05/06/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest on the EU referendum campaigns. Andrew is joined by John Prescott and Conservative MP David Davis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/06/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Just over a fortnight to go and the referendum


debate is getting serious, with John Major launching a


We'll be discussing the week's big developments


campaigns, and we've got two big hitters for the price of one -


I'll be joined by Labour's John Prescott,


I'll be joined by Labour's John Prescott


And if you haven't decided how to vote yet you're not the only one -


one MP who's only now finally reached a decision will reveal


live on air if he's backing Leave or Remain.


Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:


We're taking the temperature on the EU with Scotland Stronger


in Europe, and in the Western Isles which voted no to the EEC


And, in a week in which one poll showed the public are three times


more likely to trust the word of a random stranger


And, in a week in which one poll showed the public are three times


I'm joined by a political panel with the full authority


It's Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott, and Janan Ganesh.


We'll try and find some random strangers to replace


them next week, and see if you notice the difference!


So, in case you weren't sure just how high the stakes were in this


referendum campaign, you only have to look at this


morning's papers, and listen to former Prime Minister John Major


taking aim at his fellow Tories in the Leave campaign.


The current Prime Minister David Cameron tried to get his party


to avoid so-called blue-on-blue attacks, in the hope of keeping


It seems like John Major didn't get the message,


as he accused the Leave campaign of squalid deceit,


and called Boris Johnson a court jester.


Here he is, talking to Andrew Marr earlier.


This is going to affect people, their livelihoods, their future,


for a very long time to come, and if they are given honest,


straightforward facts and they decide to leave,


then that is the decision the British people take.


But if they decide to leave on the basis of inaccurate


information, inaccurate information known to be inaccurate,


Now, I may be wrong, but that is how I see their campaign.


And this is so important, for once, I'm not prepared to give the benefit


of the doubt to other people, I'm going to say


And I think this is a deceitful campaign, and in terms


of what they are saying about immigration, a really


They are misleading people to an extraordinary extent.


So, that was former Prime Minister John Major, but,


when Boris Johnson took to the same sofa, he studiously declined


to return fire when asked if those words were part of an attempt


by the Remain campaign to "take him out".


Whether it is or not, this morning I think that...


I'm rather with John McDonnell this morning...


He says that there's too much of this sort of blue-on-blue action,


and what he wants to hear is the arguments,


Boris failing to take the bait. As I said, John major hadn't got the


memo from down the street, that was a joke.


The fact was John Major was sent into the show by Downing Street to


beat up on Boris. Is that an example, a testament to have rattled


they are? My own evidence is they are very


rattled, they got extremely twitchy about something I tweeted on Friday


night where I suggested a prominent Remain person was appearing on sky.


This shows the level of nerves in Downing Street. The kind of language


being exchanged between senior figures in the party raises very


serious questions about how the party comes together.


We had Michael Gove this morning saying he thinks the party can come


together on June the 24th. Of course they can, but I doubt it will be on


June the 24th. It is quite remarkable for a


Conservative Downing Street to get a former Conservative prime ministers


to come onto the BBC, the main Sunday morning news show, Andrew


Maher, and to beat up on the man who is currently favourite to be the


Tory leader. That is almost unprecedented.


John Major put his credibility on the line with phrases like squalid,


depressing. He was going for Boris Johnson.


There is a clear, strategic imperative behind what John Major


was saying, he is trying to reduce Boris Johnson's credibility,


currently the most popular and trusted figure in the EU debate.


They are worried and trying to harm that.


So, they are going for the man. The Big Questions this morning for


Downing Street, and it is right to point fingers at Downing Street for


pushing this kind of intervention, stiffening John Major's spines when


it turned out Boris was going to be on the programme I think he had a


bubble. That is my understanding. The danger


is that Downing Street are encouraging this, to send this


debate into a Tory blue-on-blue battle.


The effect may well be to deter Labour voters.


The people who want Britain to stay inside you need to do two things, to


make sure Tory voters vote for Remain, and turn out the Remain vote


against Labour and SNB voters. The question is whether having all


the headlines dominated by this blue-on-blue fight -- SNP.


It means people shrug and give up. It is more than just blue-on-blue.


From what John Major said this morning, it seems Downing Street is


prepared to trash the Tory brand, their own brand, in desperation to


win on June the 23rd. John Major describing one of the


likely people to be the ex-Tory leader -- next Tory leader as a


court jester. Saying, if you put Michael Gove,


Boris Johnson comic Iain Duncan Smith in charge of the NHS, is like


giving your pet hamster to a buy them. A second Tory poster. How can


you not conclude they are so desperate about June the 23rd they


are prepared to trash their own party's brand.


Short of using the B word when he thought the Microsoft when talking


to Michael Brunson, it was very vociferous.


It is true Boris Johnson did not retaliate in the interview. John


Major and number ten would argue that retaliation was made very


early, over the past few weeks, the Prime Minister's integrity on some


questions had been brought into doubt by people in his own party.


Without defending number ten's instructions to John Major if they


exist, they feel aggrieved because of attacks during the campaign.


Looking at the footage of John Major, I detect sincere emotion on


his part, rather than being a mouthpiece.


I did argue that he didn't mean what he said.


As Sam was saying, he didn't want to come on.


