22/05/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by Vote Leave campaigner Lord Owen and director general of the CBI Carolyn Fairbairn to discuss the EU referendum.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Leave campaigners say Turkey is on course to join


the European Union and, if we remain in the EU,


that will mean more criminals here and greater pressure


The Prime Minister says it's nonsense.


We'll have the latest on this developing row.


This woman claims to be the voice of business -


and that most businesses in the UK want to remain in the EU.


But is the business case that clear cut?


We speak to the Director General of the CBI.


When it comes to gauging public opinion on the referendum,


which is better: telephone polls or online polls?


Even the pollsters are having trouble answering that one.


And I tell you what, if I don't know,


having done all this opinion polling for lark for 21 years,


Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:


for the Deputy First Minister - we're talking live to John Swinney


as he takes up his new post in charge of education.


in the EU referendum. Which way did they tilt?


And with me - as always - a political panel of the best


and the brightest in the business, hopefully they do know which way


to jump: Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Janan Ganesh


who'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


Turkey has taken centre-stage in the referendum debate today.


Vote Leave are launching a new poster campaign warning that


Turkey is on course to join the EU, leaving the UK vulnerable


to criminals, mass migration and more pressure on public services.


The Prime Minister was asked about the claims


on the Robert Peston programme on ITV.


Every country has a veto, and let's be clear,


as Boris himself said, Turkey joining the EU is not remotely on


the cards. At the current rate of progress, this would be decades,


literally decades, before this even had a prospect of


happening, and even at that stage, we would be able to say no.


Well, that was David Cameron this morning.


But here's what he had to say in a speech in Istanbul in 2010.


But here's what he had to say in a speech in Ankara in 2010.


It makes me angry that your progress towards EU membership can be


frustrated. My view is clear. I believe it is wrong to say that


Turkey can guard the camp, but not be allowed to sit in the tent. So


why will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU membership


and for greater influence at the top table of European diplomacy. The


Prime Minister six years ago after becoming Prime Minister.


Is it a proper issue for this referendum or is it a red herring?


It is an issue and quite frankly, the Leave campaign will be delighted


that we are now talking about Turkey, because every time you talk


about Turkey, you conjure up the image of more migration,


uncontrolled immigration from a poorer countries so it is a Leave


win. I am not sure that the Prime Minister is right to engage in this


one. But he has been called about this from someone whose judgment he


also calls into question. But is a strange thing, his own Armed Forces


Minister. The Prime Minister is right to say we have a veto, every


EU member has a veto in new members, but if the Prime Minister is in


favour of Turkey joining, which is said he was in Ankara, then the veto


does not matter? Absolutely. What a great clip that was the Prime


Minister in 2010, when he set out Ray clearly what his position is. He


supports Turkey joining the EU in whatever time frame that may be. It


does not do for the Prime Minister to say we have a veto. The question


is, will you use that veto? If he is saying we would use our veto against


Turkey, that is big news and can we hear it? It would be a big U-turn.


It could be moot, couldn't it? There is no prospect of Turkey joining in


the future, is there? The telling thing about this conversation as we


are focusing on our veto and the veto possessed by all existing EU


members and not focusing on Turkey itself. Is that country as keen on


joining as was a decade ago? The change and internal politics in


Turkey suggests they are less keen on membership or less keen on doing


the things necessary to successfully apply for EU mentorship than they


were a while ago. I think for reasons on the Turkish side and on


the European side, it will not happen until I am a very old man.


But it is entirely legitimate for Leave to play up this issue and


every day we talk about migration is a day we're not spending talking


about the economy and I think that is their only route to victory four


weeks' time. There are plenty of forces in Germany and France, two


countries about to have elections next year, who are not going to


agree to Turkey joining any time soon. And if you were to be fair to


the prime and Vista, you would say he made that speech in 2010 in


Ankara, me and a whole load of political hacks were in the room


when he said it... Were you there? I was there. At one stage he says he


was passionate about Turkish president. He was very keen to suck


up to President Erdogan at the time because he wanted more trade. That


was pre-migration crisis. That has changed everything not just in


British politics but for Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande. It may


be acceptable for the Prime Minister to do a 180 degrees U-turn on this


issue. We will see as the day develops.


So, the head of the NHS in England, Simon Stevens, says the health


service would be worse off if we decide to leave the EU.


Two of his predecessors have also written a joint article


in the Sunday Times saying that they think,


for the NHS at least, staying in the EU is


Mr Stevens was on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.


When Mark Carney says that the risk of a slowdown in economic growth,


possibly a recession, if we end up exiting the EU,


if Mark Carney is right, then that is a severe concern


for the National Health Service, because it would be very dangerous


if at precisely the moment the NHS is going to need extra funding,


actually the economy goes into a tailspin and that funding


Leave campaigners, unsurprisingly, take a different view -


they argue that remaining in the EU will place further strain on the NHS


due to continued free movement of people and the accession


What is the relationship between our membership


The Department of Health estimates that the cost to the NHS in England


from visitors and non-permanent residents who come from


the European economic area, that is the EU plus Iceland,


Lichtenstein and Norway, is around ?340 million a year.


To put that in context, the total annual expenditure


in England's NHS was ?113 billion in 2014-15.


There are around 3 million people from other EU countries resident


in the UK and all are entitled to use NHS services.


All those would be entitled to stay in the UK, even if we were to leave


the EU, due to the rights under the Vienna Convention.


In 2015, around 257,000 EU nationals migrated to the UK.


But whether that number would come down if we vote to leave depends


on the deal the UK strikes with the EU following an exit.


NHS England says the total number of staff coming from EU countries


was just over 53,000, or 4.6% of the total NHS workforce.


