:00:36. > :00:41.The leave campaign deploys Boris Johnson to defeat
:00:42. > :00:43.what they call Project Fear, but are the remain campaign
:00:44. > :00:49.George Osborne hoped taxing pensions would help him fill the black hole
:00:50. > :00:52.in the public finances, so why has he abandoned his plans
:00:53. > :00:59.And four more states have voted - is Trump a step closer
:01:00. > :01:13.the Conservatives will overtake Labour in the elections and become
:01:14. > :01:17.Will she be able to kick the party into touch?
:01:18. > :01:30.if this development could be the answer to London's housing problems.
:01:31. > :01:34.And talking of Project Fear, with us for the duration this
:01:35. > :01:39.morning, a terrifying political panel whose incisive insights strike
:01:40. > :01:44.fear into the hearts of politicians everywhere.
:01:45. > :01:48.Toby Young, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.
:01:49. > :01:51.So, he took a while to make his mind up which way to swing,
:01:52. > :01:54.but those campaigning for the UK to leave the European Union
:01:55. > :01:56.will hope the deployment of their most charismatic performer
:01:57. > :01:59.- Boris Johnson - on the Marr Show this morning
:02:00. > :02:13.The Mayor of London took a swing at the deal the David Cameron
:02:14. > :02:18.the stated Government policy was that we should have a reformed
:02:19. > :02:19.EU, fundamentally reformed, wholesale change in Britain's
:02:20. > :02:21.relationship with the EU was promised.
:02:22. > :02:22.That has obviously not been delivered.
:02:23. > :02:25.We were told at the time that Britain would be perfectly safe
:02:26. > :02:27.to walk away, by the Government, by the Prime Minister.
:02:28. > :02:30.That has now, that rhetoric has now very much been changed,
:02:31. > :02:38.I think, by the way, the policy was right then.
:02:39. > :02:41.We should be absolutely confident about the future of this country.
:02:42. > :02:48.What do you make of his performance? David Lloyd George said negotiating
:02:49. > :02:53.with devil are was like trying to pick up mercury with a fog, and I
:02:54. > :02:59.imagine Andrew Marr feels similarly after trying to pin down Boris
:03:00. > :03:12.Johnson over questions of the Brexit.
:03:13. > :03:18.If these leaves campaign don't have an agreement on something that
:03:19. > :03:21.fundamental, you can see them struggling with the real harsh light
:03:22. > :03:25.of scrutiny getting applied in the later weeks of this referendum
:03:26. > :03:29.campaign, I think what will end up happening is there will be a
:03:30. > :03:34.division of Labour whereby Michael Gove leads on the hard detail and
:03:35. > :03:38.interviews such as this, Boris Johnson does what he's good at such
:03:39. > :03:44.is the retail politics, and we don't have incidents like that worrying
:03:45. > :03:51.level of confusion. Was it an assured level of performance? I
:03:52. > :03:56.think the way that interview will be seen is as Boris not being able to
:03:57. > :03:59.get a wording edgeways, being constantly interrupted, not being
:04:00. > :04:03.allowed to develop his points, and that will add to a sense of
:04:04. > :04:10.grievance which is emerging as one of the features of this campaign.
:04:11. > :04:18.The leaves campaign already complaining about George Osborne
:04:19. > :04:23.lining up the G20, David Cameron getting these European leaders to
:04:24. > :04:26.weigh in on the remaining side. That grievance narrative will probably be
:04:27. > :04:31.powerful when it comes to mobilising the debate. Wasn't he being
:04:32. > :04:37.interrupted because Andrew Marr was trying to get him to address the
:04:38. > :04:41.point? When you interview Boris, you have got to come not just Boris, but
:04:42. > :04:44.when you interview him you have got to interrupt because quite often
:04:45. > :04:50.politicians just play for time in these interviews. Often he was
:04:51. > :04:54.developing a particular point, and while he was trying to develop a
:04:55. > :04:59.point and answer what Andrew Marr had asked him, he got interrupted,
:05:00. > :05:03.but I think the general sense of grievance emerging on the leave site
:05:04. > :05:11.will help mobilise the levers when it comes to the actual referendum.
:05:12. > :05:16.The fact the levers feel more passionately than the remainders do
:05:17. > :05:21.about remaining will help the leave cause. I think that is the best
:05:22. > :05:30.defence you can give Boris this morning, it is worrying. There is a
:05:31. > :05:34.moment of extreme danger for Boris. What happens after the referendum,
:05:35. > :05:41.particularly if we stay in? Should he take a Cabinet job, in which he
:05:42. > :05:46.affects people's lives, or does he stay on the backbenches not making
:05:47. > :05:51.his move? He is in real danger. A lot of his popularity comes from the
:05:52. > :05:55.fact he doesn't do politics. He hasn't got an enormous track record
:05:56. > :05:59.to his name as London mayor, and people don't have a huge amount of
:06:00. > :06:09.tolerance for that hail fellow well met act. Is there a lot of
:06:10. > :06:18.grievance, as Toby says? Yes, you can imagine how much worse it will
:06:19. > :06:27.be later on. Things like Scheuble's interview, where he said Britain
:06:28. > :06:34.would have to pay in to have access to the EU market, that could be seen
:06:35. > :06:40.as bullying. If you are on the other side of the argument, of course you
:06:41. > :06:44.will see it as provocative. My worry is the campaign will get poisonous,
:06:45. > :06:50.and the opening two weeks is reflective of something much worse.
:06:51. > :06:55.If this grievance narrative begins to gain traction over the course of
:06:56. > :06:59.that campaign, won't it help mobilise the leave side? We have
:07:00. > :07:04.seen how it can motivate voters in America with Donald Trump. But there
:07:05. > :07:11.was grievance in the Scottish referendum, I think it helps, but to
:07:12. > :07:18.win plurality you need to go beyond grievance. That partly depends on
:07:19. > :07:21.turnout and if the public are turned off by the negative tone of the
:07:22. > :07:26.debate, you will have a low turnout and that will probably favour
:07:27. > :07:31.leaving rather than remaining. We will see. It is a long time until
:07:32. > :07:34.July the 23rd. It's been branded Project Fear
:07:35. > :07:37.by opponents and in a moment I'll be talking to one of the remain
:07:38. > :07:39.campaign's chief protagonists. First, here's a reminder of how
:07:40. > :07:42.they've been making their case over Tell us what the model
:07:43. > :07:49.is that they believe the European Union would
:07:50. > :07:51.negotiate with Britain. Remember, this is going
:07:52. > :07:53.to be a divorce if we decide to leave, and as with any
:07:54. > :08:00.divorce it is likely to get messy. In many ways, I am a Eurosceptic,
:08:01. > :08:04.absolutely, and I'm still a Brussels basher in many ways
:08:05. > :08:15.and will always remain so. I think the answer to the concerns
:08:16. > :08:17.that people have, and these concerns of course are not
:08:18. > :08:20.completely absent in Scotland, isn't to clamp down
:08:21. > :08:28.on free movement. If we leave, the people
:08:29. > :08:31.who are advising us to leave, they cannot at the moment answer
:08:32. > :08:34.the question about what arrangements So Project Fact is about saying stay
:08:35. > :08:50.and you know what we get. And I'm joined now by Nick Herbert
:08:51. > :08:59.who is leading the Conservatives' Let's go through a number of things
:09:00. > :09:07.your site has been saying. Firstly let's take the Calais camp, the
:09:08. > :09:24.Prime Minister 's office has said if we move the camp -- if we leave the
:09:25. > :09:31.camp will move to the south-east of England. They would be little
:09:32. > :09:35.interest in remaining the agreement we have that people stay on the
:09:36. > :09:40.French side. That will result in people coming over to this side, and
:09:41. > :09:45.we having to deal with them rather than the French, which means they
:09:46. > :09:49.can claim asylum in this country. And what was interesting about this
:09:50. > :09:54.claim, which I think is about a common-sense that is how the French
:09:55. > :09:58.would respond if we were outside of the EU and they no longer have the
:09:59. > :10:02.same set of incentives to cooperate, is that it was dismissed as
:10:03. > :10:04.scaremongering and now we have the most senior politicians in France
:10:05. > :10:09.confirming that this would probably be the case so this isn't
:10:10. > :10:13.scaremongering at all. What I'm wondering is why you would move the
:10:14. > :10:16.camp overnight to the south of England. Explain why they would form
:10:17. > :10:21.a camp if they have made it to Britain. The point is that we would
:10:22. > :10:27.have to deal with them on the British side. That would require us
:10:28. > :10:33.to send them back. One of the things we have in this debate that many to
:10:34. > :10:38.do is to remind ourselves that we have border controls in Britain, we
:10:39. > :10:43.are not part of the passport free area, the Schengen Agreement in the
:10:44. > :10:49.rest of Europe, and we can and do check EU citizens when they come in.