This is such an important development, it tells us about the


remain camped. Now, staying with the EU referendum,


today we're going to try Two well-informed campaigners,


the Conservative MEP Dan Hannan and the Labour MP Emma Reynolds,


will be interrogating each other I'll mostly just be sitting


back to watch. A short while ago in our green room,


they tossed a coin to see Emma is the winner, or loser,


depending on your point of view, so they'll be the first


to be cross-examined. They took a break in campaigning


to make their pitch I'm Daniel Hannan, Conservative


Member of the European Parliament, and I'm inviting you to fire me


on the 23rd of June. First, because leaving


is the modern choice. The European Union


is a relic of the 1950s, when regional blocs


looked like the future, but that world has been overtaken


by technological change. Second, because it's


the cheaper choice. Instead of handing Brussels


?20 billion a year gross, 10 billion net, we'll have our money


to spend on our priorities. We will take back the sublime right


to hire and fire our own lawmakers. In a necessarily uncertain world,


we will have taken back control to mitigate any risks ourselves


instead of passing power to people who may not


have our interests at heart. And fifth, because it's


the confident choice. We are a merchant,


maritime, global nation, the fifth largest economy


on the planet, one of five permanent seat-holders


on the UN Security Council. We have the world's most


widely studied language, before we are able to run our own


affairs in our own interests? Trading and cooperating with friends


and allies on every continent, including Europe,


but living under our own laws. So, here are Dan Hannan


and Emma Reynolds. And, just to explain the rules,


you've just five You can only ask questions,


or only give answers. Nine out of ten economists and a


string of organisations say leaving the EU would damage the economy,


make families worse off, cause a recession, could you name an


independent economic force -- economic forecaster who has said the


opposite? Five former chancellors are


campaigning to leave, plenty of economists, ...


Gerard Lyons has said, although in favour of leaving, if we were to


vote to leave, the two years, it would cause great uncertainty and


depress the economy. He hasn't said that. He said that in


a report. He hasn't. You will have to do


better than that. He is strongly of the view leaving means walking away


from a declining trade bloc and being able to leap up... And the


uncertainty? All these international bodies...


Hang on. The IMF, these are people who shared the outlook,


international bureaucrats, they share the lifestyle, the tax-free


lifestyle, they shared the basic outlook. Through euros, because that


is the kind of circles they live in. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is


widely respected, they have said by leaving we could blow a black hole


of up to ?40 billion in our public finances, meaning less money for


public services. They were feeding in the same basic


data they got from these IMF, OECD organisations.


They are independent. If I didn't think we would be better off as a


whole, I would not be inviting viewers to make me redundant. The


reason I am confident I will have a job in the private sector doing


something more productive than regulating everyone else is we


shouldn't be linked to the world is Oates only collapsing trade bloc.


There are huge opportunity -- the world's. We are the only one that


hasn't grown. Another question, you have described


the NHS as the biggest 60 year mistake, why can the public trust


the Leave campaign when they don't want the NHS to be in public hands?


I said the mistake was having a nationalised system rather than a


pluralist one as they have in almost every other industrialised country.


The referendum is an instruction to the Government to get us out.


It does not mean you are electing the boat Leave campaign, but giving


a mandate to get us out on terms and in a timescale said to our allies


across the control -- the channel but in our interests.


We are really looking at a decision to leave and asking people not to


trust any other politician but the British electorate.


The weight of economic evidence is on the remain camped, you would


admit that at least. Can you name a country that has


access to the single market but does not accept free movement?


The EU side free trade agreements with Colombia...


You said access to the single market, every country in Europe has


access to the single market. There is a free trade area from


non-EU Iceland... Why therefore does Ireland and


Norway faced agricultural tariffs of over 13%?


Ireland and Norway? Icelands and Norway.


Yes, they have wisely chosen to stay out of the Common Agricultural


Policy. Their farmers are strongly in favour of staying out of the CIP.


If we did the same thing, instead of being doubly penalised as a net food


importer with efficient farms, paying more in, getting less out, we


can have a British farming policy tailored to suit our needs.


In Northern Ireland, you suggested the border would remain open between


the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. How can you therefore


guarantee that if you want to stop free movement, that European


migrants would not come through that border? You are leaving the back


door open. Illegal migrants could come through that border today but


do not. They could come through legally. We have an agreement which


includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are not in


the, it long predates the EU. The point is it is possible now, don't


take anyone's word for it, we have a common travel area with EU and


non-EU states, no-one in Dublin or Westminster is suggesting that is a


problem. We have only three seconds to go, tough and time in the


interests of fairness! It is the dunnock Emma to be cross-examined,


let's look at her pitch to undecided voters.


We are stronger, safer and better off in Europe.


Families benefit from lower prices, more jobs,


Businesses benefit from a European single market


Workers benefit from employment protection.


We trade more with the EU than any other country.


from companies like Jaguar Land Rover here in the West Midlands.


And by staying in the EU, we will attract even more investment


and create more jobs for the next generation.


In the 21st century, the challenges that our country face


no longer stop at the White Cliffs of Dover.


Cross-border crime and terrorism, climate change -


by working with our European partners,


we can meet these challenges successfully.


predicts that damage will be done to our economy if we leave.


And the Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney,


It would create a black hole in our public finances,


meaning less money for our public services, like schools and the NHS.


for more jobs, prosperity and security.


As before, Dan, you now have five minutes


to put your questions. Off you go.


Thank you. As you know, the EU is not a settled dispensation, it is


undergoing the Euro crisis, the Schengen crisis, migration problems,


and it is evolving - what are the greatest risks of Remain? Well, you


would keep your job! You seem to want to lose your job. I don't think


that there are great risks of as remaining, because we have the best


of both worlds. We are not in the eurozone, we have the pound as our


currency, like eight other member states retain their currency, but we


have unfettered access to the single market, and no other country... What


can you tell us about budget contributions in ten or 15 years'


time? I know what our budget contributions are today, not what is


on the side of your bus. How many migrants might be resettled here?


