28/02/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by Lord Michael Howard and Alan Johnson to discuss the EU referendum. Panellists include Janan Ganesh, Isabel Oakeshott and Nick Watt.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


The Prime Minister rams home his claim that leaving


the European Union puts jobs, security, even


Many Tories don't like his arguments - or his tone.


David Cameron's mentor and former Tory leader Michael Howard will be


here to tell us why he thinks it's safe for Britain to leave,


and Labour big beast Alan Johnson will make the case for staying in.


Labour's not exactly united when it comes to renewing Trident.


That didn't stop Jeremy Corbyn telling protestors yesterday


that he believes in a nuclear-free Britain.


Following the death of young Conservative activist


Elliott Johnson amid allegations of bullying within the party,


we've spoken to one of those close to the centre of the story


Who are these people who aren't the lead or threatened? Nobody has come


forward and there is evidence I didn't do those things.


Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:


rally in London yesterday, the GMB challenges Labour to say


where the replacement jobs of its members will come from.


All that to come - and with me for the duration,


three journalists who show as much consensus on the big political


For balance I should say they fall out as often as Jeremy Corbyn's


It's Nick Watt, Isabel Oakshott and Janan Ganesh.


And speaking of cabinet unity, there's a distinct lack


of it in this morning's papers


of campaigning since David Cameron announced that a referendum


on Britain's EU membership will take place on the 23rd of June.


The Fleet Street hounds have caught the scent of a good old-fashioned


Conservative feud over Europe, and with the party and the cabinet


divided over whether Britain should stay or go, they're not


The Sunday Times says David Cameron has been warned


that he'll face a leadership challenge if he doesn't call a halt


to so-called 'blue on blue' attacks on fellow Conservatives.


The Sunday Telegraph reports on the 'battle of wills'


between the two sides with pieces by David Cameron


and Iain Duncan Smith, who says 'they can sack me


The Observer leads with Number 10's main message,


which is to say that a British exit would spark decades


And the Mail on Sunday says the Tory feud turned really


nasty after Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond had what it called


So it seems fair to say that relations between David Cameron


and eurosceptics in his party aren't exactly cordial.


The welfare secretary Iain Duncan Smith, he's one


of the cabinet ministers arguing to leave, was asked about it


You don't think the Prime Minister is much of a patriot, do you? This


is not about personalities. They in campaign's whole strategy seems to


be about, it is terrible, it is about saying that we are too small,


too inconsequential and we cannot do what we want. I don't know why


anybody would want to run a country like this. This country is the


greatest honour. I think probably the first time a cabinet minister


has been asked if the Prime Minister is a patriot and he does not reply


yes. Is Mr Cameron getting the tone and the content of this right? I


think he made a big mistake earlier this week when he lashed out at


Boris Johnson in the Commons. I think there was a degree of over


interpreting those comments, and I understand that there was a fuss


about whether or not he had slighted Boris Johnson's personal life with a


reference to knowing couples that had divorced. Mr Cameron thought he


had Boris in the bag. He was certainly bruised by that. The


comment on marriage went over Doris's aired, so there was a bit of


over interpreting by people on all sides. -- over progress's aired. But


if Cameron is being called to stop these attacks, he is the one who


started them. Europe is just another word for division in the Tory Party


but it almost seems like the manner and the tone of what the prime


ministers saying, he is almost going out of his way to upset those


opposed to him. I disagree. I think the grievances in the papers today


are spurious. It has not been a blue on blue campaign so far, not a huge


amount of animosity and poison so far although it is early days. Do


they expect him not to play the economic risk card? Do they expect


him to go through the next four mums using the single most devastating


line of attack he has against the other side, which is the unknown


economic has heard of taking a punt on Brexit? But that argument would


be true even if he had brought back the store from Brussels or brought


back nothing from Brussels. The economic argument is that this could


be a profound shock to the world economy. That is either true or not


true, regardless of the settlement. But that is not the given reason for


their frustration with him. At the moment they are focusing on the tone


and negativity. And you don't feel like they have the right to be


aggrieved? No. It would be bizarre Prime Minister to lead a campaign in


favour of staying in without deploying his most effective weapon.


