06/03/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/03/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The leave campaign deploys Boris Johnson to defeat


what they call Project Fear, but are the remain campaign


George Osborne hoped taxing pensions would help him fill the black hole


in the public finances, so why has he abandoned his plans


And four more states have voted - is Trump a step closer


the Conservatives will overtake Labour in the elections and become


Will she be able to kick the party into touch?


if this development could be the answer to London's housing problems.


And talking of Project Fear, with us for the duration this


morning, a terrifying political panel whose incisive insights strike


fear into the hearts of politicians everywhere.


Toby Young, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.


So, he took a while to make his mind up which way to swing,


but those campaigning for the UK to leave the European Union


will hope the deployment of their most charismatic performer


- Boris Johnson - on the Marr Show this morning


The Mayor of London took a swing at the deal the David Cameron


the stated Government policy was that we should have a reformed


EU, fundamentally reformed, wholesale change in Britain's


relationship with the EU was promised.


That has obviously not been delivered.


We were told at the time that Britain would be perfectly safe


to walk away, by the Government, by the Prime Minister.


That has now, that rhetoric has now very much been changed,


I think, by the way, the policy was right then.


We should be absolutely confident about the future of this country.


What do you make of his performance? David Lloyd George said negotiating


with devil are was like trying to pick up mercury with a fog, and I


imagine Andrew Marr feels similarly after trying to pin down Boris


Johnson over questions of the Brexit.


If these leaves campaign don't have an agreement on something that


fundamental, you can see them struggling with the real harsh light


of scrutiny getting applied in the later weeks of this referendum


campaign, I think what will end up happening is there will be a


division of Labour whereby Michael Gove leads on the hard detail and


interviews such as this, Boris Johnson does what he's good at such


is the retail politics, and we don't have incidents like that worrying


level of confusion. Was it an assured level of performance? I


think the way that interview will be seen is as Boris not being able to


get a wording edgeways, being constantly interrupted, not being


allowed to develop his points, and that will add to a sense of


grievance which is emerging as one of the features of this campaign.


The leaves campaign already complaining about George Osborne


lining up the G20, David Cameron getting these European leaders to


weigh in on the remaining side. That grievance narrative will probably be


powerful when it comes to mobilising the debate. Wasn't he being


interrupted because Andrew Marr was trying to get him to address the


point? When you interview Boris, you have got to come not just Boris, but


when you interview him you have got to interrupt because quite often


politicians just play for time in these interviews. Often he was


developing a particular point, and while he was trying to develop a


point and answer what Andrew Marr had asked him, he got interrupted,


but I think the general sense of grievance emerging on the leave site


will help mobilise the levers when it comes to the actual referendum.


The fact the levers feel more passionately than the remainders do


about remaining will help the leave cause. I think that is the best


defence you can give Boris this morning, it is worrying. There is a


moment of extreme danger for Boris. What happens after the referendum,


particularly if we stay in? Should he take a Cabinet job, in which he


affects people's lives, or does he stay on the backbenches not making


his move? He is in real danger. A lot of his popularity comes from the


fact he doesn't do politics. He hasn't got an enormous track record


to his name as London mayor, and people don't have a huge amount of


tolerance for that hail fellow well met act. Is there a lot of


grievance, as Toby says? Yes, you can imagine how much worse it will


be later on. Things like Scheuble's interview, where he said Britain


would have to pay in to have access to the EU market, that could be seen


as bullying. If you are on the other side of the argument, of course you


will see it as provocative. My worry is the campaign will get poisonous,


and the opening two weeks is reflective of something much worse.


If this grievance narrative begins to gain traction over the course of


that campaign, won't it help mobilise the leave side? We have


seen how it can motivate voters in America with Donald Trump. But there


was grievance in the Scottish referendum, I think it helps, but to


win plurality you need to go beyond grievance. That partly depends on


turnout and if the public are turned off by the negative tone of the


debate, you will have a low turnout and that will probably favour


leaving rather than remaining. We will see. It is a long time until


July the 23rd. It's been branded Project Fear


by opponents and in a moment I'll be talking to one of the remain


campaign's chief protagonists. First, here's a reminder of how


they've been making their case over Tell us what the model


is that they believe the European Union would


negotiate with Britain. Remember, this is going


to be a divorce if we decide to leave, and as with any


divorce it is likely to get messy. In many ways, I am a Eurosceptic,


absolutely, and I'm still a Brussels basher in many ways


and will always remain so. I think the answer to the concerns


that people have, and these concerns of course are not


completely absent in Scotland, isn't to clamp down


on free movement. If we leave, the people


who are advising us to leave, they cannot at the moment answer


the question about what arrangements So Project Fact is about saying stay


and you know what we get. And I'm joined now by Nick Herbert


who is leading the Conservatives' Let's go through a number of things


your site has been saying. Firstly let's take the Calais camp, the


Prime Minister 's office has said if we move the camp -- if we leave the


camp will move to the south-east of England. They would be little


interest in remaining the agreement we have that people stay on the


French side. That will result in people coming over to this side, and


we having to deal with them rather than the French, which means they


can claim asylum in this country. And what was interesting about this


claim, which I think is about a common-sense that is how the French


would respond if we were outside of the EU and they no longer have the


same set of incentives to cooperate, is that it was dismissed as


scaremongering and now we have the most senior politicians in France


confirming that this would probably be the case so this isn't


scaremongering at all. What I'm wondering is why you would move the


camp overnight to the south of England. Explain why they would form


a camp if they have made it to Britain. The point is that we would


have to deal with them on the British side. That would require us


to send them back. One of the things we have in this debate that many to


do is to remind ourselves that we have border controls in Britain, we


are not part of the passport free area, the Schengen Agreement in the


rest of Europe, and we can and do check EU citizens when they come in.