A total of 9% of NHS England's hospital doctors, 6% of its nurses


and health visitors, come from other EU countries,


however, all would be entitled to stay in the event of a vote


to leave, and without knowing what any future deal might be,


it is impossible to know if there would be any impact


A one-time pro-European Foreign Secretary, he is now


campaigning for the UK to leave the European Union.


Good morning, David Owen. Let me come straight to the remarks by the


man currently running the NHS in England, Simon Stevens. He said it


would be better for the NHS if we remain in the EU. What is your


response? Let's be quite clear. Simon Stevens is the manager of the


NHS, which is currently ?3 billion in debt. This man has presided now


for a sufficient time to judge his management skills. In almost every


part of the National Health Service, there is an acute crisis. He spent


ten years in America, with an American health care company,


effectively arguing for the TTIP, this treaty between America and the


European Union, which could be introduced, and an assessment makes


it very clear that TTIP will be very damaging to the National Health


Service, if it is drafted in the way that it is. Simon Stevens should


stick to his Lee which is to manage the health service more effectively.


He is an individual, he has a view on the European Union which is fine,


but his basic job is to look after the NHS, and at the moment he is


making a very considerable mess of. It is not just Simon Stevens, two of


his predecessors say staying in the EU is the preferable option.


Identifying, if there is any danger to the NHS, it is in staying in,


with all the elements of the NHS which are now involved with the EU.


-- I don't think. For the first 20 years of our membership, with the


common market, we had no involvement with the NHS at all. Now the NHS


procurement policy, the NHS competition policy is all impact in,


because we have started to Mark ties the NHS in 2002 under Labour. It


continued under the coalition with the Liberal Democrats of this


present Conservative government, and it has continued under this


Conservative government. If you treat health like water or


electricity or gas, as a utility, and you treat them all as customers,


then you will be under market pressures, and the problem with the


NHS is we lost what it was, it fortunately still is in Wales,


Scotland and Northern Ireland, but in England it is a marker ties to


health service modelling itself on the United States of America. If you


wanted to make changes, you would be wiser to stick to Germany or France,


not go the United States model. Let me put a point to you. Michael Gove,


part of the Leave campaign, he says the NHS could be overwhelmed by


continued migration if we stay in the EU. He predicts an extra 5


million plus by 2030. These predictions suggest that Turkey,


Macedonia and Albania all join the EU by 2020. That is not on the


cards, is it? Let's be clear about your programme so far and analyse


what has been said already. It is not the Prime Minister what he said


in Istanbul, the Prime Minister nine weeks ago signed up to the European


Council meeting on the 18th of March, and he said, to re-energise


the accession process for Turkey to join the EU, and to make preparatory


work for the opening of other chapters will continue at an


accelerating pace. This is a Prime Minister who is getting used to


saying one thing one time, another thing another. Nine weeks ago, we


were committed to increasing the speed of entry for Turkey into the


European Union. I am passionate about keeping Turkey inside Nato,


and with one foot in the EU and with one foot in the Middle East. Why?


Because Turkey is essentially important country, as a member of


Nato in dealing with Isil, Syria, Iraq and many other problems around


the world. But you will not make it by bringing them prematurely into


the European Union. What we should be doing is encouraging them to come


into the single market which has non-EU countries associated, but


without this issue of freedom of movement of Labour. You are Foreign


Secretary... Let me ask this question. You must surely know, that


Turkey's chances of joining the EU in the foreseeable future are


remote. Isn't that the reality? No, I think what was said by your


commentator earlier in the programmers that has been a change


of foreign policy. If the Prime Minister commits nine weeks ago to


speeding up Turkey's membership, and then does not deliver on it, what


will be the consequences? Turkey will feel they have been lied to or


rejected by the Europeans and they will, in my view, come out of Nato


with very profound consequences. At will, in my view, come out of Nato


the moment, let's treat Turkey with respect, let's try and ensure they


make the necessary changes on human rights and in many other areas.


There are a lot of worrying aspects about Turkish policy, but mention


above the European Union in my view is not the issue. It is how to make


them more committed to Europe. Don't avoid this question. If we are in


the European Union, we are committed to freedom of movement of Labour in


every aspect of EU membership. That is a problem. David Owen, thank you,


we will have to leave it there. The Confederation Of British


Industry calls itself the "voice of business",


claiming to speak on behalf of 190,000 businesses,


employing up to 7 million people. And according to the CBI,


British businesses overwhelmingly back the idea of remaining


in the EU. What's more, they've been


encouraging their members to talk to staff about the referendum


to give them "the choice to hear what impact a Brexit


would have on company growth, their jobs and their


local community". As you can imagine, Leave


campaigners are not amused. The chair of the Vote Leave business


council, John Longworth, a former director-general


of the British Chambers Of Commerce, said the call was an


"anti-democratic abuse of power He added: "It's highly regrettable


to see big corporate bosses plotting to gang up on their staff,


and lecture them on how to vote." Well, we're joined


now by the director general of the CBI,


Carolyn Fairbairn. Welcome to the programme. Good


morning. If big business told its workers how to vote in a general


election, there would be broad, so why are you encouraging your members


to warn their workers about the dangers of Brexit? That is not what


we have said. We have said that people working today in economy want


to hear from their employers about what it means on either side of the


debate. That is not what you said, you said what impact Brexit would


have on growth, jobs and the local community. Positive for negative.


You did not say that? It is clear this is not about warning anybody.


This is about the questions that people are now asking about what it


means for them. We were clean about that. Most of your members, you


claim, are in favour of staying in the European Union. The message


going out to the workforce will be overwhelmingly about remaining in


the EU. The main thing is that people who are going to vote on June


23 have as good an understanding as they possibly can about what it


means for their jobs, families and communities. That was the key


message, nothing about telling people how to vote. We learned this


week that one of your members, Circle, was planning uproar EU


campaign with the Prime Minister, even before the renegotiations were


finished. With the CBI or any of your members have similar


discussions with the government? To my knowledge, no. The conversations


that businesses, universities, all parts of our society have with


government go on every day. Were you planning the pro-union-mac campaign


with the government even before the renegotiations? No. But Circle was?


