17/04/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland

David Cameron thinks we'll be stronger, safer

Leave campaigners say the real risk would be a vote to remain.

So what are the dangers if we decide to stay?

On his final presidential visit to the UK, Barack Obama

will back the idea of Britain remaining in the EU.

But is the leader of the free world right to wade into our debate?

And before the referendum, there's the small matter

of national and local elections right across the UK.

And coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:

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

by the Lib Dems' Willie Rennie and by the Scottish

we hear from mayoral hopefuls Sian Berry of the Greens

And with me, as always, our panel of the best and brightest

political brains in the business, Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott

Now, the referendum isn't the only vote looming on the horizon.

Before the EU vote on June 23rd, voters across the UK will get

a chance to cast their ballot in a range of elections

There are seven sets of elections happening in May,

all of which will take place on the same day,

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will hold national elections.

There are 60 seats up for grabs in the Welsh Assembly.

The Scottish Parliament, in which the SNP has held

a majority since 2011, will elect 129 members,

and in Northern Ireland, there are 108 seats that will be

decided for representatives to the assembly at Stormont.

124 councils have seats up for election.

35 metropolitan councils, 19 unitary authorities

and 70 district councils, and four cities in England

will elect mayors, London, Bristol, Liverpool and Salford.

Londoners will also elect members to the London Assembly

Finally, voters in 41 police force areas in England and Wales

will elect a Police And Crime Commissioner.

Joining me now from Glasgow is our election guru,

Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University.

Let's start with the local elections in England. How should we judge the

performance of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party in these elections? We

have to appreciate that the seats up for grabs on me the these elections

were for the most part fought for three year is ago. We are looking at

the time of George Osborne's so-called a shambles budget when

support for the Conservatives fell away. These were the only set of

elections during the last parliament where the Labour Party began to put

in a performance where you might have thought they would have been

capable of winning the next election. Jeremy Corbyn's

misfortune, he is defending not a brilliant baseline, but a relatively

good one. Labour six or seven points ahead, as judged by their share of

the vote. The truth is that Jeremy Corbyn is not 67 points ahead. In

contrast to what we might have expected a few weeks ago, he is no

longer 67 points behind. Labour and the Conservatives seem to be quite

close to each other. That means that in practice Mr Corbyn may well be

facing losses. The figure of 150 has been bandied around. Will that be

good? Better than it might have been a few weeks ago. Is it the sort of

performance to persuade you that the Labour Party is on course to win the

general election? Certainly not. Is the biggest threat that they would

lose London, and would that be unlikely? I agree it would be

unlikely. If they were to fail to win the London mayoral election,

that would be a serious reverse for Labour. Back in 2012, although Boris

Johnson on the London mayoral election, Labour was clearly ahead

in the parallel election. Neither Sadiq Khan, the Labour candidate,

Northside Goldsmith, the concerted of the -- the Conservative

candidate, has the same kind of attractiveness to the public. Labour

did relatively well in London 12 months ago. If David Cameron were

not to win that election, Labour would have questions to ask itself.

Could Labour even come third behind the Scottish Tories? The answer is

that they could. There is another opinion poll lead this morning that

put Labour on the Conservatives neck and neck with each other. Some

opinion polls put Labour and the Conservatives together, but not by

much. Labour neglect the heading for a very bad performance. It would be

the worst result in any election since 1918. I do not think it will

tell you much about Jeremy Corbyn and his popularity. We have to

remember that what happens in Scotland is very distinct and

separate from what happens in the rest of the UK. The election in

Scotland is going to be, primarily, framed by people's views about

independence. The truth is the overall majority of people that

voted for independence are still determined to vote for the SNP. So

long as that remains the case, Labour will struggle another the

border. It has to do with Scottish politics and little to do with what

is happening in the rest of the UK. Is there really a Ukip surge in

Wales? The opinion polls suggest that Ukip are doing well in Wales.

But that is roughly where the opinion polls are putting Ukip

across the UK as a whole. In Wales, as in Scotland, and the London

assembly elections, the elections are being held by proportional

representation, not first past the post, so if Ukip can get the 15%

that the opinion polls suggest that the might get, they will get

significant representation in the Welsh assembly. Getting Ukip grade

is one of the things in which the opinion polls tend to disagree with

each other. Ukip will perhaps not do as well as that, they will get some

seats, but perhaps not as well as the parties hoping. Northern

Ireland, and the executive almost collapsed there last year. Will the

turmoil at Stormont, is it likely expected to change people's voting

patterns this time? We not expecting a vast in Northern Ireland. Not only

is the assembly elected proportionally, but so is the

elected -- the executive. The larger of the two Unionist parties and the

Nationalist parties might not be quite as strong as last time. No one

is expecting very much in way of a major change. Thank you for joining

us. Nick Watt, let me come to you. These elections are widely being

seen as Mr Corbyn's first serious test. What a Labour's real

expectations? The expectation is there going to do badly in Scotland.

That is in. They will do badly in Wales but the expecting that. They

will not admit that they could do very badly in the English local

elections, and that they could lose seats. If the Labour Party lost

seats in the local elections, it would be the first time since 1985

that an opposition party had suffered losses in local elections

in a non-general election year. It would be woolly bad. What did is

down two at the end of the day, I know we should not wish think about

London, a great picture of Glasgow behind John Curtice, but it is down

to London. Jeremy Corbyn needs one victory and he looks like he will

get one, Sadiq Khan in London. That will probably enough. He can do

badly everywhere else but as long as he holds onto London years save? I

think because the others are just priced in. If he can be seen to

notch up one victory, it is a bit like the old and Royston by-election

at the end of last year. Everyone assumes that they will do badly.

