, we already know the political leader of


the largest political party in the Parliament of Europe has said it is


the fact that we have arrived at those conditions and an emergency


brake will be placed. What emergency? It is an emergency in the


views of the European partners, they have accrued -- agreed to this


emergency brake but in terms have the mechanism of Britain future for


other countries, that will be decided over the next two weeks but


what we do know as far as the UK is concerned, we will get that


emergency brake. If a migrant Eilidh Child lives abroad, they should


receive no child tax credit or benefit, no matter how long they


have worked in the UK or how much tax they have paid. There it is. The


sentiment does not deliver on that either? What it does deliver is


harmonisation of benefits so the level of benefits will be exactly


the same as it would be in their own country. You are going to have 28


different levels of child benefit! In many cases it can be as much as


the quarter. And in some cases, more? Not many people to pay the


same level that we don't but the point I was making is that in Poland


it is a quarter of the level as it is here. You promised no child


benefit for migrants and you're delivering index linked child


benefit for migrants? It is a big improvement on the current


situation. When you go into negotiation, but do precisely that


and I think it is within the spirit of what we said. The manifesto said


that you will control migration from the European Union by reforming


welfare rolls and Mr Cameron at one stage said that reducing immigration


from the European Union would be at the heart of this. Can you give us


an idea of how much these changes will reduce European Union


migration? I am not part of the negotiating team so all I can go


wrong is what I have seen in newspapers and given that we know


that in work benefits, 40% of new arrivals are supported by that and


given that the average is ?6,000 in addition and can be as much as


?10,000, it will have an effect. You said 40% but that is not the figure,


we know from the Freedom of Information release that if there


had been any emergency brake in the last four years it would have


affected 84,000 families. That is it, not 40%. I said that 40% of the


new immigrants that, in, new migrants, claiming in work benefit,


you are comparing apples and pears? I am not. 80,000 families is nowhere


near 40%. Last year, 180,000 net migration from the EU. Do you have


any idea by how much the figure will be reduced as a result of the


settlement? Were not trying to prevent people living inside the


European Union, we are trying to stop people coming for something for


nothing, to claim from our innovative system and secondly, to


ensure there is an equalisation inside the market of people coming


here just because of our in work benefits. Since this will apply only


to new migrants and not those that are already here, is unlikely to be


a rush to come in before these restrictions in? And the figure


could rise? As part of the negotiations we have to ensure that


doesn't happen. We would have two ask as part of the negotiation... To


ensure that there isn't this new influx. In the manifesto you also


said that we want national partners to be able to work together to block


unwanted European legislation. In the Lisbon Treaty there is an orange


card system that does that and we have the red card with Mr Cameron,


is this an improvement? The Orange card has been used twice. That was


yellow, orange has never been used. I beg your pardon. It is confusing!


How many different cards? Three, yellow and orange and this red card.


In what way would the red card be any improvement on the existing


Orange card, which means 51% of national parliaments can make the


commission rethink? We can move much quicker in terms of trying to knock


out any deal between European Parliaments and secondly, national


parliaments are becoming much more assertive in terms of their session


and that is a massively important step in the re-establishment in the


importance of national parliaments. It is not just our Parliament, we


would need to get 56% of national parliaments, at least 15 others, and


in many cases we would only have 12 weeks to ask them to vote against


the policy of their own national government. That is not credible? Of


course it is. I think this is a very important step on the way of


ensuring national parliaments are much more assertive and don't


forget, read this in line of stopping them moving towards ever


closer union and protecting sterling. Let us look at that. It


was meant to be one of the big wins for the Prime Minister, Donald Tusk,


the President of the Council, says we have always had that, it need not


mean integration for Britain, the settlement confirms only the status


quo. It is very interesting for him to


say that but on every programme that I've ever been on, it has been this


drift towards ever closer union, political union, that has been


important. If it means we have now re-established that it is about give


and take and cooperation, that is a great thing. Given how little the


prime and this has achieved -- the Prime Minister has achieved, would


his position not be undermined, or become untenable, if this draft


settlement was further undermined before being finally agreed? I'm


very confident, given that this Prime Minister is the only Prime


Minister ever to take powers back from Europe, that it will be


successful. But could you stomach of further watering down? It would


depend what the overall position is but my position comes not from any


enthusiasm for Europe. It's just a lack of any decent ideas that we


would be better off outside. To come back to this business of the


European Parliament, there are number of areas in which the


European Parliament has to approve this settlement, including the work


benefits, child benefit element, perhaps even the red card. What


guarantees can you give, because the European Parliament won't to do


this, if it does it at all, until after the referendum... So how can


you guarantee that we will vote to stay in and the European Parliament


will not pass the legislation? We've had indications from the European


Parliament that they will do precisely that. What I would hope...