No. Everything the CBI has done is a result of the things we have done


and a half of our members. Circle has contracts with the government


worth several million pounds. The taxpayer pays for that. Its boss was


offering to help the Prime Minister do what he could to help keep


Britain in the EU. It was a behind closed doors stitch up between big


government and big business, wasn't it? The important thing is to


understand what businesses across the country of all sizes are seeing.


You're focusing on one company. What we are seeing is that the majority


of businesses want to stay in the European Union. I understand that. I


am asking you if the way this company has handled this... It


smells of a stitch up? I do not think this is a stitch up. It is


about voices of business being heard on issues of jobs, growth and the


future prosperity of our country. People can make their decisions on


polling day about a whole variety of factors, but businesses who are


trading with the European Union everyday, having their voices


clearly heard. The voice of this company was certainly clearly heard.


He saw the Prime Minister, Mr Soames. This is what he did in the


follow-up letter. He spoke about backing the prime and is to's


campaign to keep us in the EU. This is even though the renegotiations


were not finished. He went on to lobby for business. He said... He


wants more business at the same time. It really does add to the


sense that this is big business feathering its own nest. That is not


what is going on. There are conversations all the time. Why he


wise to do that, to lobby for more business at the same time as


lobbying to stay in the EU? I think there are conversations happening


all the time. Is that conversation appropriate? Those are questions for


other people. The CBI represents mainly businesses across the UK and


Europe picking on one. The important thing is the voices of the many are


heard in this. Are they heard? You give the impression you like the EU


because it is a one-stop club for big business. There are 30,000


lobbyists in Brussels, most of them are doing for the interests of your


kind of members, the business. Ordinary folk do not get a look in?


I do not think that is true. We have had 20 business surveys since the


beginning of the year, for all different sizes of business, and it


is not unanimous, but they are all seeing broadly the same thing. We


have had the creative industries Forum coming out with the survey.


93%, because they are big exporters. This is not just big business. It is


all sizes of business. Let's look at how the EU is good for your members


but not necessarily the rest of us. The European Court of Justice has


forced Her Majesty is Customs and revenue to hand back almost ?8


billion in tax paid by big British companies, overruling tax laws made


by our government and our Parliament. That is good for big


business but not public services? There are areas where we share


sovereignty, in order to have a level playing field across Europe


for businesses overall. We are not always going to like all of the


rules. It is a question of whether the benefits outweigh the costs. The


benefits to your members are clear, they are paying a billion less in


tax. The independent office of budget responsibility expected HMRC


to pay another 8 billion back by the end of the decade. This is about


lowering tax regimes and not allowing HMRC to get the proper tax.


That is not fear to ordinary people? To be clear, the CBI can businesses


overall do not support aggressive tax avoidance. We support the moves


that have been taken at the OECD level to sort this out. This is not


something we support. Your members will be 16 billion better off.


British schools, hospitals, public services, will be 16 billion worse


off. If the HMRC goes down in all these cases, we could be 40 billion


worse off. Good for big business, but not local hospitals? I do not


know the exact details of those numbers, but I would say that the


moves to improve tax policy are absolutely supported by members. The


CBI has been wrong about Britain in the EU in the past. Why should we


listen to you now? This is becoming a distraction. You are right that


when the euro was debated at the end of the 1980s, in principle, the CBI


had a principle of support with caveats. You supported the principle


of the European exchange mechanism. That ended in recession. Many people


lost their homes and jobs. You then became enthusiastic about UK


membership of the monetary union, the euro. I ask again, if you were


wrong then, why should we listen to you now? Two important points, if


you had continued to scroll down, you would seem that there were


caveats, conditions that had to be met. Conditions around harmonisation


of inflation and the economy. They were never met. By 2000 the CBI had


moved its position to neutral. The discussion we are having now is


about something very different. It is about the experience that we as


an economy have had the European Union for 43 years. We have thrived.


We have gone from being the sick man of Europe to being the strong man.


His Mrs are doing well. The benefit from being in a single market. The


euro was about something which people were imagining in the future,


a different debate. Let's come to the current debate. We saw your


stance on the euro then. You know think we would be better off if we


remain. That is the clear fight -- the clear-cut view of the CBI. You


commissioned an organisation to assess the impact of leaving the EU.


That is the result of the survey. If we remain, they think the economy


will grow by 41% by 2030. Even if we were to come out, the economy would


still grow by 39%, even if we did not have any free trade against, it


would grow by 36%. It is hardly game changing either way? We have


deliberately taken optimistic, balance and areas of the future.


You're right, economies recover and adapt. You have not shown the


short-term impact of several years of uncertainty. What we believe, and


many others believe as well, is there could be significant


short-term impacts, no sunlit uplands. You can get to 39%. Your


own study shows are economy would be almost 40% bigger by 2030, even if


we were to leave. That is if we do a trade deal with the US, if we are


able to form new relationships with the EU. These are optimistic


assumptions. Take the non-optimistic on, the World Trade Organisation. We


just trade on existing rules. It is 36%, it is still a massive rise. Of


course we would continue to grow. No one has ever said we would not


continue to grow. But will we be more prosperous? We would be 36%


more prosperous. In the short-term, by 2020, we estimate there would be


a million fewer jobs and 4-5% hate to GDP. Do we want to do that to


school leavers? We've just come out of recession. You accept that the


difference is not massive? It is entirely possible the economy would


adapt. But only with significant short-term impact, and particularly


an impact on the next generation of school leavers. The CBI claims that


each household benefits to the tune of six -- ?3000 a year. Observers


have condemned that as a dishonest figure. Do you stand by it? We do.


