15/05/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Guests include Iain Duncan Smith MP to discuss the EU referendum.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



comparing the mission of the European Union with


what Hitler was trying to achieve - has the Leave campaign's self-styled


Churchillian attack dog gone too far?


He says leaving the European Union


will improve the lives of the "have nots" -


but is the man who presided over billions of pounds of welfare


cuts really on the side of working people?


Reducing the powers of the House of Lords


would not be acceptable, says the woman charged with keeping order


in the upper house - but with 60 government defeats


in the last year alone have their Lord and Ladyships


And coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:


As the dust settles on the Scottish election, we'll be speaking live


to the Greens' Patrick Harvie about his party's plans and policies


And with me - as always - three journalists who'd have been


sure to win the Eurovision political punditry contest: Helen Lewis,


Isabel Oakeshott and Amol Rajan who'll be tweeting throughout


So earlier in the week the Prime Minister warned that


leaving the EU could precipitate armed conflict in Europe.


Today, Boris Johnson hits back, comparing the European Union


to Hitler in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph:


"Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out,


The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods."


Boris goes on to say "The euro has become a means by which superior


German productivity is able to gain an absolutely unbeatable advantage


Could you organise an ordinance that British politicians should just shut


up about Hitler? It is an interesting one, the campaign are


getting quite grumpy, saying that he was not really talking about Hitler.


Boris is to clever not to know that if you mention Napoleon and Hitler


people will write headlines. He is a columnist and he knows this. It is


bizarre. It was Sadiq Khan sitting at home thinking he was the only


London mayor was not mentioned Hitler? The campaign has become


quite personal, it is about David Cameron's relationship with them,


and whether he has a hope of becoming leader. And as always like


to make things personal. It does not surprisingly in the slightest that


it is becoming more personal as the clock ticks towards the key date. On


Boris Johnson's comments, absolutely agree with Helen but no good can


come of a politician mentioning Hitler, but the reaction to the


remarks has been rather hysterical. If anyone bothers reading the


context... In the context. The Mac was an absolutely reasonable


statement of historical fact. We should not get to a point where


nobody can mention anything historical without it creating a


ridiculous action. I don't think it will be arise if it helps them win


votes. He fancies herself as an inherent to Winston Churchill, it


was in store. In your dreams, if the copy had come in and you had seen


the word logo might think you have a chance for a headline. Ever since


the collapse of the Roman Empire there have been attempts to unify


Europe. In a way, the Germans have that... There was a slight


difference in having endless pragmatic committees and ruling


tanks and to Poland. By different means is quite different. He was


arguing it was an attempt to unify Europe, it is bundled together


different ideas. It is a bit of a stretch. But overstretch! I think


there was a real danger... And what is the European Union, parable?


People support Brexit would say it was an attempt to build a European


super structure without a Democratic base. Democratic nations. It is


completely reasonable. Ireland begins to cover girl to make


important arguments about historical trends. Butler was Fromer remark.


He only mentioned Napoleon. Maybe he should have mentioned other leaders.


What do you make of the polls, showing neck and neck but they are


so far ahead in the economic argument, and that is why we will


win. They always hoped that. The evidence is that people put the


economy as the highest concern. What the Leave campaign is trying to do,


we've seen this from Nigel Farage, make the point that this is not just


about GDP, a few extra pounds in your pocket. The Leave campaign will


be hoping to highlight the question of what this means for society.


Now - would leaving the European Union be good


for the poor and disadvantaged in Britain?


That's the case that's being made by the former Work


and Pension Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.


I will be talking to him in a moment.


But first let's hear the warnings earlier this week about


the short-term impact of Brexit on the economy


from the Governor Bank of England, Mark Carney.


A vote to leave the European Union could have material economic effects


on the exchange rate, on demand, and on the economy's


So, this combination of influences on demand,


supply and the exchange rate could lead to a materially lower


path for growth and a notably higher path for inflation


than in the central projections set out in today's


Welcome back to the Sunday Politics. You've claimed that leaving the EU


would be good for the have nots but the Governor of the Bank of England


says it could lead to recession, inflation, unemployment. That could


be bad. If all the predictions were right. Every single one of these


predictions is done by groups of people who've got most of their


predictions wrong. The point I would make to you, the Treasury prediction


and the IMS prediction all show that if Britain left the EU the economy


would grow. Their argument is it would not grow as fast but how you


can predict a 0.6% variation is beyond me. He was the point I really


believe about the bank, which is where I find this very back. I think


the bank, the governor has strayed into an expression of a simple,


personal prediction. I don't think it is actually possible for you to


say with any absolute accuracy that that will happen. In a sense, when


you listen to what he said, he started to nuance about the idea, he


was not seeing it actually would be comic he said he thought it could be


about that. Here is my point about the independence of the Bank of


England. Section ten of the 1998 act makes it very clear that if he is to


talk about monetary policies, for which he has independence, he has to


be open, impartial and all things must be available. Last year, in


2015, when he spoke about the threat to the British economy, he made the


point which Mervyn King has made that the euro instability and the


crash has been very damaging to the British economy and will be even


more damaging as it goes on. Notice that when he came out on Thursday he


said nothing about the overall problems if we remained in. If


you're going to be impartial then you had damned well better say


something about the alternative case and the threats of remaining are


very clear. Mervyn King said there is a crisis going on and he does not


see an end to it. Why don't we hear from him about that? Has he breached


his obligations as Governor of the Bank of England? I believe that he


has. Should he resign? I think he ought to be asked why he has not


brought out both sides of the issue. He used to work for Goldman Sachs.