We indeed turn them away. Thousands of EU citizens are turned away from


our borders and it is too are advantage that the controls that


prevent people from coming in are on the French side. Let's assume the


French do what you are claiming. If they come here, if they make it


here, either they will apply for asylum, in which case they will


don't to official reception centres until it is sorted out, or they will


disappear into the labour market. Neither involves creation of a camp


in England. I don't know what was meant about a camp, what I do know


is that at the moment we have arrangements where people can be


stopped on the French side, the French would have little incentive


to keep that if we walk out of the EU. It was initially dismissed on


this site by Brexit campaigners as scaremongering, I think it is a very


good example of an issue that we will have to deal with if we leave.


You keep on mentioning these French politicians, only one has said this,


that the economics minister. Would you like to tell our viewers what


the interior minister has said? Right up to President Hollande... He


didn't say anything about that. President Hollande and his ministers


have said this will be on the agenda. There is a raft of French


politicians who have made this clear. Name one. Common sense would


tell us that if there is an arrangement, because it is a part of


the cooperation and partnership we have with the French that they would


no longer have that same arrangement if we were out of the EU. I will


tell you what the French interior minister says, he says ending the


treaties which govern the Calais camp would not be responsible


solution, we will not do it, we would like to go on building a good


immigration policy with the UK, especially at Calais. Other French


ministers have said different things. One. Let's just look at what


governs the Calais camp. The 1991 protocol governs the tunnel, another


treaty... Wires are EU membership critical factor? I have already made


that point, that this a separate issue legally to our EU membership


of the question is what incentive would the French have to continue


with those arrangements if we were outside of the EU, and it is as I


say senior French politicians themselves and local French


politicians who are raising these questions. What I think is a


reminder of... But these are EU treaties, Anglo-French treaties, the


French could stop them tomorrow whether we are in or out. I said


that before you did that it is legally a separate matter, but


politically I think there is little doubt that the French would not have


the same set of incentives to stand by this issue. That was made clear


at the highest level last year. All of this is a reminder that Britain


is in a different position than the rest of our EU partners. We are not


in the Schengen arrangement, we do have border controls. It is in our


interests that some of those border controls operate on the other side


of the Channel Tunnel, and in our interest that we continue to remain


outside of the Schengen area. It is one of the things that gives Britain


the best of both worlds, we are able to access the market but outside of


the passport free area. The protocol that governs the tunnel is a


protocol to the Treaty of Canterbury which sets up the tunnel, there is


no way you can change it without reneging on the treaty. To close


down the existing situation would effectively close the tunnel. The


French government owns 55% of the operation of the tunnel, why would


they do that in or out of the EU? Ask the French politicians. You


confirmed it was the senior French minister. He said he was implicitly


confirmed by the President. He hopes to be running for President next


year. None of this has come out of thin air. It has come because it


would very obviously be one of the ways in which we would lose out,


potentially, from withdrawing from the EU. That is because the same


sort of arrangements that means that we cooperate with our partners would


no longer exist. Let's move onto the benefits of membership. Your side of


the campaign has said that we benefit ?3000 per household has


accumulated over our time in the EU. Do you stand by that figure? It was


a CBI figure and it was not actually their own calculation. What they did


was look at a range of studies that show the economic benefits of the


single market. They range from some saying that there was not a benefit,


single market. They range from some to some saying there was a very


substantial benefit. They have updated this research just last


month and they said that the majority of the studies showed there


was a substantial benefit. About 10% of JD chilly GDP. They calculate it


as ?10,000 per head. You are using it, Britain is stronger in Europe,


do you stand by it? It is the CBI's figure. Do you stand by it? It is a


average figure that has been done by the studies that have been done, not


just the CBI's own studies. It shows there is a net benefit to us being


in the single market. Do you stand by the ?3000 figure? It is not a


figure I have used. Your campaign has used it, look down there,


Britain Is Stronger In Europe. It is a perfectly reasonable figure for


them to use because it is a study that has been done, not their


studies. The majority of those studies that have been done, they


show that there is a benefit to being in the single market. The CBI


stays of its study of 12 research papers, originally beginning with


five, all of which were pro-EU, it has widened that to 12, some of


which are more hostile. It there is an and avoidable degree of


uncertainty. But you have to caveat that? We need to weigh up the costs


and benefits. The majority of the studies showed that there would be a


benefit. That could be more substantial. In terms of the


increase in GDP, the domestic product, that has been gained as a


result of being in the single market. It comes back to the single


market, because it gives us easier trade and facilitates business,


because it benefits the huge number of companies that trade with the


European Union, there is a benefit to the whole economy. The big


question is, if we were to leave the European Union, what alternative


arrangement would we have? That is the question the opponents will not


answer. They will not say if we would be in the single market or


not. The risk is that we would lose those benefits. As a consequence,


there would be an impact on businesses and, therefore, on the


economic benefit coming to the country. On the research paper, you


are right that the CBI did not do its own research, the latest one was


12 research papers with 14 estimates. Out of those, it took


seven. It did not include some of them. It happens that the seven they


took out showed far fewer benefits. So we are right to be sceptical. The


sample is down to a largely pro-EU sample. To be fair, I think you need


to ask the CBI about its calculation. But what was striking


was that the range of benefit and the majority of studies that they


tuck it down to, the seven... Took it down to. Yes, was up to 10% of


GDP. Most serious economic analysis shows there was a benefit to being


in the single market for the economy. That is why businesses


themselves, the majority of members of the British chamber of commerce,


the majority of members of the Institute of Directors, the FTSE 100


companies, a full third of the FTSE 100 companies said it would be


damaging to leave the EU. The other two thirds were not saying the


opposite. This claim of a decade of uncertainty, a vote to leave the EU


would be the start, not the end of the process and could lead to a


decade or more of uncertainty. Why would it take twice as long to


withdraw from Europe as it took to win the Second World War? Because of


the length of time it takes to do trade deals and make alternative


arrangements. If you look at the average trade deal that is done,


they take years. Canada's trade is still not fully signed off. It took


seven years. We would have had to negotiate alternative arrangements,


not just with the EU, that would be problematic enough, and the other


side has not told us what arrangement that would be, but the


one thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that it would


not give us the benefits of the single market we currently have.