They did well, it stabilises the leadership. He would probably be

safe even if you lost London? I think he would be. Those who would

like to see the back of have the difficulty that essentially his

supporters control the party membership. It is an interesting

question, how this is going to be judged. I spoke to one of Jeremy

Corbyn's critics within the parliamentary party this morning and

was surprised how upbeat he sounded. He said, I think we might put on a

couple of hundred seats. This is a terrible time for the Tory

leadership. I came off the phone and thought, this is about expectation

management. This is the critics of Jeremy Corbyn saying that we should

put on a few hundred seats. When they do not, they will see it as a

disaster. The setting him up to fail. The Tories are expected to do

quite well in these elections, even in Wales. We have had the budget,

the Panama Papers, the steel crisis, the split over the referendum. It

has got to take its toll on the Tories? It has in the opinion polls,

which are Sean at the minimum of the Tory lead, narrowing, and in some

cases Labour pulling ahead. I suspect some Tories would not mind

doing badly in the local elections in England if it relieves the

pressure on Jeremy Corbyn, who they want in place over the next four

years and contesting the 2020 general election. Even if Labour do

badly in Scotland, Jeremy Corbyn owes a debt to Sadiq Khan, because

his likely but not certain victory in London, judging by the opinion

polls, will attract more attention than elections everywhere, not

before it deserves -- not because it deserves to, but because the media

has a slight skew towards London. It is a slightly sexier office. It will

drown out any underperformance that Labour have in the rest of the

country. Is it too cynical to say that some Tories will not be too

upset if they do not win London because Mr Corbyn will then be

secure? I do not think that is cynical. That is absolutely the

case. Janan is right. There will be lots of post-analysis about how the

billionaire's son, Zac Goldsmith, lost the election. It is interesting

that the people who want to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour

Party, the window they are talking about is not after the local

elections, but after the referendum at the end of June. We might be

focused on the Conservatives by then. I think the troubles of the

Tory party will take the focus then. So the referendum

campaign has begun. The official campaign groups have

been designated and the arguments The Prime Minister says we'll be

stronger, safer, and better off in. And a vote to leave,

says to Mr Cameron, But it won't have escaped your

attention that the EU is also facing challenges,

a migration crisis, economic So, if we do decide to remain,

what are the risks ahead of us? For some, the consequences of this

EU referendum are crystal clear. For the rest of us,

it is difficult to see the future after June the 23rd,

hard to predict. Of course, the politicians claim

to know our fortunes. This cannot be described as anything

other than risk, uncertainty, We have clearly elevated Brexit

as one of the serious downside risks I firmly believe that leaving the EU

would leave our country less secure. This lot, Vote Leave,

call it Project Fear. They say the other side is trying

to scare people into thinking that Instead they say that

the uncertainty is staying in. What will the EU look like in five,

ten, 15 years? For me, it would be an outdated

bloc, something that was created in the last century,

something that can neither control It has been foretold that migration

will be one of the dominant David Cameron insists his negotiated

emergency brake on migrants' in work benefits as well as changes to child

benefits will discourage EU migration, but some experts say it

will have little impact. Figures from the Migration

Observatory this week suggest that continuing economic instability

in the Eurozone is encouraging an increasing number of southern

European migrants to head to the UK Looking forward, it is very

difficult to know It is possible that if the gap

in economic performance between the UK and other

countries, for example, Italy, Portugal and Spain,

remains significant, there could be quite a pull factor

for some time. It is also possible if there is more

economic convergence that we could see the numbers

start to fall. Much has also been made this week

about the risk to both the British and the global economy if Britain

voted to leave the EU, In the single market we trade freely

right across Europe and we have a say in making

the rules across the Continent. If we leave, we give

all of that up with no idea The real economic risks are for

staying in the European Union. We might find ourselves on the hook

for bailouts for countries that are having difficulty staying

in the euro in the future. We might find that our rebate comes

under assault in the future, we might find that the amount

of money overall that we have to give the European Union

goes up and up and up. A few weeks ago, the Governor

of the Bank of England said that leaving the EU was the biggest

domestic risk to Membership of the European Union

brings risks as well, and the principal risk,

risks I should say, because there are more than one,

are associated with the unfinished On the issue of whether our laws

are made in Westminster or Brussels, for those wanting to leave the EU,

a vote to remain would mean handing Fewer and fewer things over

which we have the authority Fewer and fewer of our decisions can

be upheld in British courts And I also know that fewer and fewer

decisions will be made on European Union level

which will be in British interests. And yet one former minister told me

that pooling some decision-making The truth is that if you enter

into any international agreement, then you may agree that those

decisions should be Our Nato membership involves exactly

the same kind of arrangement. We allow Nato to take a decision

for our collective strength. Both sides seemed to agree a vote

to remain is not a vote Those who want to stay

in are confident, at least publicly, that the renegotiation will change

for the better our relationship Those who want out say that

relationship will only get worse. Quite how persuasive

those two visions are, I predict we will find out

on June the 24th. Joining me now is Labour MP

Tristram Hunt, he was a member of the Shadow Cabinet

under Ed Miliband. He is now campaigning for Britain

to remain in the EU. Do you accept, let's look at some of

the risks that could be associated with remaining, start with

immigration. Do you accept that as long as we remain in the EU we have

no real control of the numbers coming to our country? The European

Union is not perfect and it is quite right to have this debate about how

we reform Europe in the future. When it comes to our borders, we check

who comes in. There will remain passport controls but we have to

make sure that we explain to people that if we left Europe but still

wanted to trade with the single market, we would also have to have

the free movement of people just as Norway and Switzerland does. But in

the long run I think there is an interesting question about the

degree of free movement of people across the European Union. My point

is that Britain should be a part of that conversation. We should be

involved in that reform and change and if we are not at the table than

our voice won't be heard. The numbers would seem to be beyond our

control because that's the price of membership. Over the past five years

the number of EU nationals living in the UK has risen by 700,000, it is

now 3.3 million, it has doubled in ten years. As long as we remain in

the EU it is surely a risk that at least another 700,000 could come in

the next five years, it could be even more. Or it could be markedly

less. If we go back to a time when the British economy was worse in the

1980s, we saw large numbers of people going abroad to work in the

European Union. We are taking a snapshot at the moment and the point

about pooling risk across the single market is that when your economy is

in difficulty you can take opportunities in other parts of the

country. In the UK we should be supporting reforms to make sure

there are not benefit attractions to coming to the UK so I think the

Prime Minister's point about having to pay in before you take out, the

point about fairness is really important and I think people in

Britain think that if people are coming here to work, to pay their

taxes and contribute to society, that is fine. You say it's a

snapshot but let's look at this chart. Over the last five years, as

you can see from that, from about 2012, under five years in fact,

these are the absolute number, immigration from the EU has risen

dramatically. My point is it is not a snapshot, it is a clear trend. The

part of immigration over which we have no control is rising the

fastest, isn't that a risk? But we go back to 1975 so historically this

is a snapshot, and overtime this well change. We cannot have a system

whereby you turn up in the UK and claim benefits from day one. You

have to have a contributory principle. Also, those parts of the

country, Boston in Lincolnshire, parts that have experienced high

levels of immigration and we should be open and honest about this that

we have seen statistics show big changes and may have impacted

communities in big ways sometimes, they need the extra resource for

schools and hospitals that this brings in. The case I'm putting to

you this morning is that that is not necessarily a snapshot or that it

will necessarily change. Let's look at the risks we would face in the

years to come. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, decided that last

year over a million Syrian immigrants could go to Germany.

Eventually they could come here if they wish. Why should we be at the

risk of unilateral decisions taken by a foreign leader? Obviously there

are issues about residency rights in Germany or Italy before anyone could

come to the UK. We retain border controls. If they become German

citizens they will be allowed to come here. This is a balance of

risks, on June the 23rd of voters have to weigh up these may bes. What

we have heard clearly from the governor of the Bank of England, the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, the head of the IMF, that there will be

a seismic economic shock to the British economy. I understand that

and there has been plenty of coverage of the risks of coming out,

but I'm looking at the risks of staying in. Let me give you another

one, I've given you the Angela Merkel example. Albania, Turkey and

others all want to join the EU. More people that could have a right to

come and live and work in the UK. That is a risk. We are already

seeing the risk of Brexit. The pound is falling in value, economic

decisions are not being taken at the moment. I'm not arguing that there

are risks to coming out, I perfectly understand that. I'm looking at the

risks if we stay in. Address this issue that the risk is of another 87

more people with the right to come to Britain. My point is the risks

are happening now,... What is your answer to the 87 million? The

extension of Europe has to be managed carefully. The broader

conversation about the total free movement of people across the

European Union is something that needs to be addressed but firstly we

won't have any say over that if we have left the European Union.

Secondly, those countries which trade with Europe like Norway and

Switzerland also have to accept the free movement of people. There's no

free ticket on this. What I want is a strong Great Britain at the

negotiating table making the case for our borders and security. When

it comes to the free movement of people you raised the issue of

Syrian refugees and concerns about security in the aftermath of

Brussels and Paris, being part of Europe and having security

connections with Europe makes us stronger. There's talk of another

Greek financial bailout, fears of an Italian banking crisis looming this

summer. If the eurozone plunges into another recession, the numbers

coming here could easily hit new record highs. We have also seen we

are not part of the Europe... They will come here looking for jobs. We

are not on the hook for the Greek bailout. We were with the last one.

Not to the same degree as other European members. We negotiated a

strong exemption from that. This is about Britain having a strong voice

at the negotiating table and you are offering up your own Project Fear. I

am taking a methodical look at the risks. The eurozone is stagnating at

the moment, that's why Spaniards, Italian and Portuguese are pouring

into this country in huge numbers. If the eurozone was to tilt into

another recession, that risks a lot more. It is a risk, and the British

answer to that should be to deepen the single market, to make it more

effective, to have growth across Europe. You do, if you have a strong

British voice arguing for growth across Europe. You're talking about

these potential threats in the future, we have a threat now.

Businesses in my constituency, Stoke-on-Trent, are not making

investment decisions. Indecision, two years of negotiation if we

leave. Hold on... Two years of indecision if we vote to leave. Why

are they eyeing the British stock exchange if there is indecision?

There will always be levels of flow and investment but what we are

seeing is fear and concern about the future. I think of workers in

Staffordshire who go to work at the Toyota plant in Derby, they have

jobs because of being part of the single market. I'm talking about the

risks if we remain. Do you deny that if we stay in we face further

integration? We have had a clear commitment from the Prime Minister

that we won't be involved in ever closer union and that is a big

philosophical moment, that Britain has a distinct and different stance

to the rest of the European Union. I think people will benefit from the

best of both worlds. If that is the case, you will be familiar with D5

president report, the official road map for greater integration into the

European Union. It calls for financial, fiscal and political

union by 2025. That could affect us. We have a clear commitment we will

not be involved in ever closer union. Have you read this report?

Not all of it. It is not a long report. It says much of what I have

just named, not all, but much of that could be achieved already

through a deepening of the single market, which is important for all

28 EU members, so we would not necessarily be excluded. I am in

favour of a deep into single market so that those 200,000 businesses in

the UK, exporting to Europe, have greater growth and opportunities.

People become richer. So there could be deeper integration. I would like

to see the digital and service economy grated more, we want more

jobs and growth across Europe that Britain will benefit from. Why would

we, when we face a global fear about downturn, decide to cut ourselves

off from the richest market in the world. You say it is the richest, it

is also stagnating. Because we cannot do our own trade deals with

the part of the world that is growing, our trade is therefore

hindered. It has taken seven years to reach a deal with Canada, it is

not complete, the free trade deal with Australia has been blocked by

Italy. These are all growth markets, unlike Europe, and we are unable to

do free trade deals with them. That is a risk. Do you honestly think

that if we left Europe and there were negotiations with India about a

free trade deal, the UK, 60 million people, would be ahead of the queue

of the European Union... Nothing is happening with India for nine years.