It was a literature sturdy of existing studies. We wanted to put


together a figure that was easy to understand. -- literature study.


Estimates like that are difficult to do. There was a range good around


it. To be clear, standards of living have doubled. That is since the UK


joined the European Union. They have gone from ?20,000 household income


to about ?40,000. We are seeing a proportion of that has been a result


of membership of the European Union, and independent studies would


support that. You did no original research for this at all. We never


claimed to. I have explained that to our viewers. You simply did a survey


of research papers. But when you look, you cherry picked the research


papers that had pro-union-mac inclusions. That is not true. I have


got the ones that you did not use, you omitted the IUD, you omitted the


National Institute for economic and social research. Even omitted the US


Trade Commission survey of what it meant, or to get this ?3000 figure.


You know tell me it is not accurate. That is not true. The evaluation we


did of the different surveys, we omitted as many on one side as the


other. There is a 20 page paper on this which anyone can go and read.


It sets out the methodology accurately. You seem to be biased


against those that did not come to the conclusion you want. Channel 4's


respected fact checked included, the figure is not based on any real


evidence. The chairman of the Treasury Select Committee described


it as a scandalous misuse of data and intellectually miss honest. We


went to him and we set out the facts. I do not think he had read


the paper. It is not intended to be anything other than an assessment of


consensus views over the last ten years. You did not include other


papers. The important thing is to be focusing on what this would mean for


the decision for the country. You're telling people that households would


be ?3000 a year worse off if we were to leave? That is not what we are


saying. Are you saying that we are ?3000 better off by remaining? As a


result of having joined, about 15% of the increase in living standards


over the time since joining is a result of being part of the European


Union. That is a reasonable thing to have said. Is the CBI still keen on


principle to join the euro? Absolutely not.


Would you welcome a further expansion of the EU to include the


five countries already in the queue? I think it has to depend on the


conditions at the time. The thing that is clear is we have a sovereign


choice over those additional countries. Turkey is a huge market,


it could be good for British business, would you welcome it? We


have not had that discussion with our members. We would have a


discussion at that time and have a point of view at that time. The CBI


welcomed both the Nice Treaty and Lisbon Treaty. Would you welcome a


further transfer of powers if we voted to remain? No. I think one


thing which is clear is we pool sovereignty when it is in the


benefits of our economy and we don't wear it is not. I would say one


thing, in terms of the opt out from the working Time directive, a very


important part of our special arrangement, if you like, of the


European Union, the CBI was fully part of and helped to negotiate.


Thank you. Depending on which polls you look


at, Britain is either scoffing at the idea of leaving the EU


or it's marching swiftly One telephone poll this week gave


Remain an eight point lead. An online poll, meanwhile,


gave it to Leave by four points. The problem is that both


those polls were done Our society and our electorate


is made up of unique individuals, every one of them different and yet


they share many attributes: gender, age, race, religion,


economic background, education, political views,


and social attitudes. Pollsters, therefore,


can only ever try to tell us terms of a specific question,


but it's only ever going to be a snapshot of wildly


interpretable data. That snapshot is simply a moment


in time, and is always, inevitably, slightly inaccurate


to varying degrees, and what makes


political polling even harder is it is like trying to


hit a moving target from a moving platform


in the And you would think in this EU


referendum the simplicity of the question would help,


should we leave It makes the whole thing


much more complicated. The problem is a slew of polls


giving very different signals. Given the problems


pollsters had getting the general election right, and some


of them didn't, this matters. Some have it neck and neck,


some Remain ahead, others ahead It is a minefield in


terms of working out When I apply different technical


methods to my raw data, I can move the Remain or Leave lead


in both directions. I tell you what, if I do not


know having done this opinion polling lark for 21 years,


I am not sure who does. Some of this is down to how


the polls are done, how they get a truly


representative sample of society in the first place,


either by phone or online panels. Which is best is a bone


of contention that in recent days has even


spilt onto social media, The problem is it has become


harder and harder to get Online samples are by their nature


self-selecting so have biases Phone samples used to be


considered far more representative, but in recent years,


the response rates to phone polls have dropped so low it is hard


now to consider them to be So both modes have an element


of self-selection. Can I ask you a few questions about


about yourself? Would you say you are likely to vote


or will definitely vote? Fewer of us use landlines


or want to be cold called, thus more calls then ever before


have to be made just to get But you do avoid those who,


with online polling, And phone contact through


persistence is better at eventually reaching those who are


harder to get hold of. Would it be all right


if we call you back later? There is a growing narrative


amongst some pollsters that phone polling


is probably the more accurate, which,


given recent phone polling We look at samples and try to check


them to see we have the right number of people who vote,


do we believe that all the people


in our sample who tell us they're going to vote actually


will, are we missing people who really just do not care


about the referendum referendum and aren't going to vote,


are we missing the great unwashed who do


not have degrees? All those things,


when we make adjustments for all of those things, Remain is


still ahead. We would have to be very,


very wrong indeed for Remain, at the moment, on the


polling so far, not to win this Online pollsters, who use panels


of signed up people, are perhaps not surprisingly


pointing to weaknesses So much so that the online pollsters


YouGov have conducted some phone polling


about phone polling. What we found from that comparison,


both to the national picture and to our online polls,


was that telephone polls were underestimating the people


who are not university educated, and that is


hugely important in the EU referendum because we know


that is one of the great social cleavages, in other words,


one of the great things that divides So phone polls are missing


potential Leave voters. Online are accused


of overstating them, there are two other that vital:


are are you going to vote? Turnout will be


crucial on June 23rd. The higher it is the more it favours


Remain, and what happens when the mass of "don't


knows" make up their mind? With more questions and mixed


answers, and four weeks to go,


most pollsters might reasonably fear


the result of a poll that asked us all,


"Do pollsters really have a 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. Coming up on the programme:


John Swinney will be talking to us about the challenges of his new role


as Education Secretary. To make sure that we close the


attainment gap. To ensure that we fulfil our commitment to the


What are the key issues in the EU referendum?