:10:50. > :10:53.We indeed turn them away. Thousands of EU citizens are turned away from
:10:54. > :10:57.our borders and it is too are advantage that the controls that
:10:58. > :11:03.prevent people from coming in are on the French side. Let's assume the
:11:04. > :11:07.French do what you are claiming. If they come here, if they make it
:11:08. > :11:11.here, either they will apply for asylum, in which case they will
:11:12. > :11:20.don't to official reception centres until it is sorted out, or they will
:11:21. > :11:24.disappear into the labour market. Neither involves creation of a camp
:11:25. > :11:28.in England. I don't know what was meant about a camp, what I do know
:11:29. > :11:32.is that at the moment we have arrangements where people can be
:11:33. > :11:39.stopped on the French side, the French would have little incentive
:11:40. > :11:43.to keep that if we walk out of the EU. It was initially dismissed on
:11:44. > :11:47.this site by Brexit campaigners as scaremongering, I think it is a very
:11:48. > :11:52.good example of an issue that we will have to deal with if we leave.
:11:53. > :11:58.You keep on mentioning these French politicians, only one has said this,
:11:59. > :12:05.that the economics minister. Would you like to tell our viewers what
:12:06. > :12:12.the interior minister has said? Right up to President Hollande... He
:12:13. > :12:16.didn't say anything about that. President Hollande and his ministers
:12:17. > :12:19.have said this will be on the agenda. There is a raft of French
:12:20. > :12:31.politicians who have made this clear. Name one. Common sense would
:12:32. > :12:35.tell us that if there is an arrangement, because it is a part of
:12:36. > :12:37.the cooperation and partnership we have with the French that they would
:12:38. > :12:43.no longer have that same arrangement if we were out of the EU. I will
:12:44. > :12:48.tell you what the French interior minister says, he says ending the
:12:49. > :12:52.treaties which govern the Calais camp would not be responsible
:12:53. > :12:56.solution, we will not do it, we would like to go on building a good
:12:57. > :13:02.immigration policy with the UK, especially at Calais. Other French
:13:03. > :13:17.ministers have said different things. One. Let's just look at what
:13:18. > :13:33.governs the Calais camp. The 1991 protocol governs the tunnel, another
:13:34. > :13:37.treaty... Wires are EU membership critical factor? I have already made
:13:38. > :13:43.that point, that this a separate issue legally to our EU membership
:13:44. > :13:46.of the question is what incentive would the French have to continue
:13:47. > :13:52.with those arrangements if we were outside of the EU, and it is as I
:13:53. > :13:55.say senior French politicians themselves and local French
:13:56. > :14:01.politicians who are raising these questions. What I think is a
:14:02. > :14:06.reminder of... But these are EU treaties, Anglo-French treaties, the
:14:07. > :14:11.French could stop them tomorrow whether we are in or out. I said
:14:12. > :14:15.that before you did that it is legally a separate matter, but
:14:16. > :14:19.politically I think there is little doubt that the French would not have
:14:20. > :14:23.the same set of incentives to stand by this issue. That was made clear
:14:24. > :14:27.at the highest level last year. All of this is a reminder that Britain
:14:28. > :14:32.is in a different position than the rest of our EU partners. We are not
:14:33. > :14:36.in the Schengen arrangement, we do have border controls. It is in our
:14:37. > :14:42.interests that some of those border controls operate on the other side
:14:43. > :14:45.of the Channel Tunnel, and in our interest that we continue to remain
:14:46. > :14:48.outside of the Schengen area. It is one of the things that gives Britain
:14:49. > :14:53.the best of both worlds, we are able to access the market but outside of
:14:54. > :14:57.the passport free area. The protocol that governs the tunnel is a
:14:58. > :15:01.protocol to the Treaty of Canterbury which sets up the tunnel, there is
:15:02. > :15:07.no way you can change it without reneging on the treaty. To close
:15:08. > :15:11.down the existing situation would effectively close the tunnel. The
:15:12. > :15:19.French government owns 55% of the operation of the tunnel, why would
:15:20. > :15:25.they do that in or out of the EU? Ask the French politicians. You
:15:26. > :15:32.confirmed it was the senior French minister. He said he was implicitly
:15:33. > :15:37.confirmed by the President. He hopes to be running for President next
:15:38. > :15:40.year. None of this has come out of thin air. It has come because it
:15:41. > :15:44.would very obviously be one of the ways in which we would lose out,
:15:45. > :15:48.potentially, from withdrawing from the EU. That is because the same
:15:49. > :15:53.sort of arrangements that means that we cooperate with our partners would
:15:54. > :15:59.no longer exist. Let's move onto the benefits of membership. Your side of
:16:00. > :16:04.the campaign has said that we benefit ?3000 per household has
:16:05. > :16:09.accumulated over our time in the EU. Do you stand by that figure? It was
:16:10. > :16:13.a CBI figure and it was not actually their own calculation. What they did
:16:14. > :16:17.was look at a range of studies that show the economic benefits of the
:16:18. > :16:19.single market. They range from some saying that there was not a benefit,
:16:20. > :16:23.single market. They range from some to some saying there was a very
:16:24. > :16:26.substantial benefit. They have updated this research just last
:16:27. > :16:31.month and they said that the majority of the studies showed there
:16:32. > :16:39.was a substantial benefit. About 10% of JD chilly GDP. They calculate it
:16:40. > :16:45.as ?10,000 per head. You are using it, Britain is stronger in Europe,
:16:46. > :16:50.do you stand by it? It is the CBI's figure. Do you stand by it? It is a
:16:51. > :16:56.average figure that has been done by the studies that have been done, not
:16:57. > :17:03.just the CBI's own studies. It shows there is a net benefit to us being
:17:04. > :17:08.in the single market. Do you stand by the ?3000 figure? It is not a
:17:09. > :17:14.figure I have used. Your campaign has used it, look down there,
:17:15. > :17:17.Britain Is Stronger In Europe. It is a perfectly reasonable figure for
:17:18. > :17:20.them to use because it is a study that has been done, not their
:17:21. > :17:24.studies. The majority of those studies that have been done, they
:17:25. > :17:31.show that there is a benefit to being in the single market. The CBI
:17:32. > :17:35.stays of its study of 12 research papers, originally beginning with
:17:36. > :17:41.five, all of which were pro-EU, it has widened that to 12, some of
:17:42. > :17:51.which are more hostile. It there is an and avoidable degree of
:17:52. > :17:58.uncertainty. But you have to caveat that? We need to weigh up the costs
:17:59. > :18:03.and benefits. The majority of the studies showed that there would be a
:18:04. > :18:06.benefit. That could be more substantial. In terms of the
:18:07. > :18:10.increase in GDP, the domestic product, that has been gained as a
:18:11. > :18:15.result of being in the single market. It comes back to the single
:18:16. > :18:18.market, because it gives us easier trade and facilitates business,
:18:19. > :18:23.because it benefits the huge number of companies that trade with the
:18:24. > :18:27.European Union, there is a benefit to the whole economy. The big
:18:28. > :18:31.question is, if we were to leave the European Union, what alternative
:18:32. > :18:34.arrangement would we have? That is the question the opponents will not
:18:35. > :18:38.answer. They will not say if we would be in the single market or
:18:39. > :18:44.not. The risk is that we would lose those benefits. As a consequence,
:18:45. > :18:48.there would be an impact on businesses and, therefore, on the
:18:49. > :18:52.economic benefit coming to the country. On the research paper, you
:18:53. > :18:57.are right that the CBI did not do its own research, the latest one was
:18:58. > :19:03.12 research papers with 14 estimates. Out of those, it took
:19:04. > :19:07.seven. It did not include some of them. It happens that the seven they
:19:08. > :19:13.took out showed far fewer benefits. So we are right to be sceptical. The
:19:14. > :19:18.sample is down to a largely pro-EU sample. To be fair, I think you need
:19:19. > :19:21.to ask the CBI about its calculation. But what was striking
:19:22. > :19:27.was that the range of benefit and the majority of studies that they
:19:28. > :19:35.tuck it down to, the seven... Took it down to. Yes, was up to 10% of
:19:36. > :19:40.GDP. Most serious economic analysis shows there was a benefit to being
:19:41. > :19:44.in the single market for the economy. That is why businesses
:19:45. > :19:48.themselves, the majority of members of the British chamber of commerce,
:19:49. > :19:54.the majority of members of the Institute of Directors, the FTSE 100
:19:55. > :19:58.companies, a full third of the FTSE 100 companies said it would be
:19:59. > :20:04.damaging to leave the EU. The other two thirds were not saying the
:20:05. > :20:08.opposite. This claim of a decade of uncertainty, a vote to leave the EU
:20:09. > :20:11.would be the start, not the end of the process and could lead to a
:20:12. > :20:15.decade or more of uncertainty. Why would it take twice as long to
:20:16. > :20:19.withdraw from Europe as it took to win the Second World War? Because of
:20:20. > :20:23.the length of time it takes to do trade deals and make alternative
:20:24. > :20:30.arrangements. If you look at the average trade deal that is done,
:20:31. > :20:35.they take years. Canada's trade is still not fully signed off. It took
:20:36. > :20:39.seven years. We would have had to negotiate alternative arrangements,
:20:40. > :20:42.not just with the EU, that would be problematic enough, and the other
:20:43. > :20:45.side has not told us what arrangement that would be, but the
:20:46. > :20:48.one thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that it would
:20:49. > :20:54.not give us the benefits of the single market we currently have.
