24/04/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland

Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland: With two weeks

to go to the election, we complete our series

of party leader interviews with Labour's Kezia Dugdale

And with me for the duration, three journalists whom no-one puts

at the back of the queue - or even the line.

Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott and Tom Newton Dunn -

they'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

So, Air Force One left Stanstead Airport a few hours ago

and the President is now in Hanover, Germany.

But the reverberations of Mr Obama's intervention in the EU referendum

On Friday, the President told a press conference

the EU, it would be at the back of the queue when it comes to doing

a free trade deal with the US - comments he was asked about in a BBC

The UK would not be able to negotiate something with the United

We wouldn't abandon our efforts to negotiate a trade deal with our

largest trading partner, the European market, but rather,

it could be five years from now, ten years

from now, before we were able to actually get something done.

And I'm joined now by the Justice Minister and Leave

Welcome to the programme. Mr Obama, 5-10 years for a free-trade deal

with the UK under the EU. He's right, isn't he? What was most

interesting this morning was how far he has backtracked since Friday

evening. As you said, we were told we would be sent to the back of the

queue if we didn't take his advice and stay in the EU. Now, he has said

that if Britain was independent from the EU, we could not expect to do a

free-trade deal quicker than with the EU. No one is really expecting

that, so I think the reality is that these things can take time. It has

taken almost 40 years even to get to this stage with a stalled EU- US

deal. I think we would be better placed, and we are not prejudiced by

being outside the EU in doing that. The president has made it clear that

American power will do regional deals. That is why he has put so

much energy into a specific deal with the 11 countries. He wants to

do and EU deal involving all the EU members. The only started in 2013,

they haven't been at it for 40 years. We have been talking about it

for 40 years. That is a different matter. The negotiations started in

2013. We would be a long way behind these two megadeal. When he said we

were at the back of the queue, I was a bit startled, so I went and

checked. The US has no other bilateral negotiations for a freight

train with any other country than the EU. When you look at the 23

trade deals it has, none of them are worth an economy bigger than

Britain. Let's remember that if America signed a trade deal with us,

it would be the equivalent of the North American trade deal because...

I think we have strong mutual interest in doing it. America had a

number of bilateral free trade talks going on with about 15 different

countries. It essentially froze them because it wants to do regional

deals - why would it reopen at Mr Ross? In the last 25 years, it has

done a string of bilateral and regional negotiations, given the

collapse of WTO talks, the Pacific deal was done. The EU one is stuck

in the mud. If Britain came out of the EU, saying, we are not shackled

by the special interests of film-makers who don't want American

box sets polluting French culture, we want insist on the labelling

requirements unfettered cheese that the Greeks do. And we won't have a

dispute about the settlement mechanism that the Europeans are

concerned about and people are concerned about in this country. It

is important to understand why the Americans insist on that, because

they don't trust the court systems in many European countries will stop

American firms trust British courts to resolve commercial this beautiful

stop all of these problems will be swept away, and I think we would be

well placed. If we're done with the EU and we not a member, the EU will

have free trade with United States and we don't know when we will have

it. It could give a huge advantage to the French, Germans, Italians and

Spanish. We know that the White House briefs out... The White House

regularly briefed it. If you look at White House commentary, let me just

put this to you - if America was my priority is the EU deal, the best

way of ramping up its negotiations leveraged would be to come to a

relatively quick deal with Britain. That would put the pressure on. In

trade negotiations, America had a history of doing that. Do you accept

that whatever our relationship with the EU, if we read, we can have no

full access to the single market unless we agree to free movement of

people? It depends what you mean by full access to the single market. I

think we would not see any trade barriers go up because we are the

fifth biggest economy in the world, but it means we can have proper

control of our borders and we will not be bound by the stifling

regulation that gives us a competitive disadvantage. It is

important for small businesses here. You still don't know if we would

have access to the single market. You can't tell as that. Everyone who

does who is not a member of the EU has had to agree to free movement.

It is a strawman to say, I can't tell you what the deal looks like

until we have had the referendum. I can tell you this: Look at the

options being put at their - Swiss, Norwegian, Turkish. I think because

Britain's economy is bigger than all of those combined, and because

French farmers and German car manufacturers sell as ?60 billion

more each year than we sell them, we are very well placed and mutual

self-interest suggests we would cut a good deal.

How would we have more control over borders if we left? We would have

control over who could come to work here, I understand that, if we want

in the EU any more, provided we weren't part of the single market,

but how would we be able to stop people coming here? Do you think if

we leave the EU that, if you're French or German or Italian, you

would need a Visa? There are two issues: The numbers, and I think

that as the Home Secretary conceded, we cannot control the numbers

because of free movement if we are in the EU, and that makes life

harder. The second question is, checks at the border, preventative

ones. Under UK law with non-EU countries, we can stop someone

coming in because it is not conducive to the public good. With

the EU, we can only deny entry if there is a serious, credible and

present threat. Which we do. As a result, since 2010, 6000 people have

been turned back from the EU. If you compare that with people from out

with the EU, we have registered to 60 7000. That shows the stronger

checks. I understand, but my question is, outside the EU, we

would not insist on visas for the Germans, French and so on? We would

have to look at that as part of the negotiations. At the moment, the

Obama Administration is looking at new Visa requirement and screening

from Germany, Belgium, Greece, France because of the recent

terrorist attacks. I think we should at least have the power and control

to do that to keep Britain safe. Then we would need a Visa to go to

France and Germany. A final question: Why do you not want the

leader of the National front in France, Marine Le Pen, to come here?