More came from outside of the EU than inside. Can you tell us how


many bailouts we might be dragged into? Zero. So if we vote to stay


in, even though we had a written guarantee in 2014 that which would


not be dragged into a bailout, you trust them this time? You say that


but you are a MEP. I am asking the questions. I think the ministers go


to the Council of Ministers meetings, 97% of the votes won, we


are not run by Eurocrats. You cannot answer any of the questions about


how it might look if we stay in, so there are risks both ways. Is it


safer to take back control to mitigate risks ourselves, or save a


passing control to people who may not have our interests at heart? I


do not know why you mistrust our European partners to such a great


extent, because the challenges we face in the 21st century, climate


change, cross-border crime, terrorism, those are challenges we


share with our partners. Let me ask another question, in our country we


have an example of a very high-minded, radical tradition that


has been very good at dispersing power from oligarchs to the general


population. As an heiress to the suffragettes and the chartists, do


you feel comfortable backing an elitist, anti-democratic project


where supreme power is wielded by people immune to the ballot box,


where we pay more to wealthy French farmers than poor African farmers,


and where we have inflicted joblessness and misery on tens of


millions of people around the Mediterranean while Eurocrats like


around in private jets? Does that seem comfortable as a person on the


centre-left? I feel comfortable because I feel the EU has been a


force for good in terms of employment protection, in a way a


Conservative governments never has, comfortable because we elect our


MEPs, and we elect a government that sends ministers to Brussels to have


the final say on European regulations, and I feel comfortable


as a British MP that over the vast majority of policy areas, whether


health, housing, education, policing, we have confidence in


those areas. So Lord Rose, the leader of the remainder campaign


says Vote Leave for higher wages, Paddy Ashdown says we will get


cheaper food, don't you think there are benefits to the majority of low


and medium income people from having that boosting household income? On


the contrary. So they are wrong? I think they are wrong, people in my


constituency, low and middle incomes, they will suffer the most


if manufacturing is eliminated, according to the Brexit Economist,


the Bank of England governor has predicted a recession, and it will


be people I reserve present who will be worse after macro, not people


earning high income jobs. -- worse off. What is the strongest argument


for voting Leave? I don't think there is one. None at all? This is


one of the things that puzzles a lot of people trying to make up their


mind. You do not think there are any benefits of staying in the EU. It is


not my job to tell you them, but I can see them! People make an issue


out of being so broad-minded and reasonable, but they struggle to see


the other point of view at all. They cannot put themselves in the shoes


of the people that the EU is not benefiting, which is the vast


majority. There is a lot of scaremongering on your side about


what might happen, because if we stay in, we will pretty much have


the status quo, access to a market where we trade more than with the


rest of the world, 44% of our exports go to the rest of the EU.


Our trade unions represent four million people who think we should


stay. I would rather this on to them than you. Do you think the European


Union is a growing, successful scheme that people would join today


if we were not already a member? Yes no? Yes. We ended there, I thank you


both for that. So, this week both sides of this


referendum have really The big set-piece TV


grillings have begun. Senior Conservatives have been


knocking lumps out of each other. And the Labour machine seems finally


to have creaked into life. We'll be talking about


all of that today. But, first, our Adam's been


on the buses to see where this


campaign is heading. There's livestock,


there's Boris Johnson, and there's a man


with a stuffed animal. Well, I suppose I could have


accidentally bought the cow This was the week the referendum


started to feel a bit more like a general election


campaign, and not just because of


the photo op. Vote Leave unveiled


a spending commitment, cutting the VAT on domestic fuel,


and a whole new immigration system - And here Boris told farmers


that their subsidies would be safe, even if the UK left the EU -


not everyone was convinced. There's no authority, no power,


he's just a person that's walked in here


and said what he's got to say. You could say it, I could


say it, I can promise. First of all,


where are your wellies? Are you getting a bit


of grief from the farmers? No, there's a lot of


support, a lot of support, and a lot of people


coming up to me and saying, "We are with you,


we want to come out." Some people, obviously, need


reassurance about the subsidies, He left - without offering me


a lift, so I caught the train, to Birmingham,


and the Labour in campaign. But this week Jeremy Corbyn


made a big speech after it emerged many Labour supporters didn't know


the party was in favour of the EU. Do you think that was


a great speech from JC? Jeremy's journey, if you like,


which mirrors the journeys that many have made on this,


he was a Eurosceptic in '75, and I think he's more powerful


for that. Our journey took us to a building


site to see investment from abroad that the Remain campaign claim


is linked to our EU membership. Of course, with foreign


money comes foreigners. How are you going to vote?


No, come out. Why's that? Because of all the immigrants


and things like that. Too many of them now


coming into this country. Well, inevitably,


I've ended up in one of these This week, the Remain campaign


got some high visibility backing from foreign leaders -


in Spain, the Netherlands, the former Foreign Secretary


David Miliband. Some people might say


that you live in America now, you are one of these high-profile


foreigners coming over and lecturing us on what to do,


what do you say to that? I'm a British voter,


and I'm able to speak with passion about my own country,


this is my home country, and although it's not where I live


and work at the moment, I still feel that there is


a real obligation to speak not just to the economic issues


and the security issues, but also the foreign-policy


issues, frankly. to ride on Britain Stronger


in Europe's luxury coach, or hop onto Nigel Farage's


double-decker. You wait ages for a referendum


battle bus to come along, So, you heard Alan Johnson there


defending Jeremy Corbyn's latest intervention in the referendum


campaign, despite critics claiming that Labour hasn't exactly been


full-throated in its campaign Well, the former Deputy Prime


Minister and veteran Labour campaigner John Prescott


seems to agree. He says in his newspaper column


today that his party's message


hasn't been getting through. John Prescott, good morning to you.


