10/04/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by Penny Mordaunt MP, Neil Hamilton and Kamal Ahmed.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


After a week of damaging questions over his financial affairs,


David Cameron tries to get on the front foot


by publishing details of his tax bills.


but no evidence he's avoided or evaded any tax.


Will it silence his critics or just spur them on?


We've got the details and the analysis.


The Prime Minister's bigger challenge


is still winning the EU referendum, and one of his key arguments


is that membership helps keep us safe.


And this should be Ukip's big moment, so why is the party


fighting among itself and facing an uncertain future?


We'll bring you the full account of what's going wrong inside Ukip.


Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:


We begin our series of interviews with the Scottish party leaders.


Today it's the turn of David Coburn of Ukip and the co-convener


of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie.


All that and more coming up in the next hour and a quarter.


And when it comes to embarrassing admissions, PR blunders and having


we've decided to bring in the real experts.


Yes, it's Sam Coates, Beth Rigby and Isabel Oakeshott.


Luckily, their tax affairs are pretty simple,


but that's mainly because we pay them so badly.


Without a doubt, it's been a pretty miserable time


He's been on the defensive since Monday, when his father


was linked to the so-called Panama Papers, leaked documents


which showed how the rich and powerful use


It's led to thousands protesting outside Downing Street


For the first time, his approval ratings


Yesterday, Mr Cameron acknowledged he'd handled the affair badly,


and overnight Number 10 published the headlines of his personal income


tax returns for the past six years, including the tax he's paid.


So what, if anything, has he done wrong?


Well, we'll attempt to answer that question this morning,


but first here's a reminder of how the story unfolded.


The Panama Papers contain links to 12 current or former heads of state


and government. In the UK, attention has focused on David Cameron and an


offshore investment fund which is late father, Ian Cameron, set up in


the early 1980s. Blairmore was incorporated in one tax saving,


Panama, but based in another, the Bahamas. He used a financial


instrument to protect investors per' privacy, then legal, but since


outlawed in the UK. At on Monday whether the Prime Minister had


personally benefited from the company, Downing Street said it was


a private matter. On Tuesday, Mr Cameron tried to draw a line under


it all, saying I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds,


nothing like that. Later that day, Downing Street


sent a clarification - to be clear, the Prime Minister,


his wife and their children do not benefit from


any offshore funds. On Wednesday, a fourth statement


was issued by Downing Street - there are no offshore funds,


trusts which the Prime Minister, Mrs Cameron or their children


will benefit from in future. Under increasing pressure,


David Cameron gave an interview to ITV on Thursday in which he


revealed that he had sold his shares in Blairmore in 2010


for just over ?30,000. The Prime Minister said the profits


and dividends he and his wife Samantha made from the investment


were subject to all UK taxes in normal ways,


and legal opinion suggests Mr Cameron has done


nothing illegal. But he has faced intense criticism


over his handling of the story. says this has undermined the trust


that we have in him. Mr Cameron has now published


the headlines of his tax returns, They show that in addition


to ?300,000 that he received after his father's death


in September 2010, his mother gave him two gifts


of ?100,000 each in 2011. Downing Street has


vigorously denied suggestions that this was done


to minimise tax paid on the estate. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn


and Energy Secretary Amber Rudd have both been talking about this


on the Marr show this morning, we need to know what he has


actually returned as a tax return. We need to know why he put this


money overseas in the first place and whether he made anything out


of it or not before 2010, These are questions


that he must answer. is that the Prime Minister and


his family have done nothing wrong. I mean, the independent tax expert


at the start of this programme confirmed that,


lots of independent tax experts We're joined now by our economics


editor Kamal Ahmed, he's been You have been a busy man! For the


first time ever we have seen a Prime Minister's tax returns, at least the


headlines, what have we led? Well, it is interesting, isn't it? David


Cameron has gone from suggesting a mere six days ago that this was a


private matter to a sort of tax shock and awe, I will put it all out


there, people can make decisions on the details. I have been scribbling


down the details, and there is a lot there. It shows that he has earned


over ?1 million since he has been Prime Minister, not just from his


prime ministerial salary, but from other income, rental income. He has


paid tax of about ?400,000, an effective rate of about 37%, which


would be pretty normal. As we said at the top of the programme, he has


revealed these two payments from his mother of ?100,000 each, which were


gifted to him after his father died. And in the previous year he had


300,000 from his father, as an inheritance. Downing Street said


that his mother made the payments to the Prime Minister because his older


brother had inherited the house, and she was trying to even up the sort


of inheritance as it was shared out. As you look at that, the experts


saying there was any kind of tax dodge involved in this, either from


the estate or with the Prime Minister? I think the whole issue is


what is avoidance and what is sensible tax planning. If you think


that putting your savings into an Isa is tax avoidance, because it is


tax free in terms of your investments, then you will probably


think that this type of gifting is some form of tax avoidance. The only


time it would become tax avoidance is it David Cameron's mother dies,


this is a horrible way to have a conversation, but this is how the


tax law works. If she dies before 2018, there is a seven year limit on


gifts to your children. Her estate would pay the tax, and her children


would have a share of a smaller pot of money. But the tax was put in


place there two when sure that any gifts that are given, if they are


given within seven years of the parents dying, still become liable


for inheritance tax. So I think that the one big point is that David


Cameron, as do nearly everybody, particularly if they are wealthy,


has planned his tax affairs so that he pays no more tax than is


necessary. Now, people might think that is morally wrong, but... He


once said it was morally wrong, did he not? He was talking about


aggressive tax avoidance. This is currently! This is very simple, very


vanilla, things that would be available to anybody. I think what


he was trying to say, all the difference that Downing Street would


argue, was that it is different from the pop stars and the people in


entertainment who used complicated funding mechanisms to avoid tax. And


this, which is normal tax planning, in terms of what your tax adviser,


if you are wealthy, would say to you. It is a watershed in British


politics, two CDs tax returns, but are we not in danger of making too


much out of them? -- to see these tax returns. I do not suggest the


prime and has -- the minister has done anything wrong, but if you


have, it would not be in your tax return. There is no suggestion that


he has done anything wrong, but the watershed issue is around the


long-held belief in law that your tax affairs are private. And what


this has done is opened up, I would suggest, every Cabinet minister,


every member of the government to the notion that they will have to


publish not just this year's tax returns but six years of tax


returns. And if they do not, the question will be, why are you not


doing that? The Cabinet will be over the moon about that(!) Let's cut to


the chase, it is almost did the Chancellor will have to publish his


tax returns. I think so. There was an attempt to shut down the story


once and for all by saying, here are his tax returns, the Prime Minister


has done nothing wrong, but they have let the genie out of the


bottle. The Chancellor will now be under pressure, other Cabinet


ministers will be under pressure. Jeremy Corbyn was suggesting that


people in public life more broadly should have to publish their tax


returns. So it is a big moment in terms of transparency and demand is


from the public for transparency, but if you think about it, this


began with the MPs expenses, I would argue, and ever since then the


public trust in politicians and in the way they behave has been on the


slide, and this is a continuation of that, a continuation of the demand


for transparency. John McDonnell has told the BBC, we will ensure that


any donor linked to the Labour Party will not be using devices to evade


tax. Good luck on that(!) HMRC have trouble figuring that out. This has


a wider political significance, we are running up to the European


referendum, the Prime Minister is mainly seen as the main asset in the


Remain campaign, it is not great news when he is being dragged


through the news like this. Luff, this is as bad a week of headlines I


can remember since the Prime Minister entered office. -- no. It


has not resulted in anyone being able to level an accusation that the


Prime Minister that would stand up in a court of law. There is no


suggestion that anyone is credibly making that he aggressively avoided


tax. The question is, if that is the case, how has it ended up getting


quite so bad for David Cameron? And I think at the heart of it has been


an inability of Downing Street really to explain properly to people


what is going on here, and I think that they are still, even morning,


struggled to explain why, if he was doing nothing wrong, his father


needed to set up a company in the Bahamas that used this anonymous


form of company liability. That was the weakest part of the Prime


Minister's statement in the week, that this investment vehicle,


Blairmore, had not been set up to mitigate or avoid tax. I mean, if


you register in Panama and operate out of the Bahamas, I mean, what


else are you doing?! That is paid of the absurd, and we know that Ian


Cameron made a living out of offering this sort of advice to very


wealthy clients, and there was nothing wrong with that. When he set


up his business, the political climate was absolutely different to


what it is today. There was nothing wrong with what he was doing then.


It was simply absurd of David Cameron to suggest that it was not


set up for those reasons. I disagree about the weakest point, I think


that was the private matter, you know, when David Cameron's


spokeswoman suggested that this was a private matter, it all went


downhill from there. I think today the headlines about inheritance tax


and whether this is some kind of dodgy avoidance or evasion is


something of a red herring. He has not, as Kamal said, done anything


wrong, it is very standard practice, and there is a world of difference


between evasion and avoidance. There is nothing fishy about this in


particular. Kamal, you have been following this, the political


ramifications still huge in that even if he loses the referendum, he


is going, this will encourage, but even if he wins, the Tory party may


see him, although we has done nothing wrong, as part of the


walking wounded. On this issue, which has been interesting, the


Conservative Party has lined up behind him. He has not been


attacked, as he has over other issues, like George Osborne's Budget


or Tata Steel, so this has been quite a unifying moment for the


Conservative Party, interestingly. What it does that is dangerous is it


makes the referendum much more of a vote about David Cameron, which is


the last thing that people in Number Ten want it to be. Another busy


weekend of you! Now is the UK safer in or out


of the European Union? It's one of the central questions


in the referendum debate Does membership help protect


us against terrorist attacks, And are the big foreign policy


challenges, like those posed by Russia or Iran,


better tackled through the EU or with our other


international partners alone? giving his view


earlier in the week. We draw our strength


as a country from the fact we are the fifth-biggest economy


in the world, we have a special relationship with the United States,


we are members of Nato, the G7, but we also get


some strength from being in the European Union,


the organisation for our continent that actually helps us,


whether it is confronting Iran and making sure we don't have


Iranian nuclear weapons, whether it is standing up


to Vladimir Putin and his aggression in Ukraine, we are stronger


by being part of this organisation. I'm joined now by a member


of the Cameron government, the Armed Forces Minister


Penny Mordaunt. She's campaigning for Britain


to vote to leave the EU. The Prime Minister, the Defence


Secretary, 12 former British defence chiefs all say our security is


enhanced by remaining in. Those job titles, baked not


arguments. I am very clear, having worn a uniform, three years on the


House of Commons defence committee, being an aid worker in the former


Eastern Bloc, we would be safer outside the EU. They are responsible


for our security. One of them is your boss, that is his title. They


think we are safer in. There is a lot of things we agree on. We agree


that Nato is the cornerstone of our defence, but that the EU defence


structures condiment that. If we were outside the EU, we would not


lose anything from those structures. The common European defence policy


and the procurement opportunities, the opportunities to partake in


missions, they are open to non-EU member states and Nato, so we don't


lose anything by leaving. We would gain massively the ability to take


that control of our borders, just one example, if we were outside.


Let's take the issue of what we would lose. Michael Fallon, you are


in his department, he is a Eurosceptic, he says, if we left, it


would be smaller and weaker, which is precisely what Vladimir Putin


wants. He wants the EU to be smaller and weaker. You cannot deny that.


The key issue is, what is the operational benefit that being in


the EU or taking part in any of the defence structures and security


structures that it plans on setting up, like a pan European intelligence


agency, what is the benefit of that? I would argue there is none, and it


frustrates our ability to share intelligence. We don't share


intelligence with pan-European agencies, we share it with other


nations are. I did not ask about that. I asked a geopolitical


question, your boss says the EU would be smaller and weaker if we


left, and that is precisely what the Kremlin wants. Do you deny that? In


a time of austerity, when we are facing massive terror threats, if we


are spending time, money and energy on anything that does not give as an


operational advantage and a benefit in tackling those threats, that is


crazy. Do you deny that it would leave us smaller and weaker and that


is what Vladimir Putin wants? No. The thing that. Any malicious


ambitions that anybody has against us, the Ukraine, other member states


of the European Union is the success, the economic prosperity,


the National security of those nation states. That is what will


hold the threat that we are facing from Vladimir Putin and elsewhere.


