:00:36. > :00:38.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:39. > :00:40.After a week of damaging questions over his financial affairs,
:00:41. > :00:43.David Cameron tries to get on the front foot
:00:44. > :00:46.by publishing details of his tax bills.
:00:47. > :00:53.but no evidence he's avoided or evaded any tax.
:00:54. > :00:55.Will it silence his critics or just spur them on?
:00:56. > :00:57.We've got the details and the analysis.
:00:58. > :00:59.The Prime Minister's bigger challenge
:01:00. > :01:02.is still winning the EU referendum, and one of his key arguments
:01:03. > :01:07.is that membership helps keep us safe.
:01:08. > :01:13.And this should be Ukip's big moment, so why is the party
:01:14. > :01:17.fighting among itself and facing an uncertain future?
:01:18. > :01:21.We'll bring you the full account of what's going wrong inside Ukip.
:01:22. > :01:23.Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:
:01:24. > :01:25.We begin our series of interviews with the Scottish party leaders.
:01:26. > :01:28.Today it's the turn of David Coburn of Ukip and the co-convener
:01:29. > :01:39.of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie.
:01:40. > :01:42.All that and more coming up in the next hour and a quarter.
:01:43. > :01:45.And when it comes to embarrassing admissions, PR blunders and having
:01:46. > :01:50.we've decided to bring in the real experts.
:01:51. > :01:53.Yes, it's Sam Coates, Beth Rigby and Isabel Oakeshott.
:01:54. > :01:56.Luckily, their tax affairs are pretty simple,
:01:57. > :02:03.but that's mainly because we pay them so badly.
:02:04. > :02:06.Without a doubt, it's been a pretty miserable time
:02:07. > :02:10.He's been on the defensive since Monday, when his father
:02:11. > :02:12.was linked to the so-called Panama Papers, leaked documents
:02:13. > :02:14.which showed how the rich and powerful use
:02:15. > :02:17.It's led to thousands protesting outside Downing Street
:02:18. > :02:20.For the first time, his approval ratings
:02:21. > :02:25.Yesterday, Mr Cameron acknowledged he'd handled the affair badly,
:02:26. > :02:28.and overnight Number 10 published the headlines of his personal income
:02:29. > :02:35.tax returns for the past six years, including the tax he's paid.
:02:36. > :02:37.So what, if anything, has he done wrong?
:02:38. > :02:39.Well, we'll attempt to answer that question this morning,
:02:40. > :02:48.but first here's a reminder of how the story unfolded.
:02:49. > :02:55.The Panama Papers contain links to 12 current or former heads of state
:02:56. > :02:59.and government. In the UK, attention has focused on David Cameron and an
:03:00. > :03:04.offshore investment fund which is late father, Ian Cameron, set up in
:03:05. > :03:07.the early 1980s. Blairmore was incorporated in one tax saving,
:03:08. > :03:14.Panama, but based in another, the Bahamas. He used a financial
:03:15. > :03:19.instrument to protect investors per' privacy, then legal, but since
:03:20. > :03:22.outlawed in the UK. At on Monday whether the Prime Minister had
:03:23. > :03:26.personally benefited from the company, Downing Street said it was
:03:27. > :03:30.a private matter. On Tuesday, Mr Cameron tried to draw a line under
:03:31. > :03:32.it all, saying I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds,
:03:33. > :03:36.nothing like that. Later that day, Downing Street
:03:37. > :03:38.sent a clarification - to be clear, the Prime Minister,
:03:39. > :03:40.his wife and their children do not benefit from
:03:41. > :03:42.any offshore funds. On Wednesday, a fourth statement
:03:43. > :03:45.was issued by Downing Street - there are no offshore funds,
:03:46. > :03:47.trusts which the Prime Minister, Mrs Cameron or their children
:03:48. > :03:51.will benefit from in future. Under increasing pressure,
:03:52. > :03:54.David Cameron gave an interview to ITV on Thursday in which he
:03:55. > :03:58.revealed that he had sold his shares in Blairmore in 2010
:03:59. > :04:03.for just over ?30,000. The Prime Minister said the profits
:04:04. > :04:06.and dividends he and his wife Samantha made from the investment
:04:07. > :04:08.were subject to all UK taxes in normal ways,
:04:09. > :04:11.and legal opinion suggests Mr Cameron has done
:04:12. > :04:15.nothing illegal. But he has faced intense criticism
:04:16. > :04:19.over his handling of the story. says this has undermined the trust
:04:20. > :04:24.that we have in him. Mr Cameron has now published
:04:25. > :04:27.the headlines of his tax returns, They show that in addition
:04:28. > :04:31.to ?300,000 that he received after his father's death
:04:32. > :04:34.in September 2010, his mother gave him two gifts
:04:35. > :04:42.of ?100,000 each in 2011. Downing Street has
:04:43. > :04:51.vigorously denied suggestions that this was done
:04:52. > :04:54.to minimise tax paid on the estate. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn
:04:55. > :04:56.and Energy Secretary Amber Rudd have both been talking about this
:04:57. > :04:59.on the Marr show this morning, we need to know what he has
:05:00. > :05:05.actually returned as a tax return. We need to know why he put this
:05:06. > :05:09.money overseas in the first place and whether he made anything out
:05:10. > :05:12.of it or not before 2010, These are questions
:05:13. > :05:16.that he must answer. is that the Prime Minister and
:05:17. > :05:21.his family have done nothing wrong. I mean, the independent tax expert
:05:22. > :05:24.at the start of this programme confirmed that,
:05:25. > :05:26.lots of independent tax experts We're joined now by our economics
:05:27. > :05:42.editor Kamal Ahmed, he's been You have been a busy man! For the
:05:43. > :05:47.first time ever we have seen a Prime Minister's tax returns, at least the
:05:48. > :05:50.headlines, what have we led? Well, it is interesting, isn't it? David
:05:51. > :05:55.Cameron has gone from suggesting a mere six days ago that this was a
:05:56. > :06:01.private matter to a sort of tax shock and awe, I will put it all out
:06:02. > :06:05.there, people can make decisions on the details. I have been scribbling
:06:06. > :06:09.down the details, and there is a lot there. It shows that he has earned
:06:10. > :06:14.over ?1 million since he has been Prime Minister, not just from his
:06:15. > :06:19.prime ministerial salary, but from other income, rental income. He has
:06:20. > :06:29.paid tax of about ?400,000, an effective rate of about 37%, which
:06:30. > :06:32.would be pretty normal. As we said at the top of the programme, he has
:06:33. > :06:35.revealed these two payments from his mother of ?100,000 each, which were
:06:36. > :06:39.gifted to him after his father died. And in the previous year he had
:06:40. > :06:43.300,000 from his father, as an inheritance. Downing Street said
:06:44. > :06:47.that his mother made the payments to the Prime Minister because his older
:06:48. > :06:52.brother had inherited the house, and she was trying to even up the sort
:06:53. > :06:56.of inheritance as it was shared out. As you look at that, the experts
:06:57. > :07:00.saying there was any kind of tax dodge involved in this, either from
:07:01. > :07:05.the estate or with the Prime Minister? I think the whole issue is
:07:06. > :07:08.what is avoidance and what is sensible tax planning. If you think
:07:09. > :07:13.that putting your savings into an Isa is tax avoidance, because it is
:07:14. > :07:17.tax free in terms of your investments, then you will probably
:07:18. > :07:21.think that this type of gifting is some form of tax avoidance. The only
:07:22. > :07:26.time it would become tax avoidance is it David Cameron's mother dies,
:07:27. > :07:31.this is a horrible way to have a conversation, but this is how the
:07:32. > :07:37.tax law works. If she dies before 2018, there is a seven year limit on
:07:38. > :07:40.gifts to your children. Her estate would pay the tax, and her children
:07:41. > :07:45.would have a share of a smaller pot of money. But the tax was put in
:07:46. > :07:50.place there two when sure that any gifts that are given, if they are
:07:51. > :07:55.given within seven years of the parents dying, still become liable
:07:56. > :08:02.for inheritance tax. So I think that the one big point is that David
:08:03. > :08:05.Cameron, as do nearly everybody, particularly if they are wealthy,
:08:06. > :08:09.has planned his tax affairs so that he pays no more tax than is
:08:10. > :08:16.necessary. Now, people might think that is morally wrong, but... He
:08:17. > :08:20.once said it was morally wrong, did he not? He was talking about
:08:21. > :08:25.aggressive tax avoidance. This is currently! This is very simple, very
:08:26. > :08:29.vanilla, things that would be available to anybody. I think what
:08:30. > :08:32.he was trying to say, all the difference that Downing Street would
:08:33. > :08:39.argue, was that it is different from the pop stars and the people in
:08:40. > :08:44.entertainment who used complicated funding mechanisms to avoid tax. And
:08:45. > :08:48.this, which is normal tax planning, in terms of what your tax adviser,
:08:49. > :08:53.if you are wealthy, would say to you. It is a watershed in British
:08:54. > :08:58.politics, two CDs tax returns, but are we not in danger of making too
:08:59. > :09:08.much out of them? -- to see these tax returns. I do not suggest the
:09:09. > :09:11.prime and has -- the minister has done anything wrong, but if you
:09:12. > :09:15.have, it would not be in your tax return. There is no suggestion that
:09:16. > :09:19.he has done anything wrong, but the watershed issue is around the
:09:20. > :09:24.long-held belief in law that your tax affairs are private. And what