We had historic links with India. What about Australia and Canada? We

are not owed a living in the world. We have to make our businesses grow

on their own terms and you do that by being part of the European Union.

You have a much greater weight around the world by being part of

this. My point is that we have the best of both worlds. We have the

historic connections with the Commonwealth, with America. But why

does the American trade representative say to us you would

be crazy to leave Europe. Why do our allies around the world say you

should be part of Europe? You say we won't be part of any further

political integration, you say we won't join the euro, we won't be

part of Schengen, and yet it is clear Europe will become at least

within the eurozone more and more integrated. We will have less

influence on that, we will essentially become a semi detached

country club. What is the point? The point is a growing market for

British businesses of 500 million people, and yes, this is the point

about the best of both worlds, we don't want ever closer political

union. We want access to the single market. The best of both worlds,

safer, stronger and better off in Europe.

Now, this week President Obama will make his valedictory

He'll even have lunch with the Queen to celebrate her ninetieth birthday,

presumably after she's watched the Daily Politics.

But it's another aspect of Mr Obama's visit

While he's here, the leader of the free world is expected

to endorse the idea of the UK remaining in the

Those campaigning to leave the EU are,

surprise, surprise, a

Here's what Boris Johnson had to say yesterday.

I just find it absolutely bizarre that we are being lectured

by the Americans about giving up our sovereignty,

The United States, for their own reasons, their own history,

traditions, based on the ideas of no taxation without representation,

a fervent belief in the inviolability of American democracy,

they would not dream of sharing sovereignty.

Is he in danger of making America look like a hypocrite?

Not in danger of it, I am afraid there is an intrinsic hypocrisy.

I do not know what he's going to say, but if that is

the American argument, of course it is nakedly hypocritical.

To discuss this I'm joined by James Rubin.

He was a spokesman in the US State Department during Bill

And Liam Fox, former Defence Secretary, and a leading

light in the campaign to leave the EU.

Why should the leader of her closest allies, with whom we have a special

relationship, on your regard as crucial to this country, not say

what he thinks is in our national interest? He is entitled to say what

he thinks is an America's national interest, but whether it is in the

interests of Britain is a different question. Of course the president is

entitled to say what he thinks, but we have to add a couple of caveats.

That is his view. There are other views in America, Senator Rubio for

example expressing a different view, he has expressed what he thinks

about the special relationship if Britain were to leave the European

Union. Tell me one previous American administration, Democratic or

Republican, that thought we should not be in the EU, or did not care if

we left? It is not a question of what the express, it is that they

should respect what Britain does. They all want us to stay? There were

strong elements of the last Republican administration, strong

Republican leaders at present, who do not think... I do not remember

the second President Bush saying that Britain should leave the EU.

The debate is now, about our future, our relationship with the rest of

the world. It is fair to say, though I might not use the same

terminology, it is unthinkable that I might not use the same

the United States would allow a court to overrule the Supreme Court

the United States would allow a or someone else to determine their

external borders, in a way that the European Union does for the United

Kingdom. Boris Johnson has made that point. President Obama, supporting

things for Britain, things that no European -- that no American

president would contemplate. Maybe we would be more inclined to listen

to the president if he favoured an open border with Mexico, and if

Congress was no longer the ultimate decider of federal law? Let me see a

couple of things. I am glad that my colleague agrees that the president

is attacked -- entitled to express his view of what is in the

President's interest. -- America's interest. America and the EU

together, they are the most powerful force for free markets and democracy

around the world. If Britain leads the European Union, we will be

weaker. We will might be able to pursue the great values that our

countries have pushed around the world. Written working with the

United States and the EU is able to do that. We have a joke in America,

but it is a serious matter. Friends do not let friends drive drunk. This

is not in our interest, or the interests of the world. What about

our interest? You will make that judgment. Is the president simply

going to say it is in the interests of America? I think he will avoid

telling Britain what is in Britain's interest. About the point on

hypocrisy, I know Boris Johnson likes to read biographies of the

past. Maybe he is living in the past when he thinks that America is a

very large country, a superpower, it has the world's largest military. It

does not have to do only what you choose is compared to the British.

Britain is a different country, not the superpower any more. Just

because we will not do something does not mean that the British

ignored. If the US president was coming here to support Leave, you

would be shouting it from the rooftops? I do not think we will

find out if that is true or not. There is an element of hypocrisy. We

need to get the balance. We need to stick to the issues. We recognise

the president is alleged to have his view, but it is not the only

American view of what is in America's interests. We have to

recognise it is a British debate ultimately. We will make our

decision. As to this point about pushing our values, Britain had the

same values before we joined the European Union in 1973. The fact we

will be changing our philosophical approach because we are part of the

group in union is not true. I mean that the EU is a very powerful

instrument in our world. The United States has great military power, but

there are other powers we need to achieve order and stability, and

promote free markets. We need the ability to promote sanctions and

provide aid. We need the ability to promote democracy. The EU is good at

that working with the United States. We are better able to do that when

our closest ally is within the EU. Let him come back on that. We think

our closest ally is within the EU. that the European Union is failing

and that the structural failures of the European Union are not good for

the West. We are seeing the re-emergence of nationalist tensions

across Europe. We are seeing fence building. That is not the fault of

the EU. It is a failure of the EU. building. That is not the fault of

We are seeing a whole generation of young Europeans unemployed as a

result of the single currency. It is creating tensions. You did not have

a problem with foreigners weighing in during the Scottish referendum.

You told the Scandinavian countries, if your analysis is that Scottish

independence is a threat to your security, why are you not standing

up and saying it? President Obama probably thinks it is a threat to

allow security, so why should they not see that? I thought it was a

risk to the security of Britain in the Scottish referendum if we left

Natal. If Britain pulls out of the EU, the Scottish will pull out of

Britain and there will be a hold-mac in Natal. I do not believe that to

be true. When were you last in Scotland? I was recently there and I

sat with the Scottish party leader. They have been clear that if the EU

does not include Britain, the Scottish want to lead. Interest is

one thing, having an opinion about what the SNP will do is different.

THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE What about Senator Cruise, he is

fighting for the Republican nomination with Donald Trump. He

said that Mr Obama's comments will make it more likely that England, he

means Britain, that England will pull out of the EU? I do not think

it will have a massive impact either way in terms of the British result.

I think it is important for us to recognise that this is a decision

for the United Kingdom. I do not agree with this assessment that the

European Union in its current model is good for the United States. It is

unstable. Now you're giving an opinion for us. You just asked me

not to do that. The United States and Britain working together have

made the world a better place for democracy, for a free market. We are

only able to do that successfully when our closest ally is part of the

EU. American foreign policy will be weaker, Western foreign policy will

be weaker if the British leave the EU. We look forward to the

President's visit, whatever he has to say. Thank you.

It's just gone 11:35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Willie Rennie's been hard at work on the campaign trail and says

the Lib Dems are back to their best - but will voters agree?

And Ruth Davidson says she's going into this election battle

with a second-place finish for the Scottish Conservatives

The Liberal Democrats have been out of Government

A year in which the party's been trying to reassert

its individual identity - and gain back some

As May 5th approaches, the Scottish party leader

Willie Rennie says the Lib Dems' optimistic, uplifting approach

will help the party grow again at this election.

Huw Williams has been considering their chances.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats say this is the election at which they

get back to winning ways. The last five years has seen the parties

electrophoretic to in on the slide. Down to five members-macro at

Holyrood and one mile per hour Westminster. The leader was born in

Fife and is a keen runner. In past years worked for party headquarters

and as a PR assistant. Key campaign themes will include an emphasis on

civil Liberties, mental health and social care, and drug policy. But

still the dens are highlighting their plans to put the Scottish rate

of income tax up by 1p. The Liberal Democrats have gone back to the idea

of putting a penny on income tax to spend more on schools and colleges

of including children from less well-off backgrounds. That seems

like a popular idea. You might think that having been in

college and UK Government would be good for the Liberal Democrat's

credibility. But then again maybe not. The difficulty the Liberal

Democrats have is that the millstone of the coalition with the

Conservatives and above all the U-turn on student tuition fees is

something they have still not persuaded people to forgive them

for. The truth is until people are willing to forget that it is

difficult for the Liberal Democrats to get much of a hearing.

Willie Rennie said if the party tax rise plans, if nobody supported that

I would still advocate it. Opponents except that is believed that as the

idea of an election that you try to win?

In your manifesto you said the Liberal Democrats are looking for

the opportunity to ask people to pay a little more so that we are outward

looking and ambitious for the country. That has been missing in

recent years and we're back to its now. What been missing? That

ambitious agenda for the country. That looking out to grow. Do you

think the Liberal Democrats did not have that whenever in the coalition?

We were tarnished during the coalition years. There is no doubt

about that. Now we can be more positive and uplifting and people

are coming back to us as a result. Are you saying they were not

ambitious during the coalition? They were ambitious but what we were

tarnished by was that coalition needed. As a result the results in

subsequent years were more challenging. But now what we have

with this progressive agenda on tax, guaranteed Civil Liberties,

protecting the environment, meeting should be boost mental health

services... The problem you have got should be boost mental health

is this millstone around your neck. People will say, we do not like the

Liberal Democrats, they were in coalition with the Tories, and

particularly people say you cannot trust what people say. They lied

electrician fees. They give personal guarantees as candidates that they

would not put up tuition fees and then they did. That is what you need

to get over. Does not see much saying that you are getting it. What

you will say is that Liberal Democrats are not going to make that

mistake again. There is no doubt we heard the message loud and clear.

What people thought about the coalition, what people thought about

the tuition fees mistake, we understood what people were saying.

There is no doubt, we are never put to make that mistake again. We are

getting that across in this election. We have got an agenda now

that is positive and uplifting. When I was an hour yesterday, not

particularly a Liberal Democrat heartland, people were stopping me

in the street telling me that because of that positive uplifting

agenda they are going to vote for us for the first time. People still do

not trust you. People are coming to us because of that agenda. Would you

feel more or less comparable fighting the Scottish election

campaign if the Liberal Democrats were still in coalition with the

Conservatives at Westminster? You see for yourself the consequences of

the Conservatives running the Government by themselves. Everybody

sees the big cats. Are you more or less comfortable rest I am positive

with an uplifting campaign. I am a Liberal Democrat. I would rather the

Liberal Democrats were in charge by ourselves because we have seen what

this out when the Tories overcharged by themselves. You say you want to

use the new powers for gender equality in Scottish elections. In a

PR system, it is not just about candidates, it is about the chances

of getting elected. Many candidates, it is about the chances

would say that apart from a handful of constituencies that is the best

chance, in the regional list. But in the regional list you need

candidates in sex or even seven of the each regions are all men. Are

you comfortable with that. -- and six or seven of each region. The

plan is to have balance across parliamentary representation. It is

a weakness there. That is why I took firm action to come up with plans.

Seven out of eight lead candidates are men. I recognise what you are

saying that is why I took firm action. I know you recognise what I

am saying. You do not want this to happen again? I have done something

about it. What I want to have as equal representation in the

Parliament and to make sure that we are progressive and represent the

people we seek to represent. This will be the last time that seven out

of eight are men? You have seen the plans. 2019, 2020, we will have

gender balance. You say you are not interested in going into coalition

after the selection should the SNP failed to win an outright majority.

Unless that is one of your goals what is the point in voting Liberal

Democrat, even if you are Liberal Democrat? The real value is, what

you have seen in the last five years in Holyrood when we have punched

above our weight. That was not for us who would have the SNP? Why do

not want to go into coalition. You could have a big impact without

forming a coalition. You have just finished telling me how valuable it

was to have the Liberal Democrats in coalition with the Conservatives.