And what Mr Osborne is doing with this argument is have one very


simple, crude argument in the general election, that Labour was


not credible, and in this campaign that it is a leap in the dark. He


needs to be careful. The idea that the world economy is going to tank


because Britain leaves the European Union, that Britain leaving the


union is up there with the Chinese fall in growth, it is absurd. What


did George Osborne do? Equalled the G20 finance ministers to write that


into their conclusions. Yes, it will be a challenge for the British


economy if we leave the European Union, but the idea that it is up


there as a global risk that will lead to some great world economic


depression, I think he needs to be careful. He has to ensure that what


he does has credibility and I am not sure that passes the test. What


annoys a lot of the Tories is that they are using arguments about


staying in which I've always been true, regardless of whether or not


the settlement makes any difference. To say that if we came out, there


would be a profound economic shock, that is true regardless of the


settlement. I think that is what annoys the Eurosceptics. They are


using arguments that were true six months ago. And many of the


arguments are very thin. David Cameron has written for the


Telegraph today saying that he can describe exactly what people will be


voting for if they vote to stay in. It is the status quo, it is not very


difficult to describe that. It is very frustrating for Eurosceptics


that there is this constant spurious claim by the In campaign that they


cannot describe what Out looks like. They describe what it looks like


everyday. The problem is that it is under article 50 of the Lisbon


Treaty that exit people cannot guarantee the deal. They can say it


might be this or that but they cannot guarantee it because we are


out of the European Council the moment we press the button. You


wonder whether either side can guarantee what the country will be


like whether we stay in or come out. We have a pretty good idea of who


will be fighting on which site. Both the Leave and the Remain camps


have their own big figures, and they wasted little time


in putting aside old loyalties Let's have a look at some of the big


moments of the week. I have known a number of couples


who have begun divorce proceedings but I do not know any who have begun


divorce proceedings in order This open border does not allow us


to check and control people who may come and we have seen what has


happened in Paris where they spent ages planning and plotting


so who is to say it is not beyond the wit of man that those


might already be thinking about it? Today almost 200 of Britain's


biggest firms including 36 on the FTSE 100 index published


a letter warning that so-called Brexit would put


the economy at risk. We have a great opportunity now


to strike new deals for Britain to be the hub of new trading


arrangements around the world and to have a fantastic new future


so that is what I am going for. In my judgment as Chancellor leaving


the EU would represent a profound economic shock for our country,


for all of us and I am going to do everything I can to


prevent that happening. The European Court of Justice


interprets the European Union treaties and until this agreement


is embodied in treaty change then the European Court of Justice is not


bound by this agreement. You saw there a few of


the Conservative allies David Cameron has failed to persuade


of the case for remaining in the EU, and now I'm joined by another one -


the former party leader, Tory peer and leave


campaign Michael Howard. Welcome to the programme. Let's


start on this idea of a second referendum. You have indicated that


a vote to leave could jolt the rest of the EU into giving us a better


and bigger and more compounds of deal. That could trigger a second


referendum. Mr Cameron says that is fiction and Boris Johnson now says


the same. Are you sticking to that? Yes. I cannot guarantee that would


happen but it is a possibility. Everybody who wants us to vote


Remain is going to say it is for the birds, and I understand that. There


want us to vote to remain. Mr Johnson is saying that, too. And I


don't agree with him. We have reached the same conclusion by


different routes. The European Union has form on this. They have done it


before in relation to Ireland and has form on this. They have done it


Denmark. The very things that make it certain that we would thrive as


an independent country, the fact that we are the fifth biggest


economy in the world, the strongest military power in Europe, the fact


that we are the second-biggest contributor to the European Union


budget, those things would mean that we would be sorely missed if we left


and that is why I think the countries in Europe, the European


leaders would say that if we voted to leave, let's have some more talks


and let's think again. Would they? Brexit, I think, if it happens would


happen at a time of what is clearly crisis for the EU, perhaps the worst


crisis in its history. If it responded by giving us everything


that the Eurosceptics wanted, there could be a rush to the door by other


countries. Why would the EU risk that? The very fact they are in a


crisis means they need us all the more. I cannot guarantee that they


would. It is an unknown. There is a chance of that but if they don't


come back, if all we are left with is the current under formed European


Union, I think we are better out than in. OK. Turning to the


economics. Last week we saw some of Britain's biggest companies,


household names, warning against the dangers of leaving the EU for jobs


and investment. Why should the British people not listen to them?


First of all, they were a minority even of the bosses of the FTSE 100


companies. Moore did not sign them signed. Secondly, don't take it from


me, take it from someone with real authority, someone like Mervyn King,


the former governor of the Bank of England, who pointed out yesterday


that we ought to take what these people say with a pinch of salt.


Many of them were strong adherence of us joining the euro and predicted


economic disaster for us if we did not. But not all of them. How many


FTSE 100 chief executives are on your side? I don't know. But many


business people are, particularly small business people. And


particularly business people who do most of their business with


countries outside of the EU and who are very hampered in doing so by the


rules to which we are in thrall. The kind of people who signed this


letter saying we should stay in, they are also the same kind of


people who signed the same kind of letters backing the Tories come


election time. If you want us to listen to them, when it suits you,


but not when they don't agree with you? They can be right about one


thing without being right about another. He wants to pick them up


when it suits you and disparage them when it doesn't. Can I make a point


about this? I think we are in danger of looking at these issues through


the wrong end of the telescope. If we leave, there are some things that


I can absolutely guarantee. Number one, we will have our democracy


restored, our courts and our Parliament will no longer be


subservient to the European Union. Number two, as part of that, we will


recover control of our borders and Number two, as part of that, we will


we will have control over who comes in and who doesn't. Number three, we


will no longer have to contribute billions of pounds a year to the


EU's budget. Those are certainties, indisputable. The onus is on those


who wish us to remain 2.2 similar indisputable arguments which


outweigh those and so far I have not seen them. But does it not worry you


that all of our allies in the G20 want us to stay in. Only President


Putin among world leaders once asked to leave? Does that not cause you


concerned? The British people are the best people to decide what is in


our interest. You could also site the Attorney General of the United


States, who said that of the European Union was undermining the


intelligence sharing that is so crucial in our fight against


terrorism and crime. So now, it is the British people who are the best


people to decide what is in our interest. The Prime Minister says


there are 3 million jobs that depend in some way on our trade in the


European Union. He says we would not go training -- we would go on


trading with the EU, if we left, but would the trade be at the same


level? How many of these jobs would be truly safe? Can you answer that


question? They want to continue trading with us and we are the


biggest export market for the rest of the European Union. And we run a


great deficit on trade with them so it is very much in their interest to


continue to trade with us. We could do some jobs, couldn't wake Umax --


we could lose. I do not think the Germans would not continue selling


as BMWs, or the French wine. If they want to continue to have access to


our market, we need to make sure we have access to theirs. It is in our


mutual interest. You say that all 3 million jobs are guaranteed? I


cannot offer you any guarantees and neither can the banister. The great


arts profit of integration as he did very well, when he said that if the


British do not want to sign up to further integration in the European


Union, we can have a very friendly relationship with them, we can sign


up to a free-trade agreement with them and that would be the way


forward. Let me show you what the current


Home Secretary who is the longest serving Home Secretary says:


I have great respect for her, I don't quite know why she says that.