:09:25. > :09:27.this has done is opened up, I would suggest, every Cabinet minister,
:09:28. > :09:31.every member of the government to the notion that they will have to
:09:32. > :09:35.publish not just this year's tax returns but six years of tax
:09:36. > :09:39.returns. And if they do not, the question will be, why are you not
:09:40. > :09:44.doing that? The Cabinet will be over the moon about that(!) Let's cut to
:09:45. > :09:48.the chase, it is almost did the Chancellor will have to publish his
:09:49. > :09:53.tax returns. I think so. There was an attempt to shut down the story
:09:54. > :10:03.once and for all by saying, here are his tax returns, the Prime Minister
:10:04. > :10:06.has done nothing wrong, but they have let the genie out of the
:10:07. > :10:08.bottle. The Chancellor will now be under pressure, other Cabinet
:10:09. > :10:10.ministers will be under pressure. Jeremy Corbyn was suggesting that
:10:11. > :10:15.people in public life more broadly should have to publish their tax
:10:16. > :10:18.returns. So it is a big moment in terms of transparency and demand is
:10:19. > :10:23.from the public for transparency, but if you think about it, this
:10:24. > :10:28.began with the MPs expenses, I would argue, and ever since then the
:10:29. > :10:32.public trust in politicians and in the way they behave has been on the
:10:33. > :10:37.slide, and this is a continuation of that, a continuation of the demand
:10:38. > :10:43.for transparency. John McDonnell has told the BBC, we will ensure that
:10:44. > :10:49.any donor linked to the Labour Party will not be using devices to evade
:10:50. > :10:54.tax. Good luck on that(!) HMRC have trouble figuring that out. This has
:10:55. > :10:58.a wider political significance, we are running up to the European
:10:59. > :11:03.referendum, the Prime Minister is mainly seen as the main asset in the
:11:04. > :11:07.Remain campaign, it is not great news when he is being dragged
:11:08. > :11:12.through the news like this. Luff, this is as bad a week of headlines I
:11:13. > :11:20.can remember since the Prime Minister entered office. -- no. It
:11:21. > :11:23.has not resulted in anyone being able to level an accusation that the
:11:24. > :11:27.Prime Minister that would stand up in a court of law. There is no
:11:28. > :11:31.suggestion that anyone is credibly making that he aggressively avoided
:11:32. > :11:35.tax. The question is, if that is the case, how has it ended up getting
:11:36. > :11:39.quite so bad for David Cameron? And I think at the heart of it has been
:11:40. > :11:43.an inability of Downing Street really to explain properly to people
:11:44. > :11:51.what is going on here, and I think that they are still, even morning,
:11:52. > :11:54.struggled to explain why, if he was doing nothing wrong, his father
:11:55. > :11:57.needed to set up a company in the Bahamas that used this anonymous
:11:58. > :12:02.form of company liability. That was the weakest part of the Prime
:12:03. > :12:05.Minister's statement in the week, that this investment vehicle,
:12:06. > :12:11.Blairmore, had not been set up to mitigate or avoid tax. I mean, if
:12:12. > :12:18.you register in Panama and operate out of the Bahamas, I mean, what
:12:19. > :12:22.else are you doing?! That is paid of the absurd, and we know that Ian
:12:23. > :12:25.Cameron made a living out of offering this sort of advice to very
:12:26. > :12:30.wealthy clients, and there was nothing wrong with that. When he set
:12:31. > :12:33.up his business, the political climate was absolutely different to
:12:34. > :12:37.what it is today. There was nothing wrong with what he was doing then.
:12:38. > :12:43.It was simply absurd of David Cameron to suggest that it was not
:12:44. > :12:47.set up for those reasons. I disagree about the weakest point, I think
:12:48. > :12:51.that was the private matter, you know, when David Cameron's
:12:52. > :12:56.spokeswoman suggested that this was a private matter, it all went
:12:57. > :13:00.downhill from there. I think today the headlines about inheritance tax
:13:01. > :13:05.and whether this is some kind of dodgy avoidance or evasion is
:13:06. > :13:09.something of a red herring. He has not, as Kamal said, done anything
:13:10. > :13:13.wrong, it is very standard practice, and there is a world of difference
:13:14. > :13:19.between evasion and avoidance. There is nothing fishy about this in
:13:20. > :13:21.particular. Kamal, you have been following this, the political
:13:22. > :13:26.ramifications still huge in that even if he loses the referendum, he
:13:27. > :13:31.is going, this will encourage, but even if he wins, the Tory party may
:13:32. > :13:35.see him, although we has done nothing wrong, as part of the
:13:36. > :13:38.walking wounded. On this issue, which has been interesting, the
:13:39. > :13:43.Conservative Party has lined up behind him. He has not been
:13:44. > :13:46.attacked, as he has over other issues, like George Osborne's Budget
:13:47. > :13:50.or Tata Steel, so this has been quite a unifying moment for the
:13:51. > :13:54.Conservative Party, interestingly. What it does that is dangerous is it
:13:55. > :13:58.makes the referendum much more of a vote about David Cameron, which is
:13:59. > :14:01.the last thing that people in Number Ten want it to be. Another busy
:14:02. > :14:04.weekend of you! Now is the UK safer in or out
:14:05. > :14:07.of the European Union? It's one of the central questions
:14:08. > :14:09.in the referendum debate Does membership help protect
:14:10. > :14:13.us against terrorist attacks, And are the big foreign policy
:14:14. > :14:16.challenges, like those posed by Russia or Iran,
:14:17. > :14:19.better tackled through the EU or with our other
:14:20. > :14:22.international partners alone? giving his view
:14:23. > :14:26.earlier in the week. We draw our strength
:14:27. > :14:28.as a country from the fact we are the fifth-biggest economy
:14:29. > :14:31.in the world, we have a special relationship with the United States,
:14:32. > :14:33.we are members of Nato, the G7, but we also get
:14:34. > :14:41.some strength from being in the European Union,
:14:42. > :14:45.the organisation for our continent that actually helps us,
:14:46. > :14:47.whether it is confronting Iran and making sure we don't have
:14:48. > :14:50.Iranian nuclear weapons, whether it is standing up
:14:51. > :14:52.to Vladimir Putin and his aggression in Ukraine, we are stronger
:14:53. > :14:59.by being part of this organisation. I'm joined now by a member
:15:00. > :15:01.of the Cameron government, the Armed Forces Minister
:15:02. > :15:03.Penny Mordaunt. She's campaigning for Britain
:15:04. > :15:16.to vote to leave the EU. The Prime Minister, the Defence
:15:17. > :15:18.Secretary, 12 former British defence chiefs all say our security is
:15:19. > :15:31.enhanced by remaining in. Those job titles, baked not
:15:32. > :15:34.arguments. I am very clear, having worn a uniform, three years on the
:15:35. > :15:39.House of Commons defence committee, being an aid worker in the former
:15:40. > :15:44.Eastern Bloc, we would be safer outside the EU. They are responsible
:15:45. > :15:53.for our security. One of them is your boss, that is his title. They
:15:54. > :15:59.think we are safer in. There is a lot of things we agree on. We agree
:16:00. > :16:02.that Nato is the cornerstone of our defence, but that the EU defence
:16:03. > :16:09.structures condiment that. If we were outside the EU, we would not
:16:10. > :16:15.lose anything from those structures. The common European defence policy
:16:16. > :16:20.and the procurement opportunities, the opportunities to partake in
:16:21. > :16:23.missions, they are open to non-EU member states and Nato, so we don't
:16:24. > :16:30.lose anything by leaving. We would gain massively the ability to take
:16:31. > :16:35.that control of our borders, just one example, if we were outside.
:16:36. > :16:41.Let's take the issue of what we would lose. Michael Fallon, you are
:16:42. > :16:47.in his department, he is a Eurosceptic, he says, if we left, it
:16:48. > :16:51.would be smaller and weaker, which is precisely what Vladimir Putin
:16:52. > :16:56.wants. He wants the EU to be smaller and weaker. You cannot deny that.
:16:57. > :17:02.The key issue is, what is the operational benefit that being in
:17:03. > :17:07.the EU or taking part in any of the defence structures and security
:17:08. > :17:12.structures that it plans on setting up, like a pan European intelligence
:17:13. > :17:16.agency, what is the benefit of that? I would argue there is none, and it
:17:17. > :17:20.frustrates our ability to share intelligence. We don't share
:17:21. > :17:25.intelligence with pan-European agencies, we share it with other
:17:26. > :17:33.nations are. I did not ask about that. I asked a geopolitical
:17:34. > :17:36.question, your boss says the EU would be smaller and weaker if we
:17:37. > :17:42.left, and that is precisely what the Kremlin wants. Do you deny that? In
:17:43. > :17:47.a time of austerity, when we are facing massive terror threats, if we
:17:48. > :17:51.are spending time, money and energy on anything that does not give as an
:17:52. > :17:57.operational advantage and a benefit in tackling those threats, that is
:17:58. > :18:03.crazy. Do you deny that it would leave us smaller and weaker and that
:18:04. > :18:07.is what Vladimir Putin wants? No. The thing that. Any malicious
:18:08. > :18:13.ambitions that anybody has against us, the Ukraine, other member states
:18:14. > :18:18.of the European Union is the success, the economic prosperity,
:18:19. > :18:22.the National security of those nation states. That is what will
:18:23. > :18:28.hold the threat that we are facing from Vladimir Putin and elsewhere.