She's one of your biggest supporters. Her views are racist and

I don't share her values. I think our party is deeply offensive. But

she is on your site. All the more reason why I wouldn't like to see

her come. So we do have control over our borders of the Home Secretary

can stop coming? People from outside the EU, rappers like snoop doggy

dog, have been barred entry because they have a offensive views. If the

Home Secretary checks with officials, we probably cannot be

nigh Marine Le Pen entry. It is another demonstration of the things

we can't do because we don't have the proper controls of our borders.

Thank you. Jeremy Corbyn will get his first big

electoral test in just under two weeks' time, when voters go

to the polls in local Opposition parties usually do

well in these contests, even when they've just

lost a general election. But with analysts predicting

that the party could actually lose councillors, party

strategists are There's a simple principle

in British politics - if you want to win elections, you need to win

seats of every shape and size. When in government, parties tend

to lose council seats. In opposition,

they tend to win them. Even Michael Foot, who went

on to lead Labour to its biggest general election defeat

ever, did pretty well to start with. In his first electoral test,

in 1981, the party took When Neil Kinnock became leader,

he also managed a more And then Ed Miliband,

he picked up 857 seats. Since local government was invented

in its modern form in 1974,

there have been only two years - 1982 and 1985 - when the opposition

party has actually lost seats in a local

election if it is not So far, so historically positive for

Jeremy Corbyn. The problem is, experts in the field

reckon Labour could lose 150 seats in these English

council elections. Even the party machine has been

managing expectations. You simply can't

explain away any kind of net loss of seats

in these elections. After all, a new leader

in the middle of his honeymoon period following on from

a disastrous mega-galactic shambles of a budget failure shouldn't expect

to see anything other than dramatic gains in the local

elections that follow. Anything else,

historically speaking, is It's an argument put forward by some

of his MPs. I'm not going to put

a specific number on it, but 300-400 seats would be a good

step in the We have to be ambitious,

because we are the Labour Party, and we are a

party of government. We exist in order to be

in Government and make a difference Southampton, that is where

Ed Miliband has been... The last time this batch of council

seats were contested, Labour under Southampton was one of a number

of areas where Labour failed to capitalise in the general election,

losing a Parliamentary If Jeremy Corbyn wants to be

Prime Minister in 2020, he will be expected to make inroads now in many

of the English council areas, and I think that all

leaders are judged by We've got from now until

the 5th of May to deliver positive and encouraging

results for Labour. It's always hard to compare

historic elections. There are always different

political contexts, varying numbers of seats up grabs,

but rightly or wrongly, several Labour MPs I've spoken

to will do just that, conscious that Jeremy Corbyn

could make history for the And we're joined now

from Salford by the Shadow Education Secretary,

Lucy Powell. Welcome to the programme, Lucy

Powell. Your Labour MP Carly, Stephen Kinnock, says you should be

gaining an extra 300-400 council seat in England - does that seem

right? I won't get into the predictions game. Like Stephen, like

Jeremy and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet, I am optimistic about these

elections. We are a political party and always looking to make gains and

progress at every electoral test. These elections are no different. I

won't get into the predictions business. Hold on. What about the

principle that new opposition leaders always do pretty well in

their first electoral test? I was looking at the record - Ed Miliband,

Tony Blair, Neil Kinnock, even Michael Foot, they all made gains.

We must expect Jeremy Corbyn to do the same, surely?

I have been hoping we will make progress. Do you think you will make

gains? We are looking at winning in London for the first time since

2004, we are looking to make progress in the local elections, we

are looking to stay in power in Wales. Obviously in Scotland things

are difficult there and they are long-term legacy issues for the

Labour Party to deal with in Scotland but you do have to set it

into context. It has been an incredibly tough year for the Labour

Party, we suffered a crushing election defeat. That was not even a

year ago, which we weren't expecting and everybody else wasn't expecting

either. We had a long, drawn-out leadership contest. We have a new

leader in Jeremy Corbyn and it takes time for everybody to adjust to

that. But I think we have had a very positive few weeks where we have

been on the front foot, we have been effective opposition, with issues

like the Budget... We haven't got too much time. Let me put it in

context. The Tories have divided and they are in disarray, last month

brought yet another omnishambles Budget. Why would you not be poised

for big gains? I am very hopeful we will get big gains. London will be a

big gain, we haven't won since 2004. What I'm interested in is how we on

the right track for winning in 2020, and that is a really tough job. I

don't think anyone underestimates the challenge we face as a political

party. Let me see if I can pin you down. Maybe one of the reasons it is

not an easy job is that you may not be in tune with the public mood.

This chart shows they regularly rate immigration one of their number one

concern is, ahead of the NHS and the economy, this is recent poll. Most

are not against immigration but they think the influx is too high. How

does that square with Jeremy Corbyn's view that we have not let

too many in? All of these issues we have got to think deeply about and

there is an urgency to that. Immigration, welfare, the economy,

these were all issues at the last election but that was only a few

months ago. If we knew the answer is, if we knew how we would make

labour relevant again, the Labour values I care about, how we will

make them relevant in the modern world, if I had those answers we

wouldn't be sitting here now because we would be in Government. Do you

agree with Jeremy Corbyn... We have got to spend time, doing the

difficult job of understanding how the Labour Party can be relevant in

the modern world, and that includes issues... If you let me come back to

immigration and get a specific answer out of you. Do you agree with

Jeremy Corbyn that in recent years we have not let too many in? I don't

want to get into a numbers game about immigration. I know from all

the work I do on the doorstep, immigration is a massive issue and

people have real concerns about the impact that immigration has on some

of our communities. As the Labour Party, we have to address those.

