10/07/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by guests including Lord Charles Falconer and Angela Rayner MP.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/07/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Jeremy Corbyn will be challenged for the Labour Party leadership


by his former shadow cabinet colleague, Angela Eagle.


So what makes her so sure she can win?


She's the favoured candidate of Tory MPs, but will Theresa May win over


the party's grassroots to become the next Prime Minister?


And if she makes it to Number 10, what will her premiership be like?


We'll hear from May-supporter, Chris Grayling.


And after two tumultuous weeks following the referendum result,


a leading Remain campaign insider gives us her candid account


Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland, I'll be talking to former


Also on the programme, coming to terms with Brexonomics.


Golden opportunity or economic meltdown?


And with me - Janan Ganesh, Helen Lewis and Isabel Oakeshott to


help guide us through the political maelstrom - they'll be tweeting


throughout the programme using the hashtag #bbcsp.


The battle to take over from David Cameron as Conservative Party


leader and Prime Minister has rapidly moved into its final phase


- a vote of Conservative Party members who must choose


between the Home Secretary and remain supporter Theresa May,


and the business minister and Leave campaigner Andrea Leadsom.


Speaking at the launch of her campaign, Theresa May said


she wanted to unite the Conservative Party - and the country.


If ever there was a time for a Prime Minister who is ready


and able to do the job from day one, this is it.


We have immediate work to do, to restore political stability


To bring together the party and the country.


And to negotiate a sensible and orderly departure


But more than that, we have a mission to make Britain


a country that works, not for the privileged and not


for the few, but for every one of our citizens.


I've been joined by the leader of the commons, Chris Grayling,


who was one of four cabinet ministers to campaign to leave


the EU but who is now supporting Theresa May -


Why are you supporting Mrs May as a Leaver? The key thing is having a


person who is right for the job. David Cameron chose to step aside, I


regret that. We need someone to step into his shoes in whom I have


confidence that they will deliver Brexit. I have known Theresa for a


long time. She is a determined politician. Having got a mandate


from the public to deliver Brexit, she will do that. What assurances


have you sought from her? I have sought assurances that she means


Brexit is Brexit. The country has spoken. The country has given us a


clear direction to follow. The next Prime Minister has to follow that


Matt and I am confident that Theresa May is committed to that. But Brexit


can mean one of several things. They're of a. So what do you say to


Tory twos, who were on your side, that she will water down the Brexit


terms? That is not right. It is not just me, we have a range of Tory


Leavers who are backing her, because we think she has the weight and


experience to deliver. But I am not sure what assurances you have got


that she will deliver as you would want her to. For example, can you


guarantee to our viewers that she will not settle for a British


version of Norway's relationship with the EU, or Switzerland's


relationship? We have said all along that we want a UK solution. It is


not about trying to replicate someone else. We have a clear


mandate to end the principle of unfettered free movement in the UK


from elsewhere in the European Union. We saw Lily 200,000 people


arrive in the UK last year. The British public want that to change.


Theresa May palmist "Control of free movement. That needn't be the same


as the end of free movement. What does she mean? That is what we


campaigned on for four and a half months, taking back control. What I


find unacceptable is that we cannot control the flow of people into the


country. There will be times when we need to recruit particular skills


and we need to allow people to move within businesses. We need to have a


managed system. It is all about control. It is about our government


being able to decide when, how and where the number of people who can


come and live and work in the UK. But for some EU citizens, would


there still be an automatic right to compare? It will depend on what our


rules are. The whole point is that it is about control. At the moment,


we cannot set limits on the number of people who live and work here.


The clear mandate from the British public, something that Theresa


recognised and said so in her opening speech last week we have to


take back control of our migration. But we don't know what that means.


It means our parliament being able to set limits on the number of


people who can live and work here. What sort of limits? That will be


decided depending on whether we have skills needs, housing shortages and


circumstances. None of us think we will erect barricades at Dover and


nobody can ever live and work in the UK. But it is fundamental that


ultimate control should reside with our government. Why do you trust has


me on free movement when after six years at the Home Office, she


couldn't even get non-EU debt migration below 100,000, which was


the promise, never mind overall net migration? First of all, we spent


five of those six years in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. She was


not stopped from doing anything. We have just passed our first


conservative only immigration act that will allow us to close the bank


accounts and taking away the driving licences of people who overstate.


One of the problems is people who come here legitimately for a short


time, but never go. But she was so far out. Net migration was three


times the target she agreed to six years ago. Why would you trust her


to get it right when so far, she's got it wrong? If you look at the


flow of migrants from inside the European Union, she had no ability


to control that. But she has not controlled those from outside. We


have just passed our first Conservative only immigration act.


There have been limits to what we could do in coalition. As Theresa


May herself said the other day, it is difficult because people are


constantly looking for new ways around our system. I believe the


acts we past two months ago will make a difference. Were our borders


safer under Mrs May than they were in 2010? Our borders are safe in


terms of counterterrorism. What has she done to make us safer? A huge


amount has been done to protect our borders. In Calais, we now have a


much better system of border control. We have been able to resist


enormous pressure from people who want to come in illegally. What has


she done to make British borders safer? She'd traduced new measures


on the immigration front -- introduced new measures. She


negotiated international agreements so that Abu Qatada was ported to


Jordan. In my view, she has done a huge amount to improve the security


services. As Home Secretary, she is responsible for MI5. They have done


a fantastic job protecting us. Will she rule out a second referendum?