Where? Just a second. The leader of the largest party has said that. I


think what we would want to see over the next couple of weeks are more


codification in terms of how this would come to operate, not just for


us but for other parties. But if the European Parliament doesn't pass


this, it is not legally binding. The Prime Minister has told us that. It


can only be eagerly binding under the existing treaties with


legislation through the European Parliament. You are asking the


British people to vote blind, to vote yes, without really knowing


what the European Parliament might do down the road in the autumn at


the end of the year. I'm very confident that will be the case. --


won't be the case. It will be an appalling abuse of trust and would


undermine the European Union, were it not to do so. But sooner or


later, we are going to have to go on to discuss, what would the


consequences be thus leaving? Because that would not be a


pain-free experience. I really want the guarantees for those that want


us to leave to say that my constituents and my constituents'


children will be materially better off by leaving. Not just the same


but better off by leaving. Eric Pickles, thanks for being with us


this morning. Thank you. In recent weeks we've been debating


some of the big issues at the heart We've covered immigration


and the economy. Today we're going to look


at Britain's sovereignty within the European Union and ask,


is the EU a democratic club There are about 500 million people


across the 28 member states Voters from these countries go


to the polls every five years to elect 751 members


of the European Parliament. The UK currently has


73 MEPs, who have some say over the EU budget


and new legislation. But it's the unelected Commission,


led by President Jean-Claude Juncker, that is responsible


for day-to-day management, plus proposing and


implementing new laws. Later this month, David Cameron


will attend a crucial meeting of the European Council


to press for his draft settlement, the outcome of his


efforts to renegotiate our terms The Council is made up of the 28


heads of state or government of EU members and decides


the Union's overall political But it's not to be confused with


the Council of the European Union, where ministers from each


country meet to discuss, There's always been


concern about a so-called democratic deficit and at the last


elections in 2014, turnout In the UK, where few people can


even name a local MEP, I'm joined now by former Respect


MP George Galloway - he's said this week he'll campaign


for Britain to leave the EU - and by the Labour MP


Stephen Kinnock, who wants Stephen Kinnock, let me come to you


first. Turnout at the last election was under 36%. Only 11% can name


their MEP. Richie Gray the EU has a massive democratic deficit and the


Cameron settlement does nothing to address it, does it? On the


democratic deficit, of course it would be good if more people voted


in democratic elections but let's not forget there is another


democratically elected institution in Brussels and that's the council


of the vistas and the European council. They are ministers. Our


Prime Minister, directly elected by the British people, going to


Brussels to exert influence for Britain. The democratic deficit


sometimes gets tied up with the European Parliament. That's an


element of it but the council is a major part. On the renegotiation, I


think the really important point is that this referendum is not about


David Cameron's renegotiation. This referendum is about the future of


the United Kingdom as a trading nation, as a proud nation in terms


of a diplomatic big player and where we are actually going in terms of


the long-term future of the country. It's not about the precise details


of David Cameron's renegotiation. Mr Cameron think that is important.


George Galloway, you said you believe in a union of the peoples of


Europe but surely the only realistic way to achieve that is to work for a


reformed EU. Anything else is just rhetoric. No, because I think it is


in the Brits of the EU. You pointed to the visibility of the European


Parliament, its credibility and standing but you didn't add that the


European Parliament itself, even if AT the centre people were turning


out to vote for it, has almost no power. The power lies in this


council of ministers and in a bureaucracy well entrenched, very


lavishly funded, which has meant of its own. I could answer your


question in two words - Catherine Ashton. Never heard of her? No. Ever


elected to? No. She was the European Foreign Minister, dictating to other


countries outside the world with no democratic mandate of any kind. I


think we have to be more sensible about the way we talk about these


things. There is a process of co-decision which is enshrined in


the treaties of the European Union. The vast majority of the legislation


which goes through has to be agreed by both the European Parliament and


by the European council on the basis of proposals from the European


Commission. Not necessarily all the council. Politics is the art of the


possible and when you are part of a system of pooled sovereignty is,


when we come together as nation states because we believe our


sovereignty is actually strengthened through cooperation, of course you


have to make compromises. You don't win absolutely 100% of everything


that you go for but actually, I believe that through corporation and


pulling our sovereignty our sovereignty is strengthened. There


has been a lot of talk by the Prime Minister about asserting the


sovereignty of Parliament. It seems to be one of the carrots to attract


Mr Boris Johnson to come onside. But surely you have to accept that in


many areas, the EU and the European Court of Justice, they are sovereign


and Parliament has to recognise that sovereignty or we have to leave. I


think that we have to also look at the likes of Google or the big


multinational companies. They don't recognise the concept of


sovereignty. For people on the left, such as George and myself, the key


point of the European Union is, it's a transnational body that regulating


transnational business. Not very well. It is not regulating them very


well. Much better than we could do them alone. I don't think so. The


bottom line is... And this is to be, on the left. Mr Kinnock senior and I


shared many platforms on this, as well as the late Mr Benn, the late


Mr foot. This was commonplace on the left. We don't want to be dictated


to by other countries. We want our people to choose our government and


thus our direction. And I'd rather take my chance with changing things


in Britain than waiting for a change in Bulgaria or in Poland. But you


are nationalists and doesn't but inevitably involve some kind of


pooling sovereignty? The whole basis of the European Union... As we


always said from 1975 onwards, on the left, the European Community,


now the EU, is actually built on neoliberal economic principles,


which are ironclad and unchangeable. However people want to vote. Are you


comfortable with the manner in which Greece's sovereignty was overturned


by the European institutions and above all by companies -- countries


like Germany? We live in a highly globalised, interdependent world and


the idea that the UK alone can exert influence and regulate the big


multinationals on its own is absurd. The other key point on Greece is,


how would we help the people of Greece by leaving the EU? Our


principles are about solidarity, a key value on which European Union is


founded, which is a value of the left. What was the solidarity that


the EU showed Greece? I think what we need is a Labour Prime Minister


in Brussels arguing against the politics of austerity. We are not


part of the eurozone. This was a eurozone argument. We can still


exert our influence. What many would think is your natural allies on the


European left, so reads the increase, and a party in Spain, want


to stay in the EU. Why are you right and your comrades wrong? The people


of Greece were crushed underfoot by this neoliberal consensus on which


the EU and administrations are built. Portugal actually had an


election and elected a majority of left-wing MPs and we're told by the


European Union, the president of Portugal was told, you mustn't


summon these people to your palace to allow them to form a government.