That's why I thought we were right at the last election to have a

policy around the emergency rate for example on benefits for EU migrants,

a policy the Government have adopted, but I don't think simple

retail policy offers are what Labour's challenge is right now. Our

challenge is over the next few years what is our relevant values that we

can offer to the public that will help us win the election. Let me

come onto education. You asked if you planned to bring academies under

local authority control and you said no, by 2020 almost every secondary

school will be a free School or an Academy, do you stand by that? Only

17% of primary schools are academies. You said nearly every

secondary, do you stand by that? I don't know about primary schools,

let's see what happens over the next few weeks because the Government's

attempt to force all schools against their wishes to become an Academy is

on the rocks. They put the brakes on some schools feeling they have no

option but to become academies, which is what many schools felt over

the last few years. And I understand the policy of making every school

and Academy is difficult, I take your point, but you said every

secondary school and most primaries will be free schools or an Academy.

It is not that different from where the Government wants to end up, is

it? You are taking my comments out of context. I was talking about

Labour's policy at the next election in that circumstance, and my point

is that we have got to look anew at what is the accountability framework

for all schools? How do we make sure there are sufficient places in our

schools, that we have raising standards in our schools, we have

sufficient school improvement support for our schools, and we have

proper accountability of some of these Academy chains of which we are

seeing many more problems arising with their accountability. That is

what I will be looking at. In the short term, I will be fighting tooth

and nail the Government's plans to force good and outstanding schools

against their wishes to become academies. Jeremy Corbyn has

described academise a share -- described... Jeremy said lots of

things about the forced programme. Is it asset stripping or not? In

some cases it can be. The key question is does it meet the test of

school improvement? There is mixed evidence of whether it leads to

school improvement, as the education select committee have found. The

second question is does it give schools freedom and autonomy? How

can that be the case if you are forcing a school against its wish to

be an Academy. That is not real autonomy. And the first test is

around accountability and there are some very real issues there. Some

might call that asset stripping. If our state system is being asset

stripped as your leader claims, that would be really serious so is he

right or wrong? There have been examples of financial mismanagement

in some Academy chains, we have seen those recently where directors have

been paying themselves double money by setting up arms length

organisations that they are also paying themselves from so there are

issues of financial probity which is why both Jeremy and I have been

arguing that there needs to be a much more robust financial

accountability structure. He seems to be against academies altogether.

We have got exactly the same view about this, Jeremy and I have worked

closely on these issues and that is that there are some excellent

Academy schools, there are also some excellent community schools. This

tired argument of pitting one school type against another is frankly

over. What we have got to be addressing is ensuring we have good

quality teachers and head teachers in all of our schools, something the

Government is failing to do. We've got to make sure schools have

adequate resources, and they are facing real terms cuts to their

budgets, and make sure we have enough places for all of our

children. There is a crisis in school places and teacher shortages.

Very interesting ground which you have gone over before. I want to

show you an advert gone up for a new media spokesperson for Jeremy

Corbyn. There is a fixed term contract for Jeremy Corbyn, leader

of the Labour Party, running from December 2016 or when he ceases to

be leader, whichever is sooner. Which do you think will be sooner? I

haven't seen the advert but Jeremy has only been a leader for a few

months. OK, you're not going to tell me which would be sooner? We are

supporting him in his job and I'm not going to comment on that. Very

well. Thank you very much. The party views on Europe

and immigration are well-known, but voters may not know

what Nigel Farage's Purple Army thinks about issues

like recycling and council tax. Ukip, which had never held more

than a handful of local election seats before,

achieved its first major breakthrough in 2013,

when they gained 139 seats. The following year they increased

their total by another 161 seats, performing particularly well

in parts of Essex. While in 2015, on the same day

as the general election, In that set of elections,

Ukip won control of Thanet Council in Kent, the first time the party

took control of a local council, But within six months they had

lost overall control, after five councillors left Ukip,

saying they were unhappy with the council's lack of action

on a manifesto pledge to reopen So, 2016 is the last year

in the four-yearly cycle Will they be able to

maintain the momentum? We're joined now by the party's

deputy chairman, Diane James. Welcome to the programme. You have

got your referendum running strongly in the news, immigration is a huge

issue as well. What would be a good result for Ukip in these local

elections? Certainly to retain the 20 seat we will be defending this

time, but also building on that. We are fielding 1400 candidates out of

the 2700 that will be available across the country. We are also

fielding candidates in the big Assembly elections - Stormont,

Holyrood... And the police crime Commissioner. Are you looking to

gain? Of course, we wouldn't be doing anything otherwise. Populist

and anti-EU parties are gaining ground right across Europe so

This morning, you just reeled off a host of really good examples and I

will not take those away from you but have you raise a single one of

the councillors across the country who have had to stand down or been

suspended for actually quite serious issues? We got individuals decide

unilaterally they want to walk away from the Ukip banner. But these

individuals who committed real issues and have been suspended or up

had to stand out, that is a whole different ball game and I would like

to eat -- I would like you to be a bit favour with regards to that. Why

should people vote for a party that might not even have a reason to

exist after the referendum? Well, we will have a reason to exist because

if we do not exist then no one else will hold David Cameron, if the vote

to leave happens, hold him to account and make sure it happens.

That is my view it. In terms of our councillors, they're in mind, we are

the only party out there who do not whip our councillors. That may go

back to the explanation. Perhaps just as well. I am not into

dominatrix stuff. But that is the thing that some of our cabinet

ministers are accused of at the moment. The issue is that there is a

real disquiet amongst the electorate that they want to vote for somebody

and then they see the systems that are currently in place, whether it

is a cabinet system RE committee, there are backbenchers that find

themselves in the situation where they cannot contribute to decisions.