There is no question of a second referendum. One of her supporters,


Dominic Grieve, says people can change their minds. We are all clear


that there is not going to be a second referendum. We can't just say


to the British public, we don't like what you said, so we are going to


ask again. Those of us who campaigned for Leave would not serve


in a government that chucked away the first result and decided to have


another go. Speaking of the campaign, do you regard the promises


vote leaves made during the referendum as sacrosanct? I said to


you that a campaign group can only make recommendations. But you made a


number of promises. You promised explicitly that the status of EU


citizens already here would not change. Mrs May is not promising


that. I cannot conceive of a situation where we want to end the


rights of EU citizens who are here to not remain. There are always


individual circumstances... But she is talking about them being a


bargaining chip. You said during the campaign, there will be no change


for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. Mrs May is not


saying that. For those who have been more than five years in the UK, that


is legally the case. But we want to make sure we can protect our own


citizens in other EU countries. It is right that a UK Government should


have its own system. But during the campaign, you never said there will


be no change to EU citizens here, provided the EU looks after our


citizens over there. That was never a condition. Now are you saying it


is? I don't think there will be any change on either side. Everyone will


take a grown-up approach might it would be too damaging to do


otherwise. But we must look after the interests of our own citizens.


So why doesn't she say that? She says she doesn't want to agree


anything until she sees how they treat our citizens. Are you


comfortable with the line she has taken? The only people who support


her on this are the BNP. She has said what I have said. I am


expecting all it is except those who have committed criminal offences to


be able to stay -- all EU citizens. That is right and proper, but we


must make sure we can look after the rights of new cases and is. Has Mrs


May guaranteed to you that we will be out of the EU by the next general


election? She has said we will trigger article 50 around the end of


this year. There is then a two-year time frame and the next general


election is 2020. So I can't see any circumstance in which we would not


leave by then. Gone by 2020. Chris Grayling, thank you.


After a protracted campaign of resignations, a massive vote


of no confidence from his MPs, and an attempt by his deputy


to negotiate some sort of compromise deal with the unions,


it's now clear the Jeremy Corbyn will face a leadership challenge.


Some suspected it might fizzle out, but Angela Eagle has finally


announced she will go for the top job after all, saying she wants to


explain her vision for the country. It comes after Labour's deputy


leader Tom Watson called off a debate over Jeremy Corbyn's future,


saying there was no realistic prospect of reaching a compromise


because of this to Corbyn's refusal to stand down. That provoked an


angry response from Unite leader Len McCluskey, who said Tom Watson's


actions today can only look like an act of sabotage, fraught with peril


for the future of the Labour Party. So what happens now? Angela Eagle


needs to get the backing of 20% of MPs and MEPs. The magic and Amber is


currently 51. There is also the prospect of another senior Labour


figure like Owen Smith throwing his hat into the ring. The big question


remains over whether Jeremy Corbyn automatically gets onto the ballot,


or whether he needs to get 51 nominations himself, a difficult


task, given that the Labour leader lost the vote of no-confidence among


his MPs by 172 votes to 40. But if he does get on the ballot paper, it


is Angela Eagle who has the difficult job. Over a quarter of a


million people voted for Mr Corbyn in the last Labour leadership


election. Nearly 60% of the vote. Since the EU referendum, nearly


130,000 people have joined the Labour Party. But it is unclear how


many of them want to help or hinder Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.


Jeremy Corbyn appeared on the Andrew Marr programme


a little earlier on BBC One - and was in no mood


Why time-limit a leadership when I've been elected


by a very large number of members and supporters


an election somewhere results in a different leader,


But I would be irresponsible if I walked away


from a mandate that I was given and a responsibility I was given.


I ask colleagues to respect that as well.


Why are you challenging Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership? I


think it's clear that he has lost the confidence of MPs in the


parliamentary party. Tom Watson, Howard deputy leader, who has his


own mandate Rosie Winterton, the Chief Whip, John Quire, the chair of


the Parliamentary Labour Party and a friend of Jeremy's, have been going


to try to say to him that he needs the confidence of the Parliamentary


party to continue. He's not listening. You can't leave behind an


office door. Maybe he is not listening because he has a huge


mandate from the party membership. As Labour leader, he has won every


by-election and he has won the London mayoral election, the largest


party in the local governor elections. Why wouldn't he carry on?


We lost seats in the local government elections when we have a


Conservative government. We should be doing better. Polling shows that


we are 7% behind the Conservatives, even after all the tumult they have


been through and more importantly, we lost the EU referendum.


That was not his fault. No, but he wasn't connecting with Labour voters


and he did not put the argument across, and so I think we need a


strengthened Labour Party and an opposition which can unite so we can


heal the country. Unfortunately I don't think Jeremy Corbyn can do


that job. Other than Trident, what are the major policy differences?


I'm on the left, any party IDs will be anti-austerity, what has happened


in our heartlands, they have been hit by six years of Conservative


cuts -- any party I lead. That is Jeremy Corbyn, that is his position,


as well, what are the differences? I want to be a strong united


opposition to get into government. Jeremy was asked in that interview


three times whether he thought he could win a general election and he


did not say yes. For our supporters and for the people we came into


politics to represent, we need a Labour Party that can position


itself as a strong united opposition and win a general election. In your


view that is having a leader as a winner, but what are the major


policy differences? I don't think Jeremy has managed to get across a


strategy for winning. I'm on the left and my politics came out of


what happened when I was growing up when my parents, they were prevented


from fulfilling their opportunities because we had Labour governments I


was able to fulfil mind, and I want a Labour Party that can deliver


that. Jeremy does not talk about that. We will move on. He is the


incumbent leader, should he not be on the ballot against you as a


right? The Labour Party rules and the way it is done, and Jeremy


Chardy know this, Tony Benn challenged Neil Kinnock in 1988 --


Jeremy should know this. It is not clear he had to do this. Neil


Kinnock can't remember if he had to do this, or whether he did it to


show the strength. Putting aside the roles, most people watching this


programme, not just Jeremy Corbyn fans, they will find it strange that


the man who won the leadership fairly and decisively, now


challenged by you, is not automatically allowed to defend his


title? That is not clear from the Labour Party rules, the National


executive committee will make a decision on that. Anyone who aspires


to lead the Parliamentary party who can't get 51 members, 20% of the


Parliamentary party, to back them, they are not going to be able to do


the job properly and we are in challenging times, the Brexit vote,


a government which has gone missing in action. We need a strong lead


from the Labour Party if we are going to protect our communities who


are going to be the hardest hit. Nothing of that lead is coming from


Jeremy at the moment. You are the self-styled party of fairness, don't


you think it will offend against natural justice against most


people's idea of fairness if the incumbent who is challenged by you


is not allowed to fight you in an election? Work that seem incredible?