This is unconscionable. It's not because I love the people of Greece,


though I do, or the people of Spain. I don't want us to face the same


fate as them. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonell's economic policies, which


I believe in and which are badly needed, are illegal under the EU. If


we were to save our steel industry, for example, we would be acting out


with the European Union's legal framework. You've been closely


involved in the steel industry. What do you say to that? I fail to see


how our principles of solidarity and reaching out to our brothers and


sisters in other parts of the year are helped by the idea that we


suddenly leave. But to me seems to be going against the founding value


of the Labour Party, which is solidarity. On steel, this is a


classic example but it is up to your member state government to play the


game properly. Unfortunately, we have a government that has been


asleep at the wheel on steel for four or five years. An energy


compensation package should have been put in place years ago. The


government has done nothing about it. The massive flooding of Chinese


steel into the British market has only been happening over the last


four years. That could only be done by Europe, not Britain. It took them


for years to get the stated clearance because nobody was


knocking on the door properly in Brussels and because we are cosying


up to Beijing. Cameron and Osborne seem to be putting the interests of


our relationship with China ahead of British industry. We are allowing


them to damp massive amounts of Chinese steel in the market. The


European Court of Justice is preventing us from deporting


Moroccan citizen, the daughter-in-law of Abu Hamza, Abu


Hamza himself convicted of 11 terrorist offences. She has done


time, too, for a terrorist elated offence. We still can't deport her.


That is a pretty serious intrusion of our sovereignty. I don't know the


details of that case but I do know we live in a very interdependent


world... You said that. What people want to know is if we can deport


foreign citizens who have terrorist criminal convictions. We did manage


to do it with Abu Hamza, so there are ways. The EU is a rules -based


organisation. It sets the rules of the game. It's up to the member


states to play that game properly. Unfortunately, we have a government


that has failed to build alliances and coalitions in Brussels. That's


one of the reasons we have a difficult relationship with the EU


now. When you look at this leave site and the various factions of the


time they seem to be spending more time knocking lumps out of each


other, does that make you happy you joined? I campaigned against


breaking up Britain and for a no vote in the Scottish referendum.


That didn't mean I was with the Tories, didn't mean I was with the


Orange order. So are you solo again? There used to be a commonplace view


from the 1970s, and still standing now, for a democratic future for


Britain. We decide how many immigrants we have, who we deport,


what our levels of taxation are and what our foreign policy should be.


We will leave it there. Thank you both.


Labour says it faces losing more than a quarter of its funding,


thanks to Government plans to change the way the party gets money


from trade union members, along with moves to cut state


In a rare TV outing, the party's general secretary


Iain McNicol has told us just how damaging the changes could be.


In an in and is this have raised cash in the past. I started my


constituency in Bradford raising ?1000, and other constituencies


asked me to do the same thing. We have raised ?100,000. It is just as


well, because the Labour Party could be about to lose ?8 million of


funding if government plans to change the


funding if government plans to from trade union members goes


through. And they say it is no laughing matter. It is an affront on


British democracy. If you look at any previous agreement which


British democracy. If you look at the funding of a


British democracy. If you look at was done on a consensual cross-party


basis, and agreement because of the effect it had. Is this an


existential threat to the Labour Party? It would be very difficult


for the party. Around 30% Party? It would be very difficult


our funding would mean we would not be able to operate in the current


way that we do, holding the government to account


way that we do, holding the Majesty's opposition. It is unfair


and unjust. The cash goes towards staffing, reportedly around half its


costs, and campaigning. Things like party election broadcasts, battle


buses, and headstones. At the moment trade union members have to actively


opt out. In the future they would have to opt in, in writing, within


three months. Something Labour fear people will not get round to doing.


It also coincides with the 19% cat to so-called short money, cash given


to all parties to help with costs of Parliamentary business, a sort of


concession for not having the civil service like the government does.


But the man who used to be in charge of the civil service says the


Government's plans are at best partisan. It goes to this wider


question of what I would see as a worryingly authoritarian streak in


government that finds it difficult to live with and accept challenge.


And that is something the people of all parties, I'm a crossbencher, not


in any party, but I think whichever party you are in you should be


concerned about this. There is nothing authoritarian about having


something like in our manifesto, voted for in a majority government


and delivered on. If you are a Labour Party support the and you are


a member of the trade union, you actively choose to do it rather than


having it forced upon you. The Labour Party needs to get out and


convince members it is a good use of its money to give that money to the


Labour Party, just as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats


have to convince people to give money directly. We do not rely on


people accidentally giving us money. Back in Kentish Town, organisers say


a night like this is about raising awareness and morale as much as


raising cash. Jeremy Corbyn's leadership campaign relied on


grassroots support, and as funding dries up it could well need to rely


on people like this, people willing to come to a night about Jeremy


Corbyn that he himself is not even at. In fact, generally, may prefer


appealing to people like this rather than big donors, and number of whom


have already abandoned the party anyway. But fundraising and only 3%


of the income last year, and the spotlight, following her liver pays


its way in the future. We now say goodbye to viewers in Scotland to


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


Talks on the fiscal framework resume tomorrow.