Good morning. You say in your column that the Conservatives have hijacked


the campaign, why has Labour allowed that to happen? It is a good point,


I suggested in the paper that it seems almost to have been the


strategy, blue on blue destroying the Tory party, hopefully, we will


have to wait and see! We saw that in the broadcasts this morning, but


where is Labour? It seems as if we are just enjoying the fight between


them, but that is not putting our position. Labour maybe in the


European Union, I support being in it, but we're not putting the


arguments, and so when you see on a bus there, for example, on Boris's


bus, ?350 million a week to put into the health service, this is from a


government that reduced from 9% of GDP the average in Europe to 7%, and


when they go on with a Labour politician in this way, Gisela, the


Tories get the publicity, and they are in the background. We are not


putting down the record of the Tories, they cannot do it because


they are in a joint agreement on a bus about Europe. Let me just get


another question in, as a result of everything you say, are you worried


that you are failing to galvanise the Labour vote, do get it out to


vote for Remain on the 23rd? Absolutely! Labour people want to


hear Labour people talking about this government's record, whether


they are four in or out, they carried out a record that is


basically destroying our health service, housing was halved in


billions, and now they say they will bring it. Michael Gove says all


these terrible bankers, why didn't the vote with Labour to stop the


bonuses for them? He didn't, he doesn't, they are hypocritical, we


must show that Labour has strong values, we believe in social


justice. When you have heard Tories talking about being social justice?!


Look Labour, at Labour. Maybe Labour voters are confused, when you look


at Jeremy Corbyn's pro EU speech, he spent as much time attacking the


Tories and EU policies. Good on Jeremy! By Sea said the bad things


predicted by Vote Leave work addicted by those who say we should


remain, that all the scare stories were just myth-making and prophecies


of doom. Is it any surprise that Labour voters are confused? Yes, but


I do not think we should talk too much about what we should do, Jeremy


is not a passionate man, he does not scream and shout like me, does he?!


But to that extent, our people want to see, and this is what has


happened to politics, people speak and do believe what they are saying!


On both sides, Cameron's side, Boris Johnson, they are saying things that


they did not do in government, which Labour oppose, and they are against


social justice. We want a Labour Europe, different to them, not, we


all believe in Europe, let's travel on the same bus! No wonder people


are confused, get a strong Labour voice, and glad Jeremy said what he


said, but point out what these beggars did in government!


What about the confusion, even Damian McBride caught on Twitter


offering policy tips to the Brexit campaign.


Labour voters seem to be confused. I don't say that the Europe they


want is the one I want. I took part in the last referendum. Despite the


Tories not giving us a referendum and taking us in 1975 into the


common market. I do believe, I was against a political Europe. In fact,


I turned down a job with Jim Callaghan to be commissioner. On


that ground, I thought that is where they were heading.


I can't say it has stopped. What we argued then was for a wider Europe


so we didn't move along the federal Europe case. That is still an


argument to be fought for, I feel strongly, Labour does. I'm not sure


the Tories pursued it. Sadiq Khan, tested Jarrell, Harriet


Harman, they have appeared with Tories, including the Prime


Minister. You refused, but last night you were appearing on Russia


Today, a Putin propaganda channel, with Ken Livingstone, he has been


suspended from your party, have you thought this through?


Of course. I don't go in joint party operations, I never have. I didn't


when I fought the Labour in 1975. I am the same. I am not saying they


can't or shouldn't. We are saying the Labour vote is crucial and there


is confusion as to the Labour position.


Standing alongside Tory politicians, the survey has recently shown most


of the speeches that come out of that are Tory spokesmen. 48% Tory,


8% Labour. Why are we confused? Like in Scotland, if you appear alongside


them bring on Europe, you better start telling people what you


disagree about. Jeremy is trying to do that. I


wouldn't do it, it adds to the confusion. If you can't get the


Labour vote out in big numbers, are you worried you could lose this


referendum? Yes. I want every Labour person in


to vote. I fought on the last one thinking we would win on the


referendum, and we lost, mainly it was particularly women, they get


concerned about the long-term, their children, security, I think that is


what defeated as in 1975. Seriously, I think it will go the other way. We


need to be talking about the big powers. It is not Britain on its


own, it is global powers, America, India, China, who will decide the


issue about crime, immigration, security. We will be a little island


shouting out, don't you recognise we are a big power. But we will have no


say in a global decision. Jeremy Corbyn has hinted he might


bring Ed Miliband into the Shadow Cabinet. What about you, are you


available? I have done my bit for the Labour


Party, except shouting on the side as I do. That is his decision. I


want to see a united party. One of the things is people are confused


because of these changes. Where does Labour stand? Start talking about it


and be clearer on immigration. We have been cowards, the whole


political establishment has avoided the argument. That is a global


solution. There will be more migration coming from African


countries which have no water or food because of climate change. This


is not a temporary problem but a global problem and needs a global


solution and not a little country on the side shouting and staying out of


it. Thank you.


Now, even if plenty folks are still undecided,


you might think most Mps will have made their mind up as to how they'll


It's only two-and-a-half weeks to go, after all.


But, according to our research, there at still 26 undecided Tory


Well, we're going to reduce that number by one today,


as the Conservative MP Johnny Mercer is here to reveal for the first time


What is your decision? The first thing to say is, like a lot of


people, being out on the doors of Plymouth, we are disappointed by the


level of debate. Even today.


What is your decision? It is important to get this across.


But tell me, leave or remain? Two Government ministers saying the


Government is not telling the truth about the economy which has upset


people. In terms of this referendum, it is


clear we should remain, not a single economic expert has come out and


said this will do things for our economy, our jobs.