They are running through this, funding the campaign, he has been


very clear on it. You bring out Goldman Sachs, lack of impartiality,


you think he is not keeping his remit, should he resign? I think he


needs to answer about this one simple charge. I would like to see


the e-mail exchange over this issue, the telephone conversation minutes,


to see whether the Treasury has had any involvement in this process


whatsoever, what worries me slightly about what is going on, the Bank of


Scotland comes out on Thursday and then suddenly the head of the IMF


comes out on Friday with a similar prediction. These are the same


people that were telling us all that the UK is too small to leave and too


insignificant. Now we are so insignificant that we are plunging


the world into an economic crash. Are we saying this was an accident?


The governor did not call? Let me ask you this, we know what made...


Are you saying they are colluding? I wonder. Do you have any evidence?


Suddenly on Wednesday and Thursday, you have reports coming out, do you


think they spoke to each other about what they are doing? I wonder about


that. The Chancellor is supporting the governor, he then stands behind


Christine Lagarde. We know that they are players in this. The IMF always


works with them. We know which major economic authorities you don't like.


The Treasury, the IMF, the Bank of England, the OECD, which major


economic authorities do you rate? There have been some good reports


out, there are a number of good economists, lots of others from the


city who have produced a report which got very little coverage about


the prospect... Any major economic apologies? Yes but when they have


come out with these reports they have said the UK would continue to


grow. Not as quickly. Not as quickly. My point is if you're going


to be balanced you need to constantly reference that point and


if they want to say that there is a possibility this could lead to a


problem he must also point out that if we remain there is a possibility


that we will be damaged by this. You made that .3 times. Let me ask you,


can you name a major economic authority on your side of the


argument? I would not expect one to be on our side. So you have none? It


would be completely unusual for all these institutions not to want to


act the status quo. All these institutions said there was no


problem in 2007 and then one year later we hit the buffers and the


economy went down. None of them predicted it. Including the


Conservatives. None of them have apologised for their failure.


I want to show you this chart. This shows our balance of payments, our


deficit. It is the difference between our exports and imports. We


import a lot more than we export in goods and services. It has


continually got worse under your government. This deficit, which is


multi-billion, is financed by foreigners who buy our sterling as I


to make up the gap. If Brexit create a falling pound, why would the


foreigners continue to pay for our deficit? If the economy didn't


perform, why would be, but if you look at all those who predicted


where we would be now, they all said the threat of Brexit would actually


bring the pound crashing. The pound is now rising back up, close to


where it was when we started this campaign. 10% on last November. We


had this deficit, it is financed by foreigners. If they lose confidence


in this country, confidence in Stirling, how do we pay for this? We


have to make sure we run the economy in a way that they have confidence


in it, we have to get some of those regulations down, we have to make


British industry more competitive. We have to have a better plan to get


industry working again. That would be in the long term, this could be a


short-term problem that could hit in the summer. If it results leaving in


an uncontrolled, plummeting sterling, and the foreigners because


of the uncertainty and sterling going down are saying we are not


going to continue to finance it, the bank would have to raise interest


rates, wouldn't it? If that was the circumstance, yes, but it is what


you plan to do. Why are they investing in what we are doing at


the moment? They buy the bonds because they believe the Government


has a long-term plan to get the deficit down and reduce borrowing.