We are talking about incursions into the green belt, house-building

targets. And this is the sort of issue that a modern whipped Ukip

counsellor will be able to represent the community. And even if we leave

Europe? Yes, Ukip continues. Thank you. And we will be talking to the

Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats about the local elections

in England next week. You are watching the Sunday Politics. We say

goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now for Sunday Politics

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Labour is aiming to to win back members who voted Yes

to independence and have switched to the SNP - but will its

The SNP hopes to be toasting its third consecutive term in office.

Can it continue to manage the expectations of voters?

Labour has one clear task in this election -

to win back those supporters who voted yes in the independence

It's campaigning to use the additional powers coming

to Holyrood and on raising taxes which it says will

It's an attempt to carve out a distinctively Scottish,

But polls suggest that voters are divided on the subject

They're not convinced that Scottish Labour can provide

Indeed the narrowing of the gap between Labour and the Conservatives

could be interpreted as an indication that the party

isn't necessarily seen as an effective opposition either.

Kezia Dugdale is shooting for success. Or is at least trying to.

Kezia Dugdale has been elected. She took over from a Scottish Labour

leader just over a year ago, promising to rebuild the party after

several crushing election defeats. Kezia Dugdale was born in Aberdeen

and studied law at the city's University. She says she became an

MSP by accident. Now, as Labour leader, she is trying to position

the party as anti-austerity. Labour have clearly decided to pitch from a

relatively left-wing area, saying we're going to increase taxes in

order to avoid spending cuts. Certainly for around many Scots,

including people who say they are going to vote for the SNP, this

actually looks like a pretty popular so certainly, Labour's message on

tax, if they can persuade people it would deliver better public

services, could potentially be a vote winner. Kezia Dugdale says her

manifesto will be the most positive one ever, although we have no way to

judge that, because she has not published it yet. But we do know

Labour wants to boost funding for public services, cat tax the rich to

improve education, and scrap council tax. However, the party also faces a

post independence referendum challenge. Labour's problem is that

maybe as much as two in five of those people who once used to vote

for the party voted for independence in September 2014, and very few of

them have so far change their minds, and having voted for independence,

they now want to carry on voting for the SNP, not only last year, but

this year as well. So how might that play out? Kezia Dugdale is Scottish

Labour's eight leader since 1999. Our opponents may well wonder how

well her party has to do for her to stay in the job.

Let's start with independence, shall we? You'd told the Fabian Society

that of Scotland voted to stay in the EU and the UK voted to leave,

you said you would possibly vote for independence. You have said since

then that she did not express yourself very well. What were you

thinking? I have made it very clear in the weeks and months since that

interview, which was back in February, that I was very proud to

vote no. I campaigned for two and a half years to say why Scotland was

better placed within the UK and I would do so again and Labour's

manifesto... So why did you say that? There is a clear commitment

now that we all pose a second referendum on independence. So if we

vote to leave the EU and Scotland votes to stay in and there is

another independence referendum, you would put staying in the UK ahead of

being a Scotland in Europe? As I say, the manifesto which we will

publish on Wednesday will have a very clear commitment to oppose a

second referendum and there is a reason for that that I would like to

get onto talking about. Unless you win the election, it will not be

your choice. What I am asking you is if there is... If Scotland does vote

to stay in the EU and Britain votes if there is... If Scotland does vote

to leave and there is another independence referendum, will you

campaign for a no vote under those circumstances? I do not accept that

there will be another referendum. Just speculate wildly. In every

scenario, I would vote no gain because I believe that the economic

case for independence has fallen apart. I believe that the best way

to pull and share resources is together. Should Scotland vote to

stay in the EU if Britain votes to leave and there is another

independence referendum, you will vote to stay in the UK? I will

always vote no against independence because the economics of

independence have fallen apart but we have got to be very clear. We

were told that this was a once in a lifetime, once in a generation

opportunity. We spent two and a half years campaigning on the issue and

85% of the population voted in that. The result should be respected and

we should spend the next five years talking about how we will use the

powers of the Scottish Parliament to create a more equal country. I think

regardless of whether you are yes or no in that referendum, that is what

you want. Move on from those arguments of the past and talk about

the powers of the parliament. That is what you say but presumably given

what you told us on this programme last autumn, should there be another

independence referendum in those circumstances and the SNP say they

would like one, there would be nothing to stop the Labour Party

members voting and campaigning for a vote to leave the UK and stay in

Europe? I can't be any clearer than I have with you today. I was proud

to vote no. I would vote no again. When I asked you last autumn weather

Labour MPs in this piece -- or MSPs should be able to campaign for

independence, you said yes. That is pretty unequivocal. Every Labour MSP

that was there during the light of the independence referendum voted

no. I've said he very clearly what the platform and the manifesto will

say. But you said your MPs should be able to vote yes. I will always vote

no. That is not what I am asking you. You have asked a number of

questions but I am answering them as clearly as I possibly can. Are you

saying that Labour members would not be allowed to campaign for a yes

vote? What I have said many times before is the reality that something

like a third of Scottish Labour voters around the country to a

different position from what the party was advocating for any

referendum, because what unites people in the Labour Party is a

desire to tackle poverty and inequality. That is what brings us

together and what drives us. I am sure it does but it is not an answer

to my question. So when the sure it does but it is not an answer

Conservatives say that now they are the only big party in Scotland,

which clearly an equivocally stands up for the union, you have given

these incidents we are going over a year, they have got a point, haven't

they? I utterly refute that the Scottish Tories are any good at

maintaining and supporting the union. I will give you four very

simple reasons why. It was David Cameron within hours of the

referendum result who was advocating English books for English laws,

which undermined the whole referendum process that we had been

through. -- English votes. What the Tories say is that if you do

interviews what you say is that you would not inconceivably vote for

independence and you say that Labour MPs can campaign for independence if

they want to, so then the position of your party is not unambiguous. It

is important to say that it is Ruth Davidson who cannot be trusted on

the issue because her party have done more to divide working people

across this country than anyone can possibly imagine. I am trying to do

is to say that we had a very healthy and democratic process in the

referendum and the result should be respected. I think people who voted

both yes and no want to move on from that and the big issue at this

election is how we can use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to