We ask a leading academic for his view.


And do the campaigners for Leave and Remain agree?


The new Education Secretary, John Swinney, set out his priorities


when he visited his old school on Friday.


The focus for the Scottish Government is on reducing


the attainment gap in Scottish schools.


Mr Swinney says funding is already in place,


but more needs to be done to improve the chances of pupils


But critics say that under the SNP the gulf has widened,


and more needs to be spent on early years education.


If you've ever been the new kid in class you will know who don think it


can be. Good morning. How are you doing? Trying to make friends well


keeping the teachers happy is not easy and that is the challenge John


Swinney faces, this week taking charge of Scotland's's education


system at a crucial time. At the moment SNP ministers say things are


system at a crucial time. At the good but not good enough. They want


Scotland's education system to be the best in the world. We will make


sure that young people have the opportunity regardless of


background, to further and higher education. This is what I will


concentrate on taking forward. The Government has set its sights on


closing what is known as the attainment gap between pupils from


the most and least deprived backgrounds. The First Minister has


made it her mission. Improving school attainment is arguably the


single most important objective in this programme for Government.


Improving its overall and closing the gap between children in most and


least deprived areas is fundamental. My aim to put it bluntly as to cause


that attainment gap. Not by a pit but to calls that attainment gap


completely. It will not be done overnight, I accept that, but that


must be done. We intend to make significant


progress on closing the attainment gap within the next parliament and


to substantially eliminate it with than a decade and that is a


commitment I ask to be judged on. But the Scottish Government as where


that there is no magic formula for closing the gap and education


experts say there is lot to consider. Our least advantaged


children, only 60% of them are doing well or doing very well at this too,


with as 90% of the richer pupils are doing well. It is a big attainment


gap. It is likely that that gap comes out of a lot of small


inequalities and is the cumulative effect of that rather than any one


big thing. We know that schools on their own are not responsible for


the gap that actually schools work with other agencies, they could make


a difference to closing it. But as the Government embarks on its big


plan to do exactly that conservatives head girl for


education says things have actually been getting worse. We have not had


enough focus on the basic skills. One of the things that the


Conservative Party argues strongly is that when it comes to teacher


training those who are going to that process have said that they wanted


more focus on the ability to teach children to read, write and count


properly and that is hugely important. John Swinney says he is


aware of the challenge ahead and official figures last year showed a


drop in the touristy standards in some areas, the message is, must do


better. Listening to that in our Dundee


studio is the new Cabinet Secretary Are you excited by this job you have


taken on or are you feeling a bit daunted by it? A bit of both. I am


excited by the challenge and the opportunity I have been given to


read a process of change and development in education, to work to


make Scottish education world class. But I go into this with my eyes wide


open. There are some significant challenges that have to be addressed


and I want to deploy my energy and my skill to take that forward. I am


hugely excited by it. I am thrilled with the opportunity to be Education


Secretary but I do not underestimate the scale of the


challenge. You are used to dealing with finance. It is all hard


numbers. You either have a budget deficit or you do not. You set a


budget. You have all the targets. But closing the attainment gap in


education is a much less precise thing, as it's not? The danger is


that will feel like you are pushing a piece of string. The attainment


gap is measurable. We have got your measurements. But in the package


that you just short, the professor said the attainment gap would not be


caused by one single instrument but by a variety of different measures


that we take. At the key thing is that we have absolute clarity that


the purpose of my approach as Education Secretary is to close that


attainment gap. That becomes the most central part of the education


direction and Scotland. What are we talking about? It is not clear even


what we are starting with year. A lot of people have talked about the


attainment gap being the number of people from relatively background to


get to university. Is that what you mean? I mean that's the attainment


gap becomes clear from the youngest ages of young people within


Scotland. From the start of primary school that is clear that children


from the most deprived backgrounds compare two children from the least


deprived backgrounds are significantly disadvantaged even at


that stage of their progress in education. I need to focus on making


sure that all of us who take forward the work to support young people


within Scotland from the very earliest stages, all of that is


going -- not all of that will be in the schools, some of it will be in


community services and health care. But we are focused on the earliest


stages of making sure that. And the various stages during the


educational clear we have to take steps to make sure we close that


educational clear we have to take gap. But just to be clear on this,


Nicola Sturgeon has said not just that she wants her Government to be


judged on progress and this but she wants herself as First Minister to


be judged. When you see close the attainment gap are you saying you


want measurable benchmarks and that it is not just about the number of


people from deprived backgrounds getting into university? You seem to


be suggesting that you want a series of benchmarks that every stage


throughout their school career, for example at the end of primary seven,


third-year, but the gap is closing. There is that what you are saying?