Therefore they believe the UK is a good investment and running a trade


surplus with the rest of the world. We are running a huge deficit. Yes,


but we are running a trade surplus. If they need to finance this


deficit, and it is not the budget deficit, it is how the foreigners by


our assets in order to help us run this deficit. If interest rate did


rise, it follows that mortgage rates could rise substantially. Yes but


the alternative could be the same, in other words if they believe what


we are doing is right for the economy they are prepared to back


it, which means you wouldn't have rising interest rates. All of this


is speculation because we don't know. Boris Johnson has admitted


that after Brexit there would be a Nike tick, that he believes the


economy would take a hit, but it would recover strongly. Do you


believe that? Possibly but this is speculation about something nobody


knows. There has been speculation about forecast in these economies,


most of them are wrong because people are unable to tell us about


what they think about our prospects afterwards. If we vote to leave, we


are already able to show we can get our money back in due course and we


are able to start planning our own economy so we are able to get the


kind of deals we need. That shows you have a plan that works. You


could offer short-term crisis in the interim, couldn't you? They are


worried whether their mortgage will have risen by August or September of


this year. If that were to happen but the word is if. This is pure


speculation. The point I am making is that the reality is it may go in


the opposite direction. Nobody can say that. The EU guarantees a number


of social protections for workers, covering things like equal pay,


working time, maternity pay. Can you pledged to fight to maintain all of


these protections if we leave? All of these were accepted by the


Conservative government and I believe strongly then need to be


protections for workers. All of these things in a democracy are


debated but the British government have actually themselves instituted


protections for workers. So would you fight to keep the protections


they currently have under EU guarantees? As it stands, yes. Why


should people trust you because you opposed the Web Time directive in


1996, and voted against the minimum wage in 1997. Why would they have


not looked to you for this social protection? Because rather than


forecast ahead, look back at what has happened to them. The


immigration has damaged them. I'm simply saying what has happened,


therefore my argument has been, and you have known that over a long


time, over nine years I have argued this process has been most damaging


to the people at the low skilled end. That is the migration issue, it


may well be true. I'm asking you why should people trust you on these EU


social protections that they would remain if we came out since you


voted against them when they were being proposed? The working Time


directive gave little or no flexibility at the time. It has been


in place and we had to work with it. You protect the workforce but you


make sure the competition that they face in terms of their jobs is


actually fair competition, not unfair competition. What has


happened, as you saw on Thursday with the national insurance numbers,


is a very high proportion of people coming in in under 52 weeks here who


have no commitment to the UK often staying in bed sits, compete on the


low salary end of life. Is the working Time directive, which


guarantees the hours people work in a week and proper breaks, is that


guarantees the hours people work in safe after Brexit or not? UK law


would enshrine what we think is best for protection of workforce and that


is right. A democratic government will decide on what it thinks is


right. That is possible for Labour or Conservative. I believe it is


right to have it, the question is how flexible... People watching this


will not be reassured by this. I will stick to the agreements we


have. You point your fist in the Commons when the Chancellor


announced the new national living wage, now you say it is a magnet for


migrants, what changed? I said it is a good people for people wanting to


come and work here because they will get a higher wage. I am wholly in


favour of a rise to the minimum wage because I believe that over time


what happens to businesses is they have got around paying lower


wages... Would you still be in favour of it if we stayed in the EU?


Yes, because it is the best way you can drive the wages up but if we


stay in the EU it will become a magnet for people to come in here


and it will lead to huge problems. The point I made on Tuesday this


week was that have we have seen already lots of people from the EU


tend to come in. The vast majority of people coming from the European


Union into the UK, they tend to be low skills, they tend to be ones


taking a high proportion of those low skilled jobs. They have taken


them at lesser salary and driven it down. The overall average wage will


still be low for those on low skills. You have brought up


migration several times in this interview, isn't the blunt truth,


because I was asking about the economics, you are losing the


economic arguments, the polls show that, you are more dependent on


scaring people. John Major says: What do you say? Rubbish. Very


simple, he is talking nonsense. He said only a few years ago that there


was a real issue over immigration. The Government had a target to get


tens of thousands, the limit down to tens of thousands, we are not


achieving that. We talked about it in the run-up to the election. The


Prime Minister himself made a strong commitment that we would ensure our


borders were protected against people coming to be here so it is


nonsense because we are not raising this is an issue because we are


trying to win the referendum. Most people in the country believes there


is an issue about the open border with the European Union. Why is it


demagoguery, why is it extremism to speak for British people who feel


like their views are being tossed aside? If you don't do it, the


extreme parties get onto it. Was it wise Boris Johnson to compare the


EU's ambitions? I thought it was a good article because he spoke about


this nonsensical... Was it wise to compare it with Hitler? Do you think


Hitler's efforts to unify Europe are the same as the European Union's


efforts? I think the whole process of trying to drive Europe together


by force or democracy ultimately makes problems. Isn't this


referendum getting vaguely absurd? We have the Prime Minister dangling


the thought of world War three if we leave, and on your side we have


Boris Johnson saying Hitler and the European Union are on the same


script. It is both nonsense and you know that. All he is doing in the


interview is talking about the trend towards the idea, and he's using


historical parallels to explain it. You go through this great idea that


somehow there is a thing called greater Europe. Whether or not you


like the linguistics of this, my point remains the same. If you vote


to remain on the 23rd, you are voting, the 12 residents said it


clear that they intend to deepen... The five presidents. The five


presidents rather. David Cameron and George Osborne won't debate other


Tory ministers during the referendum, are they concerned about


party unity or just running scared? You will have to ask them. My view


about it is that it is right to have a proper debate and by not opening


that debate the British public will be left to wonder why they were not


allowed to see the two opposing sides of the argument from the


leading figures. You would debate the Prime Minister? Yes, we need to


get these things straight face-to-face. After all, if this


were an election would be Remain side be allowed to say we won't


debate Ed Miliband fustian might know, they cannot do that. There are


two side to this argument, if two sides have to debate it that is


right and proper. It should be down to impartiality that we have two


sides, the two sets of leaders. Iain Duncan Smith, thank you.


Now, the Commons are elected, the House of Lords are not


and is supposed to be a "revising chamber".


But have their lord and ladyships been overstepping the mark?


Over the the past year, they've inflicted 60 defeats


on a Government that's now poised to clip the Lord's wings -


reducing their power to block changes in the law.


But in an exclusive interview before she steps down as the speaker


of the House of Lords in the summer, Baroness D'Souza has told us


that the powers of the Lords should not be curtailed.


It's very obvious why they are called the crossbenchers,


My guide knows this place pretty well, how it works, who's who.


Since 2011, she's been Lord Speaker, a role which involves


overseeing proceedings here, representing the Lords at home


and abroad, and sitting on a sack of wool.


But the business in here over which Baroness D'Souza presides has


come under increasing criticism from the Government.


247 members of the House of Lords sit as Conservatives peers,


making the governing party a significant minority of the 807


members eligible to take part in the Upper House.


The Government has faced 60 defeats in the House of Lords in the most


The rate of defeats this time round is more than twice that


Then, the Government was defeated in less than a quarter


of votes compared to more than half in the present one.


Now there's a sense that the Lords are too rebellious, they have been


too rebellious over the last few years and essentially the Lords


You know, all governments and all parliamentarians,


or at least House of Commons, always feel that the House of Lords


is a place that thwarts them in one way or another.


And they're right, they do, but that is in the nature


They have all the power and rightly so.


I still think it's right that the Lords should be free


to scrutinise and to question and to hold the Government


to account, and to send back legislation which it feels is not


adequate, either in terms of its clarity or because perhaps it


infringes from time to time individual liberties


And that's exactly what happened last October.


The House of Lords effectively blocked the Government's proposed


changes to tax credits, a massive blow to George


Unelected Labour and Liberal Lords have voted down a matter passed


by the elected House of Commons, that raises constitutional issues


and David Cameron and I are clear they will need to be dealt with.