:20:55. > :21:01.With the 35 other trade deals that the EU has done, those arrangements
:21:02. > :21:07.would fall as well. Would we not just say, put the need to negotiate
:21:08. > :21:11.a single market agreement to one side, why would we not say to other
:21:12. > :21:14.countries, Morocco, South Korea and so on, we will continue with
:21:15. > :21:19.existing trading relationships. Why would they not agree? Because,
:21:20. > :21:24.automatically, all of these deals fall. But why would Morocco not
:21:25. > :21:29.continue to trade with us on the same basis as it does at the moment?
:21:30. > :21:34.The question is not whether people would continue to trade, it is what
:21:35. > :21:40.it terms the trade would be. On the same basis? We would have to
:21:41. > :21:43.renegotiate with the EU, which would be hugely problematic and we would
:21:44. > :21:48.be disadvantaged by the process that would be triggered. Stick with
:21:49. > :21:53.non-EU countries, why would a country that happily trades with us
:21:54. > :21:57.under the EU rules, why would they not continue to trade on the same
:21:58. > :22:03.basis out of the EU? It depends on the kind of deal that we are doing
:22:04. > :22:07.with the EU. If we are unable to do a deal with the EU, we would fall
:22:08. > :22:11.out altogether and then into the World Trade Organisation rules,
:22:12. > :22:15.meaning we trade with tariffs, which would be immensely damaging to
:22:16. > :22:23.British business and to jobs. Hold on, you mentioned tariffs. In your
:22:24. > :22:27.Project Fear scenario, sterling is down by 20%. The average tariff on
:22:28. > :22:32.cars would be ten. Overall we would be more competitive, we would face a
:22:33. > :22:38.tariff wall of 10%, but we would be 20% more competitive? What is wrong
:22:39. > :22:43.with that? What is wrong with all of this is that we have, at the moment,
:22:44. > :22:48.a situation of certainty, where businesses know they have access not
:22:49. > :22:53.just to the single market, but also to the 50 or more countries that
:22:54. > :22:58.have done deals with the EU, and more in the pipeline. That gives
:22:59. > :23:03.certainty. We face the prospect of huge uncertainty because the other
:23:04. > :23:06.side will not say what kind of deal would be on offer. They don't know
:23:07. > :23:09.whether it would be like Norway, like Switzerland, these are
:23:10. > :23:15.countries that have the benefits, some benefits of access to the
:23:16. > :23:19.market. It is essentially an open market from Iceland through to
:23:20. > :23:24.Turkey. There is not a single arrangement. But essentially open.
:23:25. > :23:30.Why would the European Union pick on us and not include us in that
:23:31. > :23:33.largely open market from Iceland to Turkey? Because, as the German
:23:34. > :23:37.finance minister said today, we cannot have access to the single
:23:38. > :23:44.market without accepting certain things. Those include freedom of
:23:45. > :23:48.movement and paying in. Overall, the single market gives us much greater
:23:49. > :23:51.benefits to the businesses than alternative arrangements. That is
:23:52. > :23:55.why it would be economically damaging to leave, in the view of
:23:56. > :24:02.most businesses. The important point is this. It is not just a question
:24:03. > :24:09.of the deals we would do, have to do with the EU, it would also be with
:24:10. > :24:12.the 35 other countries, more than 50 other deals, leading to a period of
:24:13. > :24:16.huge uncertainty that is damaging for British businesses and jobs. We
:24:17. > :24:20.have discussed that already. The director-general of the British
:24:21. > :24:24.chamber of commerce, suspended for coming out in favour of Leave. Did
:24:25. > :24:27.anybody involved in Downing Street have something to do with this? I
:24:28. > :24:33.think that is a ridiculous suggestion. I am not surprised there
:24:34. > :24:36.is unhappiness in the British chamber of commerce. They were meant
:24:37. > :24:40.to have a neutral position. The majority of their businesses, in a
:24:41. > :24:46.recent survey, said they wanted to remain. So, no Downing Street hand?
:24:47. > :24:50.Absolutely not. Why would they? Thank you very much.
:24:51. > :24:52.Now, the scenes of hundreds of thousands of desperate migrants
:24:53. > :24:55.that fill our TV screens provide powerful images for those arguing
:24:56. > :24:57.that we should turn our backs on the crisis-hit European Union.
:24:58. > :25:00.In a moment I'll be asking Ukip's only MP, Douglas Carswell,
:25:01. > :25:03.First let's have a look at what Leave campaigners have
:25:04. > :25:13.They need a free-trade deal with us and it will be a central part
:25:14. > :25:15.of the negotiations when we leave the European Union, an important
:25:16. > :25:17.part, but one where they have a commercial imperative
:25:18. > :25:29.Once we have control of our own borders, we can send back
:25:30. > :25:32.whoever we want so if somebody comes in and they are not appropriate,
:25:33. > :25:35.they shouldn't be here, they should've stopped in France
:25:36. > :25:36.or Germany or wherever, we will send them back.
:25:37. > :25:41.So the threat is both wrong, inappropriate, and won't work.
:25:42. > :25:44.Come on, donnez-moi un break, as we say in Brussels.
:25:45. > :25:57.It's sad but perhaps unsurprising that those who want
:25:58. > :25:59.the British people to be kept in the European Union have launched
:26:00. > :26:16.This is designed to make the British people afraid of change.
:26:17. > :26:21.Douglas Carswell joins me now. Let's look at some of the things your side
:26:22. > :26:28.have been complaining about. The cost of membership. We will stop
:26:29. > :26:33.sending ?350 million every week to Brussels. Do you stand by that
:26:34. > :26:38.figure? Absolutely. The reason I do is because every year we make a
:26:39. > :26:44.gross contribution of 19.2 billion, if you divide that by the weeks in a
:26:45. > :26:49.year, 350. We're talking about what we send to Brussels. Let's look in
:26:50. > :26:55.little more detail. This is from Office for Budget Responsibility.
:26:56. > :27:04.These are the 2014 figures. The column on the left-hand side, we
:27:05. > :27:10.have 18.3 billion. It is 19.2 now, but I will let that go. It gives you
:27:11. > :27:17.350 million. But before we send that, we deduct the rebate of 5
:27:18. > :27:23.billion. We don't send the rebate, we take the ?5 billion off. The
:27:24. > :27:34.contribution we send is ?13.5 billion and that is 260 billion --
:27:35. > :27:39.million per week. The figure is very vulnerable to the machinations of
:27:40. > :27:43.ministers. Look at what Tony Blair did with the rebate. They were fast
:27:44. > :27:49.and loose with it at the blink of an eye. What I am trying to point out,
:27:50. > :27:53.because the phrase here was we are sending ?350 million, we don't send
:27:54. > :27:59.the rebate and we send it back. We take the rebate off and then we send
:28:00. > :28:03.them 13.5. The rebate is very vulnerable, as we discovered when
:28:04. > :28:07.Tony Blair gave away a large section of it. It is very vulnerable to
:28:08. > :28:10.change. I think it's fair that we include a figure. But we don't send
:28:11. > :28:18.it. In addition to that, having not sent the rebate and sent 13.5, we
:28:19. > :28:23.then get 4.4, almost ?4.5 billion back to spend in ways that will be
:28:24. > :28:27.guided, sometimes dictated by the EU, but it is money that comes back.