I believe that we can continue to have a very good and constructive


working relationship with the member states of the EU on security matters


if we leave. The reason I say that is simply this, we contribute a


great deal to that relationship, our intelligence services are the best


in Europe. They want the help we can give them and so there is absolutely


no reason whatsoever why we should not continue to have a close


relationship with them on these matters on an intergovernmental


basis. The declaration of the European Council, which I know you


have read as carefully as I have, says in terms, national security is


our responsibility of the nation states. One thing we would not have


access to is the European arrest warrant. We could come to an


agreement on that. Let's say what you said on that:


it wouldn't be if we left. It could, because we could easily reach an


agreement with the Europeans that the essentials of the European


arrest warrant continued in force. Not all my friends on the leading


side with that that I think it would be possible to reach such an


agreement. No other non-EU member has use of the arrest warrant. No


relationship as we are. We don't relationship as we are. We don't


know. It was used to bring back one of the failed London bombers from


Italy and it came back quickly and the arrest warrant. He is now in


jail, how would we do that? That is why I was in favour of it at the


time and I think because we offer so much to our European neighbours in


terms of the capacity which we bring to these issues they would be keen


to continue in that sort of arrangement with us if we left the


European Union. Let me show you what Rob Wainwright, the head of Europe


all -- Europol said. The head of Europol, British, the longest


serving Home Secretary, both think that our security would be more at


risk. And the Attorney General of the United States accuses the


European Union of undermining the fight against terrorism and I think


in all of these issues we need to have some self confidence and self


belief. We are a big country, an important country and we have a huge


amount to offer in terms of cooperation with our neighbours. It


is in the interest to continue to cooperate with us and I have no


doubt we could reach perfectly satisfactory arrangements with them


if we voted to leave. Finally, Mr Cameron was once your special


adviser, you were his mentor and you told his mother one day that he


would be Prime Minister, what did he say when you told him you are


joining the league side? We had a difficult conversation, I find it


difficult to be on the opposite side of the argument to David Cameron. He


was very disappointed I had come to this conclusion and I understand and


respect that. Michael Howard, thank you for being with


So that's the case for leaving put by an elder statesman


Let's turn now to an elder statesman of the Labour Party -


although he's a fresh-faced one - it's Alan Johnson and he is leading


the Labour In for Britain Group, and he's in Hull.


Your side of the argument stresses the risks and uncertainties of


leaving the EU, do you accept there are risks and uncertainties with


staying? No. Not in the sense that Michael Howard was suggesting. I


thought what he said was wrong, he said he could guarantee we would not


be contributing to the European Union and could guarantee there


would not be free movement but he cannot. If we take the Norway option


which many of those on the leading site promote then we would indeed be


paying them, Norway is the 10th biggest contributor. They have free


movement. Why would we have to follow what Norway does? They are a


small economy and we are the second largest in Europe? I am just saying


that there are other options, the Swiss option once again. Michael


cannot guarantee it. We are the fifth biggest economy, we were the


fourth when we were in government, but people say that only leaving


side but they do not equate it at all with 41 years of membership of


the EU. Part of that economic strength, I am in Hull where there


is the biggest investment any where in the world by Siemens, billions of


pounds and 1000 jobs. They are building wind turbines for offshore


Britain. It was fierce competition, if you take... They are building


stuff Britain, why would they not do it here? If you take Britain outside


the EU you have all kinds of uncertainties and all kinds of


possible barriers. The Society of motor manufacturers point out that


whilst sales to China and Russia have declined their sales to Europe


are up by 10% because we don't pay any tariffs to export into Europe.


The other point I wanted to mention was that Michael was part of a


government which opted out of something called the social chapter,


basic protection for workers. In this huge market, the biggest


commercial market, bigger than China and America, there are protections


for workers. Michael opted out of those and I believe that he and many


others think that is good to not have those protections. We opted


back in. For us those protections for workers, to avoid this country


becoming a race to the bottom, anything goes kind of free-market


experiment, are very important. Hold on, why couldn't the British


government, why wouldn't a British government outside the EU replicate


these rights if it was so minded, what would stop us from doing that


if the government got the democratic will of the British people? The


first point is as I have explained that a British government chose not


to do that. That was Alex Goode British government. The British


government that we were part of opted into those arrangements. There


is nothing to suggest in the history of Conservative government that if


we left the EU that they would opt into all this. That would be a


matter for the British people to choose if they wanted that


government. If we let the EU at the next election Labour would promise


four weeks paid leave, rights for workers, paid maternity at the next


election and if that is what the British people want they will vote


for you? The people who want us to leave, the argument I am making, is


that the people who want us to leave consider all of that to be red tape.


They consider all of that to be bureaucracy. We believe in that kind


of market that there has to be protection for consumers, for the


environment and for workers. That is an important part of what Europe


gives us. Non-EU countries, Norway, Australia, Canada, Iceland, they all


score highly even on the trade unionist global workers rights


index. Why wouldn't an independent UK, if voters were so minded to do


so and I don't see any mainstream politician saying they would want to


take away four weeks paid leave, why politician saying they would want to


does it need Europe to do it? That's a very good question. In this


country alone, it is a political consensus in countries like Norway


and Sweden that there should be decent basic rights for workers. In


this country it is an election issue. Why shouldn't it be an


election issue? I believe if you are trading into this huge market and


have got all those opportunities to trade then one aspect of that must


be that you don't undercut each other on the basis of terms and


conditions. I believe it's an essential part of being in Europe


and that is why it is an important part of our campaign to maintain


those rights and protections. Moving on to immigration, people are


concerned about the scale of it, is there anything in the settlement of


David Cameron that'll make a material difference to immigration


from the EU? Yes there is, it is very underrated nice to. Two points


which were negotiated by Theresa May that were not in the package that we


saw in the Donald Tusk exchange were very important. First of all


tackling sham marriages and secondly to say that people coming into this


country who we suspect might be engaged in the future in activities


we would find criminal or perhaps terrorism, that we can stop them


coming in. That is important, at the moment it is based on what we know,


not on what we predict. Sham marriages with their largely to the


subcontinent and is very little to do with Europe. You asked me for two


things... I don't know what difference it would make to the


numbers, it is about 100 is to 5000 per year net migration coming to


this country and it will continue at that level if we stay in want it?