With the 35 other trade deals that the EU has done, those arrangements


would fall as well. Would we not just say, put the need to negotiate


a single market agreement to one side, why would we not say to other


countries, Morocco, South Korea and so on, we will continue with


existing trading relationships. Why would they not agree? Because,


automatically, all of these deals fall. But why would Morocco not


continue to trade with us on the same basis as it does at the moment?


The question is not whether people would continue to trade, it is what


it terms the trade would be. On the same basis? We would have to


renegotiate with the EU, which would be hugely problematic and we would


be disadvantaged by the process that would be triggered. Stick with


non-EU countries, why would a country that happily trades with us


under the EU rules, why would they not continue to trade on the same


basis out of the EU? It depends on the kind of deal that we are doing


with the EU. If we are unable to do a deal with the EU, we would fall


out altogether and then into the World Trade Organisation rules,


meaning we trade with tariffs, which would be immensely damaging to


British business and to jobs. Hold on, you mentioned tariffs. In your


Project Fear scenario, sterling is down by 20%. The average tariff on


cars would be ten. Overall we would be more competitive, we would face a


tariff wall of 10%, but we would be 20% more competitive? What is wrong


with that? What is wrong with all of this is that we have, at the moment,


a situation of certainty, where businesses know they have access not


just to the single market, but also to the 50 or more countries that


have done deals with the EU, and more in the pipeline. That gives


certainty. We face the prospect of huge uncertainty because the other


side will not say what kind of deal would be on offer. They don't know


whether it would be like Norway, like Switzerland, these are


countries that have the benefits, some benefits of access to the


market. It is essentially an open market from Iceland through to


Turkey. There is not a single arrangement. But essentially open.


Why would the European Union pick on us and not include us in that


largely open market from Iceland to Turkey? Because, as the German


finance minister said today, we cannot have access to the single


market without accepting certain things. Those include freedom of


movement and paying in. Overall, the single market gives us much greater


benefits to the businesses than alternative arrangements. That is


why it would be economically damaging to leave, in the view of


most businesses. The important point is this. It is not just a question


of the deals we would do, have to do with the EU, it would also be with


the 35 other countries, more than 50 other deals, leading to a period of


huge uncertainty that is damaging for British businesses and jobs. We


have discussed that already. The director-general of the British


chamber of commerce, suspended for coming out in favour of Leave. Did


anybody involved in Downing Street have something to do with this? I


think that is a ridiculous suggestion. I am not surprised there


is unhappiness in the British chamber of commerce. They were meant


to have a neutral position. The majority of their businesses, in a


recent survey, said they wanted to remain. So, no Downing Street hand?


Absolutely not. Why would they? Thank you very much.


Now, the scenes of hundreds of thousands of desperate migrants


that fill our TV screens provide powerful images for those arguing


that we should turn our backs on the crisis-hit European Union.


In a moment I'll be asking Ukip's only MP, Douglas Carswell,


First let's have a look at what Leave campaigners have


They need a free-trade deal with us and it will be a central part


of the negotiations when we leave the European Union, an important


part, but one where they have a commercial imperative


Once we have control of our own borders, we can send back


whoever we want so if somebody comes in and they are not appropriate,


they shouldn't be here, they should've stopped in France


or Germany or wherever, we will send them back.


So the threat is both wrong, inappropriate, and won't work.


Come on, donnez-moi un break, as we say in Brussels.


It's sad but perhaps unsurprising that those who want


the British people to be kept in the European Union have launched


This is designed to make the British people afraid of change.


Douglas Carswell joins me now. Let's look at some of the things your side


have been complaining about. The cost of membership. We will stop


sending ?350 million every week to Brussels. Do you stand by that


figure? Absolutely. The reason I do is because every year we make a


gross contribution of 19.2 billion, if you divide that by the weeks in a


year, 350. We're talking about what we send to Brussels. Let's look in


little more detail. This is from Office for Budget Responsibility.


These are the 2014 figures. The column on the left-hand side, we


have 18.3 billion. It is 19.2 now, but I will let that go. It gives you


350 million. But before we send that, we deduct the rebate of 5


billion. We don't send the rebate, we take the ?5 billion off. The


contribution we send is ?13.5 billion and that is 260 billion --


million per week. The figure is very vulnerable to the machinations of


ministers. Look at what Tony Blair did with the rebate. They were fast


and loose with it at the blink of an eye. What I am trying to point out,


because the phrase here was we are sending ?350 million, we don't send


the rebate and we send it back. We take the rebate off and then we send


them 13.5. The rebate is very vulnerable, as we discovered when


Tony Blair gave away a large section of it. It is very vulnerable to


change. I think it's fair that we include a figure. But we don't send


it. In addition to that, having not sent the rebate and sent 13.5, we


then get 4.4, almost ?4.5 billion back to spend in ways that will be


guided, sometimes dictated by the EU, but it is money that comes back.


Our net contribution, as you can see from the table, is 9 billion. That


is ?175 million each week. It is not 350 million. The reason I think it


is vertical about the gross contribution of ?19.3 billion a


year, you don't deduct the services you get from the government, you


don't say your tax bill is zero because of the mended potholes and


the streetlights and things you get. It is appropriate that we talk about


the 19.2 billion we send every year. But I just explained that we don't


send that. The actual saving, because the original quote was about


saving to spend elsewhere, is 175 million each week. You can say it is


too much, not enough, I don't want to stay in, but it's not 350 million


a week. 350 million on the table, some of that is highly vulnerable


because it is part of the rebate. I think it is right and proper we talk


about that. It is enough money to build a new hospital every week. It


would not be a saving, even out of the EU we would continue to have


some form of farm subsidies and forms of regional aid? We would


spend some of the money we currently send to Brussels for ourselves. I


think instead of sending 350 million each week to Brussels, we would be


better spending that money improving the NHS, giving a better deal to


farmers, maybe even tax cuts. I think it is fair we talk about ?350


million we have to send every week to Brussels. People will make their


minds up on that. Let's move onto another issue. Nigel


Farage has said 75% of UK law is made in Brussels. Do you with that?