If you look at what this garment has delivered in places like Plymouth


around jobs, the single biggest factor in improving people's life


chances, it has done good things. It is the economic case.


And a security case. Why do the people of Plymouth seem not


convinced quite a recent polls say they were largely for Leave.


A poll I have been running has come out and said that.


When this debate started, I said this was an issue, not the issue. It


has become clear. I did not think we would vote to leave the EU. This is


a vote of singular importance to this country. People have begun to


forget we need to get on with Government on June 24.


That may be the case. But do you think you can win on the economic


arguments? With the economic arguments, there are single clear


points. On the economy, the people who


always feel the worst affected, it is always the most vulnerable.


Always those who file like a desperate struggle. My area of


Plymouth is still categorised by the EU as a deprived area in parts. They


cannot take that shock. It is OK for others to say we can go to this


nirvana. The truth is the same people are affected.


Why do 74% in your constituency say...


That is a very small poll. But it is indicative of the mood,


74%. People will feel more passionate


about leaving because for some people this is a single issue. They


have been looking for a reason to come out and leave the EU. I think


the vast majority do not want to leave. You are looking at where we


are now it is not perfect. We are on this trajectory. Do we throw it away


for a nirvana no one can quite lay their hands on. Could the most


vulnerable in the UK who rely on a job, on the NHS, public service


funding, could they withstand that shock? I can look them in the eye


and say, I went this based on something that sounded like a great


idea but I could not go for it. It has loads of problems.


Why take so long? Thinking about Europe is not something I got into


politics today about. I have spoken to a lot of people. It


would be naive to suggest there are reasons why people want to leave. On


balance, it is a clear case. Society is judged by how it looks after its


vulnerable. We have to remain part of the EU to continue to do that. It


isn't perfect. Thank you for coming on and telling


us how you will vote on June 23. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland who leave us now Good morning and welcome


to Sunday Politics Scotland. the Western Isles voted no


in the referendum on the EEC. As we approach the next vote


on Europe, we've been back to find Former Labour leaders


urge members to turn out We'll be asking John Edward,


spokesperson for Scotland After the tragic death of Liam Fee -


the children's commissioner says questions about


the Named Persons Act But is there a genuine public


interest at stake? When the UK last held


a referendum on Europe - 41 years ago today -


the Western Isles was one of only two regions to reject continued


membership of what was then In other words, the Western Isles


have never formally endorsed So what will they do


on June the 23rd - Our political correspondent,


Glenn Campbell, has been travelling Remote and rugged. These islands are


on the very edge of the European Union. The Western Isles are a world


away from the governments in Edinburgh and London, never mind the


bureaucracy in Brussels. Here on the Atlantic coast, its next stop


America. But that is not to see EU membership doesn't matter year. It


really does. Traditional island industries like Harris to read,


export worldwide, including too many countries across the EU. And at this


mill they worry that a vote to leave could disrupt the single market. We


have concerns about it. It is easy for us to trade with Europe and any


constrictions are issues that might affect that is a concern for us as


business and major employer in the Hebrides. How do you hope the vote


business and major employer in the will go? We hope the vote will go


over staying in Europe and staying in terms of what we have in terms of


trade and the ability to trade with our partners neighbours in Europe.


Phishing also depends on free trade across the EU, selling much of its


catch to France and Spain. But in this harbour the fleet is smaller


than it once was and to many here blame the EU's Common fisheries


policy. This processor wants local fishermen freed from EU rules on


when and where they can finish, what they can catch and what can be


brought ashore. I think it would be better because the boats here would


be allowed to land what the catch, as sensible phishing, rather than


this EU regulation. There are people in Europe who do not know where we


are, don't understand phishing, the same way we do not understand the


phishing in the Mediterranean. How frustrating is that? Very


frustrating when you see boats catching by catch and they have to


dump it. You are on the key and you have to go to Peterhead to buy


phishing get back to the islands. It does not add up but we have to do


it. Euro scepticism is nothing new on these islands. It is almost a


tradition. In the last referendum in 1975, Shetland and the Western Isles


were the only two parts of the UK to say no to continued membership of


what was then the European economic community. The vote here were 70 -


30 against, so this is one of only two places in the country never to


have endorsed the idea of European integration. While some things have


hardly changed in the Hebrides, in the 41 years since that Fort, a


great deal has moved on. You would struggle to find anywhere in the UK


that has benefited more from EU investment than transport


infrastructure. That is where much of the money to build the bridge


connecting the island of Scalby to Harris came from. Even yet even in


this tiny community, unease with the European Union is not hard to find.