deliver that change that so many people want to see. Let me quote you

deliver that change that so many from a leader in the daily record,

hardly a paper unsympathetic to the Labour Party. They said, the party

still have no idea about what to do Labour Party. They said, the party

about the surge of support for independence that accompanied the

referendum. Their fortunes will not be revived until they do. I think

lots of people that voted yes during the referendum voted yes not because

they were die-hard emotional nationalists, they voted yes because

yes represented a way to change this country, to make it more just, and

what I am arguing in this election is that we now have a very powerful

Scottish parliament, a substantial tax and welfare powers. We have the

ability to stop obscenity and to end the cuts, to make different choices

from the Tories and that is what I want to focus on. The chance to use

those powers to do something differently from the Tories. Are you

going to come ahead of the Tories? I want to win this election, Gordon. I

see that the polls are challenging. Will you come ahead of the Tories?

see that the polls are challenging. It is not enough for me to aspire to

lead the opposition. I want to be in Government. But realistically, is

there anything on the doorsteps that tells you you're going to come out

clearly ahead of the Conservatives? I caught a little bit of your

package from John Curtis. I didn't hear it all as I was coming into the

studio but you heard in that package a great deal of support for the

policies that we are advocating, particularly around the use of the

tax powers. There have been at least three or four balls that say that

people like the idea that we have the powers in the Scottish

Parliament to make different choices from the Tories, not to use our

parliament as a conveyor belt for Tory cuts but to do things

differently and Labour bust manifesto would be the first to talk

about how to use our tax powers at which gives people an opportunity to

vote for change, and into austerity. If you lose to the Tories, will you

resign? No. I have said right from the beginning that the Labour

Party's problems did not happen overnight and will not be finished

overnight. If you come in last? Even if that were to happen, I would

absolutely continue in the post. I have always said that I have a

long-term plan to turn around the fortunes of the Labour Party. I have

just started that work. A very big part of that is putting forward a

much clearer sense of what the Scottish Labour Party is for, what

we stand for and who we stand with. You can see from the report that

John Curtis put out there that there is a lot of support for those

John Curtis put out there that there policies. Irrespective of the

results, we have had bad news this week, on a climate in Scotland going

up faster than anywhere else in Britain. Some economists worry that

the Scottish economy could be heading for recession, incomes have

been stagnant, we desperately need people to get... To get people

spending more money and gets in economic activity going. Just about

that last thing, a situation like that, while the Government pay taxes

up? Digg it is a very old-fashioned argument to say that the only weak

support business is by cutting taxes. Actually, if you look at the

growing economies across Europe and wider around the world, the best

thing we do in an increasingly globalised world is invest in the

schools and the knowledge of our people, so I would say to you,

Gordon... Lets not get into it. I can see the argument. Right, good.

It is a very good thing to do to invest in schools and people. Right

now, when we have got bad news and deployment, when we have stagnant

incomes and we are arguably, and as your party has argued, we need a

stimulus to the economy, putting your party has argued, we need a

taxes up which sucks demand out of the economy is precisely

taxes up which sucks demand out of opposite of what we need to be

doing, surely? I disagree because if you look at the big employers where

we have seen job losses and all of those people out of work, we have to

help them gain new skills and new opportunities for the future.

But everyone else's taxes up is hardly a way to help the unemployed.