:28:28. > :28:34.Our net contribution, as you can see from the table, is 9 billion. That
:28:35. > :28:40.is ?175 million each week. It is not 350 million. The reason I think it
:28:41. > :28:47.is vertical about the gross contribution of ?19.3 billion a
:28:48. > :28:51.year, you don't deduct the services you get from the government, you
:28:52. > :28:57.don't say your tax bill is zero because of the mended potholes and
:28:58. > :29:01.the streetlights and things you get. It is appropriate that we talk about
:29:02. > :29:06.the 19.2 billion we send every year. But I just explained that we don't
:29:07. > :29:13.send that. The actual saving, because the original quote was about
:29:14. > :29:17.saving to spend elsewhere, is 175 million each week. You can say it is
:29:18. > :29:24.too much, not enough, I don't want to stay in, but it's not 350 million
:29:25. > :29:28.a week. 350 million on the table, some of that is highly vulnerable
:29:29. > :29:31.because it is part of the rebate. I think it is right and proper we talk
:29:32. > :29:36.about that. It is enough money to build a new hospital every week. It
:29:37. > :29:40.would not be a saving, even out of the EU we would continue to have
:29:41. > :29:44.some form of farm subsidies and forms of regional aid? We would
:29:45. > :29:48.spend some of the money we currently send to Brussels for ourselves. I
:29:49. > :29:52.think instead of sending 350 million each week to Brussels, we would be
:29:53. > :29:56.better spending that money improving the NHS, giving a better deal to
:29:57. > :30:00.farmers, maybe even tax cuts. I think it is fair we talk about ?350
:30:01. > :30:02.million we have to send every week to Brussels. People will make their
:30:03. > :30:14.minds up on that. Let's move onto another issue. Nigel
:30:15. > :30:19.Farage has said 75% of UK law is made in Brussels. Do you with that?
:30:20. > :30:23.I asked the Parliamentary authorities when I first became an
:30:24. > :30:34.MP and they were not able to tell me. Some claim it is as little as
:30:35. > :30:39.15%, on our side some claim 70%. The German legislature in Berlin have a
:30:40. > :30:47.figure of 80%. Do you agree with the 75% figure? It is probably about
:30:48. > :30:51.right. What is the source? The question was talking about the
:30:52. > :30:55.amount of legislation that is emanating from member state versus
:30:56. > :31:03.that coming from Brussels. What is the source of the 75% figure? You
:31:04. > :31:08.just cited Nigel. He is not a source, he is a messenger. We have
:31:09. > :31:14.looked carefully at the research, we can find no credible study. Even by
:31:15. > :31:25.pro-Brexit groups that puts the figure at 75%. I have seen studies
:31:26. > :31:29.that show 25%, but I can find nothing that gives me 75%. I don't
:31:30. > :31:34.think this morning you can help on that. I have raised questions in
:31:35. > :31:40.Parliament and I am happy to forward on the answers I have got, but there
:31:41. > :31:44.is a question raised... The German parliament has produced a figure of
:31:45. > :31:55.80 something. For the German parliament. Talking about the ratio
:31:56. > :31:58.coming from Brussels. Vote Leave says if we Vote Leave we can take
:31:59. > :32:03.back control of our immigration policy. No country has full access
:32:04. > :32:17.to the single market without first agreeing to the free movement of
:32:18. > :32:21.people. As you demonstrated earlier this week when you quizzed Matthew
:32:22. > :32:29.Hancock, you can have free trade from Iceland to Ireland to Russia,
:32:30. > :32:33.so you can leave the EU and have tariff free access. Canada have
:32:34. > :32:43.recently negotiated a deal to give them free market access. The
:32:44. > :32:51.Canadian deal includes tariffs, even tariffs on some manufacture
:32:52. > :32:55.products, it includes tariffs on products and does not include
:32:56. > :32:59.anything to do with services and we are 80% service economy. But we
:33:00. > :33:02.would benefit, as a service economy. But we would benefit, as every
:33:03. > :33:10.country in Europe does apart from Belarus, for tariff free access. But
:33:11. > :33:16.how do you know that? The Council of the European Union is unequivocal.
:33:17. > :33:19.Two years ago, the internal market and its freedoms, one of which is
:33:20. > :33:23.freedom of movement, are indivisible, you cannot have one
:33:24. > :33:28.without the other. We know that last year we had a trade deficit with the
:33:29. > :33:33.other EU member states, about 60 billion. The idea they would
:33:34. > :33:37.introduce tariffs seems to me absurd. On the point of regulation,
:33:38. > :33:47.sometimes it is said we need to be part of the single market for
:33:48. > :33:51.regulatory reasons, but in many ways it is possible to have market access
:33:52. > :33:56.from a regulatory perspective without being part of the single
:33:57. > :34:03.market. If you are selling into Europe you have got to meet Europe's
:34:04. > :34:09.regulations... But do I take it that you are indicating that if we leave,
:34:10. > :34:14.we would not seek total access to the single market as we have at the
:34:15. > :34:20.moment? We would seek instead of free trade agreement which is less
:34:21. > :34:26.than a single market? We would see access to the single market but we
:34:27. > :34:32.would not want to be bound up. We would not initially seek full access
:34:33. > :34:36.to the single market? I think if we had tariff free access and wouldn't
:34:37. > :34:41.have regulatory obstacles put in our way, it would be free access. But
:34:42. > :34:46.the trade agreements you have specified, particularly the one with
:34:47. > :34:50.Canada, it is not a single market agreement, it includes tariffs, it
:34:51. > :34:58.includes... It does not include services. Look at Switzerland for
:34:59. > :35:03.example. Switzerland at the moment has 4.5 times trade ahead the EU
:35:04. > :35:10.from outside of the single market than we manage from within. But it
:35:11. > :35:22.does not have full access for its services. You accept that a free
:35:23. > :35:26.trade agreement... They have also moved huge chunks of their financial
:35:27. > :35:31.services to London so that they are inside the EU and can trade. Another
:35:32. > :35:37.confidence within the City of London. On Friday Suzanne Evans and
:35:38. > :35:42.your fellow Vote Leave supporters were sacked from their roles as UK
:35:43. > :35:49.speakers. Miss Evans has now been sacked twice, are you next for the
:35:50. > :35:54.job? Suzanne Evans is brilliant at this sort of stuff, we will hear a
:35:55. > :36:00.lot more from her. Are you next for the chop? Nigel described me as
:36:01. > :36:06.irrelevant, I have been called far worse in the elections I have
:36:07. > :36:11.stored, but in four of those five Parliamentary elections are won.
:36:12. > :36:16.That is the beauty of democracy. There is being a member of Vote
:36:17. > :36:23.Leave, and being a Ukip MP, are these things becoming mutually
:36:24. > :36:26.exclusive? Absolutely not, Vote Leave is now garnering support from
:36:27. > :36:35.the political left, the political centre right, and people... So why
:36:36. > :36:39.doesn't Nigel Farage? You need to address that question to him. He is
:36:40. > :36:47.your leader. There are differences of opinion. There is a strategic
:36:48. > :36:55.difference, I'm the think we need to win this election with an upbeat,
:36:56. > :36:58.positive campaign. Your leader says you are relevant, could you not
:36:59. > :37:05.resign the whip and become an independent? It is the voters who
:37:06. > :37:10.decide who is and who isn't relevant. Thank you for joining us.
:37:11. > :37:16.If you want more facts about the EU relevant. Thank you for joining us.
:37:17. > :37:17.referendum, you can check the BBC News website. It is excellent.
:37:18. > :37:20.It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
:37:21. > :37:26.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now
:37:27. > :37:28.Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.
:37:29. > :37:33.Coming up on the programme: Ruth Davidson aims to overtake
:37:34. > :37:37.Is she a safe pair of hands or could she drop the ball?
:37:38. > :37:44.Labour's Ian Murray is in Canada to learn how the Liberals achieved
:37:45. > :37:45.a landslide victory from third place.
:37:46. > :37:51.With the elections taking place in May, has he left it too late?
:37:52. > :37:53.What do the SNP and Labour have in common?
:37:54. > :37:57.They're both taking advice from the anti-austerity
:37:58. > :37:59.Nobel Prize-winning economist, Professor Joseph Stiglitz.
:38:00. > :38:06.Sunday Politics went along to his latest event.
:38:07. > :38:08.Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson needs Labour votes
:38:09. > :38:11.if she's to secure her aim of making the Tories the opposition
:38:12. > :38:13.after May's Scottish Parliament election.
:38:14. > :38:16.One way she believes she can do that is by protecting public
:38:17. > :38:22.spending on the NHS and education and by rowing back on her previous
:38:23. > :38:24.pledge to use Holyrood's new powers to cut taxes.
:38:25. > :38:26.At the party's Spring conference at Murrayfield on Friday,
:38:27. > :38:28.she argued that cuts to taxes were too short-term.