I asked the Parliamentary authorities when I first became an


MP and they were not able to tell me. Some claim it is as little as


15%, on our side some claim 70%. The German legislature in Berlin have a


figure of 80%. Do you agree with the 75% figure? It is probably about


right. What is the source? The question was talking about the


amount of legislation that is emanating from member state versus


that coming from Brussels. What is the source of the 75% figure? You


just cited Nigel. He is not a source, he is a messenger. We have


looked carefully at the research, we can find no credible study. Even by


pro-Brexit groups that puts the figure at 75%. I have seen studies


that show 25%, but I can find nothing that gives me 75%. I don't


think this morning you can help on that. I have raised questions in


Parliament and I am happy to forward on the answers I have got, but there


is a question raised... The German parliament has produced a figure of


80 something. For the German parliament. Talking about the ratio


coming from Brussels. Vote Leave says if we Vote Leave we can take


back control of our immigration policy. No country has full access


to the single market without first agreeing to the free movement of


people. As you demonstrated earlier this week when you quizzed Matthew


Hancock, you can have free trade from Iceland to Ireland to Russia,


so you can leave the EU and have tariff free access. Canada have


recently negotiated a deal to give them free market access. The


Canadian deal includes tariffs, even tariffs on some manufacture


products, it includes tariffs on products and does not include


anything to do with services and we are 80% service economy. But we


would benefit, as a service economy. But we would benefit, as every


country in Europe does apart from Belarus, for tariff free access. But


how do you know that? The Council of the European Union is unequivocal.


Two years ago, the internal market and its freedoms, one of which is


freedom of movement, are indivisible, you cannot have one


without the other. We know that last year we had a trade deficit with the


other EU member states, about 60 billion. The idea they would


introduce tariffs seems to me absurd. On the point of regulation,


sometimes it is said we need to be part of the single market for


regulatory reasons, but in many ways it is possible to have market access


from a regulatory perspective without being part of the single


market. If you are selling into Europe you have got to meet Europe's


regulations... But do I take it that you are indicating that if we leave,


we would not seek total access to the single market as we have at the


moment? We would seek instead of free trade agreement which is less


than a single market? We would see access to the single market but we


would not want to be bound up. We would not initially seek full access


to the single market? I think if we had tariff free access and wouldn't


have regulatory obstacles put in our way, it would be free access. But


the trade agreements you have specified, particularly the one with


Canada, it is not a single market agreement, it includes tariffs, it


includes... It does not include services. Look at Switzerland for


example. Switzerland at the moment has 4.5 times trade ahead the EU


from outside of the single market than we manage from within. But it


does not have full access for its services. You accept that a free


trade agreement... They have also moved huge chunks of their financial


services to London so that they are inside the EU and can trade. Another


confidence within the City of London. On Friday Suzanne Evans and


your fellow Vote Leave supporters were sacked from their roles as UK


speakers. Miss Evans has now been sacked twice, are you next for the


job? Suzanne Evans is brilliant at this sort of stuff, we will hear a


lot more from her. Are you next for the chop? Nigel described me as


irrelevant, I have been called far worse in the elections I have


stored, but in four of those five Parliamentary elections are won.


That is the beauty of democracy. There is being a member of Vote


Leave, and being a Ukip MP, are these things becoming mutually


exclusive? Absolutely not, Vote Leave is now garnering support from


the political left, the political centre right, and people... So why


doesn't Nigel Farage? You need to address that question to him. He is


your leader. There are differences of opinion. There is a strategic


difference, I'm the think we need to win this election with an upbeat,


positive campaign. Your leader says you are relevant, could you not


resign the whip and become an independent? It is the voters who


decide who is and who isn't relevant. Thank you for joining us.


If you want more facts about the EU relevant. Thank you for joining us.


referendum, you can check the BBC News website. It is excellent.


It's just gone 11.35, 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.


Coming up on the programme: Ruth Davidson aims to overtake


Is she a safe pair of hands or could she drop the ball?


Labour's Ian Murray is in Canada to learn how the Liberals achieved


a landslide victory from third place.


With the elections taking place in May, has he left it too late?


What do the SNP and Labour have in common?


They're both taking advice from the anti-austerity


Nobel Prize-winning economist, Professor Joseph Stiglitz.


Sunday Politics went along to his latest event.


Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson needs Labour votes


if she's to secure her aim of making the Tories the opposition


after May's Scottish Parliament election.


One way she believes she can do that is by protecting public


spending on the NHS and education and by rowing back on her previous


pledge to use Holyrood's new powers to cut taxes.


At the party's Spring conference at Murrayfield on Friday,


she argued that cuts to taxes were too short-term.