:18:29. > :18:36.Philip Hammond says, it is only our enemies who want us to leave. Can
:18:37. > :18:42.you name a single ally that want us to leave? I can. People have
:18:43. > :18:47.different views in different nations. That is take our strongest
:18:48. > :18:53.ally, the United States. They want us to stay. That is what Barack
:18:54. > :18:58.Obama has said, but I would argue strongly, and there are many people
:18:59. > :19:10.there that would agree with me, the former head of the CIA is one,
:19:11. > :19:13.thinks that the EU is requiring of us of restricting our alliance with
:19:14. > :19:18.the United States. The official policy of America under Republican
:19:19. > :19:24.and Democratic presidents has been that we should stay in. That is a
:19:25. > :19:30.fact. That is their view, but it is not an argument. I asked if you
:19:31. > :19:36.could name a major or minor ally that we have that want us to leave.
:19:37. > :19:41.I have mentioned the United States. They want us to stay. Give me an
:19:42. > :19:48.ally that want us to leave. Australia, New Zealand, Canada,
:19:49. > :19:54.France, Germany? Our key relationships, they fully
:19:55. > :20:03.understand... Our relationship with them is threatened by legislation
:20:04. > :20:07.and requirements of the EU. The most sophisticated intelligence alliance
:20:08. > :20:14.in the world involves Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand,
:20:15. > :20:18.Canada, they want us to stay. I think they are wrong. The
:20:19. > :20:23.relationship that we have with them would be jeopardised and would be
:20:24. > :20:30.further jeopardised when we set up... That is their view. You have
:20:31. > :20:36.mentioned Nato, the general secretary says a strong EU with a
:20:37. > :20:42.strong Britain is good for Nato. The head of the US Army in Europe says
:20:43. > :20:47.leaving could weaken Nato. There are people that will argue that Nato is
:20:48. > :20:51.undermined by the EU structures. Not the head of Nato. The EU defence
:20:52. > :20:58.structures that we have complemented. But they are not
:20:59. > :21:03.closed off to us by leaving. The key issue about the threats we are
:21:04. > :21:11.facing, the threats that come with free movement of people and also
:21:12. > :21:15.with civil unrest on the continent, will be resolved by us leaving, by
:21:16. > :21:21.taking back control of our borders, our laws and money. And
:21:22. > :21:26.kick-starting reform in the EU. All of the parties that want us to
:21:27. > :21:30.leave, they are protectionist, xenophobic, authoritarian, against
:21:31. > :21:36.the single market, and they hope by us leaving, there will be chaos in
:21:37. > :21:44.Europe. Is that the chaos that would be good for our security? Vladimir
:21:45. > :21:49.Putin, you have mentioned, the rise of far right organisations in
:21:50. > :21:55.Europe, as a consequence of the forced harmonisation of the euro and
:21:56. > :22:01.the austerity and the problems that is bringing to member states, they
:22:02. > :22:09.have their arguments. They are not on my side, they are mistaken. What
:22:10. > :22:15.will ensure that those malicious ambitions against us are thwarted is
:22:16. > :22:19.if we have strong nation states. That is not what Europe is currently
:22:20. > :22:25.delivering. It is delivering weak states, states that don't have the
:22:26. > :22:28.money to put into their defence. The Prime Minister, the Defence
:22:29. > :22:33.Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the head of Nato, the head of the US
:22:34. > :22:38.Army in Europe, all of our major allies, starting with America, think
:22:39. > :22:43.we are more secure and they would be more secure if we stay in, and you,
:22:44. > :22:48.a junior minister in the defence Department, say they are wrong. If
:22:49. > :22:52.they were all lined up in front of me, I would say freedom is never a
:22:53. > :22:56.gamble. We have gambled a huge amount in the past to preserve our
:22:57. > :23:01.freedom, we risk nothing by trying to take it back. If we take back
:23:02. > :23:07.control of our borders, we have got free movement of people, with the
:23:08. > :23:13.risk that brings... We are running out of time. In what way with being
:23:14. > :23:23.outside the EU make it easier for us to stop terrorists coming in?
:23:24. > :23:30.Europol estimate we have 5000 Daesh fighters that have returned to
:23:31. > :23:37.Europe. Unless we have concrete intelligence, we cannot turn them
:23:38. > :23:41.back. Are you saying that other Europeans would now need a visa to
:23:42. > :23:45.come to this country? How would you stop somebody with a European
:23:46. > :23:50.passport to come in? We could have control. We don't have those options
:23:51. > :23:55.now. If we had suspicions, we would stop them coming in. That is not
:23:56. > :24:01.correct. We stopped about 6000 people from the EU. On matters of
:24:02. > :24:06.security issues of public danger, we stopped around 500 a year, we can do
:24:07. > :24:11.that now, whether they have an EU passport or not. If we have sketchy
:24:12. > :24:17.intelligence, we cannot prevent them from coming in. Unless you have a
:24:18. > :24:23.Visa system from France and Germany, you could not direct. We risk
:24:24. > :24:29.nothing by taking back control of our borders and our laws that
:24:30. > :24:34.underpin this framework. It is not a gamble, staying in is a gamble,
:24:35. > :24:37.because it will only get worse. We have to take back control, that is
:24:38. > :24:42.what is required to keep our nation safe. Has the controversy around the
:24:43. > :24:50.Prime Minister damaged his credibility as leader of the Remain
:24:51. > :24:54.campaign? I don't think so. I don't have any other inside scoop, but I
:24:55. > :25:00.don't think he has done anything wrong. What this is about is trust
:25:01. > :25:05.and he has two now demonstrate and builder up that trust and report
:25:06. > :25:11.with the general public. This will raise questions, as your panel said,
:25:12. > :25:16.about politicians publishing further information about themselves, and
:25:17. > :25:20.although I understand argument around privacy and security, if that
:25:21. > :25:21.is what the electorate require of their officials, that is what will
:25:22. > :25:24.have to happen. We're now well into the campaign
:25:25. > :25:26.period for local and national elections
:25:27. > :25:28.across the UK on May 5th. With the Conservatives and Labour
:25:29. > :25:31.not exactly united at the moment you might think it's a perfect
:25:32. > :25:33.opportunity for Ukip, the party that won four million
:25:34. > :25:35.votes at last year's Even more so when the elections
:25:36. > :25:39.are being fought during an EU referendum campaign
:25:40. > :25:43.Nigel Farage helped bring about. So why instead are the men and women
:25:44. > :25:50.of his party so bitterly divided? All political parties have ups
:25:51. > :25:55.and downs, but mostly Ukip has been climbing the ladder
:25:56. > :25:57.of British politics. It's poised on the verge
:25:58. > :26:01.of a referendum it helped secure, offering the very thing the party
:26:02. > :26:05.was set up for. So why is it so short of funds
:26:06. > :26:10.and riven with in-fighting? Once-dominant Nigel Farage has lost
:26:11. > :26:15.control of parts of his party. The clearest example is being foiled
:26:16. > :26:18.by the party's ruling body over his prefered candidates
:26:19. > :26:22.for May elections in Wales. In particular, his desire to stop
:26:23. > :26:26.the selection of Neil Hamilton, Electoral concerns about Mr Hamilton
:26:27. > :26:32.are not new in Ukip. The Sunday Politics has
:26:33. > :26:34.been given a series In January 2015, Mr Hamilton
:26:35. > :26:41.complained to Nigel Farage he'd been branded as toxic by some
:26:42. > :26:44.inside the party. Michael McGough, a general-election
:26:45. > :26:47.candidate, emailed Mr Hamilton In every article that you feature,
:26:48. > :26:54.your name has the appendage "disgraced former Tory MP",
:26:55. > :27:06.and sadly this will continue. And on the same day an email
:27:07. > :27:10.from the then-party treasurer Andrew Reid accused Mr Hamilton,
:27:11. > :27:14.by then a longstanding Ukip-er, of behaving exactly
:27:15. > :27:47.as he'd been portrayed.. If you looked at the Welsh assembly
:27:48. > :27:54.elections, those are a great example of their tendency to shoot itself in
:27:55. > :27:59.the foot. You have some very Eurosceptic areas, but yet Ukip has
:28:00. > :28:03.become embroiled in a dispute over which of its candidates should stand
:28:04. > :28:06.where and whether it should be standing former Conservatives in
:28:07. > :28:08.mainly industrial parts of the country.
:28:09. > :28:10.The infighting didn't stop with Neil Hamilton,
:28:11. > :28:12.with 16 candidates signing a letter demanding that another candidate,
:28:13. > :28:17.Gareth Bennett, be deselected because he had expressed a negative
:28:18. > :28:20.view of other candidates, undermined the party
:28:21. > :28:23.and our own ability to campaign through his offensive
:28:24. > :28:31.and borderline-racist comments about immigrants to Wales.
:28:32. > :28:34.The party's National Executive Council did not deselect him and two
:28:35. > :28:37.other candidates have since stood down.
:28:38. > :28:40.Nigel Farage has been repeatedly outvoted by the NEC,
:28:41. > :28:44.leading Mr Farage to consider abolishing it.
:28:45. > :28:47.However, the Sunday Politics has learned just this week
:28:48. > :28:52.a representative of the NEC hostile to Nigel Farage angrily accosted
:28:53. > :28:54.a Welsh Ukip staffer in the Cardiff office,
:28:55. > :28:58.saying, "I've come to find which faction you are in,
:28:59. > :29:05.And Neil isn't the only colleague Nigel has fallen out with.