:38:29. > :38:31.We sent our reporter Andrew Black along to find out what else
:38:32. > :38:58.Welcome to Murrayfield. Home of Scottish rugby and this week, home
:38:59. > :39:01.to the lunch of team Conservatives campaigned for the Scottish
:39:02. > :39:06.election. With things not looking great for labour Right now, the plan
:39:07. > :39:10.for the Tories is to emerge from the political scrum in second place,
:39:11. > :39:13.becoming the official opposition at Holyrood. But that could be a
:39:14. > :39:20.tougher challenge, so how do they go about it? Well, firstly, with a few
:39:21. > :39:24.changes to the squad. As a fan as a bid farewell to the many veteran
:39:25. > :39:28.Tory MSP is standing down to make way for fresh talent, team captain
:39:29. > :39:37.David Cameron turned up to do the pep talk. Let drape ourselves in red
:39:38. > :39:42.white and blue. Let us do more great things and get out over the next 62
:39:43. > :39:49.days and a winner for. Thank you! But image and rhetoric are only part
:39:50. > :39:52.of it. The Conservatives will need actual policies that people will
:39:53. > :39:56.vote for and new powers coming to Holyrood means that for the first
:39:57. > :40:01.time, the Conservatives can campaign on one of their favourite issues,
:40:02. > :40:08.cutting tax. Although Ruth Davidson has now decided that is not an
:40:09. > :40:12.immediate option. We can cut tax in Scotland, but over the medium term
:40:13. > :40:16.and our manifesto will show how. But if we're going to cut tax rates in
:40:17. > :40:21.Scotland, I believe that we as a nation need to earn it first. And
:40:22. > :40:27.the truth is, we haven't done that yet. So if cutting tax turns out to
:40:28. > :40:32.be a problem, do the Conservatives reckon that their overall strategy
:40:33. > :40:34.can a winner? Yes, we would like to see a Scottish Conservatives become
:40:35. > :40:51.the official opposition in Scotland, because we need the SNP Government
:40:52. > :40:53.to be held to account and be a real political alternative advocated.
:40:54. > :40:55.This comes after nine years of the Labour Party and six different
:40:56. > :40:57.leaders, all of whom have failed to offer that different vision.
:40:58. > :41:00.However, one expert who specialises in the ups and downs of the Scottish
:41:01. > :41:03.Tories is sceptical. There do seem to have been broader trends and
:41:04. > :41:06.movements was the Conservatives late last year, but it is difficult and
:41:07. > :41:11.if there were to match them, that would be 18 NMS peas and that
:41:12. > :41:17.whatever back to 1989. So depends on how badly Labour does as much as how
:41:18. > :41:21.good of the conservatives do. And another issue, Europe has split the
:41:22. > :41:25.Tories, but those who want Britain to leave the EU, said that splits
:41:26. > :41:29.doesn't have to last. We can still be the Government after the
:41:30. > :41:33.referendum. How easy or difficult it is to come together after that
:41:34. > :41:37.referendum is largely dependent on how well we treat one another in the
:41:38. > :41:41.run-up to that referendum. I think at all points we should recognise we
:41:42. > :41:45.have a difference of opinion and treat those differences with
:41:46. > :41:49.tolerance and respect. And the Scottish secretary who wants Britain
:41:50. > :42:01.to stay in argued the forthcoming referendum would not overshadow
:42:02. > :42:05.the May election. The EU referendum is a big issue. I don't think it
:42:06. > :42:07.will be the dominant issue in Scotland over the next few months, I
:42:08. > :42:10.think it will be the Scottish parliament elections. I think they
:42:11. > :42:12.will be at the forefront. I think the referendum campaign here in
:42:13. > :42:16.Scotland will really kicked off on the 6th of May. And, as the Scottish
:42:17. > :42:22.Conservatives focus on that election, can they kick for
:42:23. > :42:25.Holyrood's cup glory all voters send them to the sin bin?
:42:26. > :42:27.Joining me now is the leader of the Scottish Conservatives,
:42:28. > :42:38.Never have more rugby plans being made in a package for a political
:42:39. > :42:43.programme! We will take that as a compliment. Let us talk about tax.
:42:44. > :42:47.You say you don't want to cut income tax, initially. But it is still your
:42:48. > :42:53.longer-term view that you want to take advantage of the new devolution
:42:54. > :42:57.powers to cut tax? Firstly, we will try and protect pay packets. We
:42:58. > :43:01.already have the Labour Party and the Lib Dems they will increase tax
:43:02. > :43:04.and push the SNP in the same way. We say that is not a good idea, we do
:43:05. > :43:09.not want Scotland to be the highest taxed part of the UK. But in order
:43:10. > :43:13.to have them in future, we have to earn it. That means growing our tax
:43:14. > :43:17.base, printing more money in so that if we were half to cut tax further
:43:18. > :43:21.down the road, we would still be able to have the same contributions
:43:22. > :43:28.to our health or education service that we have now. Is not just that
:43:29. > :43:31.you don't want a cat 's -- cut tax now, you don't want to cut tax
:43:32. > :43:37.unless the economy is growing sufficiently that you can? We have
:43:38. > :43:42.at cuts in Scotland, part of the wider UK ones. We've had a tax cut
:43:43. > :43:46.for every taxpayer in Scotland from raising the threshold would. That
:43:47. > :43:51.will rise again next year to 12 and a half thousand pounds. There will
:43:52. > :43:57.be tax cuts UK wide. But we are saying that the big commission spent
:43:58. > :44:00.a year looking at this and they came back and no clear recommendation to
:44:01. > :44:05.me was that Scotland should not be the highest taxed part of the UK, we
:44:06. > :44:10.shouldn't tax people for living here more than if they lived in Carlisle,
:44:11. > :44:13.and I agree. And tax cuts were vulnerable in future but not now if
:44:14. > :44:17.we want to sustain the level of service we have. I agree with both
:44:18. > :44:22.of those and we will take those regulations into the election. But
:44:23. > :44:26.you think Scotland shouldn't have higher taxes than England, but you
:44:27. > :44:31.don't seem to mind England having higher taxes in Scotland? That is
:44:32. > :44:36.because I operate in Scotland, I believe in having competition. I
:44:37. > :44:41.think it is good that in Scotland we can say we are encouraging people to
:44:42. > :44:45.come here. We don't do that when we do something like the SNP did which
:44:46. > :44:52.was to overnight in the last Budget doubled the large business
:44:53. > :44:55.supplements. That only... It hopes to -- hits a quarter of the nurses
:44:56. > :45:01.in Edinburgh and Glasgow. So you to -- hits a quarter of the nurses
:45:02. > :45:07.don't mind up? What about the other eminent people who you describe came
:45:08. > :45:14.up with... - most people describe them as eminence. The public policy
:45:15. > :45:20.experts, you know, pretty decent people. A 30p rate is one idea they
:45:21. > :45:26.came up with. Will you do that? We are looking at it. The proposal was
:45:27. > :45:31.that they would jump between 20 and 40 is quite a steep jump. People
:45:32. > :45:37.would agree with that. There is an opportunity from next year to start
:45:38. > :45:41.changing bands in Scotland, even adding them if required and moving
:45:42. > :45:45.the threshold. It is something we are looking at and I will pre-empt
:45:46. > :45:51.our manifesto by Pabst telling you to make things here that is OK.
:45:52. > :45:56.Except, you want folks, why not? Why not say we will adopt this, it is a
:45:57. > :45:58.great idea? Well, you will see more of our tax plans, we will be
:45:59. > :46:03.great idea? Well, you will see more response to the Budget in a couple
:46:04. > :46:06.of weeks, so after we see the Chancellor's Budget down south, we
:46:07. > :46:14.will do our response and you will also see in our manifesto...
:46:15. > :46:17.Finally, what puzzles me about this, OK, don't declare for a because you
:46:18. > :46:23.don't want to pre-empt your manifesto. But it would pay this
:46:24. > :46:25.theoretical 30p tax? Well, the way in which the Independent Commission
:46:26. > :46:32.looked at it was they were looking at instead of having the 20p rate
:46:33. > :46:35.and 30p rate being at the same place, so you earn the same amount
:46:36. > :46:39.of money to get to them, they would move that nobody paying more and the
:46:40. > :46:42.of money to get to them, they would system. So somebody paying 20p at
:46:43. > :46:47.the moment would have to pay more tax? Not if you set the band at a
:46:48. > :46:54.suitable way... So at the moment it is 40 2000. You stop paying 40p. The
:46:55. > :46:59.idea would be to have an extra band inserted between that and 40p. When
:47:00. > :47:04.you pay 30p. But you can move up to the level where 40p was paid. That
:47:05. > :47:09.is fluent. One of the great benefits, new powers coming in. It
:47:10. > :47:14.allows much greater flexibility. You don't have to state the same rates
:47:15. > :47:18.as anywhere else. -- stay at the same rates. But I'm still puzzled
:47:19. > :47:22.because George Osborne said over a series of moves he wants to take the
:47:23. > :47:28.threshold where you stop paying 40p for 42,000 up to 50,000. Is that a
:47:29. > :47:33.move you are in favour of? Let us see what he does in the Budget... He
:47:34. > :47:37.said he wants to do that. He said he wants to do that over time. Is that
:47:38. > :47:41.a good idea? I think more people have been dragged into the higher
:47:42. > :47:45.rate of tax in the last few years because thresholds have not changed.