If you look at the National improvement framework published in


January that is what we set out? We set out the desire to make sure that


at these stages in the educational clear of young people in Scotland we


are able to see whether or not the attainment gap is narrowing or


growing. We have discussed drab statistics for many years. These are


not drab statistics. These are lives. Exciting statistics, do not


do yourself down. These are about the life chances of people in


Scotland and cannot be anything more significant or precious than


transforming the life chances of children in our country. We cannot


afford to leave it until young people are 17 or 18 to find out how


many of them go to university. We have to be able to arrest that and


intervene in that at a much earlier stage. That is why we put such


emphasis on the expansion of early years education and childcare within


Scotland, that we begin to tackle some of these difficulties as early


we possibly can. On Friday I spent an marvellous amount of time in a


primary school in Edinburgh where I saw some two-year-olds involved in


nursery education in Scotland, our youngest citizens, coming from


deprived backgrounds, getting well supported and nurtured and


encouraged and motivated and it was fantastic to watch the efforts that


were put in to try to transform the life chances of these young


individuals in Scotland. Before you start doing things, what is your


analysis? Figures show that people from deprived backgrounds in


Scotland, well in England, are twice as likely to go to university than


in Scotland and in Wales and Northern Ireland the figures again


are much better than in Scotland. Scotland appears to be lagging in


that department considerably and progress seems to be slower than in


England. Why is anyone doing so much better? The key thing is that


performance industry spec is improving in Scotland. Young people


are more likely to go to university from deprived backgrounds. Why the


gap? The gap is there as a product of the issues in the attainment gap


that perfectly all the way through the system within Scotland. That is


why I said in my previous answer it is important... Why should England


be doing so much better? Ultimately the answers lie for Scotland in


ensuring that we have a very strong teaching profession with high


quality teaching, close connections between schools and the wider


community, and families in particular, so that families are


involved in the learning process, and it is vital that they


concentrate on having clear and effective and by night leadership


throughout the education system within Scotland. In those three


areas, quality of the teaching profession, the role of families and


community within education, importance of leadership, these will


be the key questions that I would cut in the early stages, that I


discussed with the broad range of stakeholders that there are thin the


system in Scotland, to make sure that we use all of our energies to


tackle what is clearly a unified objective of everybody in education


that I have heard talking about that, the closing of the attainment


gap and Scott, and that will be my central mission in the course of the


next parliamentary term. The new national tests that you intend to


produce, I presumed it will be standardised across all schools?


Yes. They will be marked externally? What we are involved in discussion


about is how we can deliver standardised assessments so that we


can see in a much richer and deeper way the comparisons of educational


performance between individuals and between areas and between schools,


so that we can understand how we can best intervene to support the


so that we can understand how we can development of young people within


Scotland. We are involved in a conversation about how assessments


can be taken forward. I am determined to take forward in our


fashion that does not add to the workload of the teaching profession


but actually simplifies the workload of the teaching profession, and that


they do this in a fashion that we obtain meaningful comparisons about


performance in different areas, so that we can see the necessary


actions. I understand the point you are making but a lot of parents


watching this will take the view that these have to be marked


externally. You cannot have teachers marking the results of their own


students or we're not going to have a proper system where we can measure


the performance of schools across Scotland. Again I ask you, will be


marked externally? Fundamentally qualifications framework of Scott


and is independently taken forward. I have no intention of changing that


position. I have no intention of directing attention away from the


importance of independent certification of qualifications


within Scotland. I understand that but it is a very


simple question of whether these new test will be marked externally, it


is a straightforward question. It will feed from age to age. When we


are looking at standardised assessments which will be taken in


primary one classes within Scotland I do not see the need for those to


be independently... Give me a little bit of time to work out specifically


the detail of how we will take that forward, Gordon, because you are


asking me to go to a very precise point and I am not prepared to go


there just days into the job of being the Education Secretary. I am


setting out the importance of understanding the relative and


comparative forms of individuals so we can use that information to


support improvements with improvements required to be made. I


think that is a well understood principle to make sure every young


person in Scotland gets the education they deserve. Pavements


will be given the results of these tests, will be, in an informative


way so they can know about your child. There have been all these


worries about league tables but the other side of this is that it will


use this sensibly so you can take schools with similar intakes and


some might be doing better than others, will pavements be given data


so the norm not just how dear child is doing but whether there school


might be doing better than other schools with similar intakes in the


area, or worse? Parents getting a lot of information about the


educational performance of their children. I am the parent of a five


on child in the primary education system in Scotland and we get a


tremendous amount of information from the school about the


performance of our son, and he is developing, the challenges he has


and the performance of the school in general so of course that will be


done in a transparent fashion but the key thing is that has to be done


in a consistent fashion we can see where there are steps to be required


to improve performance in different parts of the country to ensure no


young person in Scotland is unable to prosper through the education


system anyway it would be useful for them to do so. Dean is a threat, not


necessarily of strike action but of work to rule or some form of


industrial action from the EIS over the workload issue, have you managed


to head that off yet? I have only been in the office for four days so


I have not been able to get there yet but I want to have meaningful


discussions with the whole range of stakeholders. I see to everyone you


have people prepared to listen to the issues and challenges. My issue


is to close the attainment gap in Scottish education. I do not think


of a better aim to have and I am immensely privileged to have that.


Just give me a little space and time to deliver on these issues and my


top by auditing. I can't believe you sat there and said all the stats you


have been talking to us about 14 new tab in drab but who you are. We have


undoubtedly been drab but made more drab by our conversations!


One bookmakers cut the odds yesterday for a UK vote to remain


But whether people vote to remain or to leave the EU,


a leading academic says there are four significant issues


Professor Michael Keating, of the University of Aberdeen,


and Director of the Centre for Constitutional Change,


is in our Edinburgh studio to explain.