:29:06. > :29:09.Just two weeks ago, Suzanne Evans, seen by many as one of the party's
:29:10. > :29:12.best performers, ended up in the extraordinary position
:29:13. > :29:15.of taking the party to the High Court to overturn
:29:16. > :29:18.a suspension that also barred her from standing
:29:19. > :29:32.If people cannot come together and unite behind the main principles of
:29:33. > :29:35.the party, maybe they are in the wrong party and they should take
:29:36. > :29:36.their personal career ambitions to another party.
:29:37. > :29:39.On top of this, insiders have told the Sunday Politics Ukip's in severe
:29:40. > :29:43.Staff have been laid off, or unpaid for months,
:29:44. > :29:45.membership is down and candidates are expected to contribute
:29:46. > :29:48.in the thousands to their own campaigns.
:29:49. > :29:52.Stuart Wheeler, a donor who's given Ukip over 600K in the past six
:29:53. > :29:56.years, told us he hasn't donated to the party since last year and has
:29:57. > :30:06.Paul Sykes, who contributed to Ukip's 2014 European elections
:30:07. > :30:10.campaign, is no longer funding the party.
:30:11. > :30:13.Ukip doesn't control the funding Parliament gives to an opposition
:30:14. > :30:19.Currently 212K a year, that's controlled by the party's
:30:20. > :30:23.one MP, Douglas Carswell, who turned down the original sum
:30:24. > :30:30.of 670K and as a result fell out with Nigel Farage.
:30:31. > :30:35.We've learned that until recently the security bill for Mr Farage
:30:36. > :30:41.around a third of all monthly membership fees.
:30:42. > :30:46.The sum may now be lower, and is not now funded by the party.
:30:47. > :30:51.The party also paid Facebook ?90,000 in the year of the general election.
:30:52. > :30:57.Senior figures are split, supporting rival campaigns
:30:58. > :30:59.for leaving the European Union, both vying to be
:31:00. > :31:08.Nigel Farage is determined that it will be Grassroots Out rather
:31:09. > :31:12.than rivals Vote Leave that wins that designation, to be
:31:13. > :31:17.One donor who is still giving to Ukip, ?50,000 to the Welsh
:31:18. > :31:21.campaign last week, is Arron Banks, a key figure in Grassroots Out.
:31:22. > :31:24.We have been told by numerous sources that Nigel Farage wants
:31:25. > :31:26.to restructure and revamp Ukip after the referendum,
:31:27. > :31:28.and that they think Arron Banks would be chairman
:31:29. > :31:43.I did not say rebranded as much, but I have watched the five Star
:31:44. > :31:48.Movement in Italy, basically, an online party, where people can join
:31:49. > :31:52.for modest sums of money, but have a say in choosing the direction of the
:31:53. > :31:53.party, a sense that the old membership models are a bit
:31:54. > :31:54.outdated. His critics think he extends
:31:55. > :31:58.that view to the NEC. His supporters say such
:31:59. > :32:00.a digital model would also make this troublesome body for Mr Farage
:32:01. > :32:03.redunant and let him take back control of a party that right now
:32:04. > :32:09.is far from at ease with itself. And we're joined in the studio
:32:10. > :32:12.now by Neil Hamilton, he's a former deputy chairman
:32:13. > :32:14.of Ukip, and he's hoping to become one of the party's first members
:32:15. > :32:23.of the Welsh Assembly. Welcome to the programme. Ukip was
:32:24. > :32:28.created to bring about a referendum on the EU, you have got one, why is
:32:29. > :32:32.the party in such chaos? It is a fantastic achievement for Ukip to
:32:33. > :32:36.have brought this referendum to the people of Britain, but Ukip has
:32:37. > :32:40.grown up very rapidly in the last few years. It is only in the last
:32:41. > :32:44.four or five years that it has become a mainstream political party,
:32:45. > :32:51.and I suppose... These are the growing pains of such a party. It is
:32:52. > :32:56.basically about jockeying for position, and you get these personal
:32:57. > :33:00.feuds in all parties. I lived through the Major government and the
:33:01. > :33:04.Thatcher government, where we saw it in spades, this is nothing compared
:33:05. > :33:08.to the Conservative Party. A crucial issue that has exposed the visions
:33:09. > :33:11.within the party, which of the rival campaign should get the official
:33:12. > :33:17.designation from the Electoral Commission, which one do you want to
:33:18. > :33:20.get it? Well, I have taken a neutral position all along, because we have
:33:21. > :33:26.to work with whoever gets the designation, and I am a great
:33:27. > :33:31.admirer of Arron Banks, he has made a fantastic contribution. There can
:33:32. > :33:37.only be one. Years Nigel's preferred vehicle. I am asking your view. I am
:33:38. > :33:40.ambivalent, I will unite behind whoever gets the designation, the
:33:41. > :33:44.Electoral Commission will announce the decision in the coming weeks, so
:33:45. > :33:49.this will be an argument in the past. How much trouble is there
:33:50. > :33:54.between Mr Farage and the party's ruling national executive committee?
:33:55. > :33:58.Well, Nigel is a member of and a frequent at tender at the NEC.
:33:59. > :34:05.Because he is the party leader and a strong and dominant individual,
:34:06. > :34:10.without whom Ukip is -- would not be where it is today, it does not mean
:34:11. > :34:14.he get his way on everything, we are a Democratic Party. The NEC is a
:34:15. > :34:18.vigorous forum for debate, that is a healthy situation. Will he try to
:34:19. > :34:22.change that after the referendum, will there be a Farage coup? Just
:34:23. > :34:28.because you read it in the newspapers does not mean it is true,
:34:29. > :34:34.of course! I have no window into Nigel's mind on this. Should he? I
:34:35. > :34:38.am not seeing anybody who knows anything about this, apart from
:34:39. > :34:44.whoever wrote the piece in the having done post. Should he continue
:34:45. > :34:50.as leader? He was elected just two years ago, he can go on for three
:34:51. > :34:53.years before going for re-elections. I am asking for your view. I think
:34:54. > :34:57.years before going for re-elections. he will continue as leader beyond
:34:58. > :35:03.the referendum. The world after the referendum will be a very different
:35:04. > :35:09.kettle of fish... I am asking your view, should he continue as leader
:35:10. > :35:11.after the referendum? I think there will be a widespread re-evaluation
:35:12. > :35:17.of work Ukip is after the referendum. We are going to win
:35:18. > :35:20.seats in the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Government and the Northern
:35:21. > :35:26.Ireland Assembly, and we will then have various representatives... Let
:35:27. > :35:29.me try one more time, after the referendum, should he step down?
:35:30. > :35:32.me try one more time, after the Should there be a new leader, in
:35:33. > :35:39.your view? I am not going to call for Nigel to stand down, I am
:35:40. > :35:41.perfectly certain that if there were an election for leader, party
:35:42. > :35:47.members would vote for Nigel overwhelmingly. This is a nonissue.
:35:48. > :35:51.When was the last time you spoke to him? Several weeks ago, when he came
:35:52. > :35:59.to the NEC meeting last month. You used to be great mates. We still
:36:00. > :36:03.are, it is like a married couple who have been together quite a long
:36:04. > :36:08.time, you have ups and downs, he throws China at me, I figured up and
:36:09. > :36:11.put it on the mantelpiece. He blocked you from standing in the
:36:12. > :36:16.general election, you were removed as deputy chairman in February, he
:36:17. > :36:22.wanted you off the list in Wales, all part of the division and chaos
:36:23. > :36:26.that Farage and Hamilton dynamic. Ukip is a life political
:36:27. > :36:31.institution, people have... There are personality feuds and
:36:32. > :36:34.difficulties. I do not think we lose anything by saying that we are
:36:35. > :36:40.normal red-blooded individuals and have the same kind of tips that
:36:41. > :36:46.other parties have. Ukip is strengthened by these kinds of
:36:47. > :36:50.scraps, I think. We heard some of the e-mails about you, does it
:36:51. > :36:56.disturb you that some members regard you as a controversial, even a toxic
:36:57. > :37:03.vigour in the party? Well, this is all exaggerated. It is just tittle
:37:04. > :37:09.tattle. That was one e-mail amongst many thousands of e-mails I have
:37:10. > :37:15.had. There were several e-mails, articles said that your name has the
:37:16. > :37:19.appendage disgraced former Tory MP. Hearty members do not seem to be too
:37:20. > :37:23.bothered about that, because they voted for me in overwhelming numbers
:37:24. > :37:29.to be the candidate in the Welsh assembly in my region. -- party
:37:30. > :37:31.members. I topped the poll in the national executive elections with
:37:32. > :37:39.the highest number of votes anybody has ever got in an NEC election. I
:37:40. > :37:45.would have thought it may be a lesson learned, expenses. That was a
:37:46. > :37:49.misrepresentation, and the innuendo was entirely dismissed after an
:37:50. > :37:54.internal investigation. So you did not claim for staying at your wife's
:37:55. > :38:01.place? I am not going to go into what I did or did not claim for in
:38:02. > :38:05.my expenses when I was the Ukip campaign director. I had a pay
:38:06. > :38:10.package which was agreed, and all my pay and expenses were legitimate.