We sent our reporter Andrew Black along to find out what else


Welcome to Murrayfield. Home of Scottish rugby and this week, home


to the lunch of team Conservatives campaigned for the Scottish


election. With things not looking great for labour Right now, the plan


for the Tories is to emerge from the political scrum in second place,


becoming the official opposition at Holyrood. But that could be a


tougher challenge, so how do they go about it? Well, firstly, with a few


changes to the squad. As a fan as a bid farewell to the many veteran


Tory MSP is standing down to make way for fresh talent, team captain


David Cameron turned up to do the pep talk. Let drape ourselves in red


white and blue. Let us do more great things and get out over the next 62


days and a winner for. Thank you! But image and rhetoric are only part


of it. The Conservatives will need actual policies that people will


vote for and new powers coming to Holyrood means that for the first


time, the Conservatives can campaign on one of their favourite issues,


cutting tax. Although Ruth Davidson has now decided that is not an


immediate option. We can cut tax in Scotland, but over the medium term


and our manifesto will show how. But if we're going to cut tax rates in


Scotland, I believe that we as a nation need to earn it first. And


the truth is, we haven't done that yet. So if cutting tax turns out to


be a problem, do the Conservatives reckon that their overall strategy


can a winner? Yes, we would like to see a Scottish Conservatives become


the official opposition in Scotland, because we need the SNP Government


to be held to account and be a real political alternative advocated.


This comes after nine years of the Labour Party and six different


leaders, all of whom have failed to offer that different vision.


However, one expert who specialises in the ups and downs of the Scottish


Tories is sceptical. There do seem to have been broader trends and


movements was the Conservatives late last year, but it is difficult and


if there were to match them, that would be 18 NMS peas and that


whatever back to 1989. So depends on how badly Labour does as much as how


good of the conservatives do. And another issue, Europe has split the


Tories, but those who want Britain to leave the EU, said that splits


doesn't have to last. We can still be the Government after the


referendum. How easy or difficult it is to come together after that


referendum is largely dependent on how well we treat one another in the


run-up to that referendum. I think at all points we should recognise we


have a difference of opinion and treat those differences with


tolerance and respect. And the Scottish secretary who wants Britain


to stay in argued the forthcoming referendum would not overshadow


the May election. The EU referendum is a big issue. I don't think it


will be the dominant issue in Scotland over the next few months, I


think it will be the Scottish parliament elections. I think they


will be at the forefront. I think the referendum campaign here in


Scotland will really kicked off on the 6th of May. And, as the Scottish


Conservatives focus on that election, can they kick for


Holyrood's cup glory all voters send them to the sin bin?


Joining me now is the leader of the Scottish Conservatives,


Never have more rugby plans being made in a package for a political


programme! We will take that as a compliment. Let us talk about tax.


You say you don't want to cut income tax, initially. But it is still your


longer-term view that you want to take advantage of the new devolution


powers to cut tax? Firstly, we will try and protect pay packets. We


already have the Labour Party and the Lib Dems they will increase tax


and push the SNP in the same way. We say that is not a good idea, we do


not want Scotland to be the highest taxed part of the UK. But in order


to have them in future, we have to earn it. That means growing our tax


base, printing more money in so that if we were half to cut tax further


down the road, we would still be able to have the same contributions


to our health or education service that we have now. Is not just that


you don't want a cat 's -- cut tax now, you don't want to cut tax


unless the economy is growing sufficiently that you can? We have


at cuts in Scotland, part of the wider UK ones. We've had a tax cut


for every taxpayer in Scotland from raising the threshold would. That


will rise again next year to 12 and a half thousand pounds. There will


be tax cuts UK wide. But we are saying that the big commission spent


a year looking at this and they came back and no clear recommendation to


me was that Scotland should not be the highest taxed part of the UK, we


shouldn't tax people for living here more than if they lived in Carlisle,


and I agree. And tax cuts were vulnerable in future but not now if


we want to sustain the level of service we have. I agree with both


of those and we will take those regulations into the election. But


you think Scotland shouldn't have higher taxes than England, but you


don't seem to mind England having higher taxes in Scotland? That is


because I operate in Scotland, I believe in having competition. I


think it is good that in Scotland we can say we are encouraging people to


come here. We don't do that when we do something like the SNP did which


was to overnight in the last Budget doubled the large business


supplements. That only... It hopes to -- hits a quarter of the nurses


in Edinburgh and Glasgow. So you to -- hits a quarter of the nurses


don't mind up? What about the other eminent people who you describe came


up with... - most people describe them as eminence. The public policy


experts, you know, pretty decent people. A 30p rate is one idea they


came up with. Will you do that? We are looking at it. The proposal was


that they would jump between 20 and 40 is quite a steep jump. People


would agree with that. There is an opportunity from next year to start


changing bands in Scotland, even adding them if required and moving


the threshold. It is something we are looking at and I will pre-empt


our manifesto by Pabst telling you to make things here that is OK.


Except, you want folks, why not? Why not say we will adopt this, it is a


great idea? Well, you will see more of our tax plans, we will be


great idea? Well, you will see more response to the Budget in a couple


of weeks, so after we see the Chancellor's Budget down south, we


will do our response and you will also see in our manifesto...


Finally, what puzzles me about this, OK, don't declare for a because you


don't want to pre-empt your manifesto. But it would pay this


theoretical 30p tax? Well, the way in which the Independent Commission


looked at it was they were looking at instead of having the 20p rate


and 30p rate being at the same place, so you earn the same amount


of money to get to them, they would move that nobody paying more and the


of money to get to them, they would system. So somebody paying 20p at


the moment would have to pay more tax? Not if you set the band at a


suitable way... So at the moment it is 40 2000. You stop paying 40p. The


idea would be to have an extra band inserted between that and 40p. When


you pay 30p. But you can move up to the level where 40p was paid. That


is fluent. One of the great benefits, new powers coming in. It


allows much greater flexibility. You don't have to state the same rates


as anywhere else. -- stay at the same rates. But I'm still puzzled


because George Osborne said over a series of moves he wants to take the


threshold where you stop paying 40p for 42,000 up to 50,000. Is that a


move you are in favour of? Let us see what he does in the Budget... He


said he wants to do that. He said he wants to do that over time. Is that


a good idea? I think more people have been dragged into the higher


rate of tax in the last few years because thresholds have not changed.