There is nothing we can do about net EU migration at that level.


Absolutely. I have said that before. It was David Cameron's package. In


fairness of people making contributions before taking


working-class tax credits but I never thought this was a draw for


people to come -- taking working tax credits. We can do something to stop


the expectation and we don't need the rest of Europe to do that, I


think David Cameron was right, you are right about free movement within


the European Union but people are worried about movement coming from


outside the European Union and outside the European Union ourselves


I think we would be weaker. Not just because we'll would the protection


of the Dublin accord -- not just because we will lose. The most


honourable point is Calais to Dover and that operation of the Border


Force moving to Calais, the mayor comes over and says teacher border


backed every couple of months. That is between France and Britain, it is


nothing to do with the European Union. This is the point and I think


this is what Michael missed, if we wrench ourselves away from the


European Union after 41 years of membership, does anyone think there


will be huge goodwill out there for Britain? Here is another point about


French politics, the French presidential right wing campaigns


who might well win next year are saying they will get rid of it even


if we stay in the European Union. There you are. So what is the point?


Nothing to do with the EU. I don't think anybody doubt that if we left


the EU it would seriously bring into jeopardy that arrangement and that


is the most vulnerable entry point. Jeremy Corbyn believes we should not


look upon immigration as a problem. Jeremy Corbyn believes we should not


Do you agree in the context of this debate about Europe? Only in the


sense that it is not the driving force, people don't come here, they


come here to work by and large, they don't come here to claim benefits.


In that respect I do. I think as Jeremy accepts the exploitation


which comes with it needs to be addressed. So to be clear the scale


of immigration if we stay in the EU does not change. It might do. I will


tell you why it might do, I was Home Secretary before Theresa May, the


net migration figure was around 165,000, very low. Because we had


just gone through the collapse of Liman brothers and the economy was


doing badly. If we come out of the EU and are in such a state as far as


our economy is concerned it might stop people wanting to come here.