:38:11. > :38:15.You know, the key point here is that Ukip is now a major player in the
:38:16. > :38:18.land, we will elect ten members to the Welsh assembly... You have said
:38:19. > :38:25.that, and you hope to be one of them. Would you ever see yourself as
:38:26. > :38:28.the future leader of Ukip? At my age, your age? We are
:38:29. > :38:30.contemporaries! I do not see myself as a future leader. That is be
:38:31. > :38:33.enough, Neil Hamilton. It's just gone 11:35,
:38:34. > :38:42.you're watching the Sunday Politics. Good morning and welcome
:38:43. > :38:44.to Sunday Politics Scotland. Ukip launched its Scottish
:38:45. > :38:50.manifesto this week - we'll be speaking to David Coburn
:38:51. > :38:53.about its proposals and asking if the party is too British
:38:54. > :38:55.to do well in Scotland. An invigorated Scottish Green Party
:38:56. > :38:57.is fighting its We'll ask Patrick Harvie
:38:58. > :39:01.if they can win enough The offshore banking industry has
:39:02. > :39:10.taken a beating this week, but is there a legitimate role
:39:11. > :39:16.for the tax haven? Ukip's Scottish leader David Coburn
:39:17. > :39:21.contrasts his party with the "tired old establishment parties
:39:22. > :39:23.which spout the same old havers". As he launched its manifesto
:39:24. > :39:27.alongside Nigel Farage in Edinburgh on Thursday, he promised to shake up
:39:28. > :39:33.Holyrood with additional tax bands, a reintroduction of smoking rooms
:39:34. > :39:35.in pubs, a relaxation of airgun licences and revision
:39:36. > :39:37.of the new drink-driving limits. But the party has yet to win
:39:38. > :39:40.a seat in the parliament. Huw Williams has been finding out
:39:41. > :39:58.what Ukip needs to do In the published their Holyrood
:39:59. > :40:02.manifesto on Thursday. They set out their long-term aim to cut income
:40:03. > :40:07.tax, reduced the Scottish Government's budget, raise the
:40:08. > :40:08.drink-drive limit back to the level it falls across the rest of the UK
:40:09. > :40:13.drink-drive limit back to the level and to allow pubs and clubs to bring
:40:14. > :40:17.back smoking rooms. Their leader David Cockburn was born in Glasgow,
:40:18. > :40:21.he worked as an art dealer and a city trader and served in the
:40:22. > :40:25.Territorial Army. He hit the headlines last year when he compared
:40:26. > :40:26.the Scottish Government minister to a convicted terrorist. He apologised
:40:27. > :40:35.and said it was a joke. The polls a convicted terrorist. He apologised
:40:36. > :40:38.suggest the message of Ukip resonates with some Scottish waters.
:40:39. > :40:41.Central to the success of Ukip throughout the UK has been its
:40:42. > :40:45.stance on immigration, the idea that everywhere in the European Union we
:40:46. > :40:48.could have less immigration. Whilst Scotland is not as concerned as
:40:49. > :40:52.England is about immigration, it could be said that this is one thing
:40:53. > :40:55.north of the border that Ukip could hope to score on.
:40:56. > :40:59.It seems the party faced some real problems when it comes to selling
:41:00. > :41:05.the message in Scotland. The difficulty north of the border
:41:06. > :41:08.is that Ukip seems to be seen as an English party and that does not go
:41:09. > :41:12.down well here. It is clear that Scotland is much keener on the
:41:13. > :41:18.meaning inside the European Union than most of England and Wales, and
:41:19. > :41:23.therefore, this is the difficult for Ukip to make progress here.
:41:24. > :41:28.Ukip have never had an MSP elected to serve at Holyrood. The party
:41:29. > :41:32.would point out it is just two years since the reader became Ukip's first
:41:33. > :41:34.elected representative in Scotland when he won a European Parliament
:41:35. > :41:48.receipt. -- seat. David Coburn joins me now. Do you
:41:49. > :41:53.think Nigel Farage will continue as Ukip Leader wish absolutely, we did
:41:54. > :41:59.not have our referendum if it was not for him.
:42:00. > :42:03.This issue that has come up this week, a former Ukip candidate, Jack
:42:04. > :42:09.Newell, he appeared on the front of The Herald. You said you would think
:42:10. > :42:13.about how to react. Have you decided?
:42:14. > :42:17.I did not know what he was up to. I was told that he was wearing the
:42:18. > :42:22.outfit of the clouds and sitting in his bath playing an electric organ.
:42:23. > :42:25.That is not smart. He is a student, he has done something extremely
:42:26. > :42:29.stupid and he did not realise the impact of what he was doing. He
:42:30. > :42:36.should not be doing things like that. When people join the party,
:42:37. > :42:39.they pay their 30 quiet. We do not have a window into their souls or a
:42:40. > :42:47.crystal ball to see what they will do next. If they do something daft,
:42:48. > :42:50.we will have a word and sort it out. You do not have a crystal ball but
:42:51. > :42:53.you know what he has now done. Will you suspend him from the party?
:42:54. > :42:57.That is not for me to tell you, it is for the party's disciplinary
:42:58. > :43:04.committee. Would you like to apologise?
:43:05. > :43:08.I think he has done that. He said, "This is what it chapters
:43:09. > :43:14.for entertainment." If you sit in your back-up naked it
:43:15. > :43:19.their static sampling and organ, that is a silly student and he has
:43:20. > :43:24.done something bad. I am sure he is in Paris. -- bathtub.
:43:25. > :43:32.Let me tell you this constructively as I possibly can. What about the
:43:33. > :43:35.remarks you made about Humza Yousaf? The SNP have been accused of all
:43:36. > :43:39.sorts of things. Accusations have been made against them as they are
:43:40. > :43:45.against all parties. This happens, we cannot control it all. It does
:43:46. > :43:50.not relate to us. Ukip are the most Liberal Party you can possibly
:43:51. > :43:56.imagine, we are Libertarian party. We cannot get more broad-minded than
:43:57. > :43:58.that. A lot of people watching this
:43:59. > :44:01.programme might agree with you on issues like Europe and immigration,
:44:02. > :44:05.but the problem Ukip has always had is that people think, actually, it
:44:06. > :44:07.is not a mainstream party, scratch the surface...
:44:08. > :44:10.The only people that think that the press and they do that because they
:44:11. > :44:15.are part of the establishment and they do not like the fact that we
:44:16. > :44:20.can do well, we will go in and shake up the establishment. They are
:44:21. > :44:24.terrified of that. You do not intend to take any
:44:25. > :44:28.further action? It is not my place to do with this,
:44:29. > :44:34.it is for the disciplinary part of the party. I would not want to do
:44:35. > :44:39.anything to put a case before that. That is not part of my business.
:44:40. > :44:42.You are the only party who has published a manifesto for the
:44:43. > :44:46.Scottish elections. Absolutely. The good thing about it
:44:47. > :44:49.is that the Glasgow Herald had nothing to see how good our
:44:50. > :44:56.manifesto was. So they started to bring this nonsense into it.
:44:57. > :45:05.You want a 30p rate of tax. Yes, for the ?350,000 group.
:45:06. > :45:07.Once George Osborne lowers his tax threshold, are you still suggesting
:45:08. > :45:12.Once George Osborne lowers his tax that you're 30p would be there?
:45:13. > :45:16.This is an aspiration. We will not be in government, we would love to
:45:17. > :45:20.be, but we will not be. I do not think that Scotland should have
:45:21. > :45:26.taxes higher than those in England. That is your... Under your manifesto
:45:27. > :45:31.proposals as they currently stand, some in Scotland would pay more tax
:45:32. > :45:38.than in England on some of their income? Once George Osborne takes
:45:39. > :45:42.the 40p there showed up to 50,000, someone who was earning ?58,000
:45:43. > :45:46.would pay ?30 under your proposals on some of their income but only 20p
:45:47. > :45:50.in England. We want to broaden it out. That will
:45:51. > :45:53.not be the case. That flatly contradicts almost the
:45:54. > :45:57.first thing you have said in your manifesto.
:45:58. > :46:03.That is our aspiration. That is what we want.
:46:04. > :46:06.Your manifesto states you oppose any suggestions that would result in the
:46:07. > :46:11.income tax being higher than the rest of the UK.
:46:12. > :46:15.That is correct. I do not understand what you are talking about, it is
:46:16. > :46:19.quite clear. What is quite clear is that you
:46:20. > :46:23.would be charging higher tax in Scotland and the rest of the UK.
:46:24. > :46:27.This is what a Ukip government would want to do in the future. We are
:46:28. > :46:30.concerned with the government in London at the moment and we would
:46:31. > :46:36.want in Scotland, and in England, the same thing. We want a medal 30p
:46:37. > :46:40.band rate. That seems sensible to me. But we are not in government and
:46:41. > :46:44.we do not expect to be in government this time around, that is very
:46:45. > :46:49.clear. But we want to be aiming towards this and that seems sensible
:46:50. > :46:52.to me. But what you have just told me is
:46:53. > :46:55.that there would be some people undergo a proposal in Scotland who
:46:56. > :46:58.would pay more income tax than in England.
:46:59. > :47:02.There are always winners and losers but it would be fair across the
:47:03. > :47:06.bans, it is more sensible. Even if people in Scotland end up
:47:07. > :47:11.paying more tax? Some things we have to be a little
:47:12. > :47:13.bit more and sometimes a little bit less.
:47:14. > :47:16.How can I screw that with the statement that I have just read?