It is so alien to me. Things happening in Brussels. A whole lot


of people in Germany and France and these sorts of placing deciding what


is good to happen here. Is there a feeling in the Western Isles that


people here do not like being told what to do by people from beyond the


Western Isles? I think that is right. I think people don't


generally. Independent mindedness is part of the character here. For folk


-- Kumble says of the EU debate. Travelling through the islands,


there is hard-headed calculation to. At the boat yard, this young man who


makes his living from both fishing and crofting is weighing up what is


best for him. I am torn on that at the moment. I have seen on social


media fishermen like myself I was planning on voting out. But I come


from a crofting heritage. You get a lot of EU subsidies which we might


be losing out on. You cannot do that without getting your subsidies, how


little or how big, they do help people. If this vote was tomorrow


and you had to make up your mind, which we would you go? I would vote


to stay in the European Union. The safer option, really. We have heard


a lot on our travels down through the Western Isles about the roads,


bridges, peers that have been built partly through European Union


funding, that have made these islands so much more accessible and


perhaps there is no better example than this, the Causeway, linking


South Uist with the island of men escape. -- Eriskay. Investment will


be harder to come by in future because it means the Highlands and


Islands are competing for cash with more disadvantaged regions in


Eastern Europe. On the Isle of Barra, this crofter and oyster


Farmer believes the benefits of being in the EU, including subsidies


under the Common agricultural caps that right policy cap, will I weigh


any disadvantages. There is a lot more to be said of being in the EU


than being out. In what way, the crofting side of me says, that is


the cap, the benefits that come through that to be in -- me and the


broader community. And the Oyster farming point of view which is more


important, is a huge market, France, 200,000 oysters a year. It is


important we have access to that market. The other side of is that


there is a lot of benefit that comes to argument to through rural


development which comes through EU funding. It is better for us because


it comes back through there. This factory is the largest employer on


this island and even though even -- much of the langoustine and scallops


are sold to other EU countries, bosses here would prefer the UK to


leave the union. From the fishermen's perspective, about. Why?


They are not listening to the fisher men and what their needs are. There


is someone in Brussels making decisions which impact on this


fragile livelihood on this island and the islands around. They are


confident new trading arrangements will be agreed without damage to


their business. With the European market, what is stopping us selling


to Europe? Who is going to say you cannot buy it? If a company in Spain


says we can buy your product and would like to, who says we cannot


sell that anyway? Why should we be governed by Europe dictating when it


goes, how it goes. Whichever way the vote goes, it is clear as these


Atlantic waters that the decision to stay in or to leave really matters


here. The outcome will make a material difference to the way of


life in this room or region of the EU, just as is it dead after the


last referendum for decades ago. -- it did.


Joining me now is John Edward, who is campaign spokesperson


John Edward, if I am a supporter of Independence for Scotland, as many


people are, almost half the population, and I want a second EU


Referendum Bill Nicola Sturgeon intermittently and Alex Salmond


incessantly telling you that if Scotland votes to Remain, but the UK


votes to leave, surely I am dying for Britain to leave? I am not here


to and search any political party. If you encourage Scottish people to


leave with a vote of a second kind at some point, means we leave. If I


am a supporter of independence, I might think Remain might win anyway.


I might vote for relief because I want Britain to leave and I want


Scotland to see. I want to help the grand total of leave. I do not want


anyone to think that we will vote to leave anyway. Scotland has a big


influence in the sport. The figures are close enough to tell us but


Scotland votes Remain, that will make a significant impact to the


vote. I asked you people who are saying I am not bothered. I want a


second independence referendum. The vest vote from me is that Scotland


votes to stay. There is no other question until June the 23rd. The


only way you will get past it and get into a situation where Scotland


is in a different case, is if you vote remain. During the first


independence referendum, everyone from the president from the European


Commission downwards said that Scotland would not be, an


independent Scotland would not automatically be admitted into the


EU. Some of the Nordic leaders said they do not want Scotland to become


independent. Why should I want to vote for that lot? You are voting


for the United Kingdom to stay as part of this voting block. What we


have got to remember is that it is our voice in Europe that is


involved. The vast majority of all trading partners within the EU and


whether it would like us to stay part of the system, that seems to be


a consensus that is building by the day. Is there a democratic deficit


in the UK? There is to a certain extent because there is a perceived


democratic deficits. If people do not think it is closer, then that is


a deficit. No law, and that is something I have had to tackle


across Holland, no law can be passed without your elected, British


elected minister and UK elected MEPs passing it. In terms of democracy,


bills are drafted, bills are put out to public consultation, they go


through Parliamentary committees. After the last European elections,


it was said that in fact we had been voting on whether John Claude Yunker


or his opponent should become president of the European


Commission. Can you just remind us of which party won that election?


There is not one political party. There are 303 political parties. The


centre-right party won, but that is as narrow definition as it gets. Not


many Scottish people care about that and that is my point. If people


many Scottish people care about that perceive it to be far-away... We


were told boss to mislead, as it were that we were voting for her


president of the European Commission and John Claude Yunker became


president... The member states said we will respect the majority vote in


the European union elections in terms of appointing a president and


they took that and that is why he became president. I am sure some


people in Scotland followed the events of Mr Yunker as things carry


but... He is only a head of civil service. He is not a president or a


Prime Minister. Let's not told European Parliament to a stronger


standing. But it is not just in Britain. No one identifies with the


European Union as a democratic entity. Surely much better to go


back to having the British Parliament and Scottish Parliament


as our democracy? They are our sovereign bodies and will always be.


The European Union is not and never will be. It is an entirely different


system in world politics, I will admit, but we have political control


United Nations. Have decided to save United Nations. Have decided to save


-- share our power into it to get the best out of it. Let's take an


example. You make the point, correctly, that the commission can


initiate legislation but it has to be approved by member states. Take


the working Time directive. I know a lot of people in Scotland would be


in favour of this because they think it gives them protection but whether


you are in favour of it or not, it was passed despite the protest of


British government, the European Commission then said it was health


and safety legislation, meaning that the European Court of Justice could


impose it on Britain, even though the elected government of Britain at


that time did not want anything to do with it. In what even tortured


European sense cannot be said to be democratic? Two things. One, the


European Court of justice can only act when it's given me the -- given


the possibility of doing so. Take, you can opt out of the working Time


directive and I know that because I did sign one a view months ago. But


that is an individual opt out. This was about opting out of the whole


thing and it was imposed upon us. It was not imposed. It was challenged


in court just as the Scottish whiskey industry challenged in


court. This was opposed by British government and yet it became law.