The way they dealt with it was to ask Lord Strathclyde


He concluded peers should lose their absolute veto over


detailed laws known as secondary legislation, and instead be allowed


only to send it back to the Commons to think again.


There's going to be a lively debate about this in the House of Lords


and I think that there will be a lot of views expressed and obviously


you would expect the Lords to want to retain their power


to scrutinise their power, their privilege.


If you start curtailing or eroding or limiting the power


of the Lords to do its job, there is a question


There is another question, too, over the sheer number


Baroness D'Souza told me she would be pushing for a Lords


motion in the new session, she says the House of Lords should


not be larger than the Commons, suggesting the number of peers


At least 20% of them should be independents or crossbenchers,


and no one party should have a political majority.


She said all of that can be achieved by 2020.


So, the size is making it inefficient?


It does have an impact unfortunately on the role of the House of Lords


in holding the Government to account.


It's very difficult if you're limited to sort of say,


in timed debates, a minute or two minutes to speak, to develop


a sustained argument which will convince your fellow


peers but also the Government of what it is you are


The traditional pomp and ceremony of the Lords is well known


but its relationship with the Commons and exactly


what role it can play in the future is far more uncertain.


And the man who was charged by the Government to review


the Lord's powers, Tam Strathclyde, joins us now from Oxfordshire.


Welcome to the programme. Nice to see the sun is shining rate you are.


We've just heard, what would be the point of the Lloyds if the powers


are watered down as your review proposes. What do you say to her?


There is no suggestion and no recommendation by anybody in


government to fundamentally change the powers of the House of Lords. I


made the most mild and humble recommendation about process, where


frankly most of us had understood that the customs and conventions


that had been built up would stick. Last October, they broke down, as a


result there is no consensus and agreement on what those powers could


be. I propose a new power to be able to reject and ask. What is


interesting is every school child knows that the purpose of the House


of Lords is to scrutinise but not to block. What happened was the House


of Lords using a veto and given it is unelected, I don't think that


power should ever be used. Is the government going to implement your


recommendations? Since I reported before Christmas there have been


four further reports, three in the House of Lords and one in the House


of Commons, commenting on this. I think what the government will want


to do is look carefully at these reports before responding. I don't


think there needs to be a rush to legislation, and there may well be


an attempt to get an agreement between the parties in the House of


Lords, between the two Houses of Parliament. But if that consensus


cannot be reached, I think the government will have no option but


to legislate on this matter. Your government has had 60 defeats at the


hands of the Lords. You wonder whether the conservative tune has


changed because it was Tory peers inflicting defeat on Labour


governments. Now you are getting a taste of your own historic medicine,


you just don't like it. I was Leader of the Opposition for most of those


years, particularly after the end of the last century. We did defeat the


government regularly on primary legislation, not secondary


legislation. What was interesting in your package is the government has


been defeated in the House of Lords many more times than it did in the


first Parliament of Tony Blair's government. Over half of all the


votes in the House of Lords are defeated. This is not revision and


scrutiny, this is not complementing the work of the House of Commons,


this is an aggressive political statement why the other political


parties. Is it really? This is a government which increasingly brings


forward ill thought out ideas which it has not planned in advance, not


without consultation, and is forced into U-turns. There has been a


series of them. That is why you need a second chamber, to do proper


scrutiny. I am the greatest defender of the second chamber and indeed, a


Conservative Party that fully understands the central tenets of


the Constitution, the balance between the houses, but what we've


seen in the last 12 months, and remember, this is the first 12


months of a new conservative administration, people who were


elected to government, scarcely one year ago, and what we've seen in the


House of Lords are blocking tactics, using vetoes rather than working


with the House of Commons in order to improve that legislation which


you rightly criticise. Are you a supporter of the way that


governments have bloated the House of Lords? There are over 800 active


peers. The US Senate needs 100 and it has real power. You've not got


much power and those over 800 of you. Is that sensible? When Mr Blair


and his friends throughout the hereditary peers in the 1990s I did


argue that there was an inevitable consequence that prime ministers


would try to increase their own numbers in the house. What's


interesting about Mr Cameron is he has created far more Labour peers.


Wide of the need to be 800 of you? You don't. -- why does there need to


be 800. But those who want to reduce it to 500 should say how they plan


to do that. I would prefer either people to be involved in the


decision and they should be directly elected. Thank you for joining us.


It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


We'll be speaking live to the Greens' Patrick Harvie


about how his MSPs will approach their role in the new parliament,


With the Holyrood election over, the next choice before voters -


We'll debate the case for and against Brexit,


And we'll meet a couple of the new faces who've joined


The dust is settling on the result of just over a week ago.


The Greens trebled their number of MSPs from two in the last


Not quite matching the peak of seven they held from 2003,


And they've displaced the Liberal Democrats


I'm joined now by the co-convenor of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie.


Tell us what is going on. You had a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon this


week. I had a brief meeting, nothing terribly formal, the kind of thing


that happened for months even during the period of majority government.


Political parties talk about things all the time. Presumably were


talking about cooperation in the new parliament. I think the dynamic will


change. It will not be quite the same as the previous minority


government when the SNP were in deep minority and unless they could get a


deal with Labour on any issue they had to reach out to build consensus


with any two out of the three other parties. It is a slightly more


straightforward situation now where the SNP only have to persuade one


party to vote or abstain. If political parties go around


posturing saying they will block this or that they will not get far.


Opposition parties will be influential by being constructive.


