24/04/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


With Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer. Guests include Dominic Raab MP, Lucy Powell MP and Diane James MEP. On the political panel are Janan Ganesh, Isabel Oakeshott and Nick Watt.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


With Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer.

Dominic Raab MP discusses the EU Referendum; Lucy Powell MP discusses Labour and the May Elections; and Diane James MEP discusses UKIP and the May Elections.

On the political panel are Janan Ganesh of The Financial Times, Isabel Oakeshott of The Daily Mail and Nick Watt of The Guardian.

Download Subtitles