Hopefully without any drab statistics! Michael Keating, let's


just go through them in order and see where we are. The first thing


you see is the economy now there is a widespread perception that the


Remain people have pretty much one the argument about that and the


Leave people are keen to talk about absolutely anything else, especially


immigration, is that your view? There have been a lot of things


bandied about on both sides of this debate about whether or not we will


be better off in or out and the fact is we do not know. Economics is not


a precise signs of prediction. It depends what assumptions you make,


what policy decisions are made and what the options are for remaining


in or coming out, they are multiple. It is far easier to focus on the


single market, the arrangement we have with the European Union which


allows for a free movement of goods, services, capital and Labour and


whether we really need that arrangement. Remain see we need that


a deep trading arrangement with the rest of the European Union and


therefore we have to accept everything that goes with it. The


Leave people are divided, some say we could keep the free single market


because we need it and others say we could manage perfectly well without


it. Your article was really about what has to be focused on. You think


the Leave people need to come up with one additive about what would


happen if we vote to leave rather than these mutually exclusive


narratives which they have at the moment? That only people would want


to know that. One is the normally option that is you keep the single


market but you have to accept all the rules of the single market, you


do not have any say in making all these rules. The other option is to


not have the special arrangement these rules. The other option is to


with Europe. Trade on the single market under the trade organisation


and go it on our own. Those are different options. Both of them are


viable. Owing it alone, coming out of the European single market, would


require changes in our economic structure such as New Zealand went


through 30 years or so ago but they are very viable but I think people


would want to know what is the option without going to get?


Sovereignty is one of the other issues you identified, isn't it? You


think that is one where perhaps Leave have the advantage because


they can say whichever way you cut this up, whichever way you dice this


Britain will have more sovereignty inside the EU than outside it? It


would because it would not have too but they things that were political


in this country but if we want to get the single market we have to


accept the single market rules which gets us back to Norway and


Switzerland which are formerly sovereign but have two up by single


market rules so they really have no choice in the matter. Immigration


which flows directly from that because if you are part of the


single market you would in fact have to accept free movement of Labour


but immigration, it is one of these big emotional issues in this debate,


isn't it? Yes, and we have two separate the general issue of


migration from the question of Europe the membership and the free


movement of workers which is due to the European Union. A migration


crisis, movement from outside the euro in union, this is another


matter. One of the things David Cameron was told very firmly when he


started his renegotiation was the principle of free movement of


workers within the European Union is untouchable. If you want to have the


rest of the free market, the single market you have to have that and


Switzerland tried to reach this and was told in no uncertain terms you


cannot do it. Only any cleaner really about the issues after weeks


of hearing that both sides work beating each other over the heads


and insulting each other than be read at the beginning? These are


complex issues. These are extremely complex issues. I think we were


getting close to the issue two three weeks ago folks on the single


market, migration, issues of sovereignty but recently and we have


still a month to go, both sides have been producing some while addictions


as to what can happen taking it well beyond the issues of integration


itself and the European Union talking about a terrorism, third


World wards and so on. It is starting to confuse the electorate.


Brian Montieth from the Leave EU campaign is in our Edinburgh


studio and John Edward from Scotland Stronger in Europe


Is it your view, John Edward, that the economy is your strongest suit?


It is one of the strongest suits certainly because that is what an


economic community and the single market was all about and where we


are fairly clear that staying in this status quo gives us access and


trade across the 20 member states and one thing we about on the Leave


side is either is no blueprint and the White Paper. It seems to us that


everyone is out of step except our job and all the international bodies


and mean allies suggest for trading purposes and servers as it would be


good to stay in and I think we are probably on the right of that. Ryan


McGeever from your own point of view and you think it is important


McGeever from your own point of view Leave side get a single narrative on


what exactly it is they want us to do if we leave the European Union


because as Michael Keating was pointing out the various options


being pursued at the moment are mutually exclusive. Absolutely not.