The Scottish Secretary says "both sides have done the dance,


And Labour puts its new candidates for the regional lists on show,


Looks like we're not going to get a deal before Valentine's Day


on the fiscal framework that'll sort out the flow of finance


between the Westminster and Scottish governments.


It's not clear if there's a mountain or a molehill in the way.


The Chief Secretary to the Treasury Greg Hands


is in Edinburgh tomorrow for more talks with John Swinney,


If you're not a policy wonk the negotiations might seem highly


But there's been a warning that if they produce the wrong result


they could cost the Scottish Government billions of pounds.


We'll hear from both sides in a moment.


Spiderman. The Reverend John Cumming of Aberdeenshire. Today is Victory


in Europe Day. And Winston Churchill all said it, or something like it.


With great power comes great responsibility. Holyrood is soon to


get the power to collect around ?5 billion in income tax, newly ?3


billion in rates, as well as billions in council tax, meaning


that the block grant from Westminster will go down, but by how


much? And in case you were wondering, this really matters. The


fiscal framework in some respects is about very technical things, about


how to adjust budgets, but these have fundamental consequences for


the amount of money that a future Scottish Government will have at its


disposal, the amount of taxes that the population will be expected to


contribute, about the level of services that they can expect to be


provided. It has fundamental implications for the everyday things


that we expect a government to be able to deliver. Crucial to


negotiations, the no detriment rule, that is the promise that whatever


system is agreed it will not put Scotland at a disadvantage. The no


detriment principle can be modelled by economists in a number of


different ways, and there are billions of pounds at stake here in


terms of which model of the no detriment principle you prefer. It


was always going to be complex and difficult, but the complexity is


compounded by our political commitment to abide by the Barnett


formula for the duration of the current UK Parliament, until 2020,


squaring the Barnett formula with the no detriment principle and the


various commitments given by both governments in the Smith Commission


agreement and everything else is difficult and takes time. As


University of Basel alumnus Adam Smith looks on, a short seminar on


the rival systems that have been suggested for making this work. The


three options are per capita index deduction which eyes have supported,


which insulates Scotland against demographic risk, then this simple


index deduction method which simply looks at our attacks take relative


to the UK, and then there is the levels deduction method which


potentially actually is trying to do it Barnett on taxation which


actually erodes the Barnett formula even more. These are the three


methods, but per capita is the one that works best in terms of a fair


deal on both sides. And that is because you see the Scottish


population has distinct challenges that are different from the UK as a


whole, or England in particular. Our population will grow slower than the


rest of the UK because we do not have the powers to control that,


would not have a revision policy in our control. But the no detriment


principle cuts both ways, so the deal has to be fair to the taxpayers


and the rest of the UK as well. The Scottish Parliament has a tax policy


that generate additional income for Scotland, that is for Scotland, but


likewise if it generates or has a policy which generates less income


and why should taxpayers in the rest of the United Kingdom expected to be


allowed Scotland? With the increased powers that we see in the Smith


Commission agreement and the Scotland Bill come increased


responsibilities, and that is what the haggling is about. But for now


it seems like we might need someone with superpowers to get a deal done.


A short while ago I spoke to the Secretary of State


for Scotland David Mundell who came into our Edinburgh studio


and I began by asking him what was "ludicrous"


about the Scottish Government's demands.


What I meant was that when we get a fiscal framework, and I am quite


confident that we will, it needs to be fair to people in Scotland than


30 people in the rest of the United Kingdom. And what that means is that


the Scottish Government as their part of the deal have to take the


risks that come with new responsibilities, but also if they


are able to grow the Scottish tax base they also get to keep that


money. So it is a balance of risk and responsibility, but it is not


just keeping the Barnett formula, keeping any additional revenue


raised in Scotland, having risk underwritten and maybe even getting


tax funding from the rest of the UK as well. That is the parameters of


our position. In your view, in what way was what John Swinney is arguing


for a ludicrous? What is he demanding that you find so


ludicrous? What John has said in the past is that he accepts that the


deal has to reflect the Scottish Government taking on risk for policy


choices, so that if they make good policy choices and raise additional


revenue they keep that revenue, but if they make a policy choices and


the revenue is less than anticipated then they have to bear the


consequences of that. And that is basically at the core of the


arrangement that I think we need to reach. And that we are capable of


reaching. We are at the position now, both sides have done the dance,


now we need to do the deal. Are you saying that the Scottish Government


is demanding a system which would mean that Scotland would not have to


bear responsibility for its own decisions? I think that some of the


public comment has suggested that the Scottish Government did not want


to take on the risk associated with their own policy choices. I think


that that was a clear part of what the Smith Commission wanted to see


in this arrangement, that you benefited from good policy choices


but you had to take the consequences of poor policy choices. We have


looked at it from a UK Government position, we have looked at the


issues and concerns that the Scottish Government have raised,


they have raised some legitimate issues that are legitimate issues


about population growth in Scotland, issues around the ageing population


and we have, and we are quite willing to look at accommodating


those within these discussions. But the Scottish Government will also


have significant levers to grow the population of Scotland if they get


the policy choices right. If they make Scotland an attractive place to


come to the tax regime, if they make it attractive to businesses. It is a


balance. There are institutional issues in relation to population


growth, but there are also issues that they can influence, and they


need to do that with proper policy choices. But again, I just want to


be clear, because the problem with this whole negotiation is that


partly it is being done in secret and partly that even if it was not


his fantastically complicated. The argument that John Swinney seems to


be putting forward is basically that the deduction from Scotland's grant


to compensate for the fact that Scotland is raising its own taxes


should be based on a per capita share rather than a straightforward


percentage share. Using that the new proposals would you have put on the


table accent that? The point about the per capita share is that it


would shield Scotland from the publishing growing slower than in


England. Using you have changed your proposals to compensate for that to


some extent? I am saying that we want to reach an agreement. We are


taking forward issues that the Scottish Government have raised in


relation to population, but it comes back to the point... But what is new


about what you are proposing? You have said this week there is a new


proposal on the table. What is new about it? We're not going to do the


negotiations on this programme. There is a meeting tomorrow with


John Swinney and the Treasury. I am asking you to tell me what is new.