Forget the rules, just offends against fairness. I don't know what


the outcome is going to be of the decision-making process. I'm ready


to fight a leadership challenge and have debates about the future of our


party with anyone, Jeremy or anyone else who seeks to stand. Len


McCluskey, the most important person in the Labour Party, perhaps. Not


say that. I have a lot of respect him, but that is a big perhaps. He


says keeping Jeremy Corbyn of the ballot would cause lasting division


in the party. It would. This is not about the Labour Party being split,


this is about it being an effective and united opposition to make our


democracy work so we can challenge is Conservative government which has


done such damage with the Brexit vote. I want to say that if you


think we should have a strong and effective Labour Party and a strong


democracy, challenging the Conservatives, join the Labour Party


now. Do it today, you can do it online. 130,000 new members have


joined Labour since the referendum. Who are they? The Labour Party


nationally knows who they are. Have they been vetted? I have no idea at


what the Labour Party office are doing about the new members. But it


is important that people who think that we need a strong opposition,


jaundiced battle now, joined the Labour Party, make us stronger --


join this battle now. The 130,000 people who have joined already, they


should be allowed to vote? That is a matter for the National if sect of


committee to decide, they were in the past. -- National executive


committee. There is no point in them joining if they can't. We opened up


the ?3 membership which was a feature the last campaign. 150,000


people are going to be picking the next Conservative Prime Minister, we


have had nearly that number joining in the last week. Jeremy Corbyn


would say he won by over 235,000 voting for him. You expect to be the


only challenger? I have no idea. What about Owen Smith? We have


spoken, but not recently, I've got no idea, I'm concentrating on


launching my campaign which I will be doing tomorrow. It would be


absurd for you and Owen Smith or someone else from the middle of the


party, the moderate left, to split the anti-Corbyn vote? We have got to


get on with doing our planning and see what happens in the future. I'm


concentrating on getting my campaign up and running, launching it


tomorrow, and joining a battle to have a stronger and united Labour


Party which can give hope back to our country. You voted for the Iraq


war. Do you regret that? I do, and if I had known what I know now, I


would not have supported it. The important thing from the Chilcot


Report is that we learn the lessons of that so those mistakes can never


be made again in the future. John Prescott this morning, he also voted


for it, he says he now regards the war as illegal. Chilcot has not said


that. I'm asking you. It is important that we learn the lessons.


Do you think it was illegal? The evidence at the time and the


Attorney General's opinion at the time was not to that effect and it


is no good trying to second-guess what happened subsequently. We need


to learn the lessons and we need to make sure that if anything like that


happens in the future we have more robust ways of testing these


assertions, but I also think we have a country divided at the moment. You


have said that. Very uncertain about the future. You have said that. We


have got to address those problems. I understand that. But forgive me,


we have not got much time, they will be a motion before Parliament next


week holding Tony Blair for contempt of Parliament because of Iraq, how


will you vote? I have not seen the motion yet. We have got to make


certain that we don't spend our time in Parliament exacting revenge and I


think Tony Blair has been put rightly through the mill about the


decisions he took, the Chilcot Report did that, and I think we


should... We would be far better at learning the lessons and making


certain that we don't fall into the same mistakes if God forbid they


should be a future occasion where these decisions are made. -- there.


Final question, you talk about uniting Labour and the country,


taking on the Tories, but if you lose and Jeremy Corbyn wins or the


reverse, isn't there a clear indication that your party could be


heading for a serious schism? Either way. We need to heal the party under


effective leadership, so we can have a chance of winning the general


election which might come much sooner than we all think. And that


is my main aim with launching this leadership campaign. If he wins, you


will accept the result? You have to accept the result of any... You


would go back into the Shadow Cabinet? You have to accept the


result of any democratic process but I'm focused on winning this and I'm


not going to speculate about what happens afterwards. Angela Eagle,


busy summer head, thank you. It's clear the battle inside Labour


is about to get nasty - in the last hour, the MP


who initiated the vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn,


Margaret Hodge, had this to say I'm beginning to think he's


actually a devious man, who is more concerned


with destroying the Labour Party than he is with creating a force


that can win an election in such difficult times and which


will unite the party. There we are. We have heard from


Chris Grayling and Angela Eagle and Jeremy Corbyn this morning. Helen,


whatever the outcome, it looks like this ends badly for Labour. It is


very interesting. In the new statesman we did an issue about


whether Labour should split, and we said, no, but are now talking to


Labour MPs who are openly talking about this, people who are tribally


Labour and are not metropolitan, they are saying this cannot be sewn


back together. The big question, if Jeremy Corbyn gets on the ballot and


gets 50 MPs, I think he will win, but if he doesn't get on, that


becomes a case of his faction splitting off, so the battle is...