Are you considering even a semiformal arrangement with the SNP


or will you judge everything issue by issue? Semiformal arrangements


aren't even been discussed. I think the Friday after the election the


first minister said clearly they would not seek an arrangement with


another party. I think the SNP's position is clear, to be a menorah


take government with great flexibility. I suspect if you were


in their shoes you wouldn't be seeking to tie yourself to a


relationship with just one party. That's why think it is going to be


about positivity and constructivist opposition parties will conduct


themselves. Is it theoretically possible you could put the


Government down whether other opposition parties? Can you see


yourself taking part in something like a vote of no-confidence? I


think there would have to be an astonishing breach of trust to


justify a vote of no-confidence. I think it is a little early to be


talking about events that cataclysmic. Over the next few weeks


and months I think we will see times where opposition parties may have


common ground, such as Parliamentary reform. One issue that came up this


week, cutting off air passenger duty. As far as I understand the SNP


want to do what the SNP want to do. Presently, as proposed by the


Scottish Government, is that policy toast? They do not have a majority


for their position, scrapping the duty. That is why I come back to the


idea of it being constructive. It is not an effective environmental tax


in the first place, air passenger duty. One option is that we can find


an alternative policy which can command a parliamentary majority,


which passes the test of emissions and social justice. How could you


cut duty in a way that actually reduces emissions? Perhaps it is


about one of the ideas the new economics foundation talked about, a


frequent levy. Most of the burden would fall on those who take the


largest number of unnecessary short-haul flights. The males of the


most important for the economy. If people have an alternative, the


railways, which is economically beneficial because it allows these


highly paid important people to actually do some work travelling,


which you can't really do on an aeroplane trip to London. If people


see railways is the affordable alternative more people will choose


that. There are ways of using taxation, to achieve a behavioural


change, in this case to reduce emissions, and a social justice


change. If the SNP can talk about alternatives, they have the


opportunity to replace air passenger duty with something better. If they


want to dig their heels in and say our way or nothing then nothing is


likely to happen. Independence. You are the balance of power on the


issue of the second referendum because you're the only party that


might be in favour of it. Do you understand the SNP palsy on the


second referendum? As far as I know, the First Minister's statement seems


broadly sensible that those of us who supported independence didn't


manage to convince people last time and we have work to do to convince


people. If Britain votes to leave the EU and Scotland to stay, would


you be in favour of a second referendum? The SNP appear to see it


as a material change but also they wouldn't want money unless the polls


were going their way. I don't think that is the most likely future


scenario in which we would choose. I know you don't want me to get into


which way the EU referendum will go but the less talked about scenario


is that the UK stays in the EU as a result of Scottish votes, that might


be more of an argument and about Scottish independence because the


right wing of the Tory party would have far less interest in keeping


the UK together. I support independence and so does the


Scottish Green Party and if and when a referendum comes along it is the


only fair way to settle the question. Would you back a second


referendum. It is something we like to see in the future. You have a


referendum. It is something we like tiny minority in Parliament, it we


had a referendum a year and a half ago and the argument is that


something very substantial and have to change and a minority party


shouldn't really hold the balance on a huge issue like this. Every MSP


gets the same number of votes in parliament. The point is that the


situation you are describing as the large extent the reason why both the


SNP and I think many of the rest of us in this rather pro-independence


movement are recognising there is more work to do in convincing people


to stop for example, acknowledging some of the weakness in the SNP's


2014 case in currency. Even Alex Salmond acknowledged that further


work is needed to ensure there is a viable and compelling proposition.


What about offensive behaviour on football matches legislation? Did


you get together with opposition parties and end or get rid of it? We


voted against it. I think it is a bad piece of legislation. I think


there is an opportunity to repeal the worst of it. I suspect a justice


committee process may be better than scrapping it all together. But he


would like to scrap it? There are two parts. The offensive behaviour


could staff has been the most contentious and I would like to see


an alternative approach to sectarianism which would be more


effective. There is also the threatening communications stuff and


although I have problems with it I think it should be amended rather


than repealed. A justice committee process would put it in the hands of


a cross-party body of people with government voices but also the


majority from political parties who were against that legislation, one


that would allow the thing not just to become one MSP's personal project


but a more reflective situation. I think we would get a better outcome


with a committee process. It has been awhile since committees have


initiated legislation and they should do more. 2002 I believe. Well


remembered. It's not long till Scotland will be


back at the ballot box. A short time ago I spoke


to the SNP's Justice and Home Affairs Spokesperson


at Westminster, Joanna Cherry, and to former Conservative Scottish


Secretary Lord Forsyth, currently campaigning


for Vote Leave. I started by asking Lord Forsyth


for his reaction to Boris Johnson's comments, comparing


the EU's aims to Hitler's. I think what he was trying to say


was that there isn't a European demos and if you try to force people


into one country with different economies and cultures and there


will be trouble and traditionally wear that has happened that has


proved to be disastrous. Could he perhaps have expressed himself in a


slightly different manner? His colourful way of expressing himself


as one of the reasons that in tears into people. Sometimes it offends


people, sometimes it makes people cheerful, but the basic point he is


making, the attempt to make a country called Europe, which has had


disastrous consequences for the Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese and


others, 50% unemployment across Europe, and I think the five


residents report, worth googling, which sets out the agenda of what is


necessary to preserve the euro, resulting in catastrophic effects of


the people of Europe and giving succour to extremist parties. I


thought it was quite an extraordinarily ill-advised thing


for Boris Johnson to say. Particularly in light of recent


comments from Ken Livingstone. Particularly in light of recent


suspect Michael Forsyth agrees with that but as to diplomatic to say.