Philip Hammond says, it is only our enemies who want us to leave. Can


you name a single ally that want us to leave? I can. People have


different views in different nations. That is take our strongest


ally, the United States. They want us to stay. That is what Barack


Obama has said, but I would argue strongly, and there are many people


there that would agree with me, the former head of the CIA is one,


thinks that the EU is requiring of us of restricting our alliance with


the United States. The official policy of America under Republican


and Democratic presidents has been that we should stay in. That is a


fact. That is their view, but it is not an argument. I asked if you


could name a major or minor ally that we have that want us to leave.


I have mentioned the United States. They want us to stay. Give me an


ally that want us to leave. Australia, New Zealand, Canada,


France, Germany? Our key relationships, they fully


understand... Our relationship with them is threatened by legislation


and requirements of the EU. The most sophisticated intelligence alliance


in the world involves Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand,


Canada, they want us to stay. I think they are wrong. The


relationship that we have with them would be jeopardised and would be


further jeopardised when we set up... That is their view. You have


mentioned Nato, the general secretary says a strong EU with a


strong Britain is good for Nato. The head of the US Army in Europe says


leaving could weaken Nato. There are people that will argue that Nato is


undermined by the EU structures. Not the head of Nato. The EU defence


structures that we have complemented. But they are not


closed off to us by leaving. The key issue about the threats we are


facing, the threats that come with free movement of people and also


with civil unrest on the continent, will be resolved by us leaving, by


taking back control of our borders, our laws and money. And


kick-starting reform in the EU. All of the parties that want us to


leave, they are protectionist, xenophobic, authoritarian, against


the single market, and they hope by us leaving, there will be chaos in


Europe. Is that the chaos that would be good for our security? Vladimir


Putin, you have mentioned, the rise of far right organisations in


Europe, as a consequence of the forced harmonisation of the euro and


the austerity and the problems that is bringing to member states, they


have their arguments. They are not on my side, they are mistaken. What


will ensure that those malicious ambitions against us are thwarted is


if we have strong nation states. That is not what Europe is currently


delivering. It is delivering weak states, states that don't have the


money to put into their defence. The Prime Minister, the Defence


Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the head of Nato, the head of the US


Army in Europe, all of our major allies, starting with America, think


we are more secure and they would be more secure if we stay in, and you,


a junior minister in the defence Department, say they are wrong. If


they were all lined up in front of me, I would say freedom is never a


gamble. We have gambled a huge amount in the past to preserve our


freedom, we risk nothing by trying to take it back. If we take back


control of our borders, we have got free movement of people, with the


risk that brings... We are running out of time. In what way with being


outside the EU make it easier for us to stop terrorists coming in?


Europol estimate we have 5000 Daesh fighters that have returned to


Europe. Unless we have concrete intelligence, we cannot turn them


back. Are you saying that other Europeans would now need a visa to


come to this country? How would you stop somebody with a European


passport to come in? We could have control. We don't have those options


now. If we had suspicions, we would stop them coming in. That is not


correct. We stopped about 6000 people from the EU. On matters of


security issues of public danger, we stopped around 500 a year, we can do


that now, whether they have an EU passport or not. If we have sketchy


intelligence, we cannot prevent them from coming in. Unless you have a


Visa system from France and Germany, you could not direct. We risk


nothing by taking back control of our borders and our laws that


underpin this framework. It is not a gamble, staying in is a gamble,


because it will only get worse. We have to take back control, that is


what is required to keep our nation safe. Has the controversy around the


Prime Minister damaged his credibility as leader of the Remain


campaign? I don't think so. I don't have any other inside scoop, but I


don't think he has done anything wrong. What this is about is trust


and he has two now demonstrate and builder up that trust and report


with the general public. This will raise questions, as your panel said,


about politicians publishing further information about themselves, and


although I understand argument around privacy and security, if that


is what the electorate require of their officials, that is what will


have to happen. We're now well into the campaign


period for local and national elections


across the UK on May 5th. With the Conservatives and Labour


not exactly united at the moment you might think it's a perfect


opportunity for Ukip, the party that won four million


votes at last year's Even more so when the elections


are being fought during an EU referendum campaign


Nigel Farage helped bring about. So why instead are the men and women


of his party so bitterly divided? All political parties have ups


and downs, but mostly Ukip has been climbing the ladder


of British politics. It's poised on the verge


of a referendum it helped secure, offering the very thing the party


was set up for. So why is it so short of funds


and riven with in-fighting? Once-dominant Nigel Farage has lost


control of parts of his party. The clearest example is being foiled


by the party's ruling body over his prefered candidates


for May elections in Wales. In particular, his desire to stop


the selection of Neil Hamilton, Electoral concerns about Mr Hamilton


are not new in Ukip. The Sunday Politics has


been given a series In January 2015, Mr Hamilton


complained to Nigel Farage he'd been branded as toxic by some


inside the party. Michael McGough, a general-election


candidate, emailed Mr Hamilton In every article that you feature,


your name has the appendage "disgraced former Tory MP",


and sadly this will continue. And on the same day an email


from the then-party treasurer Andrew Reid accused Mr Hamilton,


by then a longstanding Ukip-er, of behaving exactly


as he'd been portrayed.. If you looked at the Welsh assembly


elections, those are a great example of their tendency to shoot itself in


the foot. You have some very Eurosceptic areas, but yet Ukip has


become embroiled in a dispute over which of its candidates should stand


where and whether it should be standing former Conservatives in


mainly industrial parts of the country.


The infighting didn't stop with Neil Hamilton,


with 16 candidates signing a letter demanding that another candidate,


Gareth Bennett, be deselected because he had expressed a negative


view of other candidates, undermined the party


and our own ability to campaign through his offensive


and borderline-racist comments about immigrants to Wales.


The party's National Executive Council did not deselect him and two


other candidates have since stood down.


Nigel Farage has been repeatedly outvoted by the NEC,


leading Mr Farage to consider abolishing it.


However, the Sunday Politics has learned just this week


a representative of the NEC hostile to Nigel Farage angrily accosted


a Welsh Ukip staffer in the Cardiff office,


saying, "I've come to find which faction you are in,


And Neil isn't the only colleague Nigel has fallen out with.