:47:46. > :47:48.The Government hasn't done much with it apart from the bottom threshold
:47:49. > :47:52.which they have left to take everybody who pays income tax out of
:47:53. > :47:55.taxation. But for viewers at home I think there is a clear message in
:47:56. > :48:02.this election and that is Labour and Lib Dems say they will put up taxes,
:48:03. > :48:07.they want the SNP to do the same... But if George Osborne is going to be
:48:08. > :48:12.the threshold of 50,000, I don't see where you're 30p comes in. Let us
:48:13. > :48:16.have a look at how we do the Budget. But she would have to be earning
:48:17. > :48:20.more than 50,000, so a tax break for people learn about or more? There
:48:21. > :48:26.was a recommendation to look at a ban between 20 and 40... But if the
:48:27. > :48:31.band is 50,000, if that is they start, it would only be people
:48:32. > :48:37.learning over that who would benefit from the 30p rate. That is look at
:48:38. > :48:41.how we the policies and ideas. But that is a matter of simple logic.
:48:42. > :48:46.Anyway, you said you want people to vote for you in the election... I
:48:47. > :48:51.think those parties say that! You are saying it very strongly cuts
:48:52. > :48:54.apparently the ballot paper also Ruth Davidson for a stronger
:48:55. > :48:58.opposition. Wyatt Ruth Davidson rather than the Scottish
:48:59. > :49:03.Conservatives? Well, the designation is rock to ballot papers, you have
:49:04. > :49:08.your candidate ballot paper and your party ballot paper. The name of your
:49:09. > :49:12.party must be at the top of that and then you get a number of words you
:49:13. > :49:20.can say underneath. So for example, the SNMP... But we want to know why
:49:21. > :49:24.it is it Ruth Davidson? Because, we expect to do a job for you. We are
:49:25. > :49:28.seeing clearly to people if you vote for us we will do a specific job...
:49:29. > :49:32.But implication is that you think you are more popular than your
:49:33. > :49:36.party. Well, the party name is at the top, and we know the SNP have
:49:37. > :49:41.registered for different dosing nations all of which are Nicola's
:49:42. > :49:44.name in it. They are clearly wanting to make it presidential style. I am
:49:45. > :49:49.saying not only will our party stand up against a second referendum and
:49:50. > :49:52.stand up to protect your paycheque and stand up to put the Scottish
:49:53. > :49:55.Government under pressure, but I will go toe to toe with Nicola
:49:56. > :49:58.Sturgeon and beyond voice in Scottish Parliament. There's been
:49:59. > :50:04.all sorts of talk about the Tories becoming the main opposition party
:50:05. > :50:05.in Scotland, it was echoed by David Cameron on Friday. Is that what you
:50:06. > :50:16.want? Actually what I want is to become
:50:17. > :50:20.First Minister. In the real world is that what you want? What we want to
:50:21. > :50:26.do is make sure there is a Scottish Government... But can you be in
:50:27. > :50:31.opposition? It is entirely up to the voters, that is not for you to
:50:32. > :50:35.decide on the back of the people out here. I think we will agree we are
:50:36. > :50:39.headed for our best ever result in the Scottish parliament, more seats
:50:40. > :50:42.than ever before. I think we can all agree the Labour Party is about to
:50:43. > :50:48.have its worst ever result. We can overtake them if the people of
:50:49. > :50:51.Scotland wish it and vote for an absolutely. We will take it as read
:50:52. > :50:57.you only get the number of votes people actually cast. What I am
:50:58. > :51:01.asking you as leader of the Scottish Tories, do you realistically think
:51:02. > :51:06.you can overtake the Labour Party in this election? I think we can, that
:51:07. > :51:09.is what we are working towards. Might real ambition is for the
:51:10. > :51:13.Scottish Conservatives to be in government in Scotland. The opinion
:51:14. > :51:17.polls show you quite a long way from this. The opinion polls showed David
:51:18. > :51:21.polls show you quite a long way from Cameron could never get a majority,
:51:22. > :51:28.it is amazing how voters get the last word in these things. I find
:51:29. > :51:30.your point about the polls but you are kind of hanging you hat on this
:51:31. > :51:32.idea of becoming the main opposition are kind of hanging you hat on this
:51:33. > :51:41.party when that is what evidence that you can. We are going to have
:51:42. > :51:45.the best election. I have told my activists, my candidates, my staff,
:51:46. > :51:52.I want us to have the best election we have ever had, more votes, more
:51:53. > :51:54.seats than ever. If you don't become the second party, if you don't
:51:55. > :51:58.seats than ever. If you don't become overtake Labour and the polls at the
:51:59. > :52:00.moment are indicating you want, does that leave you exposed? I don't
:52:01. > :52:05.moment are indicating you want, does think anyone has ever been upgrading
:52:06. > :52:12.politics with showing ambition for the party. Many people have been
:52:13. > :52:19.upgraded from politics for showing promises and not keeping them. Would
:52:20. > :52:23.you stay on? We will hold the government to account. I don't think
:52:24. > :52:27.anyone in the would see the Labour Party has landed a glove on the SNP
:52:28. > :52:33.in recent years. Something in Scotland needs to change. If the
:52:34. > :52:38.voters don't change they should consider changing the opposition.
:52:39. > :52:43.You fell at the general election last year. If you do not become the
:52:44. > :52:48.main opposition party will you stay on? Absolutely, I am the reader of
:52:49. > :52:52.this party until they decide not to have me. There is a mechanism to get
:52:53. > :52:54.rid of leaders and we have never had a problem with that in the past. We
:52:55. > :52:58.rid of leaders and we have never had have a united team going into this
:52:59. > :53:03.opposition election with our tails up. We are on course to hit it and
:53:04. > :53:08.have a view job to do in Parliament to hold the SNP to account. You have
:53:09. > :53:13.become quite popular in the Conservative Party, I don't want to
:53:14. > :53:15.flatter you too much, not just here but in England, would you ever
:53:16. > :53:20.considered giving up your position and going and fighting a seat in
:53:21. > :53:24.England for the Conservatives? Absolutely not, I have lived and
:53:25. > :53:29.worked in Scotland all my life. I will fight seats in Scotland in any
:53:30. > :53:33.kind of election. I will never go to England for a seat not least because
:53:34. > :53:38.my partner has no wish to live in England and I have no wish to live
:53:39. > :53:40.in England, I want to stay living and working in Scotland, it is my
:53:41. > :53:46.in England, I want to stay living home. I am disappointed. I will tell
:53:47. > :53:51.you why. I am disappointed because I was going to ask you to do a David
:53:52. > :53:54.Cameron and practice an English accent. You can still do it if you
:53:55. > :53:58.like. I am better at American accents than English ones but I
:53:59. > :54:01.would do my best reviewed. We will leave that well alone.
:54:02. > :54:03.Last October, Justin Trudeau's Liberal party came from third place
:54:04. > :54:05.to secure a landslide win in the Canadian elections.
:54:06. > :54:07.Scottish Labour thinks it's got something to learn from that
:54:08. > :54:10.experience and this week the Shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray
:54:11. > :54:13.is visiting Quebec, Ottawa and Montreal to find out how
:54:14. > :54:22.He's able to join us now via the wonder of the internet.
:54:23. > :54:29.I better say can you hear me, Ian Murray? I can hear you perfectly,
:54:30. > :54:33.I better say can you hear me, Ian good morning. You find a party which
:54:34. > :54:37.has come third place in an election which is where Ruth Davidson has
:54:38. > :54:42.just been saying she wants to picture in the Scottish elections in
:54:43. > :54:45.which she has come back to win. As ugly that is the main reason for you
:54:46. > :54:50.been there? I am here for two reasons. The first is the Scotland
:54:51. > :54:55.Bill and fiscal framework are now almost through the Parliamentary
:54:56. > :54:57.process which makes Scotland one of the most powerful devolved
:54:58. > :55:03.parliaments in the world. One of these and I knew this to see how we
:55:04. > :55:07.can eat demolition work better for Scotland. That is incredibly
:55:08. > :55:10.important and you have seen the provincial governments and national
:55:11. > :55:13.government here in Canada or having to work with federal government much
:55:14. > :55:17.more efficiently because no longer can buy: the Scottish Government
:55:18. > :55:20.work in the way they have in doing over many years. In your
:55:21. > :55:23.introduction it said it is to look at the Liberal party and what they
:55:24. > :55:27.did to win the election and what they did do is offer a real change
:55:28. > :55:32.and I think what you have just seen from Ruth Davidson and the Scottish
:55:33. > :55:35.Government is all these wonderful new hours are coming to Scotland and
:55:36. > :55:39.they want the status quo collection by not using them. We want real
:55:40. > :55:43.change now and we are offering that new change to Scotland and that is
:55:44. > :55:48.very much what the Liberal party did here in Canada last year in a probe.