Everyone is imagining a split, but it is who gets left with custody of


the party. Control of the Labour brand, which is powerful. The union


funding is on a downward slope, already, the trade union is going to


reduce that further, Labour have had very little success with big donors


under Jeremy Corbyn. There is a fundamental force at work. The


party's grassroots once a different Labour Parliamentary party and the


Parliamentary Labour Party would like a different grassroots. One or


the other has to go its own way. You can't reconcile them. The texture of


the grassroots has changed in the past year, since the party was


opened up by Ed Miliband to new members. It might be changing in the


other direction even as we speak 130,000 new members since June, the


equivalent of the size of the Tory party, it is possible the bulk of


those people are people that might be, since the referendum campaign,


might want a party that is moderate. We don't know that. Angela Eagle is


taking a punt on the idea that those are relatively centrist voters, but


what I'd take from her and Owen Smith, is not a massive amount of


enthusiasm for running for this big ship, they don't radiate glee at the


prospect of becoming leader, so I wonder if the idea is to have an


interim leader who is moderate and then before 2020 and onto someone


who they think can win a general election. It is a big part on her


part. She sounded so miserable. -- punt. She sounded very depressed


about the idea of launching aided ship contest and that is because


there is no resolution to this. -- launching a leadership contest. If


she wins it is a pyrrhic victory, but if she loses, it won't be


resolved, and it feels like it will not be resolved until the next


general election, when the public and determine what kind of Labour


MPs they both like to fight for that election. It could be a bloodbath.


Last year it was quite lively, and this year, there might be a lot of


screaming at the Labour Party conference. It would be worth the


price of admission to both party conferences this autumn.


The referendum result came as a shock to many, not least those


Lucy Thomas was deputy director of Britain Stronger In.


In an exclusive for the Sunday Politics, she talks to fellow


campaign insiders about how the referendum was lost.


We are absolutely clear now that there is no way


Right up until the end, we thought Remain could win.


I'm Lucy Thomas, and I was deputy director of that campaign,


and one of those that was there from the beginning.


This is the story of what we did and why,


but why, in the end, it wasn't enough.


So let's go back to where it started.


We launched Britain Stronger In Europe on a cold October morning


Cue the usual jokes about our organisation.


We set out to persuade people that Britain was stronger,


safer and better off in Europe than we would be out on our own,


and that leaving was a leap in the dark, a risk


As a nation of Eurosceptics, we always knew it would be tough,


but I'm not sure we were prepared for what the early research showed.


When we presented that and we discussed it


with you and the team, I think everybody sort


God, this is going to be harder than we thought.


So we built a campaign based on numbers.


It's the economy, stupid, and it had been proven to work


in the Scottish referendum and the general election.


One of the reasons why some of the specific warnings


would have bounced off people was because it sounded


like scaremongering, because it wasn't evidence.


It was just saying, if we vote to leave,


it will cost this many jobs or this much growth


And people said they were crying out to hear from the experts.


to economists, scientists to defence chiefs, they all spoke


for themselves, and the weight of expert opinion was overwhelming.


if the UK was to leave the European Union.


Material slowdown in growth, notable increase in inflation.


In a sense, we were the victims of our own success in the early


part of the campaign, because we landed our economic


We pushed the Leave campaign from Norway to Canada to Albania,


and then finally pushed them entirely off the single market.


Of course, what it meant was that that was the moment


Nigel Farage's approach to this referendum, and to make it


Imagine what will happen to public services...


When I first saw their PPB, the one with all the arrows


implying that millions of people from all sorts of countries


including Turkey and possibly other countries that aren't in the EU


are going to come and move to Britain, and I showed


that to focus groups, it was very powerful,


because it captured the anxiety and fear and emotion


people have at the prospect of being overwhelmed


and these are all terms I would hear in the focus groups.


and the literature that was used off the back of it was very powerful.


I also knew, of course, that it was purposefully choosing


So we always knew that immigration was a problem,


around this table, that lots of the discussions were heard.


Some wondered, was there more we could do to get EU leaders


to show more flexibility on free movement, maybe?


But to others, that meant fighting the rest of the campaign


on immigration, when we needed for it to be back on the economy.


If you could solve the problem of free movement, it would have been


If you can't solve the problem of immigration, moving


on to immigration might make things worse, not better.


But given what we did know, it made sense to stick to the economy.


But it became clear that for some people,


that economic risk didn't mean anything.


I spoke to one man in my constituency who was out one day,


He was voting to leave because of all those concerns


"I understand your concerns about that.


What do you think about the argument that leaving would be


he said, "What do I care about the economy?


There are lots of people in Britain who do feel passed over,


They don't see what the future could hold for them or their children,


This referendum was a chance to attach that anger to the EU.


Shouldn't Labour have been able to reach out to those voters?


The brutal truth is that the leader of the Labour Party did not


campaign with authenticity, passion, conviction


He said he was for Remain, but it was on quite a narrow basis,


in terms of what the broader argument could be.


Polling took place during the campaign that showed half


that our official position was for Remain.


So I think more could have been done, yes.


And whether it was true or not, the Leave campaign was determined


The power of the 350 million a week can't be overstated.


In focus groups, it is quite unusual for floating voters who aren't


interested in politics to have internalised a campaign fact


or number so that it comes out spontaneously, and it did.


When we would say, have you noticed that some people are saying that


isn't actually true, people would say, "Vaguely,


but it's still a very big number, isn't it?"


In the final debate, just days before the vote,


the Leave campaign came armed with their catch-all phrase


Taking back control of our country and our system.


We can take back control over our laws.


We can take back control over our taxes.


We can take back control over our borders,


They were being presented with a simple solution, which was,


if you think this is a problem and migration is putting pressures


on our public services and jobs, we can take back control.


The way I would put it was that we had a complex truth


up against a simple lie, and we see what happened.


And what happened will be talked about for decades.