Anyone earning less than ?20,000 a year is not going to pay tax. I

don't want to get into a discussion about who pays. Overall, if you put

people's taxes up, even if it is only a fiver a month, but have

either they might not be paying in their local shops, a fiver where

they might take the bus, rather than a cab in Aberdeen, where the economy

is very distressed and cab drivers could do with the extra money. It is

an economic basic - you're taking the band out of the economy. I'm

afraid that's not correct and there is an independent expert's at Vicey

can point to de Bruyn that'll stop the IPPR have proved that more

action leads to an increase in GDP into the billions of pounds. By

when? Our plans are for the lifetime of the next Parliament. That's the

manifesto proposal. It still doesn't answer my point that taking demand

out of the economy... Look, if you can provide analysis that shows that

spending public money on schools and education in the short term puts

more money into the economy than the tax spending that you take out of

it, then fine, but I'll bet my bottom dollar you can't produce any

evidence showing that. A part of the problem in Scotland today is how

short-term our approach to public policy is. The Labour Party is the

only one advocating about what Scotland might look like in ten, 20,

30 years, and the decisions that we have to make now... I'm talking in

the papers today about the need to invest in coding skills. The last

Labour government face the financial crisis in 2008 and clearly hadn't

read the Kezia Dugdale economic expert. They cut VAT as a way of

pumping money into the economy for top you're proposing to do the

opposite. If you look at growing economies across Europe and across

the world, those that are doing well are investing in the skills and

knowledge of their people. I want Scotland to have a world-class

education system, where we invest in the skills and training for people

at all ages. You can't do that, though, without finding the money to

do that and the reality is, not only could we make the wrong choice by

not pursuing this path but we will face further cuts if we are left

following the decisions of the SNP and the Tories, which will

exacerbate the problem. Can I ask you about another issue, named

persons' legislation. Jenny Marra, one of your closest colleagues, said

she regretted that she voted for it in the first place and that she

would now oppose it. Is Labour now opposed to a? No, we support the

would now oppose it. Is Labour now Prince will of named person. I was

the education spokesperson for the party during the passage of that

bill. Why is Jenny Marra wrong? Every leading children's charity in

the country came to me and said that this was what we needed to do to

protect the most vulnerable children and we supported that. We made some

very serious statements and concerns about the debate, which was

resourced. We were worried that the money wasn't there to do this

properly but we supported the principle. What has happened in

recent months and weeks as I've travelled the country and my

colleagues have done likewise, and we have met countless parents and

families who are at their wits' end with worry about this proposal,

which is why in recent weeks, I have said that if there was a Labour

government, we would pause the introduction of this legislation.

There is an important point to come here. I have to say this to you. We

would ask the children's commissioner who supports the scheme

to try and rebuild that trust and faith which has been lost before it

is introduced. With your manifesto have a commitment to scrapping

Trident? The manifesto will say that following a decision taken as a

party conference in table, we oppose the renewal of Trident and we would

like to see those jobs protected with the defence diversification

agency. And you won't agree with a word of it? I have said for many

months now and on your programme before now but when I took over the

leadership of the Labour Party there were mixed views on the future of

Trident. For me as leader, I did some unique, to have a healthy

democratic process. Every other party leader I've interviewed, at

least I can rely on the fact that what's in their manifesto might be a

load of old rubbish but they actually do believe in it. You are

the first leader I've interviewed who doesn't agree with a very

important issue that in their own manifesto. The manifesto that we'll

important issue that in their own be publishing this week is a

programme for government for the next five years of the Scottish

Parliament elections. It is driven fundamentally by a different... A

lot of people watching this will just say, hang on a minute - she

doesn't even agree with what's on her own manifesto. That tells you

all you need to know about the Labour Party in Scotland. The

difference between the SNP and the Tories and Labour is that whilst

they obsess with personality style elections, what you have in the

Labour manifesto is a manifesto, a set of policies and platforms, that

have been brought together in a healthy, democratic way through our

movement with our party members, the trade unions, hundreds of

stakeholders across the country. Is there a big idea in your manifesto

you haven't announced it? You're on national TV - you might as well say

it. The biggest idea we have is applied to stop the cuts and invest

in education. So there is no big new idea in your manifesto. It's the

same idea we've been arguing for months and that's what you expect.

With you ever become First Minister? I very much hope so. But are you

confident? I would love the opportunity to serve this country.

OK, thank you. The SNP is hoping to secure it's

third consecutive term in government, and even

the opposition parties concede that it's likely

to succeed in that aspiration. Nicola Sturgeon, leading her party

into a Scottish election for the first time, says she's

immensely proud of what the party has achieved over the past nine

years, but stresses that "the journey to a fairer,

more equal and prosperous With more powers over tax

and spending, pledges to grow the economy,

increase spending on the NHS and education and create

a new social security bill, can the party take us further along

that journey and closer Pretty much everyone accepts Nicola

Sturgeon's SNP will be toasting a third term in office this may. The

party has been attracting new members by the thousand, who seem to

like the SNP's collection policies, which include boosting NHS funding

and free childcare, and the party's defining mission - closing the

attainment gap in education. The SNP's strength lies in the fact that

of the 45% people who voted for independence in September 2014, most

of them are now voting for the SNP and are wanting to reaffirm their

of them are now voting for the SNP support for independence I backing

the party. So the truth is, the party's commitment to independence,

albeit one that it may not try to deliver for the next five years, is

undoubtedly the central calling card that the SNP have in this election,

much as they did 12 months ago. Success has been a long time coming

for Nicola Sturgeon, who was born in urban and join the SNP as a

teenager. The former solicitor was elected as an MSP in 1999. And in

2014 she became leader of the SNP and Scotland's first female First

Minister. Rubbish! You're a harsh critic! But Ms Sturgeon has her

critics and there are other challenges. The danger that perhaps

the SNP have to avoid is challenges. The danger that perhaps

because they are appearing to be largely reluctant to use their new

taxation powers in order to increase spending in Scotland, as to whether

or not that we'll begin to disenchant some of their voters,

many of whom have switched to the party from Labour because they

thought it was the more left-wing party. Certainly not being seen to

be left-wing enough and, as a result, not Scottish above, is

certainly the potential pitfall. That said, there's no indication of

a dip in the SNP's popularity any time soon.

Bra second interview of the day we are turning to the SNP. -- for our

second interview. A short while ago I spoke

to the First Minister and SNP You say in your manifesto that

reason for holding another independence referendum would be if

there is a significant material change in the circumstances

prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against

our will. So if Scotland votes to stay in the EU but Britain votes to

leave, will there be another independence referendum? There may

well be. But will there be? Is a your plan to have one? I think that

would depend on the circumstances and the narrowness of the results

overall. I'm hoping that scenario doesn't arrive, which is why I'm a

bit reluctant to get dragged into all of the spec elation around.