The Government hasn't done much with it apart from the bottom threshold


which they have left to take everybody who pays income tax out of


taxation. But for viewers at home I think there is a clear message in


this election and that is Labour and Lib Dems say they will put up taxes,


they want the SNP to do the same... But if George Osborne is going to be


the threshold of 50,000, I don't see where you're 30p comes in. Let us


have a look at how we do the Budget. But she would have to be earning


more than 50,000, so a tax break for people learn about or more? There


was a recommendation to look at a ban between 20 and 40... But if the


band is 50,000, if that is they start, it would only be people


learning over that who would benefit from the 30p rate. That is look at


how we the policies and ideas. But that is a matter of simple logic.


Anyway, you said you want people to vote for you in the election... I


think those parties say that! You are saying it very strongly cuts


apparently the ballot paper also Ruth Davidson for a stronger


opposition. Wyatt Ruth Davidson rather than the Scottish


Conservatives? Well, the designation is rock to ballot papers, you have


your candidate ballot paper and your party ballot paper. The name of your


party must be at the top of that and then you get a number of words you


can say underneath. So for example, the SNMP... But we want to know why


it is it Ruth Davidson? Because, we expect to do a job for you. We are


seeing clearly to people if you vote for us we will do a specific job...


But implication is that you think you are more popular than your


party. Well, the party name is at the top, and we know the SNP have


registered for different dosing nations all of which are Nicola's


name in it. They are clearly wanting to make it presidential style. I am


saying not only will our party stand up against a second referendum and


stand up to protect your paycheque and stand up to put the Scottish


Government under pressure, but I will go toe to toe with Nicola


Sturgeon and beyond voice in Scottish Parliament. There's been


all sorts of talk about the Tories becoming the main opposition party


in Scotland, it was echoed by David Cameron on Friday. Is that what you


want? Actually what I want is to become


First Minister. In the real world is that what you want? What we want to


do is make sure there is a Scottish Government... But can you be in


opposition? It is entirely up to the voters, that is not for you to


decide on the back of the people out here. I think we will agree we are


headed for our best ever result in the Scottish parliament, more seats


than ever before. I think we can all agree the Labour Party is about to


have its worst ever result. We can overtake them if the people of


Scotland wish it and vote for an absolutely. We will take it as read


you only get the number of votes people actually cast. What I am


asking you as leader of the Scottish Tories, do you realistically think


you can overtake the Labour Party in this election? I think we can, that


is what we are working towards. Might real ambition is for the


Scottish Conservatives to be in government in Scotland. The opinion


polls show you quite a long way from this. The opinion polls showed David


polls show you quite a long way from Cameron could never get a majority,


it is amazing how voters get the last word in these things. I find


your point about the polls but you are kind of hanging you hat on this


idea of becoming the main opposition are kind of hanging you hat on this


party when that is what evidence that you can. We are going to have


the best election. I have told my activists, my candidates, my staff,


I want us to have the best election we have ever had, more votes, more


seats than ever. If you don't become the second party, if you don't


seats than ever. If you don't become overtake Labour and the polls at the


moment are indicating you want, does that leave you exposed? I don't


moment are indicating you want, does think anyone has ever been upgrading


politics with showing ambition for the party. Many people have been


upgraded from politics for showing promises and not keeping them. Would


you stay on? We will hold the government to account. I don't think


anyone in the would see the Labour Party has landed a glove on the SNP


in recent years. Something in Scotland needs to change. If the


voters don't change they should consider changing the opposition.


You fell at the general election last year. If you do not become the


main opposition party will you stay on? Absolutely, I am the reader of


this party until they decide not to have me. There is a mechanism to get


rid of leaders and we have never had a problem with that in the past. We


rid of leaders and we have never had have a united team going into this


opposition election with our tails up. We are on course to hit it and


have a view job to do in Parliament to hold the SNP to account. You have


become quite popular in the Conservative Party, I don't want to


flatter you too much, not just here but in England, would you ever


considered giving up your position and going and fighting a seat in


England for the Conservatives? Absolutely not, I have lived and


worked in Scotland all my life. I will fight seats in Scotland in any


kind of election. I will never go to England for a seat not least because


my partner has no wish to live in England and I have no wish to live


in England, I want to stay living and working in Scotland, it is my


in England, I want to stay living home. I am disappointed. I will tell


you why. I am disappointed because I was going to ask you to do a David


Cameron and practice an English accent. You can still do it if you


like. I am better at American accents than English ones but I


would do my best reviewed. We will leave that well alone.


Last October, Justin Trudeau's Liberal party came from third place


to secure a landslide win in the Canadian elections.


Scottish Labour thinks it's got something to learn from that


experience and this week the Shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray


is visiting Quebec, Ottawa and Montreal to find out how


He's able to join us now via the wonder of the internet.


I better say can you hear me, Ian Murray? I can hear you perfectly,


I better say can you hear me, Ian good morning. You find a party which


has come third place in an election which is where Ruth Davidson has


just been saying she wants to picture in the Scottish elections in


which she has come back to win. As ugly that is the main reason for you


been there? I am here for two reasons. The first is the Scotland


Bill and fiscal framework are now almost through the Parliamentary


process which makes Scotland one of the most powerful devolved


parliaments in the world. One of these and I knew this to see how we


can eat demolition work better for Scotland. That is incredibly


important and you have seen the provincial governments and national


government here in Canada or having to work with federal government much


more efficiently because no longer can buy: the Scottish Government


work in the way they have in doing over many years. In your


introduction it said it is to look at the Liberal party and what they


did to win the election and what they did do is offer a real change


and I think what you have just seen from Ruth Davidson and the Scottish


Government is all these wonderful new hours are coming to Scotland and


they want the status quo collection by not using them. We want real


change now and we are offering that new change to Scotland and that is


very much what the Liberal party did here in Canada last year in a probe.