:47:17. > :47:20.We have different circumstances at the moment. When we have a Ukip
:47:21. > :47:24.government, that is what we want. That is what we are aiming for,
:47:25. > :47:28.seems clear to me. I do not see how one scorers with
:47:29. > :47:35.the other. What realistically did want to achieve in this election?
:47:36. > :47:38.Our objective is to make sure that Scotland has taxes no higher than
:47:39. > :47:46.that of the best of the UK. What I would like to see... Please, let me
:47:47. > :47:50.finish. Jobs, jobs, jobs. We want to create jobs and in Scotland we do
:47:51. > :47:54.not want Scotland to be putting a penny on this and that, that will
:47:55. > :47:58.not help the Scottish economy. How many seeds you think you were
:47:59. > :48:06.one or would you like to win? I would like to break through.
:48:07. > :48:09.According to... Getting an MSP, that would be a
:48:10. > :48:14.victory for do? I am trying to answer your question.
:48:15. > :48:17.From what I can see in the polls, they survey should pull in the
:48:18. > :48:22.e-mail and Andy Daily Record, which is no friend of Ukip, neither are
:48:23. > :48:28.particularly friendly to Ukip, they have said we will get seven seats.
:48:29. > :48:31.That would be nice, very happy to have them, but if we can get any
:48:32. > :48:37.seeds, I would be happy. If you get one MSP, you would say
:48:38. > :48:40.that was a step forward as far as you are concerned?
:48:41. > :48:43.Yes, I would like to get more but it is up to the Scottish people. We
:48:44. > :48:49.will have to wait and see what happens. As I have told you, it
:48:50. > :48:52.looks like seven seats. We have many people coming from the other
:48:53. > :48:55.parties. The Labour Party is imploding in Scotland. Many can
:48:56. > :49:01.never stomach voting for the Conservatives. As for the Scottish
:49:02. > :49:05.national scum are many are frightened as to what is happening
:49:06. > :49:09.in Europe. They have seen what happens to smaller countries in
:49:10. > :49:16.Europe if they do not agree with the European Union. Austerity and
:49:17. > :49:19.suchlike. Greece was forced to be... Are you standing in any of the
:49:20. > :49:24.constituencies? No, we are not. We are trying to get
:49:25. > :49:28.everyone to vote for us on the list. So you are pitching to people... Who
:49:29. > :49:34.should they vote for? They should vote for Ukip and they
:49:35. > :49:37.should put as much fought in there as possible.
:49:38. > :49:40.So they should vote for you even though you are not putting up any
:49:41. > :49:46.candidates? I did not suggest that. I believe we
:49:47. > :49:48.will not win many seeds in the first past the post. It is a tactical
:49:49. > :49:59.decision. Who should the rest vote for?
:50:00. > :50:02.That is up to them. On the list, I want is to get first preference or
:50:03. > :50:06.many people's second preference. That would be fine. I think we are
:50:07. > :50:10.getting a lot of second preference votes, not only from Labour voters
:50:11. > :50:16.but the SNP and disgruntled conservatives who are opposed to the
:50:17. > :50:19.European Union. I know you have been very busy
:50:20. > :50:23.campaigning, have you had time to buy a new toaster? You said your old
:50:24. > :50:31.one in the European Union, you could not get brown toast.
:50:32. > :50:36.Yes, my toast is not good. The coasters have less power in them.
:50:37. > :50:40.When I made that thing, they came out and said that they had a plan
:50:41. > :50:46.but they would not bring it in. They have postponed until after the
:50:47. > :50:52.referendum. How interesting is that? Let me give you a tip, go shopping,
:50:53. > :50:55.I think you will find a toaster that will be suitable.
:50:56. > :50:59.I will do that, Gordon, since we have spent so much time together.
:51:00. > :51:04.Thank you, David Coburn. Thank you.
:51:05. > :51:07.The Scottish Greens will head to the polls for its fifth Holyrood
:51:08. > :51:09.election, fielding candidates in all eight regions.
:51:10. > :51:11.The party received a significant boost following the independent
:51:12. > :51:13.referendum in September and now boasts over 9,000 members.
:51:14. > :51:16.It confidently predicts that it can push the parliament to be bolder,
:51:17. > :51:19.and is hoping to improve upon the two MSPs that sat
:51:20. > :51:25.Huw Williams has been assessing their chances.
:51:26. > :51:29.The Scottish Greens publish their Holyrood manifesto this
:51:30. > :51:32.The Scottish Greens publish their Patrick Harvie said when he joined
:51:33. > :51:38.the party in 2000 they had around 500 members. Membership is now
:51:39. > :51:40.around 9000. He is from Dumbarton and disgrace himself as a fan of
:51:41. > :51:47.real ale, real food, science fiction and disgrace himself as a fan of
:51:48. > :51:51.and free software. He wants a ban on fracking and it switch away from
:51:52. > :51:55.fossil fuels. There is no doubt that the broad
:51:56. > :51:59.Green idea that we need to look after the environment, we should be
:52:00. > :52:04.concerned about climate change, and we should be changing energy
:52:05. > :52:07.production Scotland towards renewables, in principle at least,
:52:08. > :52:10.is something that is pretty widespread, at least not of the
:52:11. > :52:14.border. But polls suggest voters may not be
:52:15. > :52:20.so keen on those ideas if they mean inconvenience or cost more.
:52:21. > :52:23.There is a problem with principle to practice, particularly whether or
:52:24. > :52:28.not it means we may have to pay more or do less of what we like in order
:52:29. > :52:33.to help the environment. Asking us to use our cars less, to pay to go
:52:34. > :52:38.into cities or indeed pay more on petrol, at that point, it becomes
:52:39. > :52:44.rather more difficult to persuade people to change.
:52:45. > :52:49.Key catchphrases in the Green us campaign will be the call for
:52:50. > :52:54.Holyrood to be bolder and for Scotland to achieve more. They can
:52:55. > :52:59.party, under Patrick Harvie's leadership, really did better than
:53:00. > :53:01.2003, when a record number of seven Green MSPs were elected.
:53:02. > :53:06.of the Scottish Green Party, Patrick Harvie.
:53:07. > :53:14.I enjoyed that image of my freshfaced youth there!
:53:15. > :53:19.OK! Let's start with tax. You want a 60p rate. The SNP say they can't
:53:20. > :53:25.raise tax take even a 50p for people who are more than ?150,000. They say
:53:26. > :53:29.that because partly because people will leave the country, and partly
:53:30. > :53:33.because people will choose to pay their tax in different ways.
:53:34. > :53:38.Why do you think they're wrong? It's clear they do have the ability.
:53:39. > :53:41.The Scottish Government, the next Scottish Government under the new
:53:42. > :53:46.Scotland act will have the ability to set those bands. They are talking
:53:47. > :53:50.about tax competition, that they simply have to offer high income
:53:51. > :53:54.people the lowest tax environment, otherwise they will disappear. I
:53:55. > :54:01.just don't buy that argument that the majority of people, even in that
:54:02. > :54:05.hire additional tax band by the type of selfish individuals who would
:54:06. > :54:06.operate their family and disappear- presumably not taking their current
:54:07. > :54:09.operate their family and disappear- job with them but going to another
:54:10. > :54:15.job elsewhere- simply because they wish to avoid more attacks on the
:54:16. > :54:19.highest element of their income. Remember, we are talking what they
:54:20. > :54:23.earn over and above ?150,000. So these are people who are very
:54:24. > :54:29.wealthy, I think it is quite reasonable that they pay a bit more.
:54:30. > :54:33.But don't the SNP have a point when they say that people want just
:54:34. > :54:37.leave, there are things you can do. You can choose to take your taxes
:54:38. > :54:41.capital gains tax. There was the chap involved in private equity who
:54:42. > :54:45.said he pays less tax and is cleaner. That is not what they were
:54:46. > :54:49.doing, taking capital gains and pink capital gains tax, which is lower
:54:50. > :54:55.than high-street income tax, and this is the point the SNP may, not
:54:56. > :54:59.under the control of the Scottish Government. And secondly you can
:55:00. > :55:03.take tax on dividends from shares, which is lower than the highest rate
:55:04. > :55:06.of income tax. And also, as the SNP say, it is not under the control of
:55:07. > :55:11.Scottish Government. They have a point? There are
:55:12. > :55:14.certainly opportunities that high income or high wealth people who are
:55:15. > :55:18.motivated purely by greed, and I again say, I think that is the
:55:19. > :55:24.minority. There are opportunities that some of them have two hide tax
:55:25. > :55:27.and hide their income or pay in a different way through a shell
:55:28. > :55:32.company or what have you. They themselves so they are working for a
:55:33. > :55:36.company they in fact owner. This is a problem for every country, not
:55:37. > :55:40.just for Scotland. Not just for Scotland gaining tax powers within
:55:41. > :55:44.the UK. Not just for the UK, it is a problem for every country. There is
:55:45. > :55:48.a great deal we have to do to stigmatise that sort of behaviour
:55:49. > :55:51.and make it less possible. There are always can do that, for example in
:55:52. > :55:53.the public sector, where public sector high-paid jobs, some of which
:55:54. > :55:59.I would like to see brought within a sector high-paid jobs, some of which
:56:00. > :56:01.reasonable pay ratio, but as long as they exist we can make it clear that
:56:02. > :56:05.public sector employers will not they exist we can make it clear that
:56:06. > :56:08.cooperate with those activities. The Scottish Government as well has
:56:09. > :56:16.business support services, grants and loans and services that it
:56:17. > :56:18.provides with tax payers' money. Employers can not participate in a
:56:19. > :56:22.moral... See you think the SNP just like the
:56:23. > :56:25.courage of their convictions? I think that surprised many people
:56:26. > :56:30.that they are not put forward a radical, progressive approach to
:56:31. > :56:33.taxation. We're not just talking about the 60p rate, it is really
:56:34. > :56:37.important to remember the Green proposals are talking about the
:56:38. > :56:43.average income and salary. Anyone paying the average would pay less
:56:44. > :56:52.underarm proposals. And that is what? ?26,000. Under
:56:53. > :56:58.proposals if you're of a lack to be paying about ?2 per month more in
:56:59. > :57:03.tax. Someone on, for example, and MS people's salary with the paying
:57:04. > :57:12.more. MSPs earn a lot more than that. The funds in public services
:57:13. > :57:15.should close the gap. We are going to continue to see an credible
:57:16. > :57:20.social and economic costs that we do not deserve to bear in the society.