For the speedy is what I want to do is accept the maximum pressure on

the next Parliament to make sure that liberal values at the heart of

Parliament. In the last five years a big challenge on the police,

guaranteeing civil liberties, the super ID database, guaranteed

expansion of nursery education. I am not interested in coalitions. Your

penny on tax to spend on education will raise about ?500 million per

year. ?170 million goes to the people premium. That goes direct to

schools. It does not go through local authorities. This goes direct

to schools. The mechanism makes sure that people from disadvantaged

backgrounds get extra support that people from disadvantaged

tuition, homework support. That is given to headteachers. Yes. What

about the rest of the money? Does that go through local authorities?

70 or ?80 million will go through local authorities. College funding

is ?108 million. Nursery education is 100 million. How much it goes

through local authorities in total? The exact mechanism will be partly

tied in entitlement to nursery education people premium. You will

ring fence that money. You're not education people premium. You will

just give it to local authorities. It is an entitlement. The money will

be guaranteed to go into that area. Every penny you get a local

authorities to spend on education there will be a legal requirement to

spend it on education. There is a pot of about 70 million or ?80

million which will go to local authorities to reverse the education

cuts. Half of what local authorities do is education. I know what you are

driving at. The vast bulk... What I am driving at this why should people

want to have their taxes go up for money that may or may not be spent

on education? ?190 million per year for a pupil premium, the Scottish

Ajit is ?30 billion. Are you saying you cannot find money for that

without putting up tax? ?500 million will go directly into education

funding in Scotland. That is a big investment. People will know what

they are getting for that investment. We have got an urgent

situation. New Government in the UK implemented the pupil premium. We

did not pay taxes up. You have asked me this question before. The

situation in Scotland is so urgent. Used up one of the best education

systems in the world. We spend more money on education per capita than a

month does. We used to have the best education system in the world. We

cannot wait on the SNP anymore. They have been sitting to mentally for

nine years in Government whilst the education system has slipped down to

average. I want... Children cannot wait for the SNP anymore. If we

carry on the path that the SNP are pursuing they will be waiting. The

SNP are reducing national testing which will be one way that we could

no it is spending this money could have any effect. You are a case

that? Of course, because it disrupts the relationship between the pupil

and teacher. Prior to the question? Wait back a phrase you use,

according to you, with the peg, do not fatten the pack. What this

disrupted the relationship between pupil teacher and that is critically

important. The second thing it does is it undermines the curriculum for

important. The second thing it does excellence, which is supposed to be

important. The second thing it does put power back into the hands of

teachers. What testing does is strives teaching to the test, it

also makes sure that resources go into areas that are being tested,

rather than the areas that improve all-round education. What I am

getting at is how under your prog -- how do your policies would we know

if you extra spending has had any effect? You have the inspection

regime that is there, that tests how schools are performing. They go in

and investigate schools to see the schools are performing. They go in

property of investigation. We would have fewer failing schools, is

property of investigation. We would what you're saying? Make sure the

fundamentals of education are right by having proper investigations and

put power back in the hands of teachers. If you can do that and

allow them to teach pupils in the way they were trained to then I

think we will get an improvement in our education system. You can

think we will get an improvement in understand how some people watching

this thing hang on, we're being asked for our taxes to go for money

that may or may not be spent on education and they are against the

measure is the SNP are proposing, which would enable us to tell

whether the spending is having any effect not. I disagree with that

completely, what we are seeing here is the SNP ripping right into the

heart of the week education works in Scotland, we need to trust the

teacher to do their job. We need to make sure they have the B sources to

do their job. That way we can have an improvement in our education

system. Of course you can review how education is performing, we have the

OECD conduct their own studies as that is showing that education in

Scotland has gone from one of the best to just average. That is not

good enough. Policing is one of your biggest issues, why are you not

proposing to break up the national police force and put it under the

control of local authorities? I do not think it would be a good idea to

impose another top-down... But you have been one of the biggest critics

of this. And we were right. Look at what has happened. Industrial skill

of this. And we were right. Look at stop at steps, there have been some

terrible things happening to the police. -- industrial scale stop and

search. In other mass of your organisation would be the wrong

thing to do. If they had listened to us in the first place he would not

have gone through this pain and agony. We are going to allow them to

do their job. Apart from seeing local policing plans should be

agreed by local people, none of your proposals in policing seem to do

very much to restore... That is nonsense. What we want to do is spit

out the target culture in the police, if you speak to the Police

Federation they would agree wholeheartedly with what I'm saying.

The second thing we would do is make sure -- we would allow local

authorities to agree policing plans to inject democracy back in.

Effectively local authorities would have a veto in policing policy and

local authority areas. That would inject democracy back in and return

Scottish policing to where it was before the SNP started meddling with

that. Why argue reluctant to impose the named person legislation? We

gave cautious support initially. A lot of people are opposed. Let me

answer the question, you are very good at the drop in, let me answer

the question. We need to make sure it is reviewed properly. Primarily

because it came from a bottom-up exercise and a pilot conducted in

Highland in Edinburgh, that made sure that there was nobody going to

slip through the net. I recognise that there are considerable concerns

from parents and others, that is why I want to review it, to make sure

that local authorities do not overreach, they do not do more than

they are entitled to do and if they do then we will recommend pulling

back but I think it is right to make sure that we try and progress this

and review it. But you are not against it in principle, a lot of

the opponents of this and say the are engaged in principle, the idea

of having a named person. I am not against it in principle, I want to

review it carefully to insure it discipline to properly. Drugs, you

see a new manifesto that the Liberal Democrats in favour of legalising

cannabis, why not do it here? We propose a sense that I was a system

like Portugal that has decriminalisation and ensure that

rehabilitation is essential part. This will push the powers that the

Scottish probe that has rights to the edge but we believe this is the

enlightened way to do it to tackle the real problem we have in Scotland

of drugs. We must finish there. Your plans and resolution for the

campaign, puppies, but it -- bunny rabbits, pigs are out, right? Maybe!