Just two weeks ago, Suzanne Evans, seen by many as one of the party's


best performers, ended up in the extraordinary position


of taking the party to the High Court to overturn


a suspension that also barred her from standing


If people cannot come together and unite behind the main principles of


the party, maybe they are in the wrong party and they should take


their personal career ambitions to another party.


On top of this, insiders have told the Sunday Politics Ukip's in severe


Staff have been laid off, or unpaid for months,


membership is down and candidates are expected to contribute


in the thousands to their own campaigns.


Stuart Wheeler, a donor who's given Ukip over 600K in the past six


years, told us he hasn't donated to the party since last year and has


Paul Sykes, who contributed to Ukip's 2014 European elections


campaign, is no longer funding the party.


Ukip doesn't control the funding Parliament gives to an opposition


Currently 212K a year, that's controlled by the party's


one MP, Douglas Carswell, who turned down the original sum


of 670K and as a result fell out with Nigel Farage.


We've learned that until recently the security bill for Mr Farage


around a third of all monthly membership fees.


The sum may now be lower, and is not now funded by the party.


The party also paid Facebook ?90,000 in the year of the general election.


Senior figures are split, supporting rival campaigns


for leaving the European Union, both vying to be


Nigel Farage is determined that it will be Grassroots Out rather


than rivals Vote Leave that wins that designation, to be


One donor who is still giving to Ukip, ?50,000 to the Welsh


campaign last week, is Arron Banks, a key figure in Grassroots Out.


We have been told by numerous sources that Nigel Farage wants


to restructure and revamp Ukip after the referendum,


and that they think Arron Banks would be chairman


I did not say rebranded as much, but I have watched the five Star


Movement in Italy, basically, an online party, where people can join


for modest sums of money, but have a say in choosing the direction of the


party, a sense that the old membership models are a bit


outdated. His critics think he extends


that view to the NEC. His supporters say such


a digital model would also make this troublesome body for Mr Farage


redunant and let him take back control of a party that right now


is far from at ease with itself. And we're joined in the studio


now by Neil Hamilton, he's a former deputy chairman


of Ukip, and he's hoping to become one of the party's first members


of the Welsh Assembly. Welcome to the programme. Ukip was


created to bring about a referendum on the EU, you have got one, why is


the party in such chaos? It is a fantastic achievement for Ukip to


have brought this referendum to the people of Britain, but Ukip has


grown up very rapidly in the last few years. It is only in the last


four or five years that it has become a mainstream political party,


and I suppose... These are the growing pains of such a party. It is


basically about jockeying for position, and you get these personal


feuds in all parties. I lived through the Major government and the


Thatcher government, where we saw it in spades, this is nothing compared


to the Conservative Party. A crucial issue that has exposed the visions


within the party, which of the rival campaign should get the official


designation from the Electoral Commission, which one do you want to


get it? Well, I have taken a neutral position all along, because we have


to work with whoever gets the designation, and I am a great


admirer of Arron Banks, he has made a fantastic contribution. There can


only be one. Years Nigel's preferred vehicle. I am asking your view. I am


ambivalent, I will unite behind whoever gets the designation, the


Electoral Commission will announce the decision in the coming weeks, so


this will be an argument in the past. How much trouble is there


between Mr Farage and the party's ruling national executive committee?


Well, Nigel is a member of and a frequent at tender at the NEC.


Because he is the party leader and a strong and dominant individual,


without whom Ukip is -- would not be where it is today, it does not mean


he get his way on everything, we are a Democratic Party. The NEC is a


vigorous forum for debate, that is a healthy situation. Will he try to


change that after the referendum, will there be a Farage coup? Just


because you read it in the newspapers does not mean it is true,


of course! I have no window into Nigel's mind on this. Should he? I


am not seeing anybody who knows anything about this, apart from


whoever wrote the piece in the having done post. Should he continue


as leader? He was elected just two years ago, he can go on for three


years before going for re-elections. I am asking for your view. I think


years before going for re-elections. he will continue as leader beyond


the referendum. The world after the referendum will be a very different


kettle of fish... I am asking your view, should he continue as leader


after the referendum? I think there will be a widespread re-evaluation


of work Ukip is after the referendum. We are going to win


seats in the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Government and the Northern


Ireland Assembly, and we will then have various representatives... Let


me try one more time, after the referendum, should he step down?


me try one more time, after the Should there be a new leader, in


your view? I am not going to call for Nigel to stand down, I am


perfectly certain that if there were an election for leader, party


members would vote for Nigel overwhelmingly. This is a nonissue.


When was the last time you spoke to him? Several weeks ago, when he came


to the NEC meeting last month. You used to be great mates. We still


are, it is like a married couple who have been together quite a long


time, you have ups and downs, he throws China at me, I figured up and


put it on the mantelpiece. He blocked you from standing in the


general election, you were removed as deputy chairman in February, he


wanted you off the list in Wales, all part of the division and chaos


that Farage and Hamilton dynamic. Ukip is a life political


institution, people have... There are personality feuds and


difficulties. I do not think we lose anything by saying that we are


normal red-blooded individuals and have the same kind of tips that


other parties have. Ukip is strengthened by these kinds of


scraps, I think. We heard some of the e-mails about you, does it


disturb you that some members regard you as a controversial, even a toxic


vigour in the party? Well, this is all exaggerated. It is just tittle


tattle. That was one e-mail amongst many thousands of e-mails I have


had. There were several e-mails, articles said that your name has the


appendage disgraced former Tory MP. Hearty members do not seem to be too


bothered about that, because they voted for me in overwhelming numbers


to be the candidate in the Welsh assembly in my region. -- party


members. I topped the poll in the national executive elections with


the highest number of votes anybody has ever got in an NEC election. I


would have thought it may be a lesson learned, expenses. That was a


misrepresentation, and the innuendo was entirely dismissed after an


internal investigation. So you did not claim for staying at your wife's


place? I am not going to go into what I did or did not claim for in


my expenses when I was the Ukip campaign director. I had a pay


package which was agreed, and all my pay and expenses were legitimate.