OK, you said we have the best lyrics, meaning your side, but we


are still struggling to put them to music, why can't you find the right


chin? What I meant by that is they have simplistic let's regain the


borders and regain our sovereign three and it's quite a complex


argument to say actually we have got the best of both worlds. Yes we have


some sovereign tree into Europe but that gives us influence over other


member states and gives us a louder voice and a more powerful voice in


the rest of the world. We will give you that, you love your music so we


will give you time to find a tune until we meet again. Alan Johnson,


thank you. Let's turn now to the bullying


allegations surrounding the death of young Conservative


activist Elliott Johnson. An inquest is due to open this week


after the 21-year-old was found dead It's thought he took his own life


weeks after raising allegations about the way he was being treated


in the Conservatives' youth wing. He left behind a suicide note naming


two other activists. Today, one of them, a man


called Andre Walker, speaks out about his relationship


with Elliott Johnson and the bullying allegations


for the first time. For nearly six months


a grieving family, friends, colleagues and the media have been


trying to fathom why a young conservative activist,


21-year-old Elliot Johnson, lay down on a railway line


and took his own life. The student vote


is really important. Just months before, he had been


an enthusiastic volunteer for Road We are going to be deciding


the general election. This was the brainchild of a former


Conservative candidate, Mark Clarke, that would bus young


conservatives around the country to campaign on doorsteps


during the 2015 general election. Are you going to help change


the future of our country? Since the death of Elliott,


lurid headlines have reported complaints


being made against Mr Clarke of bullying, sexual impropriety


and blackmail in relation All of which Mr Clarke


vigorously denies. Accusations of a Conservative


cover-up have led to the resignation of former party co-chairman


Grant Shapps, pressure on the current chairman


Lord Feldman, Mr Clarke banned from the party for life,


and an internal party investigation underway already widely criticised


by the Johnson family. Elliott left a note to be read


after his death directly accusing Mr Clarke of bullying him


and another person, The note was not all that Elliott


left, there was also a secret recording of a night at a pub


with all three of them in which Andre Walker appears


aggressive and threatening over an official complaint Elliott


was going to make about Mr Clarke. In the six months which have


followed, Andre Walker has been portrayed in the media


as Mr Clarke's henchmen, ready to strongarm those


who stood in his way. Now in his first interview Mr Walker


gives his side of events nature of his friendship


with Elliot Johnson. The Andre Walker that the public has


seen so far in relation to this story, is that an Andre


Walker you recognise? If I take you back to the day


that the covert recording took place, Elliott asked me to come


with him to meet with Mark Clarke which was a meeting that he wanted


to discuss the problems they had. I met Elliott beforehand and we went


to the pub together and met Mark. What you hear is me getting


frustrated partway through What you don't hear,


what wasn't released to most of the media was at the end Elliott


inviting me back to his place because I had missed the last train


and us leaving the pub together. If you look at that secret


recording, it sounds like you are some kind of hatchet


man for Mark Clarke. I think everyone who is fat


and from the North of England and involved in politics gets


accused of being a bruiser and it is something I never took


particularly seriously, I don't recognise the criticism


and I think the media has called almost everyone I have ever met


in politics and who are these people that I bullied


or threatened or harangued? Nobody has come forward,


in fact there is plenty of evidence that I didn't do any


of those things. What was the nature


of the relationship So, Mark Clarke introduced me


to Elliott because we both had We hit it off straightaway


and the relationship started It lasted until the day he died,


as far as I was concerned. The reason I have been coy


about that is I know that saying I'm very sorry about that


and it is not my intention to go out We have got to discuss this issue,


we have to discuss the issue of homophobia and why people,


even as close to him as me were not told about the mental


health problems. This is a reference


to a British Transport Police report prepared ahead of this weeks


inquest seen by Mr Walker. The Daily Mail has reported that it


suggests: But also that Elliot


Johnson had made previous health issues relating


to his being accepted as gay. Speaking to the BBC in response


to the story, his father denies It is not relevant, Elliott


took his life because he had been bullied and picked on generally


by certain persons and let down by other organisations around


the Conservative Party. He was treated badly,


that is why he took his life. He was treated appallingly by people


and organisations and we want to make sure that he receives


justice for what happened to him. Many of Andre Walker's old friends


have blamed him and shunned him. He says that has prevented him


from being able to grieve. I was not able to go


to the funeral service. Because of the things


which were said about me. That was very hurtful


because I would have liked Similarly I don't know where


Elliott's final resting place is, I would like to visit it,


whether that is going to be possible The one memorial service I was able


to go to somebody screamed at me and I was effectively thrown out


which has just made it impossible for me to pay my respects in the way


that I feel I ought to. How would you describe Elliott


as a person? He was great fun, we used to go out


and have a real laugh and I think that this sort of sad life


which people have characterised him as having in London where it was all


very depressing and he didn't have many friends and people


were bullying him on a day-to-day basis, to my mind is surely not him


at all and I think it is sad that It's just gone 11.35am,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland who leave us now It's just gone 11:35pm.


You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland, who leave us now Good morning and welcome


to Sunday Politics Scotland. As anti-Trident protesters rallied


in London yesterday, the GMB union issued a challenge


to the Labour leadership over jobs. We'll speak to Labour MSP


Neil Findlay and the union's The Liberal Democrats claim


the party has punched We'll watch their leader


Willie Rennie float like a butterfly Professor Tom Devine was a prominent


Yes supporter during the referendum. We'll ask him if he's


changed his mind. When the Labour party elected


Jeremy Corbyn as its leader last September, you might have been


forgiven for thinking the big unions But on Thursday the GMB issued


a direct challenge to the Labour leader over the renewal of Trident,


accusing him of being irresponsible to talk about scrapping the nuclear


missile system without addressing the implications for


jobs and communities. The union, which represents


civilian defence workers, Yesterday, Mr Corbyn addressed


an anti-Trident protest The union, which represents


civilian defence workers, Yesterday, Mr Corbyn addressed


an anti-Trident protest in central London, along


with the First Minister, The Scottish Labour Party has also


rejected the renewal of Trident. Here is Neil Findlay speaking at


that time. I have opposed nuclear weapons all my life, I am a member


of CND and make the edition is clear. I want to see small


businesses around Faslane oppose Trident, I want nationalists,


liberals, Greens and I even want Tories to join the campaign against


Trident. I spoke to Neil Findlay in Grangemouth and began by asking if


it was right that the Labour feeder spoke at that anti-Trident rally.


Jeremy has had a long-standing queue on nuclear weapons since his first


logical thought, he has been very involved in the peace movement and


the campaign for nuclear disarmament. You argue against


Labour Party policy? Jeremy was consistent in putting across his


view, a QC has held for decades and you would be the first person to


criticise him had he not spoken out on an issue that he has campaigned


so passionately about over the years. A consistent line he has


taken but the party is having a big debate over the future of the


nuclear weapon system and many other people will express their views in


that debate, it is healthy and democratic, but other parties who do


not have healthy debate, they have a line given by the top and everybody


is supposed to fall into line. Is it OK for the deputy leader, Tom


Watson, to suggest he will back David Cameron and vote for the


renewal of Trident no matter what the Labour review decides? Lets see


what the review does decide and not pre-empt what that review is and


what comes out of that review. We should all indicate with that


debate, we encourage people to put across their Duke and I look forward


to that debate going on over the next while until we come up with a


position. That does not answer my question, you as a party have to


accept it is up to conscience which way we vote on nuclear weapons.