We have moved, we are looking to move to ensure we can take on board


issues that have been raised about population growth, but getting that


balance, taking account of Scotland's ageing population on one


hand but on the other hand the Scottish Government and accepting


that they have the capacity with these new powers to grow the


population. They can make Scotland an attractive place to come to with


the tax regime, the regime for business, and I am sometimes quite


surprised how pessimistic the SNP seem about their ability to use


these new powers in a positive way. These are really significant powers


that can change Scotland's economy and the need to use them to do so.


They would say Scotland has no control over immigration policy, and


immigration is the most likely way to get the population to increase.


So if you have a system whereby Scotland loses out if its population


grows at a slower rate, that is not... May be at the margins with


the policies you're talking about Piggott have an influence, but with


no control over immigration policy Scotland could lose money through no


fault of its own, and that is the problem. You seem to be accepting


that they have a point. I do not accept that immigration is the only


way to grow the population. If you make your economy attractive, if you


make your tax regime attractive then people will come, and I don't accept


the immigration argument. What I find rather odd is that when the SNP


asked to just three months ago for full fiscal autonomy, that is an


arrangement which independent experts say would leave Scotland


with a ?10 billion annual black hole, they did not ask for


immigration powers along with full fiscal autonomy. They were quite


happy to take on board that huge gap in the Scottish budget without


asking for any of the so-called levers that they need in relation to


growing the economy. Are you suggesting that if the Scottish


Government went along with your... Again I don't want to comment index


reduction methods, that presumably is the basis of what you're


suggesting, that the British government would be prepared to


discuss giving Scotland powers over immigration. Is that what you're


suggesting? I am certainly not suggesting that. Immigration is one


of the reserve powers. It was not part of the Smith Commission


arrangement. What I am suggesting is that the two sides are really quite


close together. I am confident that our accommodating the various needs


that we both have and what the Smith Commission set out as the parameters


for a fiscal framework, that we can get that deal. I think people in


Scotland want to see us get that he'll because they want to see these


sweeping new powers in relation to tax and welfare coming to Scotland.


I am putting all my energy into getting a deal UK Government is, and


I am confident we can get one. If you cannot get a deal the SNP say


they will walk away. RU prepared to walk away? No. We will not walk


away. We will stay until a deal is done. You might not have much


choice. It takes two to reach a deal. We not walking away. I know


the people of Scotland want to see the Scottish Parliament have


extensive new powers over tax and welfare, come that powerhouse


parliament. We have seen the transformation already when the


Scottish Parliament is debating tax issues, the vitality that has come


into the political debate in Scotland. They do want to see that


continue and get even more coherent and relevant with these extensive


new tax powers. I'm not walking away, I want to get a deal,. What


about this deadline of February the 12th? There was not a deadline. That


is an arbitrary date. It is not even necessary for any Scottish


parliament process because the following Monday both the Scottish


Parliament and Westminster Parliament are in recess. We're not


working for any arbitrary date. We are working to get a deal. Of course


he won't that deal as we possibly have it. But I do not see the 12th


or the 14th as being a deadline. The economists who have looked at this,


very complicated formulae that are being bounced around, include that


part of the problem is the Barnett formula. Because the Barnett formula


is at the centre of this. We would not be better if we are going to


have some sort of quasi federal UK to get rid of any deadlines and just


put everything on the table? Perhaps get rid of the Barnett formula. If


it is the problem that causes of these complications, why not just


sit down over a period of months and some sort of constitutional


convention and say, let's work something out? Lots of other


countries do this, can we not do it? There have been various attempts in


the past to look at different funding mechanisms within the United


Kingdom at all the major PATCO parties went into the general


election committed to detain the Barnett formula. We are going to


work within the parameters of the Barnett formula. If it simplifies


matters, why not get rid of it? I am sure academics and economists and


others will continue to argue about the Barnett formula, those people


have to come up with something else. One of the reasons the Barnett


formula has stayed in place at is very easy to criticise it but


difficult to come up with a viable alternative. Argue very much for


joining us this morning. -- thank you very much.


Listening to that is SNP Deputy Leader Stewart Hosie who's


You heard David Mundell suggesting these new proposals the government


have put forward go some way to addressing this issue that Scotland


would lose out if the population did not grow as fast as England. What in


your view is about what he is opposing that is new? I have not


heard any new proposals in the same week David Mundell is not privy to


these negotiations neither am I, all we can talk about is what is in the


public domain and all that seems to be in the public domain at the


moment from the UK Government is a mechanism that would lead perhaps to


a ?7 billion loss to the Scottish block grant over a decade. That


clearly breaches the Smith commission principle of no detriment


and if that is where we are even with a little bit of tinkering, that


we clearly be unacceptable to size with because it does not adhere to


the principles upon which these powers were supposed to be


delivered. Yes, but the other principle that the British


government is understandably trying to protect is that they don't want,


for example, increases in taxation made at Westminster to fund schools


and hospitals in England to leak through to increased taxation


increased spending in Scotland when Scottish taxpayers haven't had to


pay any extra taxes on it. You presumably would accept that as a


legitimate concern for them to have? Indeed, the no detriment proposals


as you said in the package cup both ways. That is absolutely right.