It has been a long way back for the Liberals yet have two be said. The


May election in Scotland is a bit short-term view, is one of the


election lessons you are burning in Canada is you have truly down


benchmarks which might not benefit you immediately but perhaps will the


medium term? This is not a new process. We had a dreadful election


back in May last year when we lost all but one of our Labour MPs in


Scotland. This is an ongoing process and it is quite right to look at


what people are wanting in Scotland, it is quite right to put forward a


very positive policy platform and that is what Justin Trudeau did here


in Canada. He said to the needy and people no longer can we stick with


the status quo. We have the Conservatives in Scotland say we can


do nothing with the new powers and the Scottish Labour Party are


offering that real change, offering the Scottish Labour Party are


that real change now and it will be up to the voters to decide if we


want a change. These powers are substantial, it transforms the


Scottish Parliament very much, as powerful as the provinces here in


Canada and we should be embracing that change, embracing those powers


and doing everything we possibly can to transform the lives of ordinary


Scots. Apart from the lesson not being positive, you could have


speared the money for the flight because you could have learned that


year, is there anything the Liberals did in terms of specific policy that


won the people of Canada around and indeed the people of Cuba get around


and that you could imitate here? Daesh WebEx. Let me give you one of


those differences happening at the moment. Heavier Dugdale said when


given the choices of using the powers of the Scottish parliament


she will use those powers by increasing the income tax rate high


1p by being able to put that straight into local authority


education. That is a great difference from the Conservatives


who have decided to do nothing with these powers after negotiating them


time and and the SNP URL government have decided to new nothing about


them. In Canada last Probert was distinct policy changes were given


as well and that is one example where the busy real clear blue water


between the Scottish Labour Party going into this election and the


other parties and what they are offering. I presume something else


you're looking at an queue back the have come from the situation where


one party came closer to winning and referendum than the SNP did in


Scotland but the party is no longer in power and in fact is not that


influential at the moment incubate. Do you see any lessons for Labour as


for what has happened to that party in Canada? I did not catch all of


your question and the line drop out ever so slightly but what I do not


want to do is look at this place so closely as to what is happening in


Scotland. The reason we have come to this place is because they have had


the referendum on independence. We have plenty to learn from what


happened here in Quebec but what they have done and the message has


been very clear to me over the last few days when I have been here in


Quebec is the need to move on to the lashes of real people's lives which


is using powers we have got. It is about jobs, growth, education and


public services. We had to meet them from talking about the constitution


to talking about how we use the substantial powers in the Scottish


Parliament to make the lives of people better and that is the key


message of what we learned in Quebec last week. You have talked about


intergovernmental relations the difference now between Quebec and


Canada is because the Liberals are in power in both it is presumably a


fairly smooth relationship and that is not necessarily the case here. We


have to build some of those infrastructure issues together. The


Smith agreement said quite clearly the group that need to talk about


finance should be either up, we need independent scrutiny of the UK


finances through the office of argued responsibility which is what


we get and we need a Scottish office budget responsibility and we need an


assessment of the Scottish economy, what is happening with Scottish


taxes and growth. These what is happening with Scottish


intergovernmental relations are what is happening with Scottish


important because of issues around welfare, tax work in the context of


a very strong parliament within the United Kingdom we need governments


to work together and that is why we need some institutional


infrastructure in place to be able to do that to make sure they can


work together to make these powers work otherwise it will be a stand of


light we have seen in the fiscal framework where both parties where


blaming each other for something that did not exist and ultimately


they came to a deal at the 11th hour. It is important to make sure


these infrastructures are in place for the benefit of Scots, not the


government but for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people.


We will have to leave it the. Thank you very much. You are jumping about


a bit and we got some inter-web warnings coming up on the screen but


otherwise it seemed to work well. Thank you. Thank you.


The Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell continued his series of public


He's being joined around the country by experts including the former


finance minister of Greece, Yanis Varoufakis, and the journalist


This week he shared a stage with the Nobel Prize-winning


economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz, who will also advise the party


It's a role he's already occupied for the Scottish Government


Our Westminster correspondent Nick Eardley went to listen


Professor Joseph Stiglitz is one of Labour's new Council of advisers. A


team of experts that will help form the parties economic direction. He


welcomes the idea that the problems of the 80s have field. It would


incentivise people to work harder, to invest more and if we liberalise


the economy we would open up the space for people to do more and the


combination of liberalisation and accept of eyes Asian over tax breaks


would unleash a new economic growth, well, it hasn't turned out that way.


We now have a third of a century of this experiment on both sides of the


Atlantic so we are not making a judgment on the basis of one or two


macro years, we are making a judgment on the basis of a third of


a century and what we can say after a third of the century is that it


has failed. The bottom 90% of Americans have seen no increase in


their income. No significant increases in the income. All the


increase has gone to the top 10%. The economists litres work focuses


on how to change the economic model, things like taxes and relegation. It


is a widening gap between the rich and were. There has been enormous


growth in inequality. The reason inequality has risen to the top of


the political agenda in the United inequality has risen to the top of


States, UK and many other countries is a simple one, a keepsake growing.


The professor believes extreme inequality undermines it quality and


slows economic growth. One penitential remedy is dependent on


access and affordability. I now in the United States very, very clearly


that the way we find higher education is a major impediment to


equality. That is equality of opportunity. The average student


graduating has $25,000 debt. It is not income continuing debt as it is


in the UK so it is a real albatross around the neck. He may be a new


in the UK so it is a real albatross recruit to the Labour team but the


professor has been advising the Scottish Government for years.


Record the referendum he observed Scotland was charting a different


economic course on the rest of the UK. Does he still think it's heading


in the right direction? I have been very pleased with the way they have


continued the agenda obviously with more constraints and if they were


independent but with the same kind of vision in forming the policies. A


blend of growth but with inclusion, inclusive growth. So, one celebrity


economist, two macro political parties, as the election approaches


the claim to have lesser Stiglitz new economics may be the only thing


Labour and the SNP are happy to have in common.