There is no way when you have your leader standing in a rally with


Nicola Sturgeon campaigning against Labour policy, should Labour decided


to be against nuclear weapons, you cannot argue individual members


should not vote for them. Let's see what comes out under review. This is


not about that, I am suggesting there is no way Labour can't demand


its own MPs vote in line with party policy no matter what the outcome of


your review. For some people that will be a conscience issue, it


always has been a conscience issue for some people and they may take


that decision but the party is in the process of having a review, it


will report and we will move forward on that basis. The Scottish


Secretary of the GMB said people like you are, and I quote,


professional poseurs and armchair generals playing their student


politics as they sip lactase in Hollywood and Islington. I don't


know what the last eight copies are alike in Grangemouth but you get the


point. -- lactase. I am not a big fan of those but Gary Smith is


entitled to defend members' positions. This is a serious debate


that is taking place, he is entitled to put across his views in that and


I welcome that but I think it is an unfortunate choice of language. Many


people involved in this debate have had decades of commitment to the


trade union movement and the greatest advocates of trade unionism


and that type of language is unhelpful. He would say, my language


may or may not be unhelpful, that is academic, you are threatening my


members' jobs. The jobs issue is critical in this debate and I said


so when I spoke at the Labour Party conference, the jobs issue is the


biggest issue we have to wrestle with because I am not in the


business of putting any one out at work, so we have to look at how we


maintain those skills and those jobs, highly skilled people in the


defence sector. You have no grounds to do that. Wait, how we keep them


in work and provide them with a future is a critical element. You


have no credible plan to do that. If we look at what happened in other


places, for example the US went naval bases closed there was a


diversification process that front on further employment and the ST UC


and others have advised a similar process. They would not be


advocating that type of process to put Gary Smith and the GMB members


to work, that is not the business we are in. On Europe, have you decided


which side you were on in the referendum? I am watching the debate


carefully. I've personally, since I came into politics have been


chronicled of the anti-democratic way the EU operates but at this


stage I have not made up my mind how to vote in the referendum, but I


would find it impossible to campaign alongside some of the characters who


are joining forces in this referendum, Nigel Farage and Boris


Johnson and people like that, I would find that impossible, and I


would be uncomfortable campaigning alongside David Cameron, so why do


not see myself taking an active role on either side of the campaign but I


will make my decision on how I vote nearer the time. But you must have


made up your mind. It is not as if nearer the time. But you must have


it is a sudden issue, we have been in the EU since 1973. We have, all


my life we have been in it but there are issues and in relation to what


Cameron has negotiated, some of which is appalling, but bigger


issues at stake about democracy, accountability and hope the EU


operates and I will take my time to make up my mind. We had Alan, sorry,


John Mills from Labour Leave on this programme saying he would organise a


Labour campaign to leave the EU, what if he asks you to join in? I


will listen to all sides in the debate but I do not think I will be


taking a front for centre role. I have more local issues to deal with,


the small matter of a Scottish election and that is concentrating


my mind and all my energies are being put into working hard in the


constituency where I am standing and that will be my focus.


Listening to that was Gary Smith, who is the Scottish organiser


You stand accused of unfortunate use of language. How would you recover


from that? This debate over Trident is an indulgent debate played by


people who were happy doing student politics. This position was hatched


in Islington and Holyrood and the whole Scottish political elite is in


direct confrontation with the organised working class. I would


rather see Labour politicians like Neil Findlay and Jeremy Corbyn


attacking Nicola Sturgeon and her government's record, thousands of


jobs being cut, services to the first Scots cut, unemployment


rising, no response to what is happening in oil and gas, no


opportunities for young people, these are the issues we should be


talking about rather than something they have no control over like


Trident. But I am not sure it is fair to call someone like Neil


Findlay a student politician. This is student politics, an indulgent


debate, these are the logical poseurs who rather than talk about


real issues and real concerns of working class communities are


happier on marches threatening to sack workers in Scotland, and the


workers who will go if Trident wasn't renewed or not just at the


low workload, it would be at BAE Systems. I had a member marching


when Rosyth was privatised by Dutch, Neil Findlay was on those marches


and I remember when John major tried to close it and now Labour


politicians, rather than challenging the nationalist record on jobs, are


marching to have these places closed because the workers on the Upper


Clyde will be redeployed to Baron Furnace and hundreds of them are


already there because they have big gaps in the work programme. This is


an infantile debate. There is something very odd going on


here because the readers wanted a left-wing Labour Party and now they


have got it they are accused of going on to student politicians. 1%


of the eligible trade union vote went to Jeremy Corbyn so this was


never an argument, it is not for me to comment on his leadership as an


entirety but this was never a working class movement, let's not


kid ourselves on. What we have now is in effect a middle-class elite or


that Holyrood and Islington going head-to-head with organised working


class because they are trying to head-to-head with organised working


throw our members out of jobs at the upper Clyde, precise and the lower


Clyde. If they do decide that the Labour Party to be against Trident


free new bull it seems possible even likely, is there anything you can do


about it? What is awful is we have the leader of the Labour Party


speaking against his own party policy. It is an inconvenient truth


for a meal and others that we have party policy. If they change the


Wallasey it will make no difference. What we have said through this whole


debate is Trident renewal is going ahead. It is happening, creating


jobs at the lower Clyde, we have hundreds of people already working


on the Spotlight side, it is good news for jobs on the Opera Clyde, it


will not make any change whatsoever and that is why Labour should be


concentrating on the issues of the day, John Swinney 's cuts budget.


Let me say this, Nicola Sturgeon says this will be able he can be


issued during the Scottish election while that is diversely politics and


I will be writing to Sturgeon tomorrow about workers from her own


constituency and down at Faslane and Coulport as well. If Labour were


down the coast as Jeremy Corbyn Monts, with that affect the union


support for the Labour Party? It would not make a difference in terms


of jobs which is the crucial issue for us. The union then of course


would take a decision on our relationship with the party but I


keep say this. You would not drop your readership of the Labour Party?


keep say this. You would not drop That would be an issue of debate.


Neal Finlay and others should be talking about the job crisis in


Scotland, the lack of opportunity for working people. You have heard


what he had to say about finding alternative jobs, what do you think


about that? They have not come alternative jobs, what do you think


with credible alternative employment and we have lost faith in demolition


and these politicians are now expecting us to trust them to find


alternative work? The only proposals that are an alternative to Trident


has come from Corbin saying we should build it without missiles and


Livingston saying let's invest the money instead in the arts. What are


they going to do? Get the ship rights to the waiters? Give them a


box of Koreans and a colouring in book? How are they going to feed


their families and keep a roof over their head? -- crayons. Obviously we


don't like to see people lose their jobs but weapons of mass disruption


is a bigger issue than that. It is not about whether the people who


make them more uninvolved with them lose their jobs but it is a much


bigger issue. You can have your principles but could also have


consequences and those against the Trident renewal programme either in


direct conflict with workers and working communities in Scotland.


Thank you, we will have to leave it there.


There was a time when the Liberal Democrats were big


The party has served in government at Westminster and Holyrood,


but more recently has suffered heavy losses at the hands


They used their spring conference in Edinburgh this weekend to attempt


to sell their message of fairness to the voters.