I think it would be a big mistake of the Leave campaign to have a single


narrative. We saw in the referendum campaign for Scotland having a


single narrative it became a target to be taken down. It was a wicker


man that was eventually burnt to senders. I think what has to be


explained as that one be bought to leave we gain that sense of


sovereignty, that sense of taking control of our destiny and at that


point we can negotiate and decide what our narrative can become so it


is not for the weak campaigners to dig 18 additive to actually put


forward what the opportunities are dig 18 additive to actually put


that they can offer us and while I think that is what they should be


doing I would like to see them doing more of it cause I think they have


in court on the back foot in the economy and they do need to try a


lot harder on it. We do have the arguments. Immigration, John Edward,


that is an argument with the remains I guileless, four double closet is


all very well saying if we left we would still have to have the


movement of Labour but that does not get you pass the point that if we


vote to remain the most certainly will have the movement of Labour and


that is the thing that troubles many of the people who want to vote to


get out? We will have free movement of Labour, of course, which is not


the same as free movement of people. People who want to come here to work


have to have a job to come to and it is exactly the same for British


people who expect the same level of protection when they go overseas to


work at it is important we do not allow people to complete this with


the historic issue up people on the move from Syria which is a


once-in-a-lifetime problem which we have to do with whether we are in


Europe or out of it but a free market is something I thought a


country like Scotland, very reliant on services, should be supportive of


and we might talk for the best any situation where the double tear


itself there's it would take years to negotiate a position. It seems an


odd way to look forward. Under European law you have to have a


odd way to look forward. Under to come here is not strictly true,


it is not true at all, John Edward? The right of free movement applies


to workers so you have the right to come here at if you're expecting the


Social Security and benefits that come with what you have to have a


job to come to. It is that simple. It was the same for construction


workers going to Germany in the 1980s. Brian Menteith. The migration


issue is important in Scotland. I can assure you the people I know who


are doing public meetings are and down the country have been surprised


to find at these meetings what is raised that they do not expect to be


raised is the migrant, economic migrant issue. From Orkney and


Shetland, Inverness, areas you might think being on the polyphony of


Scotland never mind Europe, it is raised. Raised not as an issue of


race or religion but he will have great concerns about the stress is


placed on public services and that is why it comes up. Sovereignty,


Brian Menteith, a big issue, how do you reply to the point you are in


favour of staying in Natal. As part of Nato we would be committed to


actually going to war under certain conditions because of that alliance


and in the world we would pull sovereignty and the sovereignty we


would pool in the European Union is potentially much less catastrophic


than the sovereignty we rule through ordinations -- organisations like


Natal. I think the main concern is that what has happened in regard to


the creation of our laws and the overseeing of our laws such as


minimum pricing of alcohol, we have lost the power to create our own


laws. That was finally to the European court of justice so there


is an issue the in comparison to the security which Nato has divided and


that cataclysmic safeguard that you are illustrating has protected us


but do we need that type of pooling of sovereignty to have rules about


the pricing of whiskey, vodka, or Buckfast and Scottish shops? I don't


think so. This is a line I have heard a few


times in the last few weeks. What the European Court said it is not


for them to decide if this is the best way for the Scottish


Government, but the suggestion they put forward is that there are other


ways than taxation. They passed it back to the national courts. Brian


can chuckle all he wants but he knows that to be true. The fact that


it even reached the European courts is the point. There is an equal


standard of law across Europe. That is what makes it different from


Nato. Brian and myself and everybody else has access to the law and its


protections. It is easy to laugh at this as regulation but it matters to


people's lives. Brian, if you had a different hat on, you would be


saying that the SNP only wants minimum pricing because they do not


have powers over taxation of alcohol. Of course they would like


them because they would like independence but what they are doing


is trying to get power through the back door. He would be sneering at


them rather than come cleaning about the European union. I have no love


for the European union -- I have no love for minimum pricing, but I


think it should be taken by Scottish politicians who are accountable. It


think it should be taken by Scottish should not need to be referred as it


has been with those interested in spirit production, to the European


Court. We should have our own sovereignty to defend that.


Time to review the past week and look ahead to what's coming


Joining me now is David Clegg, the Political Editor


at the Daily Record, and Kieran Andrews,


David, education, what did you make of what John Swinney was seeing? The


most striking thing was that he was quite candid about the scale of the


challenge facing him. To be honest he is underplaying it even by doing


that. The attainment gap is very big already. It appears to be growing.


There does not seem to be any idea of putting more resources in. The


main thing you need is more teachers and smaller class sizes but that


does not seem to be figuring too heavy on the radar. The other thing


that I thought was interesting, it has not been clear up until now,


they have staked their reputation on, it is clear they want outcomes


at each stage in a child's progress including if they get into


university, which is increasing the standards that they need to be


judged successfully. It is a neat way of standardised testing which is


proving controversial as a policy from the SNP. And if teachers are


having to mark these papers as well as teach their classes day to day


and do whatever else, it is not a nine until half past three job,


having to mark tests will put more strain on the teacher profession and


cause more headaches for John Swinney down the line. The real


issue with testing is that these things to be credible have to be


externally marked. Perhaps not in primary one and primary for, but he


seems to concede the point that in primary seven and S3 they have to


be. There is also a confused message because there will be subjective


teacher view taken into account as well. The SNP seems to have a mixed


message there. As I understand that what they said was that the


published information about the result of the tests might be the raw


published information about the data supplemented by some teacher


assessment. I take your point that that inevitably makes it subjective,


but of course internally they would still have the raw data, so


presumably internally they would be able to say that the school which


has roughly the same pupil intake as the school and it is dreadful, we


had better do something about it. That brings you back to the problem


of week tables, which Nicola Sturgeon said she is keen to avoid,


but what is the point in collating data to judge how people are doing


if you are not good to use some form of tabling? They could see the could


use it internally as education managers without actually publishing


it. It makes me uncomfortable that notion about how we will be able to


monitor what the Government is doing if there is one set of data that is


internal and another set that is different. One thing I will say


about John Swinney, talking about trading data with you, he is good at


picking the right data. He has had years of practice in drabness. One


of the things over the course of the next few years is how opposition


parties and the media keep an eye on exactly what they are doing. It is a


tough one isn't it? It is not like, I will have a fight with whoever is


running social services and finalise a budget. It is almost a residual


attainment gap. It is a difficult thing to target and know that what


you are doing is good to have the effect that you want. It is


multifaceted. Coming in as Education Secretary, it is not just the


attainment gap as an endgame, but you have got shortages of teachers,


big class sizes, university budgets being reduced, named persons act,


they just complaining about workload, there are a lot of big


issues. The point about external markers, schools already struggle to


get markers to mark exams. This year and they have a problem with physics


markers. Let us look at a headline. I suspect you will not be getting


markers. Let us look at a headline. too many Christmas cards from Stuart


Hall see, but do you think all of this could stop him -- Christmas


cards from Stuart Hosie. It seems there are sources breathing about


the art angry at this. You see it as SNP sources. That is interesting. It


is relatively rare to have people identifying as SNP sources


criticising the SNP. Part of that is Stuart Hosie was part of the old


guard. It would have been thought that he was a safe pair of hands


guard. It would have been thought which is why he has been given this


drive to raise support for independence. It will be difficult


for him to take a high-profile media presence and not have this cast up


to him. The other side of that as it is not clear what this campaign is


supposed to amount to. When I asked Nicola Sturgeon she said, I am not


telling you because I have not announced it yet. Is it a public


campaign to convince people in favour of independence or is it more


of a self examination by the SNP? We have not conducted any self


examination of why they lost the last campaign. If it is a self


examination does not mean that Stuart Hosie will still be in the


running to coordinate that. He has had success with his involvement in


the last two manifestos of the SNP but it is a dynamic at the top of


the SNP, he is Nicola Sturgeon's deputy leader of the party,


internally... Presumably David Cameron would say he wished he had


that rather than Boris Johnson. We have to leave it there.


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


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by Vote Leave campaigner Lord Owen and director general of the CBI Carolyn Fairbairn to discuss the EU referendum. Plus a look at the accuracy of EU referendum polls and an interview with former deputy leader of the Labour Party Harriet Harman. On the political panel are Janan Ganesh from the Financial Times, Tom Newton Dunn from the Sun and Isabel Oakeshott from the Daily Mail.

Download Subtitles