Nonetheless, individuals can opt out as I have. That is not the point. We


could not opt out as a country. It went through the procedures of


Parliamentary scrutiny, two sets of votes. It is exactly as laws go


through Holyrood and Parliament. Not everyone agrees with those evil but


to suggest that they have total power, it can only act when we allow


them to. We can still opt out. You are an individual -- you are


An opt out if they opt out will stop An opt out if they opt out will stop


-- an opt out is an opt out. Let's leave it there. Politicians have


said for a long time, we will not leave it there. Politicians have


have anything to do with Schengen, with the new refugees act, when it


comes to a referendum and they say, you know this thing we've been


standing up to four decades is terrific and we want you to vote for


it, don't they have a problem? Absolutely and it has been a


perennial problem and that is why leave is able to go out and say


things about migration and the NHS which simply bear no relation to


reality because we, the country which have signed the treaty is, we


the one with the sovereign power in the EU, have refused to make the


case to our people as to why we are in their in the first place. That is


a problem we have to overcome. I have spent as much time over the


last four months explaining what the European union doesn't do as saying


what it does do. We have to believe that it has powers that are way


beyond what it actually has... British governments have not helped


you? No, but you will find other British governments have not helped


European country's government explaining the same thing. It is not


Brussels. Brussels is 28 member states and the power is within


those, not in Brussels. Had he been helped with some of the rhetoric by


the remaining side? -- have you been helped? You would think the world


was going to end if we left the European Union. It is perfectly


feasible for an independent Britain to negotiate traders with other


European countries. It would not be catastrophic. You could argue that


it may be stronger one way or the other but the alarmist rhetoric is


out of control, isn't it? I think the scale of it and expecting people


to judge whether an enormous figure from the IMF is one thing but we are


making a case on what we know to be true. We know there are risks in


leaving. The other side are making cases based on we don't know what.


There is no white Paper. We still have a veto over things in Europe


and discovering pots of money like bumblebees go round flowers is...


There is a reasonable economic case to say Britain could do well. I have


never said there is not some case but I genuinely believe we have


become healthier, wealthier, better educated as being part of the


European Union and we would be crazy to get rid of that. We will have


European Union and we would be crazy leave it there. Thank you.


The government's flagship Named Persons policy came under


fire again this week, following the conviction of Rachel


and Nyomi Fee for the murder of Rachel's two-year-old son Liam.


He was killed at the family's home in Fife, one of the areas


in Scotland which is piloting a similar initiative.


A serious case review has been announced to look into the exact


circumstances surrounding the toddler's death,


but questions about whether he had a single-point-of-contact worker


have been met with accusations of political posturing.


A short while ago, I spoke to the Children's Commissioner


Tam Baillie, who has written to a newspaper about this issue.


The Liam Fee case, obviously a very tragic case. You wrote an article in


the Sunday Times about it today. The third sentence of that article says,


Liam's death has been used by some as the furthering a campaign about


the Named Persons Act and it is unforgivable because the tragic loss


of a child should be above the political posturing. What do you


mean? There are two reasons. First of all, Liam Fee's death is an


absolute tragedy and it affects the individuals involved, the


communities and, indeed, the whole workforce that is involved in that.


The sad fact is, no child protection services in the world can offer


The sad fact is, no child protection assurances that it will be


fail-safe. That is the first thing. This is a real tragedy. The second


thing is the Named Persons Act service and that is a low-level,


early warning system for when things are at an early stage of going wrong


in a child's life and I can't contact up -- comment on the details


of the Liam Fee's case but we do know this was a Charlton known to


social workers. That puts that incident way beyond normal case... I


do take your point but what about the facts of this case? Fife was a


pilot area for the scheme, wasn't it? Regardless of whether Liam Fee


had a named person or not, I would say this was a child who was in a


system where it was obvious to people that he was way beyond that


early warning, early intervention. I get the point, but why don't you


know? I can't comment on the details get the point, but why don't you


of the case. You could have contacted Fife Council and asked


what the arrangements were in place? It was not my job to look into that.


There is a significant case review and I said in the article, we have


to leave the people in the significant case review to look at


the totality of actions taken to identify where the errors were made


in terms of the case. Don't you think before you wrote an article in


a national newspaper saying people were indulging in political


posturing and that their behaviour was unforgivable, as the Children's


Commissioner for Scotland, it might have been a good idea for you to


contact Fife Council and the Scottish Government and ascertain


the facts of the case? Even if there is a named person for Liam Fee, that


really is not the point in terms of that child being known to social


workers. That means they should have been systems in place to ensure the


safety of that child rather than the named person. I understand that.


John Sweeney the other day said there was a person, a point of


contact, but not in terms of the legislation. That is what he said.