I'm not usually diplomatic! It is not a ludicrous comparison because


the EU is about agreement and consensus and it is brought relative


peace to Europe in the last 60 years. -- it is ludicrous. It has


brought a common market of 5 million consumers to Scotland which is


beneficial to the economy. It ensures the whole of the UK enjoy


social protections, employment and human rights, which we probably


wouldn't otherwise enjoy giving this right wing government at the moment.


You didn't appreciate Boris Johnson's comments. What I'd like to


know is what you think should the vote to go to leave the EU, what


Britain should do? There are different views about whether we


should be part of the single market, have some arrangement whereby we


have to have free movement of labour or whether we completely get out of


it and negotiate trade agreements with other countries, without being


part of the single market. Where are you on that spectrum?


It's extraordinary to hear a Scottish National Party run the case


for an unelected Brussels bureaucracy. I think we should be


able to decide a own laws and spent our own money. And the moment we are


contributing ?10 billion net to be told what to do and have our laws


over ridden. Does that mean you would not like to have an agreement


for the Britain outside the EU to have an agreement in the way that


Norway or any different model Switzerland have? Norwegians pay


lots of money in and have to do a lot of what the European Union says.


Norway and Switzerland are tiny, we are the fifth largest economy in the


world with huge relationships around the Commonwealth and elsewhere. The


single market is an agreement between 28 countries in order to


have common standards for products. The Americans export into Google,


the Chinese exporting to Europe. It means that within Europe you have


one common approach to particular products. That would still exist if


we were out. You think we should be any system which for example keeps


free of labour? Absolutely not. We had to gain control of our own


Borders. We should be able to decide who comes into this country, we


should be able to throw people out from this country who are a threat


to security and to our way of life and we should be able to decide our


own laws and not be subject to a foreign court. Perhaps you can cheat


at the SNP's position because when it comes to Europe, the SNP doesn't


seem to like it very much. They don't want the euro, you don't like


the common fisheries policy but when it comes to Britain you can't get


enough of it, you want an independent Scotland to have the


pound, you're quite happy to have financial regulation by authorities


in London, UK going on about a social union with the UK. Why is it


you want to leave the UK and stay in Europe rather than the other way


around? We want to leave the United Kingdom because we're not an equal


partner in the latest kingdom. We would like to remain a member of


Europe because we would like to be on an equal footing with other


member states and I would like to take Lord Forsyth upon something he


has said repeatedly. It is not true to say the laws are made by


unelected bureaucrats. The laws are proposed by the commission. My point


is the SNP actually isn't in favour of any of the key institutions of


the contemporary European Union. That's simply not correct. If you


would let me finish, it is not correct to say that Europe is not


democratic. The laws are proposed by the commission which has 28


commissioners appointed by member states to go to the council which


consist of ministers from the directly elected members of the


member state and they are then considered by the Parliament, which


consists of directly elected members of the European Parliament. It is


not correct to say it is not democratic. However, it is open to


improvement and the SNP have been clean about that. Next year, the


native kingdom of all the presidency of the European Council. If we are


wise enough to stay part of Europe. That is a great opportunity for the


United Kingdom to lead the way on reform. He mentioned the common


fisheries policy. You're absolutely right to say the SNP are very


unhappy with the way in which that has been conducted but that is the


fault of the United Kingdom Government who have simply not going


to -- gone into bat properly for fishermen in Scotland. What we like


to see in the future is a Scottish minister from the Scottish


Government carrying out negotiations with fisheries policies. The


fisheries policy is one of the pillars of the European Union. They


might be able to change the way it operates but the basic principle of


it as far as I understand it, certainly Alex Salmond was against,


you cannot be a member of the European Union without signing up to


it. Alex was very clear last week. He gave a keynote speech in Brussels


and was very clean about what she wanted to see happen in the common


fisheries policy and he said he wanted to see the United Kingdom


alone Scottish ministers who know about the fishing industry in


Scotland to negotiate on Scotland's behalf. The UK Government in the


past considered the fishing industry in Scotland expendable and we have


been on the back foot from the outset. I do not believe the


fisheries policy could not be made to work better for Scotland but that


will only work better if we have a member from the Scottish Government


is making a washy oceans rather than an analog -- unelected peer --


making negotiations. There is an attempt to minimise this but


everyone from Mark Carney dam is saying there is a serious risk. Now


he isn't. This morning he refused to say although the bank has the


capacity to do so, what the long-term benefit to benefit would


be if we left the EU. All he is saying that in the short-term there


may be a shock that people may put off decisions because of the


uncertainty. He is only looking at the short term and he is using


exactly the same models as the Treasury and the IMF and everyone


else. It's not a question of models, it's accepted that companies are


holding off investing until they find out which way it goes. And the


IMF and people with their models are saying there could be great


uncertainty and difficulty. It would be surprising if they did not create


the effect which they are saying may arise. On the common fisheries


policy, it means that our fisheries Ali common resource. I'd say the