Though we built the biggest ever cross-party, cross-sector campaign


with over 40,000 volunteers, we didn't win the day.


This was a campaign where experts were dismissed


and conventional wisdom thrown out of the window.


Many doubt if campaigns will ever be the same again.


And Matthew Elliott from Vote Leave will be looking at how their


campaign won the referendum on the Daily Politics. Isabel, having


looked at that and seen what they are now saying, I now find myself


surprised that Remain lost by only four percentage points. Right. The


bottom line is that their big argument on the economy, they went


grossly over the top at the beginning. They tried to create what


pollsters call a settled view, which then becomes difficult to dislodge.


But in doing so, they went so far over the top that their claims


became unbelievable, and simply adding more experts to its got no


response from the electorate. Secondly, and more importantly, they


had no answer on the immigration question. I think the majority of


people who voted Leave, whether or not they would admit it, well, in


their heart of hearts, voting so because of immigration, and Remain


had no answer on that. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist or


even a psephologists work-out that immigration was going to be the big


issue. We have spoken about it on this programme months before the


campaign began, and yet even by the end of the campaign, they still had


no answer to the immigration issue. That is the legacy of years of


British politics, when no one will make a positive case for


immigration, or a case for the trade-off, where you say we accept


immigration, or a case for the immigration because of the economic


benefits. The economic argument failed because people didn't feel


that all these years of prosperity in the City of London had any


translation to the real economy. So when we said it would be terrible


for the City of London, people thought, what has that got to do


with me? Was there anything Remain could have done to have won? I think


a different renegotiation in January could have done to have won? I think


or February by the Prime Minister Cold War which secured some tangible


concession on -- by the Prime Minister, some negotiation which


achieved a concession on immigration would have done it. People didn't


feel they were getting that, and therefore, it was very interesting.


It wasn't the internal dynamics of the campaign that was at fault. The


reason they didn't have a answer was because Cameron didn't come back


with something solid. So it was Angela Merkel what lost it? Yes, and


I am sure she is now bitterly regretting not giving Cameron


something. The other thing is that I know that when the Britain Stronger


In Europe campaign had their early meetings before the campaign


officially began, they had a discussion about identifying five


positive things about being in the EU that we can sell to voters, and


they couldn't come up with any. That was again part of the problem. They


failed to put a positive case, it was just Project Fear. It was also


David Cameron what lost it, because for years, to get selected in the


Tory party, you had to be Eurosceptic. He then had a career


saying it would not be a problem if we leave, and then pivoted to say


the sky would fall in. A lot of voters concluded, that is typical of


the political elite. Making it up as you go along.


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 in the programme, after another packed week


in politics, we'll be trying to make sense of the latest political


Chilcot finally delivered his damning report, leading some critics


to call for Tony Blair's legal action.


I'll be speaking to one of them shortly.


Also, after criticising the SNP's economic plans


during the referendum, a former permanent secretary


to the Treasury now says the case for Scottish Independence


And, after two of the three people running the inquiry


into child abuse quit, citing Government interference,


how can the education secretary John Swinney restore confidence?


Anyone expecting an establishment whitewash was in for a surprise


when Sir John Chilcot finally delivered his 2.6


Flawed intelligence combined with a legal case for going to war


with Iraq that was far from satisfactory and little or no


plan for what happened after the invasion.


Despite all this, in a marathon and at times emotional press


conference, Tony Blair expressed regret but insisted that he'd made


With me now is the former Labour MP Tom Harris who himself voted


And? I've think if these same circumstances presented themselves.


Everywhere presented with the same intelligence we were in 2003 I would


have voted in exactly the same way. If you knew then what you know now?


If we knew then the intelligence was flawed there would never have been a


vote. We would not have asked to go to war if we knew it did not exist.


There is the issue of whether governments was undermined in the UK


with what happened in Iraq. Would you accept the Chilcot report


findings that Cabinet governance was undermined and that, Chilcott does


not quite say this, but Tony Blair was out of control. I think what


Chilcott and some of the commentators miss is that Tony Blair


was in the position that he was Prime Minister and had to make


was in the position that he was decisions. Sometimes politicians


have to make decisions that are neither easy or popular. Tony Blair


rose to that occasion. He built his reputation on the line. He did not


keep his cabinet on board? That is not true, there were only two


resignations. I mean he did not inform them at all times what she


was doing. If used it to any of the Cabinet at the time they will not


tell you they felt excluded. It Cabinet at the time they will not


a remarkably unified cabinet at the time that that decision and took us


into war. The other side is what happened in Iraq. On balance a good


thing on a bad thing? Obviously getting rid of Saddam was a good


thing. Anyone who needs fascism will celebrate we got rid of him but the


aftermath has been truly appalling. Written has today it's clear share


of responsibility on that but America has today the larger sheet


of responsibility. What happened in the aftermath of Iraq was very


similar to what happened in the aftermath of the Afghanistan war


back when the Soviets left. When the Americans supported resistance


against the Soviets but when the Soviets left so did the Americans


and America has the look to its long-term interests and the like


that it is going to make interventions then I hope that


intervention is still a part of western democracy agenda, they have


got to see through the commitments which they did not do in Afghanistan


or Iraq. You were leading the Brexit campaign in Scotland. You got 30%.


Were you expecting more on less? I was hoping for 40% but I was happy


with 38. None of the opinions polls showed we got anywhere near that.


The First Minister says there is a case for a second independence


referendum given the results, would you accept that? Firstly I don't.