You know, the key point here is that Ukip is now a major player in the


land, we will elect ten members to the Welsh assembly... You have said


that, and you hope to be one of them. Would you ever see yourself as


the future leader of Ukip? At my age, your age? We are


contemporaries! I do not see myself as a future leader. That is be


enough, Neil Hamilton. It's just gone 11:35,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. Good morning and welcome


to Sunday Politics Scotland. Ukip launched its Scottish


manifesto this week - we'll be speaking to David Coburn


about its proposals and asking if the party is too British


to do well in Scotland. An invigorated Scottish Green Party


is fighting its We'll ask Patrick Harvie


if they can win enough The offshore banking industry has


taken a beating this week, but is there a legitimate role


for the tax haven? Ukip's Scottish leader David Coburn


contrasts his party with the "tired old establishment parties


which spout the same old havers". As he launched its manifesto


alongside Nigel Farage in Edinburgh on Thursday, he promised to shake up


Holyrood with additional tax bands, a reintroduction of smoking rooms


in pubs, a relaxation of airgun licences and revision


of the new drink-driving limits. But the party has yet to win


a seat in the parliament. Huw Williams has been finding out


what Ukip needs to do In the published their Holyrood


manifesto on Thursday. They set out their long-term aim to cut income


tax, reduced the Scottish Government's budget, raise the


drink-drive limit back to the level it falls across the rest of the UK


drink-drive limit back to the level and to allow pubs and clubs to bring


back smoking rooms. Their leader David Cockburn was born in Glasgow,


he worked as an art dealer and a city trader and served in the


Territorial Army. He hit the headlines last year when he compared


the Scottish Government minister to a convicted terrorist. He apologised


and said it was a joke. The polls a convicted terrorist. He apologised


suggest the message of Ukip resonates with some Scottish waters.


Central to the success of Ukip throughout the UK has been its


stance on immigration, the idea that everywhere in the European Union we


could have less immigration. Whilst Scotland is not as concerned as


England is about immigration, it could be said that this is one thing


north of the border that Ukip could hope to score on.


It seems the party faced some real problems when it comes to selling


the message in Scotland. The difficulty north of the border


is that Ukip seems to be seen as an English party and that does not go


down well here. It is clear that Scotland is much keener on the


meaning inside the European Union than most of England and Wales, and


therefore, this is the difficult for Ukip to make progress here.


Ukip have never had an MSP elected to serve at Holyrood. The party


would point out it is just two years since the reader became Ukip's first


elected representative in Scotland when he won a European Parliament


receipt. -- seat. David Coburn joins me now. Do you


think Nigel Farage will continue as Ukip Leader wish absolutely, we did


not have our referendum if it was not for him.


This issue that has come up this week, a former Ukip candidate, Jack


Newell, he appeared on the front of The Herald. You said you would think


about how to react. Have you decided?


I did not know what he was up to. I was told that he was wearing the


outfit of the clouds and sitting in his bath playing an electric organ.


That is not smart. He is a student, he has done something extremely


stupid and he did not realise the impact of what he was doing. He


should not be doing things like that. When people join the party,


they pay their 30 quiet. We do not have a window into their souls or a


crystal ball to see what they will do next. If they do something daft,


we will have a word and sort it out. You do not have a crystal ball but


you know what he has now done. Will you suspend him from the party?


That is not for me to tell you, it is for the party's disciplinary


committee. Would you like to apologise?


I think he has done that. He said, "This is what it chapters


for entertainment." If you sit in your back-up naked it


their static sampling and organ, that is a silly student and he has


done something bad. I am sure he is in Paris. -- bathtub.


Let me tell you this constructively as I possibly can. What about the


remarks you made about Humza Yousaf? The SNP have been accused of all


sorts of things. Accusations have been made against them as they are


against all parties. This happens, we cannot control it all. It does


not relate to us. Ukip are the most Liberal Party you can possibly


imagine, we are Libertarian party. We cannot get more broad-minded than


that. A lot of people watching this


programme might agree with you on issues like Europe and immigration,


but the problem Ukip has always had is that people think, actually, it


is not a mainstream party, scratch the surface...


The only people that think that the press and they do that because they


are part of the establishment and they do not like the fact that we


can do well, we will go in and shake up the establishment. They are


terrified of that. You do not intend to take any


further action? It is not my place to do with this,


it is for the disciplinary part of the party. I would not want to do


anything to put a case before that. That is not part of my business.


You are the only party who has published a manifesto for the


Scottish elections. Absolutely. The good thing about it


is that the Glasgow Herald had nothing to see how good our


manifesto was. So they started to bring this nonsense into it.


You want a 30p rate of tax. Yes, for the ?350,000 group.


Once George Osborne lowers his tax threshold, are you still suggesting


Once George Osborne lowers his tax that you're 30p would be there?


This is an aspiration. We will not be in government, we would love to


be, but we will not be. I do not think that Scotland should have


taxes higher than those in England. That is your... Under your manifesto


proposals as they currently stand, some in Scotland would pay more tax


than in England on some of their income? Once George Osborne takes


the 40p there showed up to 50,000, someone who was earning ?58,000


would pay ?30 under your proposals on some of their income but only 20p


in England. We want to broaden it out. That will


not be the case. That flatly contradicts almost the


first thing you have said in your manifesto.


That is our aspiration. That is what we want.


Your manifesto states you oppose any suggestions that would result in the


income tax being higher than the rest of the UK.


That is correct. I do not understand what you are talking about, it is


quite clear. What is quite clear is that you


would be charging higher tax in Scotland and the rest of the UK.


This is what a Ukip government would want to do in the future. We are


concerned with the government in London at the moment and we would


want in Scotland, and in England, the same thing. We want a medal 30p


band rate. That seems sensible to me. But we are not in government and


we do not expect to be in government this time around, that is very


clear. But we want to be aiming towards this and that seems sensible


to me. But what you have just told me is


that there would be some people undergo a proposal in Scotland who


would pay more income tax than in England.


There are always winners and losers but it would be fair across the


bans, it is more sensible. Even if people in Scotland end up


paying more tax? Some things we have to be a little


bit more and sometimes a little bit less.


How can I screw that with the statement that I have just read?