:57:21. > :57:23.Young people who want see the opportunities that will be created
:57:24. > :57:28.in new sustainable industries in Scotland.
:57:29. > :57:30.Housing that needs to be built. If you're going to put tax up for
:57:31. > :57:32.Housing that needs to be built. If everyone who wants more than the
:57:33. > :57:36.average, what do you want the money for?
:57:37. > :57:41.It's very clear that there are macro cuts coming to our public services
:57:42. > :57:44.as a result of the UK Government. A Scottish Government in the next
:57:45. > :57:47.session will have the powers to reverse those cuts any fear,
:57:48. > :57:51.progressive way. More specifically, what do you want
:57:52. > :57:57.to spend more money on? Local services that a great many
:57:58. > :57:59.people depend upon. Care services where we have seen people
:58:00. > :58:03.historically underpaid for care work. Whether that is paid care in
:58:04. > :58:08.local authorities or the third sector, or the carer's allowance for
:58:09. > :58:13.unpaid carers who deserve some sort of recompense. We would like to see
:58:14. > :58:18.that increased by 50%. There are opportunities to invest in the
:58:19. > :58:21.education of young people need. How much will you tax increases
:58:22. > :58:29.raise? The income tax proposals we have
:58:30. > :58:33.proposed will raise ?231 million. We are making it clear that the
:58:34. > :58:41.proposals were making our about local council setting the rate. If
:58:42. > :58:45.councils set it at 7p on the pounds, it would raise about the same as
:58:46. > :58:49.council tax. This is to protect public services and invest in the
:58:50. > :58:53.homes, jobs and services that our country needs. We have a critical
:58:54. > :58:56.decision to make- do we want to continue this race to the bottom,
:58:57. > :59:01.not just in taxation, but in the quality of our public services and
:59:02. > :59:05.investment in our economy. A lot of people watching this will
:59:06. > :59:09.save this sounds just like what Labour say. It is just
:59:10. > :59:13.tax-and-spend. It's not that you have any ideas for raising tax and
:59:14. > :59:20.doing anything innovative original, you just want to spend money?
:59:21. > :59:23.We have set very clearly ways of raising revenue and ways we think it
:59:24. > :59:29.can be done fairly. We've also set out a report on how Scotland needs
:59:30. > :59:32.to invest in jobs which will replace those industries which do not have
:59:33. > :59:38.an infinite life ahead of them. We've been arguing for a transition
:59:39. > :59:41.away from fossil fuels. We have also been arguing in the long-term and
:59:42. > :59:46.short-term this can be good for people's wallets. Wasting less money
:59:47. > :59:49.on energy that is going out the window.
:59:50. > :59:53.Anyone who is paid more than the average will be paying more income
:59:54. > :59:58.tax. Presumably, you would like them to pay more tax on fuel as well?
:59:59. > :00:06.Yet we're all going to be better off? Fuel duty is being devolved, --
:00:07. > :00:11.not being devolved, some are not quick to set out... Public transport
:00:12. > :00:16.is always the better option. You see the type of countries that get
:00:17. > :00:18.public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure right, they
:00:19. > :00:22.have world-class services because they know they need to invest and
:00:23. > :00:27.protect that investment. Some of them so have their own book we owned
:00:28. > :00:30.railway companies. One of them, they're publicly owned railway is
:00:31. > :00:36.running one of our Railways! I don't see why we can't have a publicly
:00:37. > :00:40.owned railway we can invest in. And all these countries you mention
:00:41. > :00:45.are economically doing less well this moment than the United Kingdom.
:00:46. > :00:48.Depends what you mean by less well. Greens have always argued we
:00:49. > :00:53.shouldn't just judge a record in terms of GDP. GDP doesn't tell you
:00:54. > :00:58.in whose interest the money is working. I economy is doing terribly
:00:59. > :01:02.at protecting the well being of those for now register being
:01:03. > :01:05.dependent on foodbanks. I think our economy is doing terribly at
:01:06. > :01:08.protecting the well being of those who are in industries which are
:01:09. > :01:12.coming to the end of their lives, and we're not investing in the
:01:13. > :01:15.alternatives. I was doing terribly at having a
:01:16. > :01:20.much lower rate of unemployment than countries like France and Spain?
:01:21. > :01:24.When George Osborne talks about a low rate of unemployment, he is
:01:25. > :01:26.looking great people who are in precarious unemployment, people in
:01:27. > :01:34.zero hours contracts. Hang on, if I was... I think it is
:01:35. > :01:39.about 50% of young people and Spain who are unemployed and can't find a
:01:40. > :01:41.job. I think I would say, precarious employment sounds absolutely
:01:42. > :01:46.wonderful, can we have some of that year?
:01:47. > :01:48.Spain has been subject to even more brutal austerity economic son this
:01:49. > :01:52.country. That is not a defence of austerity.
:01:53. > :01:54.What are your goals for this election?
:01:55. > :02:01.Hammy seats would you like to win? I think this is the most realistic
:02:02. > :02:06.chance we have had of getting an MSP in each one of Scotland's regions.
:02:07. > :02:11.There are eight regions, I think we can get more than one in some
:02:12. > :02:15.regions. If in that ballpark, we are potentially approaching double
:02:16. > :02:18.figures. For the first time with have an MSP representing every voter
:02:19. > :02:22.in Scotland. The regional vote in every part of the Scotland can elect
:02:23. > :02:28.eight Green MSP. I want to get a sense from all party
:02:29. > :02:32.leaders - you think it would be a failure if you get less eight MSPs?
:02:33. > :02:38.Fewer than eight, I should say. If we went from two MSPs to seven, I
:02:39. > :02:44.wouldn't say that was a failure. I would be disappointed about the one
:02:45. > :02:47.region we don't have an MSDN, and redouble a reference to get that one
:02:48. > :02:54.next time. What is the maxim in you could get?
:02:55. > :03:01.I'm log in to set a maximum limit on aspirations. I would like us Green
:03:02. > :03:09.MSP in every region. I would like voters to think,... Labour needs to
:03:10. > :03:13.be -- SNP need to be put under pressure on issues like fracking,
:03:14. > :03:19.land reform, rent control. We put them under pressure and constructive
:03:20. > :03:22.pressure. Not just saying everything they do is terrible, but getting
:03:23. > :03:23.results by the way we engage with the Scottish Parliament and the
:03:24. > :03:29.Scottish Government. Thank you. If you meet David Coburn
:03:30. > :03:31.on the way out, you could take on shopping freighters do.
:03:32. > :03:33.I think that's unlikely. The Prime Minister has published
:03:34. > :03:35.details about his income and tax payments to try to defuse a row
:03:36. > :03:38.about his financial affairs. The figures cover
:03:39. > :03:42.the past six years. headlines after documents -
:03:43. > :03:44.leaked from a law firm in Panama - showed that his late father set
:03:45. > :03:47.up an offshore trust. He later disclosed that he'd
:03:48. > :03:49.profited from selling Yesterday, Mr Cameron acknowledged
:03:50. > :04:03.that he'd taken too long to give Although he pays all the taxes that
:04:04. > :04:07.were due, David Cameron is facing accusations from labour that he
:04:08. > :04:12.misled the public about his personal involvement in his late father's
:04:13. > :04:16.offshore fund. He came under pressure to tackle money-laundering
:04:17. > :04:20.and tax evasion. It's not about the individual or one
:04:21. > :04:25.person, it is about a whole ethos where the very rich are able to put
:04:26. > :04:28.their money into tax havens, offshore accounts, whether it often
:04:29. > :04:33.easy rate of income tax. Sometimes also a zero rate of corporate or
:04:34. > :04:39.capital gains tax. That untaxed money does not contribute anything
:04:40. > :04:45.to the public services of the people of the country they come from.
:04:46. > :04:49.Yesterday, protesters gathered outside the Conservative spring
:04:50. > :04:53.Forum, at a venue in central London. They demanded the Prime Minister
:04:54. > :04:55.handed in his resignation. There is no suggestion that Mr
:04:56. > :04:59.Cameron has done anything illegal, There is no suggestion that Mr
:05:00. > :05:02.but he admits he mishandled the questions about his family's tax
:05:03. > :05:05.affairs. I know that I should have handled
:05:06. > :05:10.this bettered. I could have handled this better. I know there are
:05:11. > :05:16.lessons to learn, and I will learn them. I don't blame -- and don't
:05:17. > :05:23.blame ten Downing St on Amis advisers, blame me.