Abbey campaigning very hard for Scotland to vote to stay in and I

hope the rest of the UK votes to stay in. -- I'll be campaigning. But

given the centrality of the issue to the Scottish referendum and the fact

that those campaigning them for a no vote said we would get chucked out

of Europe if we voted yes, to get taken out of Europe now against our

will would, to many people, including people who voted no in

2014, say it is time to think again. I'm not asking you a spec that of

question. You are the First Minister of Scotland. You are quite likely to

be the First Minister of Scotland. I'm asking you as First Minister, if

that scenario comes to pass, will you hold another referendum? I think

it is highly likely will have another referendum in those

circumstances because people will want to protect our man Bishop of

the EU. But what I'm also saying is that notwithstanding my lifelong,

passionate supporter and dependence, I hope those are not the

circumstances. -- supporter of independence. You are the First

Minister. Will you organise it? If we are taken out of the EU against

our will, I will want to give the people of Scotland the opportunity

to protect our U membership by looking again at the opportunity of

independence I will the circumstances at the time. What does

that mean? It means exactly what I'm telling you. I can't be any clearer.

I think you could be a lot clearer. What does judging the circumstances

mean? We would have to wait to see what the precise outcome of the

referendum was, what the narrowness or otherwise of the result was in

Scotland versus the rest of the UK, but I am saying very clearly I think

that would be a democratically unacceptable situation for Scotland

to be in. If Scotland votes to stay in the EU but Britain votes to leave

and if it's quite a clear vote... In the circumstances, we would almost

and if it's quite a clear vote... In certainly be in this situation of

looking again at independence. Even if the poll showed you would win an

independence referendum? That is exactly the situation I'm describing

in terms of judging the circumstances. In the event that

that scenario arises... But I know personally people who have voted no

in 2014 and did so quite pass he would change their dip to an

independence should that price. But again, I hope the situation doesn't

arise. I take your point. You are not being clear on this. A lot of

people suspect that what the SNP's real policy is is to hold an

independence referendum when the polls are going your way. If this

issue of Europe is a matter of principle for you and if Scotland

votes by a substantial majority to stay in and Britain votes to leave,

why can't you say, irrespective of what the polls show about

independence we should have another referendum? I think democracy

matters in the round and you choose to characterise it as me wanting

another referendum when the polls show I can win it but what I'm

saying is rooted in democracy. There will be another referendum on

independence in Scotland if and when there is evidence that a majority of

people want there to be independence. I actually think that

is likely. Which means, when the polls go your way. When people of

change their opinion from 2014. That means when the polls go your way.

You are choosing to characterise it as that. I would characterise it as

when people have changed their minds from the situation in 2014. It is,

if you like, respectively 2014 decision. If people don't change

their view, I'd only get would be right to say that we should ask the

question again. Equally, if people do change their view, it would be

wrong to stand on the way of that. It's absolutely rooted in democracy.

What you are actually saying is, if Scotland votes to stay in the EU by

a substantial majority and Britain votes to leave, you would like to

hold a referendum but you won't hold a referendum if the polls show you

won't win it? I am saying that my position on a second referendum is

rigid in democracy. If we are in the situation, which I hope doesn't

arise, that Scotland is effectively facing the prospect of being dragged

out of the EU against our will, I think there will be an overwhelming

demand to look again at the question of independence. The question I'm

asking you is, is holding a referendum for you a matter of

principle on the issue of Europe or is it just another tactical ploy and

what you really mean is, when the polls go our way we will have an

independence referendum? I want Scotland to be independent. I've

argued this case for my entire adult life and I believe independence is

the best future for Scotland but I'm also a Democrat and I believe that

the decisions about the future of our country should be driven by

majority opinion in our country. I also hope that the UK doesn't vote

to come out of the EU but I think it would be such a democratic outrage

of Scotland were to be taken out of the EU against our will that I think

there would be an overwhelming demand in those circumstances to

have another referendum. You say you are a Democrat. The democratic norm

would be to do what you did in 2011 - you have a manifesto which says

"Vote SNP and if you vote for us and we form a government we will hold a

referendum". What is different between now and 2011 is that we had

a referendum and much to my regret, we narrowly failed to get a "yes"

vote. It is reasonable to say that I respect that outcome and I will be

doing my best to change the outcome of -- change the opinion of people

in Scotland and persuade the people we didn't persuade in 2014 to back

independence as the best future for Scotland. So at the next election

you'll have a manifesto which says Scotland. So at the next election

"Vote SNP and we will have another referendum". I am standing on a

manifesto that is before you there and it says that the onus is on me,

the SNP, those who support independence to persuade more people

than we managed in 2014 and if we are successful in that, we will earn

the right to ask the question again. If we are not successful we went on

that right. It is simple and rooted in democracy.