A14 thank you very much. The Scottish Conservatives have big

ambitions for this election. They want to overtake Labour and

become the biggest opposition party. There's been some sneering

that the Tory leader Ruth Davidson is not even claiming she's

going to win. But there's no doubt coming

second would be a huge But have they really any

chance of doing that? The Scottish Conservatives under

Ruth Davidson's leadership claim that in this election they really

are snapping at Labour's heels to take second place behind the SNP.

She was born in Edinburgh, worked as a newspaper reporter then at BBC

Scotland, she left the BBC to study at Glasgow University and joined the

Conservative Party. She is a member of the Church of Scotland, a kick

boxer, a Dunfermline athletic supporter and has been promised a

new puppy by her partner once the campaign is over. The parties try to

position itself as the go to option for no voters after the dependence

referendum and tested against the idea of tax rises as Holyrood has

power over rates. The Conservatives seem to be playing a popular tune on

key issues north of the border, one undoubtedly is tied to keep taxation

the same as England, half of Scots like that idea and have strong

commitment to increasing spending on the health service. That is

something that most Scots would like to see happen.

But the Conservatives face a long-standing difficulty if they

want to generate mass support in Scotland again. The problem the

Conservatives face is the one they have faced ever since the late 90s

and that is that people are still not convinced that this is a party

that puts Scotland first as opposed to Britain as a whole. Despite the

fact that the new devolution settlement that Scotland will enjoy

was written by a Conservative UK Government, it is still plagued by

the perception that it is an English party that originally wanted to deny

Scotland's devolution. Despite talk of a party on the up the reality

remains that in last year's Westminster general election

Scottish Conservatives took the lowest share of the vote for a

century and a half. Your big pictures -- your big

picture for you is to stop independence? I would love to be

First Minister tomorrow but what we need here is a strong opposition to

the Scottish Government because we have not had won the last nine

years. I was going to ask you, have you written of people who voted yes?

Now, but we must start, the SNP want to start a campaign to reopen this

in the summer but we must plan for the long-term. What would you say to

someone who voted yes? I to listen to them and reassure them that the

someone who voted yes? I to listen ambitions we have for our country

can exist within the newly re-empower Scottish parliament and

can exist within the newly in order for our country to come

back together we need to do less shouting and more listening. Problem

you have as you know is that many people say that Ruth Davidson is

really nice but many people like Annabell Goldie as well. There is

this resistance in Scotland, isn't there, people think I can actually

say that I cannot bring myself to vote Conservative. You still have

the image of the nasty party. What we are seeing is there is a really

specific job I will do for you if you vote for us. This does not make

you a trolley or died in the wool trueblue but what people see as we

can do you a job because this country needs a strong opposition.

We have passed some bad laws in the last nine years, we have nine years,

six leaders had no success for a Labour Party in opposition. That

Scottish sense of fair play kicks in, give someone else a try. I will

hold the SNP to account and say no to a second referendum. U just ask a

few questions. To test this image problem the Conservatives have had.

Nicola Sturgeon has proposed a register of controlling interests

which in the wake of the Panama papers affair would allow us to know

who owns land in Scotland. Would the Conservative support that? We always

said by the land reform was coming through that we want a register of

who owns the land in Scotland. What we did not support was absolute

right to buy which stops the entrants coming in. Do you think we

should know who the beneficial owners are of all land in Scotland?

That is why we supported the land Registry just a few weeks ago. What

a new manifesto would cut the number of people relying on food banks?

Getting more people into jobs. That is a bit like the old Monty Python

Getting more people into jobs. That joke about blue Peter, isn't it? Did

lots of trenches and film absorb water. Of course growing the economy

would help people not going to fit bikes but there is nothing

mentioning new manifesto and that is bikes but there is nothing

not a specific proposal. If you look at the SNP government's own, every

year they must publish a big paper on poverty in this country that

shows that poverty levels are down, income is up, there are fewer people

in poverty in Scotland that there has been, few people in child

poverty and that this is specifically because even the

Scottish Government acknowledges this, more people in Scotland are in

employment and more people have more hours of deployment than previously.