Time to review the week and look ahead at what's coming up.


I'm joined by Lindsay McIntosh, who is the Scottish political editor


for The Times and by Observer columnist, Kevin McKenna.


Over the next few months we can demonstrate Scotland can be a better


society. We need older Holyrood. We have been shown how we can push the


Scottish Government beyond its safe comfort zone and adopt the policy


Scotland are really needs. Lindsay, the Greens. There was an expectation


that they were going to do tremendously well. Is that still


there? They could do pretty well at tremendously well. Is that still


this time. If you look at their membership since the referendum when


they supported a yes vote in 2014, membership soared, donations soared


and they hired more staff and are membership soared, donations soared


looking much more like a professional organisation than ever


before. I think the picture Patrick Harvie is making it much -- clip is


interesting, he's doing a similar thing to what Ruth Davidson was


doing girly. He is saying if you vote for us in the regions, we


control the SNP Government, which we're pretty sure we will get, more


in the direction you want. So on a fracking and land reform, some of


you SNP membership is unhappy with that party's position. He is going


for the second voters think they will make the SNP more accountable.


The danger for the Greens, presumably,, I mean, if we accessed


The danger for the Greens, the SNMP can win a lot of


constituency seats, the competition for the regional seats will be


ferocious. Could the Greens end up being squeezed? That will always be


the danger and threat to a party like the Greens. It will be


competitors for the second votes this time around. Lindsay made a


good point about the increase in sharpness of the green's


organisation and the people that they are hiring. One of the people


who will be standing is and Wightman, the land reformer. -- Andy


Wightman. Previously, I found it difficult to take the Greens


seriously. To me, they will either political equivalent of vanity


publishing. But when I saw Andy Wightman talking in the week and saw


he was standing several months Wightman talking in the week and saw


to me, and I think to others on the left, he gave the green is a new


credibility and then Patrick Harvie is wise to talk about land reform,


because the SNP week there and the vulnerable even among the older


members. -- Art weak in that way. As she kept emphasising, it is up to


the voters. But it is a slightly high risk strategy isn't it? I think


so. She has made two pledges on her expectations and one is to overtake


Labour and the other is to return at the highest number of seats the


Tories have ever had in Scotland. If I were in her party, I would be


concerned she was making a bid for the hostage fortune, because their


share dropped at the general election. Although we are seeing


them arising in some polls, it is very sporadic, these green shoots. I


mean, the last poll had them on 13% and Labour on 21. On the summer they


have been neck and neck. Can you see them making a big breakthrough this


time? I can not really. I know they are hammering this line about the


Conservatives in Scotland in the last readout of the union because


Labour and the Lib Dems will be giving their members and their MSP


is a free vote if there is another referendum. I think there is only so


far you can go with that and I think that will distance them and if she


is taking that as the main difference or the main reason why


people ought to think of them as a second party, it is not going to


work, it is not enough. I think you can see the logic for why Scots


would vote for it at the moment given they are the centre-right


option and the one and not standing on tax-raising platforms. They have


a charismatic, young, feisty leader who can appeal to parts of


demographics of Scotland that the young -- Tories in Scotland haven't


done in the past. It's a logical argument, but I'm not convinced it


will come to fruition in May. On the other hand, on the daylight


Leicester City in the Premier other hand, on the daylight


League? Leicester will not necessarily be at the top of the


Premier League very often, and the teams around them are not likely to


be quite as rubbish quite so often. So don't you just throw everything


at it? Well, Leicester went five points clear last night after


beating Watford. And it is only March and there are only a couple of


months left in that. I think that you listen to Ruth talking about


spreading the tax base, that makes sense if you are on the right. But


she has questions to answer as to why the party a few months ago,


needed more taxpayers, why they sat needed more taxpayers, why they sat


-- set their face against giving graduates from overseas remain to


leave outside the EU with the skills and the possibility of working and


contributing. Can we talk about one story in the papers this morning,


from the Scotland On Sunday, Independence fears and tax policies


hit property investment. This is commercial property. What I found


interesting about this is it said there was no evidence that the


uncertainty over Scotland's future is having any impact on the economy.


This is commercial property people saying no, the market is going up in


England and down in Scotland. That may be nothing to do with


independence, but they are claiming it is. It was not just the


uncertainty of independence, again, it is a favoured refrain of the


right and of the business classes, I think they are also flowing into the


mix uncertainty over Britain's future in Europe. But Europe or not


a slow right the commercial property market is doing better in England


and Scotland. It may explain why it said market in Britain is...? I


think in Scotland there are different demographics. We don't


think in Scotland there are have as many taxpayers or


businesses. But Lindsay, that necessarily wouldn't explain... If


they are right there is an independent effect, that is slightly


disturbing, isn't it? It is, but they are not just talking about


independence, but tax policies here and changes to property tax that we


have. We know from the residential side of things that property experts


have been warning that the top end of the market is not shifting and


there is this trickle down negative effect and that is, combines with


the constitutional issue is what is being talked about in that piece.


You are becoming a grumpy old man, an shoe? In fact, you are supposed


to have taken a cocktail of, what was, Monster? What is that, energy


joint? I don't know! It was another of these drinks that... The point is


you fed up of the Scottish Government trying to ban things. It


is not just the Government, but the political classes want to ban things


form the working classes. Give them more housing, pay them more money,


give them jobs and stop fiddling with what they eat and drink. The


latest was rugby tackling in school. Yes, doctors last week said they


wanted to ban all tackling in school rugby. Some may say there was a


successful pilot scheme 20 years ago in the senior team banning tackling.


Are you as grumpy at as he is? I'm certainly not on Monster and


Buckfast! He is right that things need to be done at local community


level... That is all from us this week. I will be back next week,




Download Subtitles