But with just a few months until the Scottish election,


will the public buy it, or are the Lib Dems still


Our reporter Andrew Black went to find out.


Politics, it's a brutal old game and that's a lesson the Lib Dems have


had to learn the lad -- hard way. Recently it seems the Scottish Lib


Dems haven't even fully reflect on public opinion. That hasn't always


been the case. After all, this was a party which used to be in power,


both in Holyrood and Westminster, it has now been reduced to one Scottish


MP and a handful of MSPs. Now the Lib Dems have done what every


political party does when it's on the ropes, launched a fightback. At


times signs of this fightback were always evident. That said, Lib Dem


leader, Willie Rennie, said his party, despite small numbers, has


helped the Scottish Government to account on key issues like policing.


That's the kind of record, he says, will stand the Lib Dem is in good


stead ahead of the Scottish election. We can be the best again


if we are bold, bright, liberal and green. If you want change, one thing


is to be better, if you want to get Scotland's fit for the future, if


you want Scotland to be the best again, that the Liberal Democrats.


That was a message which seemed to go down well with Lib Dem


supporters. Hard work to do. A lot of brothers and the a lot of teeth


in Willie Rennie, he is very, very popular. This is the first time the


Lib Dems have suffered since me but I think it is important to remember


that we can always come back. I I think it is important to remember


couldn't be anything else. I am liberal to my back on. So, how does


Willie Rennie reverses fortunes? One of his big ideas is to add a penny


to income tax, raising money to boost education. Holyrood is one


thing but Lib Dems in Scotland also have a role to play in aiding the


party revival across the UK. You deserve victory but you will not get


it by accident, only by fighting with passion, belief, discipline and


energy. Get out there, get on the doorsteps, rain, wind, maybe even


shine, victory is there to be one, Scotland meet you to win. So, can


the Scottish Liberal Democrats delivers some glitz to a brand once


more popular than it is now? All that, of course, is up to the


supporters. Willie Rennie joins me now


from our Edinburgh studio. Willie Rennie, we will talk about


the election any moment but I wanted to ask, the Lib Dems were critical


of the fiscal framework deal done this week, can you explain exactly


why? The real issue is that whilst there is a cash agreement for the


next five years we do not know what the arrangement is going to be after


that. The conditions might not be as favourable for Scotland at that


time. While she's also, in Nicola Sturgeon, has embedded the Treasury


model which she is very critical of fiscal part of the fiscal framework,


it is very difficult to get something out of a framework when it


has already been established in the framework that actually to have an


open blank sheet which we would have advocated. We would have preferred


to have the Treasury model out of the fiscal framework now rather than


having all the arguments again in five years' time. You are worried


she has sold the past as it were? Yes, I don't think it sets itself up


well for a debate in five years' time over this. It is good she


managed to get the cash agreement which was helpful for Scotland but


it is just this big argument in five years' time which I don't think


helps Scotland. You'd ideas for the election, pupil premium, you want to


have one in Scotland and it was a Lib Dem policy in England. Is there


any hard evidence it has made a blind bit of difference? It has. The


evidence has shown that the attainment gap has closed by five


centage points in just reuse. That is as a result of direct financial


support for extra tuition, on work support. The inspectors have shown


it's made a difference. Particularly in primary school. The evidence for


secondary is not as strong but for primary school it is strong. Can I


just read from a report from the National Audit Office in last year


it says the pupil premium has yet to have any identifiable effect and I


it says the pupil premium has yet to quote, since the attainment gap has


it says the pupil premium has yet to narrowed since 2011 it remains wide


and at this stage the significance of the improvements remains unclear.


He said it also had considerable potential to make a big impact.


Which is not the same thing is actually having had an effect. The


closure of the attainment gap is quite clear, others have identified


it has closed the attainment gap I providing direct support for


children who need extra help at school. Let me put you what the


dangers C. EU guv call last year found that less than half of


teachers. The pupil premium help disadvantaged children. A


considerable number thought it did help disadvantaged children is the


opposite side of that too so I think it is pretty clear to making a big


difference. Another point and you would have to concede that by some


measures, particularly on A-levels, the evidence is that the attainment


gap in England has actually increased over the past few years. I


except by wider measures it has closed slightly but by other


measures it has increased. I have already said the difference in


secondary is not the same of them primary. We have started this


programme in the last four years so we have yet to see the full benefit


of investing in primary school and in later years. It is at least


unbeatable? It is debatable but the evidence from a number of people has


shown that it has been a significant difference closing the attainment


gap in primary schools. That will feed through to the secondary


schools and make a big difference in later years. The problem is that if


it is debatable and not straightforward, the problem is you


want us all to pay more tax for it. This is part of what we want more


tax board. I would disagree with your description of the pupil


premium I think it is much more certain than that. If you want


people to pay more tax you must have witty uncontroversial evidence that


what they are to pay tax board will make a difference. It is providing


for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, you are say that will


cause a problem but I think investing in children when they need


it most is what we need to do to make a big difference to people in


Scotland. It is a massive cut to our education system, they have done it


to colleges already and have not been able to feed through to the


nursery education and now they are to slash budgets in schools and I


want to go in the opposite direction. Why do our taxes have to


go up? In the UK Government you did not put tax up to pay for it? You


had a much more difficult position in the UK in 2011 than you have in


Scotland now. We managed to find it in the south. There has been no


indication they are trying to find the money to invest in education and


therefore we will put our money where our mouth is. Why not find the


money somewhere else? Budgets and where our mouth is. Why not find the


incredibly tight, we believe it is cut to the core and we also believe


we should be reinvesting in children at this time and with a modest


increase of 1p on income tax we can have a big effect. Another thing


will be to end dressed in colleges, in nursery education. I do not


understand why you need to put tax in nursery education. I do not


up. You have conceded given the budget passed this year 17 slash 18


with the B time it would make a difference. Assuming you do it would


be 17/ 18. You could shuffle spending around, take money from


reserves, it is probably some flexibility by that time to transfer


some capital budgets to borrowing and to use the money to... For your


pupil premium. Why do you have to put people's taxes up? You made it


sound very easily that you can just shuffle a few things around and


magically create different call money but it does not work quite


that. The Conservatives are promoting massive cuts to the


Scottish budget and we want to do something about it. We have done


much more than when we were in government at Westminster. I want to


invest money and people agree with me.