Do you know what that means? I presume that he is saying there was


a person who was a point of contact somewhere with regard to the


handling of the child protection case. I can't comment on whether or


not... Again, I would put it to you, many people watching this would say,


hang on a minute. This guy is the Children's Commissioner for


Scotland. He is writing articles in national newspapers condemning


people for asking questions apropos of this case about the Named Persons


Act and he hasn't even bothered to find out what the facts are. I am


saying that it is wrong for us to link the named person with instances


of children who are within the system and whether there are


failings there or not. That is quite separate from those children who are


already identified with serious concerns and we will find from the


significant case review as to where those failings -- whether those


failings took place in this instance. The main point is that


this scheme is being piloted in places like the Highlands, it is


being piloted in Fife will stop if there was a named person in this


case, even a named person but not in terms of the legislation, as John


Sweeney put it, quite clearly it has not worked. A named person, as I


said earlier, is not supposed to be dealing with those children already


identified as being of serious concern, where they should be a plan


around it, where a number of different agencies should be around


it. Again, I accept your point that it might not be sticky relevant in


terms of this case, because this child was known to do that -- to


children services, but what's at stake here is a flagship policy of


children services, but what's at the Scottish Government and I fail


to understand why, first of all, you haven't tried to find out what is


actually happening here and secondly why it is simply not relevant to


talk about the named person. He why it is simply not relevant to


described people who have been talking about this is behaving


unforgivably. What on earth do you mean? In the first instance, it has


to be left to the serious case review to establish the facts of the


case. I make that point in the article. The second one is that we


know, and I repeat, the named person is not designed to try to assist


those children where we are ready now there is another very serious


concerns. There should be vigilant in terms of protecting those


children or that child. If you had contacted Fife Council and said, I


want to know exactly what happened here, quite rightly they would


want to know exactly what happened said, no, there is a significant


case review, and you would have agreed with them, but if at the --


but if as the Children's Commissioner you had said, can you


just tell me what the situation was with the named person, because I am


not prejudging the review. Was there with the named person, because I am


a named person in this case? Was it the full service or was it a limited


version of it, whatever that means? But you don't seem to have done


either of those things. As I have already said, in this instance, the


circumstances, the level of protection that is required, the


level of service that this child required, is way beyond that which


would be made available under the Named Persons Act. The point I'm


getting at is lack of transparency. If this is a flagship scheme, why


can't the government say, this is what the situation was and that is


that? There has been a lot of expectation


placed on and they named personally able to deal with all the instances


of concerns around children. The reason I have written the article is


that is not the case. I still do not understand who is behaving


unforgivably? I think people have been linking the named person


somehow with the terrible tragedy of... It is reasonable. There has


been no direct link made with named person and Liam Fee. The named


person is an early intervention, it is picking up children at an early


stage when there are concerns around children, rather than those children


we have to be intervening in the terms of child intervention. Some


charities have claimed that the Named Persons Act has been a success


in their region. Given this case, how are the public men to judge how


these pilot schemes are a success or not? There is an expectation about


what the named person's service is meant to do. It is an early pick-up,


we are concerned about children... How can we as a public know it is a


success or not? The government need to present the expectations of Named


Persons Act, what it will do. We have concerns about children who we


do not pick up early enough and problems that exacerbate. If we get


an early enough, we can support children and families at that stage.


Thank you very much, Tam Baillie. It's time to review the week


and to look ahead to what's coming I'm joined by Lynsey Bewes,


political reporter for the Press Association,


and by Kevin McKenna, Europe. Lindsay, are you getting


excited? We have seemed to have reached levels of massive stadium


over the European question this morning, everyone is wading in, from


Boris Johnson and John Major. It is claimed with mixed with counterclaim


as we saw and the Scottish referendum. I think the public are


going to be pretty fed up of hearing these claims from either side and


not getting facts, which we keep hearing they are looking for, shades


of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill? Kevin, are you


excited about this? I am trying to be. I was listening very closely to


John Prescott earlier in the first part of the programme. Speaking


about the widespread perception, perhaps in the Labour Party, that


this is a blue on blue debate and struggle. The passion and fervour


and the mudslinging and the civil war that is going inside the


Conservative Party makes you think that Will they recover from this?


Will David Cameron be a casualty? But what is the debate for the rest


of us. John Prescott is right to say that Labour people need to get in


because we need people in the Labour Party to have a leg in this fight


and people in the SNP. If you are a big supporter of Scottish


independence, it is not clear what side... What side your dog should be


barking on. I will be interested to see the debate between Nicola


Sturgeon and Michael. The first question should be why you using the


same questions to stay in Europe when you were opposing the


independence referendum. That is why I wonder why the SNP are choosing to


get so involved. If I was them I would be distancing myself, let them


get on with it. I am not saying the SNP are playing a double game. I


think they would say they are not. But there is a double game here. If


you really want and India reft two, according to what the leadership of


the SNP is in, your best result would be Britain out of the European


Union and Scotland footing to stay. Union and Scotland footing to stay.


-- independence referendum two. Nicola Sturgeon has said that if we


have this dragging Scotland out of the EU in this Ford, there will be


she is saying a second vote on independence. She is kind of keeping


the party supporters happy there. But she is also sing she does not


want to see that happen. I think in a lot of ways Nicola Sturgeon does


not want to see that happen because the prospect of fighting for another


referendum, and vote for Scottish independence is made harder in some


ways by the UK leaving the EU. There are a whole host of other questions


which have not been addressed about that, currency, EU membership is


putting a whole different context. My main issue with independence for


Scotland, if I want, IndyRef two, how do I vote? Is that second


referendum going to be an easy referendum to win when all those


issues come back and they are within a different context. You could say


that that will be a tricky vote for Nicola Sturgeon to secure. My


hypothetical person is good to say, forget that, I want a second


independence referendum, which way should I vote? I am hearing this


from everybody who has got an nationalist heart. Their instincts


are saying I want to stay in because this will guarantee our employment


rights, a rates of equality, or protections at work. But I am also


passionate about having Scottish independence. Nicola Sturgeon and


Alex Salmond have said that Scotland footing to stay in and the rest of


the UK voting to stay out is a valid trigger. So tactically, maybe I


should be voting to come out of Europe. However, if the vote overall


is very, very close, then SNP supporters who are thinking of that,


may have to wonder what their wish, be fearful of what they are wishing


for. We will have to leave it there. I'll be back at the


same time next week.


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest on the EU referendum campaigns. Andrew is joined by John Prescott and Conservative MP David Davis. There is also commentary from political journalists Janan Ganesh, Sam Coates and Isabel Oakeshott.

Download Subtitles