When the 2014 referendum happened the Scottish Government White Paper


made the explicit threat or promise that if you vote now you could end


up being taken out of the EU against our will. Scott is understood that


threat and understood what it meant and they still voted no. I do not


think what we have got is any kind of change of circumstance at all. If


think what we have got is any kind there is another independence


referendum it will be specifically those by the Scottish National party


and the Scottish Government as the result of the referendum. Even the


SMP who claim it is a point of runcible are not claiming it a point


of sensible. They claim it depends on how the balls are looking. --


SNP. You must accept some responsibility given the role you


played in the referendum. I am all for politicians taking


responsibility but I still think independence would be a very bad


idea. Even more so once the UK is out of the EU. Thank you for joining


us. Joining me now from


Inverness is the former We have heard from yourself and


David Davies this morning this idea of tabling a motion about Tony Blair


in the houses of parliament. The consequences of that is that he


could in theory be called to the bar of the House but would not


necessarily have to turn up, is that right? He could be summoned before


the buyer of the House. That would be likely. He could refuse to come


but people have refused to come before House of Commons select


committees and that has turned out very badly for them. Refusing to go


before the ban of the House would be even worse. The sort of penalties


could be being banned from public office ever again. It is not an


incarceration as many people would like but it is a strong form of


Parliamentary accountability. Just from what you have said their many


people would think OK, fine, but this is all largely symbolic.


Symbolism can be important in terms of parliament's role. This does not


be judge legal action from the authorities or several from the


service families. This is all about what Parliament doesn't fit leaves


that was misled over a huge issue or systematically misled over a


lead-off kind. We have had the inquiry, the trial if you like, know


what we are doing is moving to the verdict. Any parliament worth its


salt would accept responsibility to make that judgment. Do you see any


other avenues or are you involved in any other avenues of legal action


against Tony Blair? I support legal action. I think it is a primer fussy


case that this is a crime of aggression. The difficulty is the


criminal international court is about to get Robin and saw the


crimes of aggression but has not got it yet. The domestic courts in


England and Wales have been unwilling to take international


crimes like kinds of aggression into domestic law. That makes the


criminal proceedings very difficult. Perhaps not possible but very


criminal proceedings very difficult. difficult. A civil action has been


considered by the service families. That would have to come from those


who were directly affected, had the loss of a loved one for example. I


support all of these initiatives as they can be made at the not under my


control or influence. What is under my influences as a member of


Parliament I have a right to bring a motion to enforce Parliamentary


Parliament I have a right to bring a accountability and that is what I


intend to do. You had previously suggested the Scottish Parliament


could prosecute Tony Blair. Do you accept that as matters stand that


will not be possible? What I suggested, I saw the report in the


Herald, at least the daily Herald does not always bother to consult


the person they are writing about. What I pointed out was the English


and Welsh High Court decided without a specific entry instrument they


Wilmot not hear an international crying like a crime of aggression.


The Scottish courts have made no such ruling. It may be the Court of


Session would come to the same conclusion. There is a possibility


in Scotland but I am not a member of the Scottish Parliament, I am a


member of the Westminster Parliament. It parliament can


enforce accountability and it should. We also have the support of


members of Parliament across six political parties which makes it a


cross-party move, not a party political move. A movement of


cross-party accountability certainly has a very good chance of being


recalled in the House of Commons over the next few weeks and I hope


it has a chance of being passed. Jim Sillars has suggested the Scottish


Parliament could bring in a law which would allow Mr Blair to be


prosecuted. Does that seem to you to be a runner? There is a precedent.


The Westminster Parliament brought in a specific instrument to allow


prosecution of people for Nathalie offences concerning the Holocaust


and other matters some years ago. There is a precedent for doing that.


Nazi -- offences. It is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It is not


clear if the Scottish courts would be amenable to that. What is clear


is the opportunity to enforce Parliamentary accountability. We


have had the trial if you like it is now time to pass the verdict. What


do you think Mr Blair himself should do in light of the inquiry? I think


if he spoke at last Wednesday he should have made a full and frank


apology. I thought, looking as I did at the keep the other day, his


performance was delusional. He clearly has not come to terms with


the extent of the indictment that has been laid out in such detail by


John Chilcot. What we have the forerunners and the key thing is


revealed in the Chilcot report are the secret memos, Private memos


being sent to the American President George W Bush. All you have to do to


establish the case of misleading Parliament over the course of a year


is to juxtapose the private memos against the public statements to


Parliament and people. They then lies the heart of the case for


Parliament and people. They then contempt of Parliament. I noted that


the faltering voice and the awareness of the consequences. The


consequences are horrific. Then there was the declaration that I


would do the same thing again. I doubt if that satisfied anyone.


Certainly not those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. In another


enormous issue, many enormous issues at the moment but Brexit. Nicholas


MacPherson who was one of your sparring partners during the


referendum campaign. His article suggesting there was a good chance


for Scottish independence but that Scotland would have to commit to


setting up its own currency. What do you make of that? I notice in John


Harris was my interview he has been deserted by John Prescott. Tom has


been deserted by Sir Nicholas MacPherson as fun as the


advisability of cottage independence is concerned but Tom is still there


on the rock by himself. On war and anti-Scottish independence. I think


Sir Nicholas MacPherson's article was remarkable and I suppose he


might argue he is no longer acting under the orders of George Osborne.


Yet able to act as an independent political commentator. In terms of


the currency issue itself that is correct. You would devise your


currency policy that best suits the new circumstances and I am sure that


is exactly what Nicola Sturgeon will do. What in your view would be the


best currency policy every they'd is going to be another independence


referendum campaign? I support what going to be another independence


Nicola has said in this matter. She is reviewing that matter and will


bring forward proposals. I have made a public statement saying that is


the best way to approach things and I would approach it in the same way


we did before the white paper. That is consulting the best experts.