The reserve being held at the moment is just ?9 million. ?500 million of


cuts are coming to our schools and it will impact on every year, that


is not think schools can put up with when we are falling down the


international league tables of educational performance. We used to


have them best educational system in the world and now we're just above


average. That is not nearly good enough and that is why I want to


make Abe the Wallasey offer. It is important and you cannot just


dismiss it as shuffling around to magic of money. I didn't dismiss it,


I suggested there might be other ways of winding the money. There's


also a macro economic reason for not putting taxes up, every economist


says we are heading for a slowdown, surely the last thing you want to do


is take money out of the economy. You want to get the right talents of


tax and spend and you ignore the economic impact of investing in


education. There are massive skills gaps, businesses are crying out for


skilled workers. I am not ignorant that, the SMB say the art investing


in education, just not what you have come up with. They are slashing


budgets to colleges, they have butchered the college sector in


recent years and I want to put that right. We need business is with


skilled people to create jobs to pay the taxes that will keep the economy


on track. If we ignore that side of the balance sheet we will be in even


worse economic conditions than now. I want to ask you about Alistair


Carmichael, would you be happy for him to be a candidate for the


Liberal Democrats in a future election? We are sometime or from


that decision. Alistair will make his own might up but in the meantime


he is getting on with representing people. But the Liberal Democrats


pose as being the honest people, cleaner, straightforward, what you


see is what you get, but you have already experienced a new terminal


collapse of voters because of tuition fees and the Alistair


Carmichael situation isn't helping. It is not good in to say it is up to


Alistair Carmichael, it is up to the leader of the party that wants to be


different from other parties. I have an election campaign to fight in a


few weeks, I will discuss Alistair's future with him after that. The


election is four years away. I am trying to get on and grow the number


of Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament, we need strong Liberal


Democrats to stand up on education and mental health, issues that evil


are crying out for a proper political debate on and it is my job


to put that case so Scotland can be the best again. We will have that


discussion later. Willie Rennie, thank you.


I almost said retired historian that he is about to publish a new book.


was an outspoken supporter of the Yes side


Now he says that the SNP hasn't addressed the economic weaknesses


of its case to become an independent nation,


and that Brexit shouldn't be the catalyst


Well, he's here with me in the studio to answer that.


You haven't changed your mind, have you? Not on the principle of


independence, to change my mind after that after all the


soul-searching in 2014 would lack credibility. But you did say if


there was another one, let's say Britain voted to leave Europe and


there was another referendum, you said you would abstain. The


intellectual case for another referendum at the moment does not


stand up. My concern in terms of somebody who voted for independence


a couple of years ago is that such a move would be counter-productive,


and it might result in the parking of this major issue for the future


of this country for a very long time in the future because there is no


evidence at the moment, there may be in opinion polls to come, but there


is no evidence at the moment that there is yet the clear breakthrough


for the Yes vote that I think is necessary for a rerun of September


2014. But if they did have another referendum, to abstain is hardly


helpful to the cause. Abstain means, the reason I said that is because


they are not convinced there should be such a thing. If it comes to the


point and things seem to be changing as we go down that road, clearly I


will have to rethink my position, but we're a long way from that now


because all the signs are, despite the current league that the out


campaign has in England, I think it is highly likely there will be no


Brexit. If there was, if we did leave the EU, one of your points is


that you think from your research for your book that the European,


joining the EU was one of the things that bound England and Scotland were


loosely, so could the UK outside the EU actually re-forged the UK? It


could inflame and stimulate some of those elements of the border which


are totally opposed even to devilish and, because the elements south of


the border who were so extreme, your skip X, they have little time for


Scottish devolution, far less independence. What side are you


taking in the Brexit debate? Personally I want to stay in because


I think isolation in this particular juncture in world or European


history is not a good idea. Like most people I have major criticisms


to make of the huge and giving your rocker says. -- burgeoning


bureaucracies. But you clearly do not think people in Scotland feel


strongly enough that if the UK vote to leave, that would change the


odds. I think the issue of Scottish independence is more fundamental.


But you don't think people will say they will vote for independence


because written votes to leave Europe. The future is not my period


so to say that is speculation. At the moment there is no evidence that


forwards it would produce a huge surge of commitment to independence.


There seems to have been little discussion about the weaknesses in


the Yes campaign, for example the issue of currency. There has been no


debate since the referendum. Two reasons why I would urge caution in


terms of what Nicola Sturgeon said, that almost automatically Brexit


would result in another referendum on Scottish independence. The first


is what we have discussed, the electoral dynamic for independence,


a clear-cut majority over a period of time does not yet exist. That


second think this what you have just brought up, the intellectual


problem. The intellectual defence of the end of Hendon 's position has


not yet sorted out. There has been no one tent made that I am aware of


to address these major issues you talked about like that aren't say,


like future Scottish economic development, especially since the


fiscal position in this country has deteriorated since December 2014.


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


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by Lord Michael Howard and Alan Johnson to discuss the EU referendum. Panellists include Janan Ganesh, Isabel Oakeshott and Nick Watt.

The programme also looks at Jeremy Corbyn's decision to attend the weekend's CND rally in central London.

Download Subtitles