European Union, the Scottish Government will be able to decide


what the quarters and arrangements are. The Council of ministers,


Britain has voted 70 times against measures in the Council of ministers


and been defeated on 70 occasions. The idea of an independent Scotland


having an influence is nonsense. This business about the economy. The


argument is that there may be some short-term shenanigans because


people are holding off decisions on investment and eight be a head to


the small market if there was a vote to leave,, but over the years the


effect would be minimal. I disagree, I think they would be a considerable


period of uncertainty but what Lord Forsyth and his friends in the


Brexit movement is simply unachievable. Countries like Norway


and Switzerland which are part of the European economic area are still


subject to EU regulations, they just don't have any say in how they are


made. One of the big part of the Brexit movement to prevent


immigration to Britain is that they don't realise if you want to be part


of the European economic area you had to accept the movement as well


so they are putting the United Kingdom and Scottish economy into


jeopardy to achieve the unachievable. Thank you both very


much indeed. Now while some may have suggested


the Holyrood election campaign was a little dull,


there was no mistaking the buzz at parliament this week


as the victors arrived I'm joined from Edinburgh by two


of them - Alex Cole-Hamilton, who won Edinburgh Western


for the Liberal Democrats, and Jenny Gilruth of the SNP,


who is the new MSP for Jenny Gilruth, was this your first


thing standing in an election? Yes, an interesting experience for me as


a first-time candidate but a great experience to be a part of. What was


it like? The ready teacher before Benji? I was in modern studies


teacher, a head of Department, so it is a change from my day job. We are


getting involved in meetings, getting to know her Parliament


works, meeting with new MPs across the political divide. It has been a


fantastic experience. It must be difficult to go from a very


controlled environment like a classroom to something where it is


perhaps not quite so clear what you're supposed to be doing. There


is a clarity in terms of what we will be doing. If you been in the


there is a level of control their! there is a level of control their!


-- Tricia. That is a similarity between the chamber and classroom


terms of how other members and sells conductors cells so there's an


element of similarity between school and the chamber you could say. Alex


Cole-Hamilton, you're a bit of a veteran, aren't you? I'm something


of a one horse in terms of standing. You don't join the Liberal Democrats


as a career move, they do because you believe in Civil Liberties, the


environment and holding the SNP to account. This is my first time


standing but I finally got there and I got the glory on the shoulders of


the finest people I know, a massive campaign team that worked their guts


out. What did you make of your first week? My head is utterly spinning. I


have worked in a Scottish week? My head is utterly spinning. I


since the beginning of devilish in but I realise how much I don't know.


As Jenny said, the Parliament staff have been fantastic in getting us


As Jenny said, the Parliament staff settled and easing us into the flow.


I'm already getting stuck in. I'm interested in whether each of you


has a particular policy area or proposal for a bill which is not


mainstream in your own party that you would like to push. Jenny


Gilruth, is there anything you would like to be able to come out at the


end of this and say, this is what I achieved? At this moment in time I


already deal to the people that voted for me and my commitment


absolutely as to my constituency and to those who put their trust in me.


At this bomb, not thinking personally what I could get out of


this, this is about representing the people who put their faith in me.


Alex Cole-Hamilton, Cupid for motions already, haven't you?


Absolutely. My background is in children and young people's services


Absolutely. My background is in and I've spent my adult life


fighting for the rights of children so I'm going to bring a lot of that


was meant to Holyrood and I'm setting targets for my tenure in


Parliament. If you could put forward a bill for young people, what would


be in it? We often say we want to be the best place in the world to go up


yet we refuse as a country to use the European Convention's rights of


a tiled so I would put forward a bill to incorporate that. -- writes


of a child. Jenny Gilruth, you wouldn't be against that, would you?


Certainly not. I have always encouraged my class to vote in


elections for class representatives. We need to get more young people


involved in the political process. That's something I feel passionately


about. What about in terms of your party, Jenny Gilruth, is there


anything in particular you would like to see the SNP having achieved


at the end of this term that isn't there now? I'm proud of our


achievements in education. there now? I'm proud of our


Particularly we have invested a lot of money in the attainment fund and


that is something I'd like to support going forward. I know we all


feel passionately about that and I think the First Minister has showed


to be a credible force on that front. Alex Cole-Hamilton,


presumably you would agree with that because one of the Liberal


Democrats' big issue was the people premium and we can, different things


but what it amounts to is money for children who are in need.


Absolutely. There was a report published that said we have actually


slipped down the global rankings in terms of our quality of teaching and


the achievements that students get in Scottish schools. We used to be


world-beater and we are now average. We don't think that's good enough.


The SNP have talked a good game but have come up wanting in terms of


action. That is what the central pillar of the Democrat manifesto


was. He didn't manage to keep the best pals up till the end. We'll see


what it's like in future. Now, as with every election, plenty of


energy was spent trying to predict the outcome of the vote and produced


unexpected results. Now the experts have begun


the process of trying to make Our reporter Andrew Black has been


speaking to some of them. We've just seen a Scottish election


to the building behind me which has produced some surprising results.