Many people will say what world is she living in when we have had a

report from the Castle trust seeing the number of people visiting fit

bikes in Scotland is up by 30% at the rate of increase in Scotland is

higher than the rate of increase in the rest of the UK. You have not

told me anything specifically about food banks. F I was quoting my own

figures they would be right to say that, but I am quoting the figures

from the Scottish Government. Your specific proposals were not to

anything about food banks apart from creating jobs. We want to cut the

appointed by for disabled people, we want to use our powers to insure we

have a dedicated appointed agency, we want to grow the Scottish

economy, freeze business rates to allow people to hire more people and

create more skills for people leaving education that do not find a

place in college. We want to increase the number of

apprenticeships. If I were a young man or woman... This is more people,

very specific policies. If I were a young man or woman who has perhaps

had relationship problems and mental health problems, lost her job, I

have been sanctioned for some reason or other by the DWP, been refused an

emergency loan and I were watching this before visiting the feedback I

would think, well that is just waffle. There's nothing there that

specifically addresses by problem. If you want specific segment that

worked choice, and it which exists to help people who have either

mental or physical disabilities get into the workplace. It is

voluntarily, it is for people who want to have obscurely, extra

skills, he was confidence and help in terms of application. 5000

people, the furthest from the jobs market, have gone into that. Down

south there is a movement to combine up with other employment agencies,

we say that under the new powers in up with other employment agencies,

Scotland will have that is something we will keep going. We will have a

specific pledge in our manifesto to have an increased by ?300 million

over the course of Parliament to help fund it. You said specifically

for people of mental health issues and that is one that will help

address that. David Cameron's Panama papers adventures, that presumably

has not been very helpful to you try to run a campaign to convince people

that the Conservatives have a different image. The people of

Scotland aren't daft, they know what this election is about, it will be

your First Minister that he will be the Leader of the Opposition. I can

do a good job for people as the Leader of the Opposition. I have put

my own tax affairs out there. There's nothing to hide there. It

was on the Internet for all to see. Are you saying I am not like David

Cameron at all? And seeing how the press the ballot paper, I'm the

person voting for. Do you think he did make a mistake in not being more

open about what he... He has put more information in the public realm

in any previous Prime Minister. Do more information in the public realm

think it would have been better if he did it all at the beginning

rather than over a couple days? In retrospect, yes. Your tax commission

recommended a 30p rate of tax. What happened to that? We looked at it

and how much it would cost of the also looked at ways in which we can

call the Scottish economy and we have a real philosophical belief and

it is backed up by today's polling that 60% of people across goal and

believe us, that we should not have tax rates higher in Scotland than

the rest of the UK, so we're seeing things like the vessel to change for

the additional rate of tax, the threshold change for the operator

tax, and that moves that up to about ?45,000 and beyond. We cannot a way

with in their constrain spending to make sure that we were able to do

that at this time. It was one that we thought that we

as a country could not afford right now if we wanted to have the same

level of services. I am fairly sure that Ukip will not

be travelling the scorers at this election. You say in your manifesto

you would allow councils to put in place a moratorium on wind farms. So

if local people lobby fodder and councils bought Phillip there will

be no wind farms? We would be the most densely properly to the country

and the entire world with wind turbines. We think that local people

should have a level and degree of control over what happens in the

area. That is why you have local Government. Local Government should

be empowered to make some decisions. You sit there is a precedent for

this in your manifesto because of that moratorium on fracking. But you

are in favour of fracking. Again with local authorities giving it the

Green light. They are happy with it is up to them. Local authorities

will be able to have moratoriums on fracking. Absolutely but we do not

think there should be a blanket ban fracking. Absolutely but we do not

on gas extraction. We also see fractured extraction happening

on gas extraction. We also see offshore in Scotland right now. You

see that schools should be allowed to operate outside local authority

control. How is that going to work? The policy of the Conservatives in

Westminster is to take all schools in England out of local authority

control? We have had a different education system here since the dawn

of time. We want more schools and more school leaders, headteachers

and others in the school board, to have control over hiring and firing.

How do you get it? If you are a parent watching this and Ruth

Davidson is the next First Minister, how do I get my school out of local

authority control? There is a school that is going to be shut down. It is

a catholic school. Their patents they have a business model that is

ready to go. They think we have got the plan in place and the teaching

in place to rant at outside local authority control. We see this

should not be stopped from doing so. We have a good example in Jordanhill

and Glasgow, a school that has been run outside local authority control

for some time. It is not completely new but that should be allowed to

happen. Whether schools are in or out of local authority control are

you saying you are agnostic? No. I am not good to be proscriptive but

all schools must be one or the other. The point about believing as

I do that children are not all the same, should not be topless scene,

it about empowering the leadership of the

school -- should not be topped the same. People feel disconnected from

Holyrood. Local oversight is not beer. Centralisation of colleges and

services. People should be empowered to make decisions when they know

better than faceless bureaucrats at Holyrood. The graduate tax, you say

you want ?6,000... Contribution. What a lot of people will think is

that there is a low the level in England. Scottish universities are

at a disadvantage and they would still be in the though there a

graduate tax. Scottish universities say they want more money in the

system to compete. Universities punch above their weight in the

world. People say this is the thin end of a wedge. We are seeing this

as the policy, this is how we want to roll it out. Inters... Parliament

this is for people who then graduate and are earning more than ?20,000.

You give no guarantee. The ?6,000 is for an honours degree. In end

understand that ?1000 it is now ?9,000 why should anybody believe

that under a Conservative administration would not start at

?6,000 for an honours degree course and writer ?25,000? Because we have

a separate education system. These are my proposals. Once you breach

the principle of having three higher education there will inevitably be

pressure from the educational establishment, the situation in the

economy, to produce these up. Nothing is inevitable. There used to

be a contribution. It was then scrapped. We are looking at a model

by which we know that people who graduate with a degree are likely to

earn ?100,000 in their working life more than somebody without. We are

asking them to pay a small proportion of that back into the

education system which has helped them. We want to charge students

from overseas and Europe or June be a penny for the degree that they get

out off Scotland. They do not have to make any contribution. That would

raise ?100 million to help the further and higher education in

Scotland. Yes the state should put in lots but this should be a

contribution that those that directly benefit. And the important

thing is the money would be used to help people from Bhullar backbones

get into university because in Scotland that is not happening. --

help people from less well-off backgrounds. If people to leave the

help people from less well-off European Union and I know you are

against that, and the SNP say they want to have a referendum, should

against that, and the SNP say they David Cameron block that? I do not

think there is any grounds at all... David Cameron block that? I do not

Should the British Government have the right to say that is it we will

not allow you to do that? There is no mandate for the SNP party to say

that Brexit is the trigger. There is no mandate for that. In the same way

Scotland have voted yes... Let me finish. She said this is a material

change was not the you thought that the other way. Scotland voted yes in

2014 with the other side of that I would be that I could see letters

have another referendum because the oil price tanked, that is a material

change. No. The egg in it was signed by the UK Government and the

Scottish Government to say the the result of the referendum. After this

election will you be the main opposition? Yes. And I will work so

hard for people to hold them to account. We asked Willie Rennie but

you will be doing for the rest of the campaign. Do you have any plans

to sit on a tag any form of lethal weapon? No thanks in this campaign

that there might be other forms of transport.

We'll have continuing coverage of the election campaign

On Tuesday, energy and the environment is the subject

of an hour long debate on Scotland 2016.

A studio audience will get their chance to put

questions to politicians, chaired by Shelley Jofre.

That's on Tuesday on BBC Two Scotland at half past ten.

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