:05:24. > :05:28.David Cameron has also revealed that a new task force will investigate
:05:29. > :05:30.accusations of money-laundering in the Panama Papers. But will that be
:05:31. > :05:36.enough to silence critics? While politicians have
:05:37. > :05:38.been making capital - if you'll forgive the pun -
:05:39. > :05:41.out of the Prime Minister's personal situation -
:05:42. > :05:43.there are wider questions around The huge leak of documents
:05:44. > :05:46.from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca has revealed how tax
:05:47. > :05:49.havens are used to hide wealth. Critics question the ethics
:05:50. > :05:51.of the rich in avoidance of paying income tax,
:05:52. > :05:53.corporation tax and capital gains. On the other side, some finance
:05:54. > :05:56.experts point to legitimate reasons for the financial arrangements
:05:57. > :05:58.and emphasise that most of those who invest in them
:05:59. > :06:00.are not breaking the law. I'm joined now by the Telegraph
:06:01. > :06:03.columnist Juliet Samuel, who's in our London studio,
:06:04. > :06:15.and by the financial First, Juliet Samuel, a lot of
:06:16. > :06:20.people will look at these offshore tax havens and think, this all
:06:21. > :06:25.smells bad, but are there are legitimate reasons, do you believe,
:06:26. > :06:31.that companies could be registered there or that individuals could want
:06:32. > :06:33.to keep their money there? There are certainly legitimate
:06:34. > :06:37.reasons for being registered on the offshore companies to do business.
:06:38. > :06:44.Some reasons include that you want to invest in a developing country
:06:45. > :06:48.who are going on sure they could expose you to political risk or
:06:49. > :06:53.corruption. So you might want to register offshore in order to make
:06:54. > :06:58.your investment less of a rest. Or it might be easier... I mean, there
:06:59. > :07:06.are many funds such as the one that Mr Cameron was invested in which our
:07:07. > :07:08.registered offshore but which are not avoiding UK tax but which are
:07:09. > :07:11.registered offshore because these offshore centres are more efficient
:07:12. > :07:17.and quick and cheap at setting up forms and make it easier for
:07:18. > :07:18.international investors for area by Mike due restrictions to invest into
:07:19. > :07:21.them. You have to efficient, that is a
:07:22. > :07:25.word that will make people suspicious. Investment trusts, you
:07:26. > :07:30.are trading on the stock exchange, you can buy them, they are traded on
:07:31. > :07:37.the London Stock Exchange, why would someone want to set up an investment
:07:38. > :07:42.trust that is based on a tax haven? In some cases, it is so that
:07:43. > :07:48.international investors who are not UK investors, do not activate the
:07:49. > :07:51.entire UK tax by investing in a foreign company in the UK. A lot of
:07:52. > :07:56.farms will be attracting investors from the Middle East, the US, all
:07:57. > :08:02.around Europe, and if you had a fund set up in the UK, it is much more
:08:03. > :08:06.difficult to ensure that investors do not accidentally incur tax and
:08:07. > :08:14.that they actually do not have to pay. So that could be one reason.
:08:15. > :08:17.Another reason, for example, in Ireland, it is just much faster to
:08:18. > :08:22.set up a fund, there is more expertise there to set them up.
:08:23. > :08:26.There is a whole industry which has been built around doing so, it takes
:08:27. > :08:31.half the time in some offshore centres to set up a fund than it
:08:32. > :08:34.does in the UK. Did you agree, Ian Fraser, are there
:08:35. > :08:37.legitimate reasons for having these things?
:08:38. > :08:40.Yes, and Juliet Samuel has outlined some of those. The trouble however
:08:41. > :08:43.is that they all offshore world which includes lawyers, company
:08:44. > :08:48.formation agents, using which includes lawyers, company
:08:49. > :08:52.jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands, Panama etc, it has been
:08:53. > :08:56.totally corrupted, so even though there are legitimate businesses
:08:57. > :09:02.including asset management companies using it, a lot of other companies
:09:03. > :09:09.are money launderers, gangsters, drug runners, sorry drug barons and
:09:10. > :09:11.so on. Deposed dictators who want to hide their cash a week without the
:09:12. > :09:15.authorities in their native countries knowing where the money
:09:16. > :09:20.is. Is it in principle possible to
:09:21. > :09:24.separate? Let us pretend I was a multinational company and that I had
:09:25. > :09:27.a legitimate reason, I wanted to aggravate payments from around the
:09:28. > :09:33.world and I wanted to take them back to America and pay the taxes that I
:09:34. > :09:35.will. Is there anyway that I can do that without being tainted with what
:09:36. > :09:40.you have just described? I think there are remains reasons
:09:41. > :09:43.for that but it is more likely that you would be kind deed and put in
:09:44. > :09:47.the same kind of bracket as the abusers of the offshore system. I
:09:48. > :09:53.agree with the likes of Caroline Lucas and the Green Party. I agree
:09:54. > :09:57.with Thomas Docherty, the French economist, that this is something
:09:58. > :10:03.that is actually harming the financial system. It is making our
:10:04. > :10:06.financial system more precarious, it is encouraging international crime.
:10:07. > :10:09.It is encouraging the looting of third World countries. These tax
:10:10. > :10:14.havens ought to be shut down. That is my view.
:10:15. > :10:18.What do you make of that, Juliet Samuel? After the financial crisis,
:10:19. > :10:23.there was an argument, was there not, similar to that, that there
:10:24. > :10:26.were entire areas of finance that were very obscure and people could
:10:27. > :10:29.not understand. People said they should be shut down, there is no
:10:30. > :10:34.reason to have them and the world would not be a worse place for not
:10:35. > :10:39.having them. Ironically, a lot of those things
:10:40. > :10:42.that were shot down, politicians are now trying to restart. And that is
:10:43. > :10:47.because some of them did have economic benefits such as a form of
:10:48. > :10:52.security. I agreed with Ian Fraser up until he said we should shut them
:10:53. > :10:56.all down. There are certainly many criminals who are using offshore
:10:57. > :11:03.havens in order to avoid breaking reasonable and fair laws and onshore
:11:04. > :11:08.places. But the idea that we can or should just shut them down, I do not
:11:09. > :11:13.even know what that would mean. Many of these offshore jurisdictions are
:11:14. > :11:16.foreign countries. We can put some of them on blacklists as we have
:11:17. > :11:18.done, that that does not involve shutting them down. What we should
:11:19. > :11:22.be doing and in fact, what the shutting them down. What we should
:11:23. > :11:26.government has been doing, or they are trying to do, is to put pressure
:11:27. > :11:30.on them to improve the regulations because they be that you would make
:11:31. > :11:32.on them to improve the regulations it harder for criminals to use these
:11:33. > :11:37.jurisdictions is to force them to register their information and
:11:38. > :11:41.forced jurisdictions to collect that information and make it available to
:11:42. > :11:45.authorities in other countries as they have a good reason. That is
:11:46. > :11:49.something that is happening slowly under pressure, but shutting them
:11:50. > :11:53.down is not an option. The trouble is they are resisting
:11:54. > :12:01.it, but at the British Virgin Islands, for example, there was a
:12:02. > :12:02.massive leak in 2013 secret information involving a lot of
:12:03. > :12:05.massive leak in 2013 secret criminal abuse of tax havens there.
:12:06. > :12:08.But they did not respond by tiding up their act, they did not try to be
:12:09. > :12:12.more transparent. The Labour Party has suggested we
:12:13. > :12:15.could take direct control of some of these jurisdictions that have
:12:16. > :12:18.British territories. The problem not that there are lots of add-ons and
:12:19. > :12:24.small independent countries around the world which could take up the
:12:25. > :12:26.slack? So unless there was pretty much unanimous international
:12:27. > :12:29.agreement to blacklist these countries, that wherever you shut
:12:30. > :12:35.one down, another will pop up elsewhere?
:12:36. > :12:38.That is a danger, there is a new one of the coast of New Zealand in the
:12:39. > :12:45.Pacific. It was established by Mossack Fonseca as a tax haven. A
:12:46. > :12:48.secret jurisdiction. There is always that risk. Basically, the British
:12:49. > :12:53.government has been pussyfooting around this issue for the last six
:12:54. > :12:55.years and it was doing virtually nothing in the previous period
:12:56. > :13:00.years and it was doing virtually either. They need to shape up their
:13:01. > :13:04.act, they have to address this. Surely this has to be an
:13:05. > :13:07.international issue? No matter what the British government does, if
:13:08. > :13:12.another government of a big country does not do it, I can just shut my
:13:13. > :13:17.money there and throw that into the tax haven.
:13:18. > :13:22.International law is actually necessary, definitely. Without that
:13:23. > :13:24.it would be very difficult. Briefly, Juliet Samuel, is that
:13:25. > :13:28.it would be very difficult. realistic, that we can do something?
:13:29. > :13:32.Yes, and actually, the government have tried to do that and read it at
:13:33. > :13:36.the G8. If you had corporation it would be harder for offshore centres
:13:37. > :13:40.to simply carry on without enforcing regulations, some of which are
:13:41. > :13:44.already on the books. OK, we will have to leave it there.
:13:45. > :13:46.Ian Fraser and Juliet Samuel, from London, thank you both very much
:13:47. > :13:47.indeed for joining us. I'll be back at the
:13:48. > :13:52.same time next week.