The main headline is the SNP will be back for a third time in office but


as human oddity Government instead of a majority Government. There has


also been talk of a Scottish Tory revival in Scotland after Labour


slumped to third place behind the Conservatives and the Greens managed


to increase their number of seats. It's got expert asking, what just


happened in Scotland? As the dust from election night settles, a group


of academics, politicians and others gathered in Edinburgh to offer their


thoughts on what happened. One of the key questions is why the SNP


when it seemed so unstoppable fell back in terms of seats. The local


system had something to do with it. We know that people didn't always


backed the same parties across the two ballots and I think what we


called split ticket voting is certainly responsible. The SNP was


leaking supporters across the constituency and regional lists more


than the other main parties and that probably didn't help in the end but


than the other main parties and that also I think there was tactical


voting. There has been much talk of the SNP's dominance being like a


1-party state but if you look at things from a Welsh perspective, the


situation in Scotland is anything A position of Welsh Labour Party


makes a SNP look like Johnny come latelys. The Labour Party have


dominated the Welsh elections for years at. The SNP's domination of


Scottish politics is much more recent, much less a deeply grounded


than Labour's domination of Welsh politics. Back in Scotland, are we


seeing another shift in the political tectonic plates following


the significant gains made by political tectonic plates following


Conservatives? The Conservatives had a very good result. However, the


party denied itself, it wasn't the Conservative Party, it was the


receiver to party. Fair enough, but they have to build on that and


translate Rick Davidson into the Conservative Party. They have to be


an effective opposition and what does that mean? They have promised


to be strong opposition, if it is negative and destructive it will not


help. They have to become full. Then there is labour. Many people thought


of the party as Scotland's dominant political force since time began at


the election so their fortunes further decline. Why was that? The


SNP are seen as a more effective vehicle for standing up to Scotland


and more effective in government. These are issues the Labour Party


will have to confront. The Labour Party has had a terrible election


but they are far from dead. They have to get their act together and


work out what kind of party at us and regain the initiative as


Scotland's party of progressive politics. One thing is certain, the


make-up of this new parliament will probably make the next few years


pretty interesting. Let's discuss some of those issues,


and what to expect from the days Joining me now are the


Investigations Editor at the Sunday Herald,


Paul Hutcheon, and Lindsay Mcintosh who is Scottish Political


Editor at the Times. Did the minority government surprise


you? Yes. And it surprised the pollsters. It is a different


minority government this time around compared to 2007. They had to deal


with the other parties then to get their agenda through. This time they


have to strike deals but it is much easier. Presumably it depends who


you do deals with. On tax, the Scottish Conservatives probably have


the nearest to the SNP policy but if you're the SNP he might not


particularly want to be seen to be getting your tax proposals through


thanks to the Tories. There are 65 opposition MSPs and 63 government


supporting MSPs. They have to get one party to support them on


legislation. If you look at their manifesto and they stick rigidly to


that, I think they will make alliances on a case-by-case basis.


And things like income tax, council tax, the SNP is probably closest to


the Conservative policies but if you look at issues like the named person


scheme, the Tories tried mounting an attack on that, the Greens, Lib Dems


and Labour will probably back the SNP. Also the welfare powers. I'd


imagine the centre-left parties will support the SNP. I think it will be


fun times. I don't have gates going to be a boring five years. Just on


tax, the Greens, who you might think because of their views on


independence are the newest of SNP, actually are probably the furthest


away from them in terms of tax. Yes, actually are probably the furthest


and I think the Tories are closest in taxation. On income tax, the only


difference between Nicola Sturgeon and George Osborne's policy is


fiddling with the middle rate. With the SNP be prepared to be seen to


get into bed with the Tories on that? It depends how they spend it.


Last week when Nicola Sturgeon talked about taxation she was


committed to her income tax policy but seems to suggest she might shift


on business rates. There is an ongoing review of them at the


moment. Read it she was willing to strike a deal with the Tories and


that's where she could go. There are are some issues and could be


difficult for the SNP. Air passenger duty. Everyone but the SNP are


against it. It maybe they have to come back with new that perhaps


modify the proposals. I expect them to modify a number of policies. The


legislation that criminalise defensive behaviour at football


matches. That was railroaded through by the SNP government. It is clear


that all the opposition parties are against large aspect of it. Not in


its entirety. I imagine that might against large aspect of it. Not in


be an early casualty of the first year. Other issues like the named


person thing, I think that would survive, but they will have to box


clever. They will not have at their own way like the last five years. It


will be more similar like the first term when they governed by minority.


It will be interesting. Independence, the Greens are in


favour, pro-independence gets a small majority. How do you interpret


what the SNP have been saying recently? They clearly don't want a


referendum any time soon. I think there is only one test for another


referendum and that is when the opinion polls consistently show


people will vote yes. Why would they have a referendum before that? I


think although there is a majority of independent supporting MSPs in


parliament now, the manifestos which they stood on do not include a clear


commitment to a referendum so I cannot see us having one any time


soon. The green one was particularly roundabout. It suggested there would


have to be a 1 million strong petition. Nicola Sturgeon is forming


a new government this week. Do you expect big changes? I think she is


gone to be splitting up the finance and economy brief. The thing that


interests me is the education portfolio. Nicola Sturgeon says this


is a key priority and how she wants to be judged. If I was her I would


want my top minister in that portfolio. Looking round the Cabinet


table, John Swinney is the most competent and able. He could perhaps


combine finance? Maybe move him out of finance altogether. Maybe it is


not going to be as onerous as it once was. Derek Mackay, Keith Brown


could step into that job. John Swinney has been in the same job for


nine years. Maybe it is time for a change. Arise John Swinney, would be


your view? It would be the logical change. Arise John Swinney, would be


choice but whether she goes down that road is another matter. I think


I agree. Nicola Sturgeon said that brief is going to be split. Although


John has been in it for nine years he is a respected member of the


Cabinet and he has new powers over taxation and welfare. He is seen as


a steady hand. Important for a government. Think of Gordon Brown as


Chancellor. A big job for John Swinney whether he stays in finance


or moves education. We might see some new blood at Cabinet or


ministerial level as we saw from your earlier interviews, clearly


there is new SNP talent. It be interesting to see if Nicola


Sturgeon wants to try them out at a lower level. There was no other


brief you can see changing other than education? Education is the one


that's certainly going to go. On Tuesday we'll be bringing


you special coverage of the election of the First Minister at quarter


past two on BBC Two. I'll be back on Wednesday afternoon


with Politics Scotland Soak up the atmosphere at the most


famous flower show in the world. from the RHS Chelsea Flower Show




Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Andrew Neil interviews Vote Leave campaigner Iain Duncan Smith and discusses government plans for Lords reform with Lord Strathclyde.

The political panel is made up of Helen Lewis, Isabel Oakeshott and Amol Rajan.

Download Subtitles