:55:49. > :55:54.It has been a long way back for the Liberals yet have two be said. The
:55:55. > :55:58.May election in Scotland is a bit short-term view, is one of the
:55:59. > :56:01.election lessons you are burning in Canada is you have truly down
:56:02. > :56:06.benchmarks which might not benefit you immediately but perhaps will the
:56:07. > :56:10.medium term? This is not a new process. We had a dreadful election
:56:11. > :56:14.back in May last year when we lost all but one of our Labour MPs in
:56:15. > :56:18.Scotland. This is an ongoing process and it is quite right to look at
:56:19. > :56:22.what people are wanting in Scotland, it is quite right to put forward a
:56:23. > :56:27.very positive policy platform and that is what Justin Trudeau did here
:56:28. > :56:30.in Canada. He said to the needy and people no longer can we stick with
:56:31. > :56:36.the status quo. We have the Conservatives in Scotland say we can
:56:37. > :56:38.do nothing with the new powers and the Scottish Labour Party are
:56:39. > :56:41.offering that real change, offering the Scottish Labour Party are
:56:42. > :56:46.that real change now and it will be up to the voters to decide if we
:56:47. > :56:49.want a change. These powers are substantial, it transforms the
:56:50. > :56:54.Scottish Parliament very much, as powerful as the provinces here in
:56:55. > :56:58.Canada and we should be embracing that change, embracing those powers
:56:59. > :57:03.and doing everything we possibly can to transform the lives of ordinary
:57:04. > :57:06.Scots. Apart from the lesson not being positive, you could have
:57:07. > :57:09.speared the money for the flight because you could have learned that
:57:10. > :57:15.year, is there anything the Liberals did in terms of specific policy that
:57:16. > :57:19.won the people of Canada around and indeed the people of Cuba get around
:57:20. > :57:25.and that you could imitate here? Daesh WebEx. Let me give you one of
:57:26. > :57:30.those differences happening at the moment. Heavier Dugdale said when
:57:31. > :57:33.given the choices of using the powers of the Scottish parliament
:57:34. > :57:38.she will use those powers by increasing the income tax rate high
:57:39. > :57:42.1p by being able to put that straight into local authority
:57:43. > :57:45.education. That is a great difference from the Conservatives
:57:46. > :57:49.who have decided to do nothing with these powers after negotiating them
:57:50. > :57:56.time and and the SNP URL government have decided to new nothing about
:57:57. > :57:58.them. In Canada last Probert was distinct policy changes were given
:57:59. > :58:03.as well and that is one example where the busy real clear blue water
:58:04. > :58:06.between the Scottish Labour Party going into this election and the
:58:07. > :58:10.other parties and what they are offering. I presume something else
:58:11. > :58:17.you're looking at an queue back the have come from the situation where
:58:18. > :58:21.one party came closer to winning and referendum than the SNP did in
:58:22. > :58:27.Scotland but the party is no longer in power and in fact is not that
:58:28. > :58:34.influential at the moment incubate. Do you see any lessons for Labour as
:58:35. > :58:41.for what has happened to that party in Canada? I did not catch all of
:58:42. > :58:46.your question and the line drop out ever so slightly but what I do not
:58:47. > :58:50.want to do is look at this place so closely as to what is happening in
:58:51. > :58:54.Scotland. The reason we have come to this place is because they have had
:58:55. > :59:01.the referendum on independence. We have plenty to learn from what
:59:02. > :59:04.happened here in Quebec but what they have done and the message has
:59:05. > :59:10.been very clear to me over the last few days when I have been here in
:59:11. > :59:16.Quebec is the need to move on to the lashes of real people's lives which
:59:17. > :59:20.is using powers we have got. It is about jobs, growth, education and
:59:21. > :59:24.public services. We had to meet them from talking about the constitution
:59:25. > :59:27.to talking about how we use the substantial powers in the Scottish
:59:28. > :59:32.Parliament to make the lives of people better and that is the key
:59:33. > :59:38.message of what we learned in Quebec last week. You have talked about
:59:39. > :59:44.intergovernmental relations the difference now between Quebec and
:59:45. > :59:48.Canada is because the Liberals are in power in both it is presumably a
:59:49. > :59:54.fairly smooth relationship and that is not necessarily the case here. We
:59:55. > :59:58.have to build some of those infrastructure issues together. The
:59:59. > :00:04.Smith agreement said quite clearly the group that need to talk about
:00:05. > :00:07.finance should be either up, we need independent scrutiny of the UK
:00:08. > :00:12.finances through the office of argued responsibility which is what
:00:13. > :00:16.we get and we need a Scottish office budget responsibility and we need an
:00:17. > :00:18.assessment of the Scottish economy, what is happening with Scottish
:00:19. > :00:22.taxes and growth. These what is happening with Scottish
:00:23. > :00:26.intergovernmental relations are what is happening with Scottish
:00:27. > :00:30.important because of issues around welfare, tax work in the context of
:00:31. > :00:33.a very strong parliament within the United Kingdom we need governments
:00:34. > :00:36.to work together and that is why we need some institutional
:00:37. > :00:40.infrastructure in place to be able to do that to make sure they can
:00:41. > :00:44.work together to make these powers work otherwise it will be a stand of
:00:45. > :00:48.light we have seen in the fiscal framework where both parties where
:00:49. > :00:52.blaming each other for something that did not exist and ultimately
:00:53. > :00:56.they came to a deal at the 11th hour. It is important to make sure
:00:57. > :01:00.these infrastructures are in place for the benefit of Scots, not the
:01:01. > :01:05.government but for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people.
:01:06. > :01:10.We will have to leave it the. Thank you very much. You are jumping about
:01:11. > :01:14.a bit and we got some inter-web warnings coming up on the screen but
:01:15. > :01:19.otherwise it seemed to work well. Thank you. Thank you.
:01:20. > :01:21.The Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell continued his series of public
:01:22. > :01:25.He's being joined around the country by experts including the former
:01:26. > :01:27.finance minister of Greece, Yanis Varoufakis, and the journalist
:01:28. > :01:31.This week he shared a stage with the Nobel Prize-winning
:01:32. > :01:33.economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz, who will also advise the party
:01:34. > :01:37.It's a role he's already occupied for the Scottish Government
:01:38. > :01:40.Our Westminster correspondent Nick Eardley went to listen
:01:41. > :01:50.Professor Joseph Stiglitz is one of Labour's new Council of advisers. A
:01:51. > :02:04.team of experts that will help form the parties economic direction. He
:02:05. > :02:09.welcomes the idea that the problems of the 80s have field. It would
:02:10. > :02:16.incentivise people to work harder, to invest more and if we liberalise
:02:17. > :02:22.the economy we would open up the space for people to do more and the
:02:23. > :02:30.combination of liberalisation and accept of eyes Asian over tax breaks
:02:31. > :02:35.would unleash a new economic growth, well, it hasn't turned out that way.
:02:36. > :02:38.We now have a third of a century of this experiment on both sides of the
:02:39. > :02:41.Atlantic so we are not making a judgment on the basis of one or two
:02:42. > :02:48.macro years, we are making a judgment on the basis of a third of
:02:49. > :02:53.a century and what we can say after a third of the century is that it
:02:54. > :02:58.has failed. The bottom 90% of Americans have seen no increase in
:02:59. > :03:04.their income. No significant increases in the income. All the
:03:05. > :03:08.increase has gone to the top 10%. The economists litres work focuses
:03:09. > :03:13.on how to change the economic model, things like taxes and relegation. It
:03:14. > :03:20.is a widening gap between the rich and were. There has been enormous
:03:21. > :03:23.growth in inequality. The reason inequality has risen to the top of
:03:24. > :03:27.the political agenda in the United inequality has risen to the top of
:03:28. > :03:31.States, UK and many other countries is a simple one, a keepsake growing.
:03:32. > :03:40.The professor believes extreme inequality undermines it quality and
:03:41. > :03:43.slows economic growth. One penitential remedy is dependent on
:03:44. > :03:50.access and affordability. I now in the United States very, very clearly
:03:51. > :03:55.that the way we find higher education is a major impediment to
:03:56. > :04:03.equality. That is equality of opportunity. The average student
:04:04. > :04:08.graduating has $25,000 debt. It is not income continuing debt as it is
:04:09. > :04:11.in the UK so it is a real albatross around the neck. He may be a new
:04:12. > :04:15.in the UK so it is a real albatross recruit to the Labour team but the
:04:16. > :04:20.professor has been advising the Scottish Government for years.
:04:21. > :04:23.Record the referendum he observed Scotland was charting a different
:04:24. > :04:28.economic course on the rest of the UK. Does he still think it's heading
:04:29. > :04:31.in the right direction? I have been very pleased with the way they have
:04:32. > :04:36.continued the agenda obviously with more constraints and if they were
:04:37. > :04:46.independent but with the same kind of vision in forming the policies. A
:04:47. > :04:55.blend of growth but with inclusion, inclusive growth. So, one celebrity
:04:56. > :04:59.economist, two macro political parties, as the election approaches
:05:00. > :05:02.the claim to have lesser Stiglitz new economics may be the only thing
:05:03. > :05:08.Labour and the SNP are happy to have in common.