Perhaps Sir Nicholas might be among them, who knows? That would be


changed circumstances. Then bring forward that committee of experts


with the correct currency of Scotland under the new circumstances


we face and put that forward as part of the overall prospectus for


Scottish independence. The remarkable contrast in preparation


that went into the referendum on Scottish independence as to what we


would do if we won. As opposed to the zero preparation in the EU


referendum is marked and telling. What he will say is you cannot go


again with the idea of keeping the pound in an independent Scotland but


particularly if Scotland were to be in the European Union and the rest


of Britain was not. Would you accept that? If you remember the second


debate, the BBC debate, let's call it the big debate with Alistair


Darling during the referendum campaign. I laid out in that beat a


range of currency options that Scotland could follow. These are


still the range of currency options. What Nicola Sturgeon would do, I am


sure, is pick the best of these with the greatest experts she can muster,


with or without Sir Nicholas MacPherson, and then present the


best policy of that range of options to take Scotland forward. Certainly,


absolutely, I think we can all conclude over the past two weeks,


the remarkable two weeks, the cluster gin has been the only


politician has risen to the challenge of leadership.


Is the game to get a commitment from the EU that should Britain leave,


Scotland, could stay in? Is that the logic of having a referendum within


two years? The logic of the talks and discussions that Nicola has been


pursuing with the EU institutions and individual European politicians,


and although we haven't had a statement from the institutions as


yet, nor would you expect one as yet, it would have indications from


the leadership of the political parties in the EU Parliament very


favourable indeed to Scotland position, and I think these have


been significant. If you don't get a commitment, it doesn't matter


whether or not you have a referendum within two years, we could wait for


the eventual agreement with Britain. If you'll allow me, I'll follow the


leadership of Nicola Sturgeon as opposed to the hypothesis of Gordon


Brewer. All right! We will have to leave it there.


Since voters opted for Brexit, the pound along with consumer


and business confidence has been falling.


This week also saw several UK commercial property funds move


to stem the rush of investors trying to get their money out.


Meanwhile the cost of imports and commodities traded in dollars


That's bad news for lovers of petrol, coffee and chocolate.


But what does all this actually mean for the bigger economic picture?


After all, for the time being, the UK is still a full member


of the EU and some Brexiteers claim the declining value of the pound


will help exports, thus mitigating any other difficulties.