Let's remember what is at the heart of this. There is a modest set of


taxes to be devolved. If the Scottish Government make the right


choices and that yield goes up we benefit from that. If they make the


wrong choices and dealers a shortfall in the Scottish Government


need to take responsibility for that. But the bulk of funding still


comes from the rock rant and that will still be driven by the Barnett


formula. That is what was agreed by all the parties in the Smith


commission so, if we accept that and everybody has in what we are arguing


about in essence is how the block grant is adjusted in the future to


take in the devolved taxes. What we are suggested that the academics are


proposing and again this was the package is that this is the clearest


and best way to do it that involves no detriment to side. Hang on. There


are other academics. The problem with, again I do not want to get


into much into the jargon but the per capita proposals that you are


putting forward is that they would protect Scotland if its population


grew more slowly than in England but it's better click -- perfectly


legitimate for the government to take some responsibility for that.


If you want more powers then if you are Scotland, in Scotland's


population grows slower than England you have to be some of the


responsibility. That is what you want more powers for. It is


precisely these things you want more control than Edinburgh. That is


right so what we want to do is use the powers we have and the modest


powers to be devolved in order to make Scotland even more attractive


than it is to grow the population. It is no issue with that at all. If


we broke the population income tax increases and the share of VAT


increases for example but we cannot have Unionist politicians running


around making an argument about growing the population when the Ark


resisting at every turn the devolution of immigration powers


which are the quickest way to grow the population. You heard David


Mundell the sea you never even asked for that. This is a UK Government,


Unionist political parties who are even proposed to a post study what


these so that people who work and study and learn in Scotland are able


to stay for a few years to contribute to the economy. They are


even saying no to that so I think this argument about population


growth is simply a smoke screen for the fact they are trying to embed


deeper cuts in the block grant than Scottish tax raising powers could


possibly deliver. That is detrimental to Scotland and clearly


breaches the Smith commission proposals. Yes, but the counter to


that is if you index this on a per capita basis Scotland is completely


shielded from its population growing at a slower rate so there is no


incentive for the Scottish Government to do anything about


that. But there is an incentive because as I have said if we grow


the population the income tax yield would increase and the assigned VAT


would increase and many other taxes would increase. It is a good thing


to do anyway. Economic activity would rise. We are not seeking to be


shielded from decisions we take. If we get a decision right in Scotland


and the devolved tax yield goes up we benefit. If we take a decision


and the devolved tax yield goes down we have two face the consequences.


What we are talking about here is the overall level of the block grant


which makes up the bulk of Scotland's funding is still supposed


to be delivered by Barnett. That is agreed by all parties and we cannot


have the UK Government seeking to undermine that and undermine


Scotland's block grant any systemic way we above anything any devolved


tax goods compensate for. That is wrong, it is unclear and beaches the


spirit of all the negotiations. You also heard David Mundell saying the


two sides in all this, taking the rhetoric away, art pretty close


together, is that your view? Now, from what I have seen, neither David


Mundell or myself are privy to these negotiations, but from what I have


seen publicly they've is a considerable distance to go. The


Scottish Government want to stick to the no detriment principle but the


UK Government want to stick to systemic funding. I think that is


quite a week ago and I hope a deal can be struck. What happens if the


is no deal? Well the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have


been absolutely clear, if we cannot get a deal that adheres to the no


detriment caused them a bill pull on the handbrake or rather they will


and they will not sign off a legislative consent motion for these


powers. That is the responsibility and the power of the Scottish


Parliament has and if they heart to wield that in those circumstances


against UK Government intransigence then the government will well


understand we are not prepared to sign of a deal that embeds cuts to


Scotland. Would you be happy as an SNP politician going into the May


election saying Scotland has been offered full control of income tax


but as you are the Nationalists party we have said no, we do not


want it best to mark the is a national party. We have been offered


the modest set of powers. I would like to see them but I am not


prepared to go into any election, any time, the mere legend


notwithstanding, and say we have signed up to a 7 million at in


Scotland's systemic funding over a decade will stop that would be


ridiculous in terms of what the Scottish Government was then able to


ridiculous in terms of what the find than do over the next ten


years. So, you were just say that is it an what? The discussions are


finished on until after the election or what? I hope we can get a deal


done within the time set. If the parties or governments are required


to negotiate a little longer let them negotiate a little longer but


what we cannot sign up to is the systemic factors Scotland's funding.


You have said that. Let me put the point to you that I put to David


Mundell. The issue here, what makes this all so complicated as keeping


the Barnett formula. If you get rid of that it becomes much easier.