You can't call a referendum just because the polls are going your

way. David Cameron cant call a general election just because the

polls are going his way. You are saying that you can call a

referendum just because the opinion polls are saying that. The reason

why we have long argued the referendum richer independence is

that we recognise and have long recognised that in a general

election, you are Scottish, people vote for a variety of different

reasons. The question of the constitutional future of the country

can only be determined through a referendum. But I am saying is that

given we have had a in 2014, clearly I want to have a second one, but in

order to end the rate for that, I have got to persuade more people

that independence is the best future for our country. What this boils

down to is that it what you are saying is that if you are in the

administered after me, you will have another referendum, and if you are

not, you will not. I respect the opinion of the people in Scotland. I

do not understand what any Democrats finds objectionable about that. What

I find objectionable is the politicians of this election who are

saying that regardless of the opinions of the Scottish people,

they would block the right of the Scottish people to choose their own

future. Right, that there is no legs as deflation to do this. --

legislation. I can't imagine any legislation that would say that

Nicola Sturgeon can hold a referendum whenever she feels like

it. We have to bring forward a legislation for a second referendum

just as we did previously. We set the precedent in 2014 of how a

consensual and democratic referendum can be conducted. One of your

problems is that way back in 2007 you cut class sizes for primary

school children who were in primary is 1-3. You have not done that. Is

the promise they are in your current manifesto? There are plenty of

pledges and commitments. We have reduced class sizes. No, the

proportion of children in those under 18 class sizes is actually

lower now than it was when you came to power. I am fighting an election

on the pledges in the manifesto that is before you on the table there and

central to the manifesto that I have put forward is a commitment to

tackling the attainment gap in Scottish education, to making

substantial progress in that over the next Parliament, to eliminating

that over a decade. ?750 million of additional investment, specifically

to tackle the attainment gap, much of that going direct to

headteachers. That is the commitment I have made. I have asked to be

judged on that commitment. What I was really getting at was your

manifesto contains a rather mangled form of words about an independence

referendum, which you lost less than two years ago. But on a commitment

that you made a great fuss about in 2007, which you have never kept, and

you are actually doing worse now than the previous Labour

administration, there is not a word about it. The whole of Scotland had

the opportunity to cast their verdict on our performance in the

last election. That retirement is an SNP Government with a majority. I

have put education as the centrepiece of the manifesto.

Reducing class sizes, maintaining the number of teachers is part of

what we will do. Why are you doing worse than the previous Labour

administration? I do not accept that is the case on a whole range of

issues. We are showing... On this specific issue. I am sure the

attainment gap is narrowing, but I want to do better and faster, so

that is why I put education at the Art of this manifesto. On the NHS

commune said we will have new elective care centres and a new

clinical care strategy. We had a new clinical care strategy before the

dissolution of Parliament. There are no proposals to close hospitals as

part of our manifesto. What we are saying in that manifesto is that to

deal with the impact of an ageing population, then we need to expand

the capacity to deal with treating operations like knee replacement,

hip replacements, cataract operations. Will A services have

to close? There are no proposals to close A services. Will any

services which are provided locally have to close? Health boards will

judge local areas on an ongoing basis but there are no proposals to

close places in our manifesto. You have said you will protect access to

close places in our manifesto. You care wherever possible. The words

whenever possible imply that there may be those cases. We are trying to

shift more care out of hospitals completely, so we need to make sure

our hospitals are fit for the fact that we have an ageing population.

They might be some people who love to travel or some small hospitals

that have to close down. There are procedures that gave you years

ago... I remember when my Gran had a cataract operation, she was in

hospital for seven days. Nowadays, you go into hospital to have a

cataract operation and you go in and out on the same morning often saw

the nature of health care is changing. We have got to make

sure... What I am getting at is that I remember in 2007 one of the

reasons you won the election was by campaigning against a Labour plan

for specialist centres which looks campaigning against a Labour plan

remarkably similar to what you're proposing now? I campaign in 2007

amongst other things on a to overturn the closure of A in

amongst other things on a to Monklands and in air. One of the

first things I did as Health Secretary was to overturn the

closure of these A units. They are still open today, treating hundreds

of thousands of patients and they will remain open as will other A

services. Will we have 70 access to GPs? -- seven day. What David

Cameron is talking about is we have junior doctors out on strike. What

we need to make sure is that when ever you access health care in this

country, you get access to good quality care, whether it is during

the week or at weekends, and we are working to do that. One of the other

things I didn't Health Secretary was extend the opening hours of GP

practices so that more GP practices now are open early in the morning or

on Saturday mornings and you will see in our manifesto commitment to

extend that. You have all these wonderful pledges in your manifesto

about more money for health care and hospitals and education, but you are

against putting up taxes. What are you going to cut to pay for all

this? The taxable salt in our manifesto, when you take income tax

and local tax together. Over the next Parliament will raise at a

minimum and additional ?2 billion in revenue. That is the revenue that we

pay for health care commitments on education at health in our

manifesto. ?2 billion of additional revenue raised from our reforms to

local taxation and from the fact that we are not passing on a tax cut

to higher rate income payers. So these are old proposals that will

enable us to protect public services. We are going to raise at

least ?2 billion to invest in our public services. But you will not

cut anything? We will put forward our budgets each and every year, but

we will raise additional revenue so that we do mitigate Tory cuts, but I

want to continue also to find Tory cuts at their source in Westminster.

But there will not be any cuts here? This is a manifesto for additional

spending on health and education, funded by the tax proposals we are

putting forward. The difference between the SNP and Labour in the

collection of taxes that we are not going to raise tax on low income

earners because we do not think it is fair that they shoulder the

budget -- burden of Tory austerity. I'm curious. There is nothing

illegitimate about it. Your picture is on the front. I don't think it is

the first time a picture of the party leader has appeared on the

front of a manifesto. You have had all these rallies and people treat

you with a certain amount of adulation. Not you, I think it is

fair to say. But you don't strike me as the sort of person who would

necessarily be very comfortable with personal adulation. That is not how

I choose to describe it because it is not how it feels to me. I'm

I choose to describe it because it to make a point that is very

personal to me and very important to me. I have been acutely aware each

and every day of the last year and they have that I became First

Minister during a parliamentary term. I am very proud and privileged

to have become First Minister, but I want to get a personal mandate in

this election, so it is the first time that I am asking people to vote

for me as First Minister and that is something I take very seriously. I

don't know that I will ever be comfortable at seeing pictures of

myself everywhere. I'm not any politician is, but I understand it

is a necessary process. We will have to leave it there. Nicola Sturgeon,

thank you very much. I'll be back at the usual time

of eleven o'clock next week. Shelley Jofre hosts the final

Scotland 2016 debate on Housing on Tuesday night at half past ten

on BBC 2 Scotland.