:05:09. > :05:11.Time to review the week and look ahead at what's coming up.
:05:12. > :05:14.I'm joined by Lindsay McIntosh, who is the Scottish political editor
:05:15. > :05:48.for The Times and by Observer columnist, Kevin McKenna.
:05:49. > :05:57.Over the next few months we can demonstrate Scotland can be a better
:05:58. > :06:01.society. We need older Holyrood. We have been shown how we can push the
:06:02. > :06:07.Scottish Government beyond its safe comfort zone and adopt the policy
:06:08. > :06:11.Scotland are really needs. Lindsay, the Greens. There was an expectation
:06:12. > :06:13.that they were going to do tremendously well. Is that still
:06:14. > :06:17.there? They could do pretty well at tremendously well. Is that still
:06:18. > :06:23.this time. If you look at their membership since the referendum when
:06:24. > :06:24.they supported a yes vote in 2014, membership soared, donations soared
:06:25. > :06:28.and they hired more staff and are membership soared, donations soared
:06:29. > :06:31.looking much more like a professional organisation than ever
:06:32. > :06:36.before. I think the picture Patrick Harvie is making it much -- clip is
:06:37. > :06:41.interesting, he's doing a similar thing to what Ruth Davidson was
:06:42. > :06:45.doing girly. He is saying if you vote for us in the regions, we
:06:46. > :06:50.control the SNP Government, which we're pretty sure we will get, more
:06:51. > :06:55.in the direction you want. So on a fracking and land reform, some of
:06:56. > :06:59.you SNP membership is unhappy with that party's position. He is going
:07:00. > :07:05.for the second voters think they will make the SNP more accountable.
:07:06. > :07:08.The danger for the Greens, presumably,, I mean, if we accessed
:07:09. > :07:11.The danger for the Greens, the SNMP can win a lot of
:07:12. > :07:17.constituency seats, the competition for the regional seats will be
:07:18. > :07:26.ferocious. Could the Greens end up being squeezed? That will always be
:07:27. > :07:30.the danger and threat to a party like the Greens. It will be
:07:31. > :07:35.competitors for the second votes this time around. Lindsay made a
:07:36. > :07:39.good point about the increase in sharpness of the green's
:07:40. > :07:43.organisation and the people that they are hiring. One of the people
:07:44. > :07:51.who will be standing is and Wightman, the land reformer. -- Andy
:07:52. > :07:55.Wightman. Previously, I found it difficult to take the Greens
:07:56. > :07:58.seriously. To me, they will either political equivalent of vanity
:07:59. > :08:01.publishing. But when I saw Andy Wightman talking in the week and saw
:08:02. > :08:07.he was standing several months Wightman talking in the week and saw
:08:08. > :08:10.to me, and I think to others on the left, he gave the green is a new
:08:11. > :08:16.credibility and then Patrick Harvie is wise to talk about land reform,
:08:17. > :08:25.because the SNP week there and the vulnerable even among the older
:08:26. > :08:29.members. -- Art weak in that way. As she kept emphasising, it is up to
:08:30. > :08:36.the voters. But it is a slightly high risk strategy isn't it? I think
:08:37. > :08:40.so. She has made two pledges on her expectations and one is to overtake
:08:41. > :08:43.Labour and the other is to return at the highest number of seats the
:08:44. > :08:48.Tories have ever had in Scotland. If I were in her party, I would be
:08:49. > :08:52.concerned she was making a bid for the hostage fortune, because their
:08:53. > :08:57.share dropped at the general election. Although we are seeing
:08:58. > :09:05.them arising in some polls, it is very sporadic, these green shoots. I
:09:06. > :09:08.mean, the last poll had them on 13% and Labour on 21. On the summer they
:09:09. > :09:14.have been neck and neck. Can you see them making a big breakthrough this
:09:15. > :09:16.time? I can not really. I know they are hammering this line about the
:09:17. > :09:20.Conservatives in Scotland in the last readout of the union because
:09:21. > :09:25.Labour and the Lib Dems will be giving their members and their MSP
:09:26. > :09:31.is a free vote if there is another referendum. I think there is only so
:09:32. > :09:35.far you can go with that and I think that will distance them and if she
:09:36. > :09:39.is taking that as the main difference or the main reason why
:09:40. > :09:43.people ought to think of them as a second party, it is not going to
:09:44. > :09:46.work, it is not enough. I think you can see the logic for why Scots
:09:47. > :09:51.would vote for it at the moment given they are the centre-right
:09:52. > :09:56.option and the one and not standing on tax-raising platforms. They have
:09:57. > :10:00.a charismatic, young, feisty leader who can appeal to parts of
:10:01. > :10:04.demographics of Scotland that the young -- Tories in Scotland haven't
:10:05. > :10:09.done in the past. It's a logical argument, but I'm not convinced it
:10:10. > :10:10.will come to fruition in May. On the other hand, on the daylight
:10:11. > :10:13.Leicester City in the Premier other hand, on the daylight
:10:14. > :10:16.League? Leicester will not necessarily be at the top of the
:10:17. > :10:20.Premier League very often, and the teams around them are not likely to
:10:21. > :10:25.be quite as rubbish quite so often. So don't you just throw everything
:10:26. > :10:28.at it? Well, Leicester went five points clear last night after
:10:29. > :10:33.beating Watford. And it is only March and there are only a couple of
:10:34. > :10:37.months left in that. I think that you listen to Ruth talking about
:10:38. > :10:42.spreading the tax base, that makes sense if you are on the right. But
:10:43. > :10:47.she has questions to answer as to why the party a few months ago,
:10:48. > :10:52.needed more taxpayers, why they sat needed more taxpayers, why they sat
:10:53. > :10:57.-- set their face against giving graduates from overseas remain to
:10:58. > :11:03.leave outside the EU with the skills and the possibility of working and
:11:04. > :11:09.contributing. Can we talk about one story in the papers this morning,
:11:10. > :11:14.from the Scotland On Sunday, Independence fears and tax policies
:11:15. > :11:18.hit property investment. This is commercial property. What I found
:11:19. > :11:22.interesting about this is it said there was no evidence that the
:11:23. > :11:26.uncertainty over Scotland's future is having any impact on the economy.
:11:27. > :11:32.This is commercial property people saying no, the market is going up in
:11:33. > :11:34.England and down in Scotland. That may be nothing to do with
:11:35. > :11:40.independence, but they are claiming it is. It was not just the
:11:41. > :11:45.uncertainty of independence, again, it is a favoured refrain of the
:11:46. > :11:49.right and of the business classes, I think they are also flowing into the
:11:50. > :11:55.mix uncertainty over Britain's future in Europe. But Europe or not
:11:56. > :12:00.a slow right the commercial property market is doing better in England
:12:01. > :12:04.and Scotland. It may explain why it said market in Britain is...? I
:12:05. > :12:06.think in Scotland there are different demographics. We don't
:12:07. > :12:12.think in Scotland there are have as many taxpayers or
:12:13. > :12:16.businesses. But Lindsay, that necessarily wouldn't explain... If
:12:17. > :12:19.they are right there is an independent effect, that is slightly
:12:20. > :12:23.disturbing, isn't it? It is, but they are not just talking about
:12:24. > :12:28.independence, but tax policies here and changes to property tax that we
:12:29. > :12:32.have. We know from the residential side of things that property experts
:12:33. > :12:38.have been warning that the top end of the market is not shifting and
:12:39. > :12:40.there is this trickle down negative effect and that is, combines with
:12:41. > :12:47.the constitutional issue is what is being talked about in that piece.
:12:48. > :12:52.You are becoming a grumpy old man, an shoe? In fact, you are supposed
:12:53. > :13:01.to have taken a cocktail of, what was, Monster? What is that, energy
:13:02. > :13:08.joint? I don't know! It was another of these drinks that... The point is
:13:09. > :13:12.you fed up of the Scottish Government trying to ban things. It
:13:13. > :13:16.is not just the Government, but the political classes want to ban things
:13:17. > :13:19.form the working classes. Give them more housing, pay them more money,
:13:20. > :13:25.give them jobs and stop fiddling with what they eat and drink. The
:13:26. > :13:30.latest was rugby tackling in school. Yes, doctors last week said they
:13:31. > :13:35.wanted to ban all tackling in school rugby. Some may say there was a
:13:36. > :13:42.successful pilot scheme 20 years ago in the senior team banning tackling.
:13:43. > :13:46.Are you as grumpy at as he is? I'm certainly not on Monster and
:13:47. > :13:51.Buckfast! He is right that things need to be done at local community
:13:52. > :13:53.level... That is all from us this week. I will be back next week,
:13:54. > :13:58.goodbye.