Wouldn't it be more sensible rather than politicians running around


setting arbitrary deadlines to have some sort of constitutional


convention where everybody sits down and says we want to reorganise the


way the UK is run let's think about this any rational week? What is the


judgment against doing it that way? We would love to see the finances of


these islands run in a rational way in the. If we took full


responsibility for everything and called it independence that would


make perfect sense but we lost that referendum. What the matter that was


the Smith commission and the Smith commission, all six parties signed


up to Barnett continuing to fund the block grant with the exception of


the devolved hours. That is where we are. That is what we are negotiating


about. Let's have unions politicians in the UK Government stick to some


of the promises they made and deliver this devolution on the


principle of no detriment to Scotland. Thank you for joining us


this morning, Stewart Hosie. The battle for second votes


in Holyrood's May election is ramping up as a recent poll


suggests that Labour will lose all of its 15 constituency seats,


meaning the party is reliant on the regional lists


to return MSPs. Insiders also reveal


that the Conservative will pour resources into a campaign for list


seats, as the gap between them Well, yesterday Labour released


the names of the candidates Joining me is former MP


and Public Affairs consultant, Are you beside yourself with


excitement when you look at Labour's list candidates? Yes, I am managing


to pick a calm face on it but it is hugely exciting. You explain to us


why. Well the Labour Party, Scottish Labour is any very difficult


position. You may have noticed were not exactly on the front food that


the party had a choice where we had the list candidates trying to bring


in new talent and I noticed Kezia Dugdale has been criticised in some


quarters for not doing that. The alternative was trying to secure


some of the more experienced and well known names. It could not do


both. It has gone for the latter option to secure the well-known


people. Many of whom have been here for a long time. I understand why


the party has done that. I do not think a Scottish Labour Party group


of MSPs in Holyrood without the likes of Johann Lamont and James


Kelly, people like that, I think it's good that they are likely,


likely to be back, we do not know yet. It does mean we had in the


position within is very little new talent. The new candidates have come


through our people who lost their seats from Westminster last May. The


problem, Kezia Dugdale bid talk about some idea of having new people


who had perhaps ever been involved in politics coming through to be


candidates and get into parliament and this would make the Labour Party


look like a completely different organisation. That is not going to


happen, is it? It is not. It is a very good aspiration and ambition to


have but it is incredibly difficult. If you're going to put the list of


candidates out to a ballot of members which is what has happened.


If you are the Labour Party candidate you are going to recognise


the name of someone who has served as an MSP for years rather than the


person who was an academic or the business person from another part of


society you are going to put the number one against the names of the


people you recognise which is why we have a list of people who have gone


the whole been here for some time. That is not necessarily a bad thing


because the next five years at Holyrood are going to be really


difficult for the Labour Party at Holyrood the going to need people


who had experience but the problem is without the new talent coming


through Wien in the same position the SNP was in in 1990 97 years ago.


That is a huge step back for the Labour Party. Perhaps the problem


was Kezia Dugdale saying this in the first place because it raised


expectations. The model I think she was using is the victory the SNP had


in the general election but they got so many MPs that they could have an


experienced hard-core and they could have fresh faces as well. Labour are


not quite in that situation. Fresh faces that they had appeared would


be replacing expedience. I think the problem goes back further than that.


There are two reasons. Nobody prepared for the succession to do


Donald Dewar. All led as an opposition, you let the convention


he was prime demolition and nobody prepared for who would take over


from Donald. More importantly the Scottish Labour Party has never had


a strategy on the list. The SNP has right from the very beginning and


worked it very well. Scottish Labour were so arrogantly thought they had


to do was pay attention to who won the first past the post seats. Now


we are reconciled to losing all, possibly all of the first past the


post seats and concentrating everything on the list. Frankly it


is doing everything 15 years too late. That is a strategy that should


have been put in position from the very birth of the Scottish


Parliament. In Deadwood. Do you think there will


be a change. In your view, will Labour look more dynamic at least?


Or is just the old, same old? I think what you had five years ago,


because the party paid so little attention to who was on the list,


you have some additional members, a very mixed bag. There were some


brilliant ones, there were others that frankly should not have been


there. You're being very polite. You mean because either did not expect


to lose so many constituency seats. A bunch of people that no one


thought would get got elected. Your words, not mine. But now the party


has concentrated on getting the best people at the top of the list. On


the whole that is what we have. Unfortunately we will have your


MSPs, but standard will be significantly higher, and it has to


be because will be fewer of them. significantly higher, and it has to


Tom Harris, thank to the campaign group


Scotland Stronger In Europe which will be launched


in Edinburgh this week. to gather support for Britain's


renegotiation of its relationship In Denmark, he won the backing


of the prime minister who said The Polish prime minister backed


Mr Cameron's proposals Here, there's been a mixed reaction


to the deal with MPs discussing I am not arguing and will never


argued that Britain could not survive outside the European Union.


We are the fifth largest economy in the world, the biggest defence


player in Europe with one of the most extensive and influential


diplomats ignored works on the planet. The question is not good


Britain succeed outside the European Union, it is how will we be most


successful. I will Britain be most prosperous. How we create the most


jobs. How we will have the most influence on the rules that shape


the global economy and affect us. How will we be most secure. And I've


always said the best answers to those questions can be found within


a reformed European Union. But let me say again, if we cannot secure


these changes are ruled out nothing. Second, even if we secured these


changes, you'll never hear me say that this is now fixed. Far from it.


There will be many things that remain to be reformed, and Britain


would continue to lead the way. For all the sound and fury, the prime


minister has ended up exactly where he knew he would be, making the case


to remain in Europe which is what he always intended despite


renegotiation spectacle choreographed for TV cameras over


the whole continent. As his own backbenchers to telling us, the


proposals from the European Council are simply tinkering around the


edges. They have little impact on what you delivers for workers in


Britain or British businesses. What is at stake is much bigger than his


recent discussions. is at stake is much bigger than his


whether we're in the is at stake is much bigger than his


that is what the debate is at stake is much bigger than his


UK will be in the run-up to the referendum. The timing of


UK will be in the run-up to the referendum really matters to the


electorate and the governments of Scotland, Wales


electorate and the governments of Ireland, as well


electorate and the governments of there are elections in May. How does


it help to try and fit a couple of emergency brakes that lie within the


control of the year and not as? Isn't the only way to get control


our borders, our tax and our welfare system to leave and be a good


European and let them get on with their political union?