We have different circumstances at the moment. When we have a Ukip


government, that is what we want. That is what we are aiming for,


seems clear to me. I do not see how one scorers with


the other. What realistically did want to achieve in this election?


Our objective is to make sure that Scotland has taxes no higher than


that of the best of the UK. What I would like to see... Please, let me


finish. Jobs, jobs, jobs. We want to create jobs and in Scotland we do


not want Scotland to be putting a penny on this and that, that will


not help the Scottish economy. How many seeds you think you were


one or would you like to win? I would like to break through.


According to... Getting an MSP, that would be a


victory for do? I am trying to answer your question.


From what I can see in the polls, they survey should pull in the


e-mail and Andy Daily Record, which is no friend of Ukip, neither are


particularly friendly to Ukip, they have said we will get seven seats.


That would be nice, very happy to have them, but if we can get any


seeds, I would be happy. If you get one MSP, you would say


that was a step forward as far as you are concerned?


Yes, I would like to get more but it is up to the Scottish people. We


will have to wait and see what happens. As I have told you, it


looks like seven seats. We have many people coming from the other


parties. The Labour Party is imploding in Scotland. Many can


never stomach voting for the Conservatives. As for the Scottish


national scum are many are frightened as to what is happening


in Europe. They have seen what happens to smaller countries in


Europe if they do not agree with the European Union. Austerity and


suchlike. Greece was forced to be... Are you standing in any of the


constituencies? No, we are not. We are trying to get


everyone to vote for us on the list. So you are pitching to people... Who


should they vote for? They should vote for Ukip and they


should put as much fought in there as possible.


So they should vote for you even though you are not putting up any


candidates? I did not suggest that. I believe we


will not win many seeds in the first past the post. It is a tactical


decision. Who should the rest vote for?


That is up to them. On the list, I want is to get first preference or


many people's second preference. That would be fine. I think we are


getting a lot of second preference votes, not only from Labour voters


but the SNP and disgruntled conservatives who are opposed to the


European Union. I know you have been very busy


campaigning, have you had time to buy a new toaster? You said your old


one in the European Union, you could not get brown toast.


Yes, my toast is not good. The coasters have less power in them.


When I made that thing, they came out and said that they had a plan


but they would not bring it in. They have postponed until after the


referendum. How interesting is that? Let me give you a tip, go shopping,


I think you will find a toaster that will be suitable.


I will do that, Gordon, since we have spent so much time together.


Thank you, David Coburn. Thank you.


The Scottish Greens will head to the polls for its fifth Holyrood


election, fielding candidates in all eight regions.


The party received a significant boost following the independent


referendum in September and now boasts over 9,000 members.


It confidently predicts that it can push the parliament to be bolder,


and is hoping to improve upon the two MSPs that sat


Huw Williams has been assessing their chances.


The Scottish Greens publish their Holyrood manifesto this


The Scottish Greens publish their Patrick Harvie said when he joined


the party in 2000 they had around 500 members. Membership is now


around 9000. He is from Dumbarton and disgrace himself as a fan of


real ale, real food, science fiction and disgrace himself as a fan of


and free software. He wants a ban on fracking and it switch away from


fossil fuels. There is no doubt that the broad


Green idea that we need to look after the environment, we should be


concerned about climate change, and we should be changing energy


production Scotland towards renewables, in principle at least,


is something that is pretty widespread, at least not of the


border. But polls suggest voters may not be


so keen on those ideas if they mean inconvenience or cost more.


There is a problem with principle to practice, particularly whether or


not it means we may have to pay more or do less of what we like in order


to help the environment. Asking us to use our cars less, to pay to go


into cities or indeed pay more on petrol, at that point, it becomes


rather more difficult to persuade people to change.


Key catchphrases in the Green us campaign will be the call for


Holyrood to be bolder and for Scotland to achieve more. They can


party, under Patrick Harvie's leadership, really did better than


2003, when a record number of seven Green MSPs were elected.


of the Scottish Green Party, Patrick Harvie.


I enjoyed that image of my freshfaced youth there!


OK! Let's start with tax. You want a 60p rate. The SNP say they can't


raise tax take even a 50p for people who are more than ?150,000. They say


that because partly because people will leave the country, and partly


because people will choose to pay their tax in different ways.


Why do you think they're wrong? It's clear they do have the ability.


The Scottish Government, the next Scottish Government under the new


Scotland act will have the ability to set those bands. They are talking


about tax competition, that they simply have to offer high income


people the lowest tax environment, otherwise they will disappear. I


just don't buy that argument that the majority of people, even in that


hire additional tax band by the type of selfish individuals who would


operate their family and disappear- presumably not taking their current


operate their family and disappear- job with them but going to another


job elsewhere- simply because they wish to avoid more attacks on the


highest element of their income. Remember, we are talking what they


earn over and above ?150,000. So these are people who are very


wealthy, I think it is quite reasonable that they pay a bit more.


But don't the SNP have a point when they say that people want just


leave, there are things you can do. You can choose to take your taxes


capital gains tax. There was the chap involved in private equity who


said he pays less tax and is cleaner. That is not what they were


doing, taking capital gains and pink capital gains tax, which is lower


than high-street income tax, and this is the point the SNP may, not


under the control of the Scottish Government. And secondly you can


take tax on dividends from shares, which is lower than the highest rate


of income tax. And also, as the SNP say, it is not under the control of


Scottish Government. They have a point? There are


certainly opportunities that high income or high wealth people who are


motivated purely by greed, and I again say, I think that is the


minority. There are opportunities that some of them have two hide tax


and hide their income or pay in a different way through a shell


company or what have you. They themselves so they are working for a


company they in fact owner. This is a problem for every country, not


just for Scotland. Not just for Scotland gaining tax powers within


the UK. Not just for the UK, it is a problem for every country. There is


a great deal we have to do to stigmatise that sort of behaviour


and make it less possible. There are always can do that, for example in


the public sector, where public sector high-paid jobs, some of which


I would like to see brought within a sector high-paid jobs, some of which


reasonable pay ratio, but as long as they exist we can make it clear that


public sector employers will not they exist we can make it clear that


cooperate with those activities. The Scottish Government as well has


business support services, grants and loans and services that it


provides with tax payers' money. Employers can not participate in a


moral... See you think the SNP just like the


courage of their convictions? I think that surprised many people


that they are not put forward a radical, progressive approach to


taxation. We're not just talking about the 60p rate, it is really


important to remember the Green proposals are talking about the


average income and salary. Anyone paying the average would pay less


underarm proposals. And that is what? ?26,000. Under


proposals if you're of a lack to be paying about ?2 per month more in


tax. Someone on, for example, and MS people's salary with the paying


more. MSPs earn a lot more than that. The funds in public services


should close the gap. We are going to continue to see an credible


social and economic costs that we do not deserve to bear in the society.