Time now for a look at the week's big stories and what's coming


I'm joined by the Press Association's Scottish political


reporter Lynsey Bews, and by the Sunday Herald's Scottish


Tom, Europe, briefly. I sense something odd going on. All the


politicians on the yes side think they need to deal with the


Europeans, get on with that hand have a quick referendum, meanwhile


the opinion polls are going in the opposite direction. It is a very


interesting picture coming out at the moment. The public seems to have


a very certain opinion about what is happening, because if you look at


the campaigns, the no campaign, the out campaign, and the state


campaign, the embryonic and chaotic, particularly the Out campaign. It is


different either side of the border. It is largely for leaving site of


the border. But the public seemed to be making up their own minds


already. Do you think the Yes campaigners have something to worry


about? I think the Yes campaigners are benefiting at the moment, as Tom


said it is quite chaotic on the other side. They do not seem to have


a coherent... In England, the get out people are streaking ahead, even


when the no campaign is a model of how not to run a campaign. You


think, what could happen if they got their act together? Absolutely. I


think when it comes to the crunch, when you look at Scottish campaign,


the campaign for staying in is much stronger. If you look at it purely


from a Scottish perspective the campaign appear for staying in will


do very well. But what happened in Scotland will not determine the


result. Can you see the Mil people getting their act together? It may


not matter, because the body of opinion is already in favour of an


outlawed. If I were David Cameron, we saw reports in the newspapers


this morning about panic at number ten, I would be worried, because


despite the self sabotage of the Mill site, they are head. -- the


chaos in the No side. In the newspapers, we saw this. That was


John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor. It is clear what is


going on here with this new policy of decreasing tax, that Labour are


trying to stick some territory. Yes, they are trying to do a lot to


puncture the SNP's self mythologising that they are the new


party of the left, the anti-austerity party, and labour are


saying, this is not the case. Look at what they do in practice. They


are quite conservative, especially on tax. That might help Labour feel


good, but I think the public already know this is how the SNP are and the


support what they do. It might give Labour a warm glow but I do not


think it will bring them any more votes. Is that your view? Yes, I


think it was interesting the budget debate last week, Jackie Baillie


wanted to do about principle, the principle of salvaging public


services by making people pay more tax. She did not want to talk about


what John Swinney wanted to talk about which was the detail of how


you go about doing this. And Labour's plan for this ?100 rebate


which they do not seem to be able to explain exactly how it will work.


And the other problem for Labour, they have put this 1p on for every


year, not just the first year when the initial tax powers come forward,


but every year after that, when actually the SNP will properly come


forward with some proposals when they powers over rates and bands


come in. Liverpool have a problem looking at how this 1p rise across


the comes into that. -- Labour will have a problem. Some people say,


look, the 45%, as they like to call themselves, are written off for


Labour in this election. It is the 55% where they might have a chance


of inroads, and you will not win them over by seeing you will put up


taxes. It is more of a survival strategy for Labour. We were talking


about how perilous these elections look for them and how they are


turning to the list vote. They just have to get through these elections


were some sort of credibility on the far side, severe try feel robbed


their own base vote. They're trying to leech a few votes away from the


SNP, maybe people who voted yes because there's probably some sort


of left-wing Nirvana underwater pool those people back. But really it is


about trying to get through this election. Add line from the


Telegraph about 30. -- about Turkey. This is a refugee crisis on top of


the refugee crisis we have already because of what is happening in the


area around Aleppo. Yes, it is very worrying for people who are in Syria


and trying to escape from the atrocities and the attacks that are


going on, and again it serves to highlight what a mess that country


is in and how we collectively have failed to really make inroads to


addressing any of the issues that are going on. And other side of


this, of course, is that it is possible, perhaps not likely, but


possible that the Assad- Britain strategy could win outright. --


Assad-Vladimir Putin. If they take Aleppo, most of the urban areas will


be back under the control of the Syrian government. Possibly, but it


will not get our out of Syria or anything like that. Lindsay is


right. This is a terrible tragedy that is happening right now. One


could easily imagine Assad and Vladimir Putin getting that and


saying, we will turn our weapons on Isis, and you in the West who sit


around wringing your hands about how terrible it all is, we've done this


and we are now go to tackle IS, and you have done nothing. You are


braver man than I am because I would not like to predict. I'm not


predicting, it is just one scenario. Nothing is simple in that country.


And I hope we can avoid another tragedy in Aleppo, as I don't know


how it is going to pan out. There is pressure already on Turkey to open


its borders. Absolutely. And these people are in a perilous situation.


This is another humanitarian crisis on quite a large scale. I do both


very much indeed. I'll be back at the


same time next week.


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer look at the current state of the European Union renegotiations with Eric Pickles, and debate the question of sovereignty in the EU with George Galloway and Stephen Kinnock. Andrew also speaks to the Shadow Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Smith, about government plans to alter union funding of the Labour Party. Keeping Andrew company throughout the show are Janan Ganesh from the Financial Times, the Guardian's Nick Watt and Helen Lewis from the New Statesman.

Download Subtitles