Young people who want see the opportunities that will be created


in new sustainable industries in Scotland.


Housing that needs to be built. If you're going to put tax up for


Housing that needs to be built. If everyone who wants more than the


average, what do you want the money for?


It's very clear that there are macro cuts coming to our public services


as a result of the UK Government. A Scottish Government in the next


session will have the powers to reverse those cuts any fear,


progressive way. More specifically, what do you want


to spend more money on? Local services that a great many


people depend upon. Care services where we have seen people


historically underpaid for care work. Whether that is paid care in


local authorities or the third sector, or the carer's allowance for


unpaid carers who deserve some sort of recompense. We would like to see


that increased by 50%. There are opportunities to invest in the


education of young people need. How much will you tax increases


raise? The income tax proposals we have


proposed will raise ?231 million. We are making it clear that the


proposals were making our about local council setting the rate. If


councils set it at 7p on the pounds, it would raise about the same as


council tax. This is to protect public services and invest in the


homes, jobs and services that our country needs. We have a critical


decision to make- do we want to continue this race to the bottom,


not just in taxation, but in the quality of our public services and


investment in our economy. A lot of people watching this will


save this sounds just like what Labour say. It is just


tax-and-spend. It's not that you have any ideas for raising tax and


doing anything innovative original, you just want to spend money?


We have set very clearly ways of raising revenue and ways we think it


can be done fairly. We've also set out a report on how Scotland needs


to invest in jobs which will replace those industries which do not have


an infinite life ahead of them. We've been arguing for a transition


away from fossil fuels. We have also been arguing in the long-term and


short-term this can be good for people's wallets. Wasting less money


on energy that is going out the window.


Anyone who is paid more than the average will be paying more income


tax. Presumably, you would like them to pay more tax on fuel as well?


Yet we're all going to be better off? Fuel duty is being devolved, --


not being devolved, some are not quick to set out... Public transport


is always the better option. You see the type of countries that get


public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure right, they


have world-class services because they know they need to invest and


protect that investment. Some of them so have their own book we owned


railway companies. One of them, they're publicly owned railway is


running one of our Railways! I don't see why we can't have a publicly


owned railway we can invest in. And all these countries you mention


are economically doing less well this moment than the United Kingdom.


Depends what you mean by less well. Greens have always argued we


shouldn't just judge a record in terms of GDP. GDP doesn't tell you


in whose interest the money is working. I economy is doing terribly


at protecting the well being of those for now register being


dependent on foodbanks. I think our economy is doing terribly at


protecting the well being of those who are in industries which are


coming to the end of their lives, and we're not investing in the


alternatives. I was doing terribly at having a


much lower rate of unemployment than countries like France and Spain?


When George Osborne talks about a low rate of unemployment, he is


looking great people who are in precarious unemployment, people in


zero hours contracts. Hang on, if I was... I think it is


about 50% of young people and Spain who are unemployed and can't find a


job. I think I would say, precarious employment sounds absolutely


wonderful, can we have some of that year?


Spain has been subject to even more brutal austerity economic son this


country. That is not a defence of austerity.


What are your goals for this election?


Hammy seats would you like to win? I think this is the most realistic


chance we have had of getting an MSP in each one of Scotland's regions.


There are eight regions, I think we can get more than one in some


regions. If in that ballpark, we are potentially approaching double


figures. For the first time with have an MSP representing every voter


in Scotland. The regional vote in every part of the Scotland can elect


eight Green MSP. I want to get a sense from all party


leaders - you think it would be a failure if you get less eight MSPs?


Fewer than eight, I should say. If we went from two MSPs to seven, I


wouldn't say that was a failure. I would be disappointed about the one


region we don't have an MSDN, and redouble a reference to get that one


next time. What is the maxim in you could get?


I'm log in to set a maximum limit on aspirations. I would like us Green


MSP in every region. I would like voters to think,... Labour needs to


be -- SNP need to be put under pressure on issues like fracking,


land reform, rent control. We put them under pressure and constructive


pressure. Not just saying everything they do is terrible, but getting


results by the way we engage with the Scottish Parliament and the


Scottish Government. Thank you. If you meet David Coburn


on the way out, you could take on shopping freighters do.


I think that's unlikely. The Prime Minister has published


details about his income and tax payments to try to defuse a row


about his financial affairs. The figures cover


the past six years. headlines after documents -


leaked from a law firm in Panama - showed that his late father set


up an offshore trust. He later disclosed that he'd


profited from selling Yesterday, Mr Cameron acknowledged


that he'd taken too long to give Although he pays all the taxes that


were due, David Cameron is facing accusations from labour that he


misled the public about his personal involvement in his late father's


offshore fund. He came under pressure to tackle money-laundering


and tax evasion. It's not about the individual or one


person, it is about a whole ethos where the very rich are able to put


their money into tax havens, offshore accounts, whether it often


easy rate of income tax. Sometimes also a zero rate of corporate or


capital gains tax. That untaxed money does not contribute anything


to the public services of the people of the country they come from.


Yesterday, protesters gathered outside the Conservative spring


Forum, at a venue in central London. They demanded the Prime Minister


handed in his resignation. There is no suggestion that Mr


Cameron has done anything illegal, There is no suggestion that Mr


but he admits he mishandled the questions about his family's tax


affairs. I know that I should have handled


this bettered. I could have handled this better. I know there are


lessons to learn, and I will learn them. I don't blame -- and don't


blame ten Downing St on Amis advisers, blame me.


David Cameron has also revealed that a new task force will investigate


accusations of money-laundering in the Panama Papers. But will that be


enough to silence critics? While politicians have


been making capital - if you'll forgive the pun -


out of the Prime Minister's personal situation -


there are wider questions around The huge leak of documents


from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca has revealed how tax


havens are used to hide wealth. Critics question the ethics


of the rich in avoidance of paying income tax,


corporation tax and capital gains. On the other side, some finance


experts point to legitimate reasons for the financial arrangements


and emphasise that most of those who invest in them


are not breaking the law. I'm joined now by the Telegraph


columnist Juliet Samuel, who's in our London studio,


and by the financial First, Juliet Samuel, a lot of


people will look at these offshore tax havens and think, this all


smells bad, but are there are legitimate reasons, do you believe,


that companies could be registered there or that individuals could want


to keep their money there? There are certainly legitimate


reasons for being registered on the offshore companies to do business.


Some reasons include that you want to invest in a developing country


who are going on sure they could expose you to political risk or


corruption. So you might want to register offshore in order to make


your investment less of a rest. Or it might be easier... I mean, there


are many funds such as the one that Mr Cameron was invested in which our


registered offshore but which are not avoiding UK tax but which are


registered offshore because these offshore centres are more efficient


and quick and cheap at setting up forms and make it easier for


international investors for area by Mike due restrictions to invest into


them. You have to efficient, that is a


word that will make people suspicious. Investment trusts, you


are trading on the stock exchange, you can buy them, they are traded on


the London Stock Exchange, why would someone want to set up an investment


trust that is based on a tax haven? In some cases, it is so that


international investors who are not UK investors, do not activate the


entire UK tax by investing in a foreign company in the UK. A lot of


farms will be attracting investors from the Middle East, the US, all


around Europe, and if you had a fund set up in the UK, it is much more


difficult to ensure that investors do not accidentally incur tax and


that they actually do not have to pay. So that could be one reason.


Another reason, for example, in Ireland, it is just much faster to


set up a fund, there is more expertise there to set them up.


There is a whole industry which has been built around doing so, it takes


half the time in some offshore centres to set up a fund than it


does in the UK. Did you agree, Ian Fraser, are there


legitimate reasons for having these things?


Yes, and Juliet Samuel has outlined some of those. The trouble however


is that they all offshore world which includes lawyers, company


formation agents, using which includes lawyers, company


jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands, Panama etc, it has been


totally corrupted, so even though there are legitimate businesses


including asset management companies using it, a lot of other companies


are money launderers, gangsters, drug runners, sorry drug barons and


so on. Deposed dictators who want to hide their cash a week without the


authorities in their native countries knowing where the money


is. Is it in principle possible to


separate? Let us pretend I was a multinational company and that I had


a legitimate reason, I wanted to aggravate payments from around the


world and I wanted to take them back to America and pay the taxes that I


will. Is there anyway that I can do that without being tainted with what


you have just described? I think there are remains reasons


for that but it is more likely that you would be kind deed and put in


the same kind of bracket as the abusers of the offshore system. I


agree with the likes of Caroline Lucas and the Green Party. I agree


with Thomas Docherty, the French economist, that this is something


that is actually harming the financial system. It is making our


financial system more precarious, it is encouraging international crime.


It is encouraging the looting of third World countries. These tax


havens ought to be shut down. That is my view.


What do you make of that, Juliet Samuel? After the financial crisis,


there was an argument, was there not, similar to that, that there


were entire areas of finance that were very obscure and people could


not understand. People said they should be shut down, there is no


reason to have them and the world would not be a worse place for not


having them. Ironically, a lot of those things


that were shot down, politicians are now trying to restart. And that is


because some of them did have economic benefits such as a form of


security. I agreed with Ian Fraser up until he said we should shut them


all down. There are certainly many criminals who are using offshore


havens in order to avoid breaking reasonable and fair laws and onshore


places. But the idea that we can or should just shut them down, I do not


even know what that would mean. Many of these offshore jurisdictions are


foreign countries. We can put some of them on blacklists as we have


done, that that does not involve shutting them down. What we should


be doing and in fact, what the shutting them down. What we should


government has been doing, or they are trying to do, is to put pressure


on them to improve the regulations because they be that you would make


on them to improve the regulations it harder for criminals to use these


jurisdictions is to force them to register their information and


forced jurisdictions to collect that information and make it available to


authorities in other countries as they have a good reason. That is


something that is happening slowly under pressure, but shutting them


down is not an option. The trouble is they are resisting


it, but at the British Virgin Islands, for example, there was a


massive leak in 2013 secret information involving a lot of


massive leak in 2013 secret criminal abuse of tax havens there.


But they did not respond by tiding up their act, they did not try to be


more transparent. The Labour Party has suggested we


could take direct control of some of these jurisdictions that have


British territories. The problem not that there are lots of add-ons and


small independent countries around the world which could take up the


slack? So unless there was pretty much unanimous international


agreement to blacklist these countries, that wherever you shut


one down, another will pop up elsewhere?


That is a danger, there is a new one of the coast of New Zealand in the


Pacific. It was established by Mossack Fonseca as a tax haven. A


secret jurisdiction. There is always that risk. Basically, the British


government has been pussyfooting around this issue for the last six


years and it was doing virtually nothing in the previous period


years and it was doing virtually either. They need to shape up their


act, they have to address this. Surely this has to be an


international issue? No matter what the British government does, if


another government of a big country does not do it, I can just shut my


money there and throw that into the tax haven.


International law is actually necessary, definitely. Without that


it would be very difficult. Briefly, Juliet Samuel, is that


it would be very difficult. realistic, that we can do something?


Yes, and actually, the government have tried to do that and read it at


the G8. If you had corporation it would be harder for offshore centres


to simply carry on without enforcing regulations, some of which are


already on the books. OK, we will have to leave it there.


Ian Fraser and Juliet Samuel, from London, thank you both very much


indeed for joining us. I'll be back at the


same time next week.


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew discusses the EU referendum with Penny Mordaunt MP, Ukip with Neil Hamilton and the Panama Papers with Kamal Ahmed. On the political panel are the Daily Mail's Isabel Oakeshott and Sam Coates and Beth Rigby from The Times.

Download Subtitles