Well, shortly before we came on air, in an attempt to get


to grips with Brexonomics, I spoke to the economist


First of all, let's look at what's happened in the media at aftermath


of Brexit. It was supposed to be Apocalypse now. And it seems to be


may be Apocalypse sometime in the future but we are not quite sure


when. Yes. There is a certain amount of land. We are only going to get


hard economic statistics, the earliest probably in September, and


what we have is a huge period of uncertainty. The indicator that


looks bad is the currency. So, the Stirling dollar rate has gone down


by around 12%. So that will make an impact over the next few months. It


is somewhat of a double-edged sword. It is not so good for people all


going away to the continent, but quite good for exporters but it'll


take some time for the benefits of the currency to feed through. It is


also ambiguous because while the pound against the dollar is down to


a 30 year low, the pound against a basket of currency of our trading


partners is down a little bit. That's true. A lot of the goods that


we buy Ardagh nominated in dollars. So, you know, we will feel the


effect on petrol quite soon, probably quite a lot on food prices,


coffee. The overall impact on trade may not be as great as that might be


implied by the pound dollar rate, but we will start to see the effects


feed through over the next few months. And those could include


things like higher petrol prices because oil is to nominated in


dollars, and so on. Sure. I mean, on the sorts of devaluation against the


dollar that we have seen so far, the Bank of England's rough guess I


would estimate around 3% increase in prices. That is a rate of inflation


that is within the Bank of England's target, but not like one we have


seen for a long time because inflation has been quite slow for


the last few years. It also has indications for living standards,


doesn't it? We were just getting into a situation where, finally,


since after the financial crash, real earnings were starting to go


up, people were getting more in their pay packets and they were


losing three inflation. It could stop that happening. What we will


see is a bit of an impact for the new living wage. That will help


people at the bottom somewhat. And people whose incomes are protected


against inflation, who have got people whose incomes are protected


something linked to inflation, they will be all right. But those people


will maybe just above the national living wage, who had started to see


some increase in the earnings, I suspect, especially if the economy


slows down, that movement will be put into reverse. What we are


sometimes tending to forget a little bit in this debate about the


economic effect is that nothing has actually happened. We are still in


the European Union. If you are a factory somewhere in Britain where


your products go to Europe, nothing has changed. The real economic


impact will presumably come when we actually leave. Well, I do think


that actually uncertainty is building up. And that can have real


economic effects. You do hear there may be apocryphal stories of


investment being delayed, and that will take some time to feed through


to the economic statistics but it is around decisions that are being laid


now which arise because of the uncertainty, because no one really


knows what the outcome of these negotiations, whether they be with


the EU or the broader trade negotiations, where these are going


to go. And that makes the UK's somewhat less of an attractive


investment destination. Perhaps the most concerning thing that happened


this week, rather than what has happened to the currency or markets,


is that survey that was done of the German Chambers of Commerce, where


German companies were saying either we will rethink investment in


Britain or we will make no decision on investment in Britain. I think


that's true. And I think one of the most important things and one of the


benefits of EU has been technology transfer, so, you've got a lot of


companies that work across the EU, manufacturing partly in Britain but


partly in Germany, partly in France, and I think the companies that do


that kind of work, it seems, are thinking very carefully because they


don't know what is going to happen in relation to trade barriers or


whatever, as far as the UK is concerned, so they are, I think,


holding back for the moment. Different but related subject, a


possible second independence referendum because of Brexit. What


did you make of Nicola MacPherson's comments that this was a great


chance for the SNP to get independence, but they would have to


rethink the issue of currency and go for an independent currency? Well, I


saw his article in the financial Times, and he argues the Treasury


won't accept the trade union because they are being burned by that kind


of arrangement in the past. That means effectively Scotland would


have to go for its own currency. Well, I mean... That seems to me to


be a logical argument. Where it might lead, not quite clear. Quite a


lot of unknown is around it, but, certainly, a possible argument


towards independence. All right, we will have to leave it there. Thank


you very much indeed. The Education Secretary


and Deputy First Minister has promised that he'll consider


revising the remit of the government's


inquiry into child abuse. John Swinney gave the commitment


after meeting survivors' He'd been hoping to reassure them


after two controversial resignations from the panel


conducting the inquiry. Campaigners hope Mr Swinney


will take this opportunity to widen the scope of the investigation,


to include abuse out-with residential settings and to allow


the award of recompense Did something bad happened here?


When you were in care? Sometimes, a soap can help you


understand something more than the bare facts in a news bulletin. There


are always talking about historical abuse cases. Historical... You said


historical. It's not historical. abuse cases. Historical... You said


never ends. The writers and cast of River City heard first hand of abuse


as they rehearsed Patrick's story. Drama of a different kind at the


historic abuse inquiry. The chair Drama of a different kind at the


and another panel member resigned, Drama of a different kind at the


leaving just one in post. So, the education Secretary met survivors


and support groups on Thursday, seeking to reassure them that the


inquiry will be free from government interference. Afterwards, a welcome


for John Swinney's commitment to look again at the inquiry's raiment.


What we ask is to ensure the children of tomorrow are safe in


this country, so you need to look at where the abuses in disease-mac


occurred. If it is in guides, scouts, look at every institution,


not just care homes. The process of evidence gathering is under way, and


that is in no way in Pete by the events we have had to deal with in


the course of the last couple of weeks. What I want to do is take


time to isn't carefully to the survivors, which I have done today,


and I will do so over the summer, reflect on the issues they've raised


with me and take the necessary steps to appoint a new personal to lead


the inquiry and also to consider the issues that have been raised.


Survivors say they want the inquiry to tell the truth about what


happened to them and to give them justice. If John Swinney looks at


the remote and includes free dress, the same as they had an island, it


means the two can run parallel. Some can speak about their performance,


speak about the abuse they suffered. The panel of the inquiry would then


have the power to include free dress for that individual. So, it could


run parallel alongside, so it isn't a case of going forward, waiting for


my gears, then going to court, then to try to get the justice. Redress


means more than just giving survivors cash as compensation. As


means more than just giving part of that whole concept of


re-dress, that is about working to ensure that insofar as it is


possible, we will restore people to the place they would have been in


their lives if the abuse didn't take place. Sometimes insuring that you


have appropriate medical services to refer people onto. In my experience,


working with victims of abuse, it is often these unseen support services


that are really important. We have already had a report into historic


abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. Can that experience


teach us anything about what success looks like for inquiry, or what we


should be looking for? Any inquiry, you can't judge the success of it at


the end of it. It will be in the years to come, the inquiry will make


their recommendations, the ways in which we should handle allegations,


the ways in which we should try to engage with and help survivors, so


you need to make those recommendations at the end of the


inquiry and then revisit them. And there needs to be processed that in


three or five years when you look at those recommendations and look at


them, you say they were put into practice. Or not. And if not, what


is the recourse than. The sad truth is that no inquiry can guarantee


that abuse will not happen again. None of us know what the next abuser


will look like. You can't tell. It is what human beings are capable of.


Human beings are capable of doing that to children and that will


always be the case as long as there are human beings in the world.


It's time to look back at the events of the past week and see what's


and the political commentator Hamish Macdonell.


Let's start with Labour. Could not make it up. You couldn't, no. Angela


Ingle and Jeremy Corbyn talking about their respective it's for


leadership. Jeremy Corbyn looking to get on the ballot paper again but


Angela Eagle is saying it is time for him to step back and she should


take the leadership. She didn't look particularly happy to be putting


herself forward for the leadership on Monday. It is a depressing


situation in labour all around. And a possible split. It's difficult to


see anything but a split. The basic point seems to be here that the


Parliamentary Labour Party believes one thing, and the vast majority of


the membership seems to believe another. The two are separate.


However this goes, if the vote goes another. The two are separate.


away in which one side doesn't like, it's difficult to see the party


coming out of this in any form as a unified party. And also it is very


difficult politically. If you have proportional representation, you can


have these sorts of things but in a first past the post system,


have these sorts of things but in a ever one ends up being the Labour


Party... Is going to have the advantage. History tells us if you


have any kind of breakaway party, it takes a long time for that party to


get anywhere in terms of representational politics. The SDP


suffered. They had a large number of people supporting them but they


could make the breakthrough which is what the first past the persistent


does. It we trenches two big parties, some if the big party


splits, it's going to be difficult for both parts of that party to


fight on and try to become an opposition. And to stop that


happening, Lynsey, one side has to give on something. There isn't much


sign of either side being prepared to. There doesn't. And this morning


both Jeremy Corbyn and Angela Eagle were talking about saying to each


other, it is time to take a step back to unify the party, to bring it


together and to prevent the split from happening. But it really looks


like it is too late for that now. This is gone too far, and it is very


difficult to see the two sides reconciling, no matter what happens,


if Jeremy Corbyn does get on the ballot paper and he wins, there is


going to be resentment among the Parliamentary group, they are not


going to accept that. We should point out they could even be a legal


battle over whether or not Jeremy Corbyn gets to be on the ballot.


That's right. It's not clear. Neil Kinnock was saying that when this


happened to him, he had to get the signatures to get on the ballot


paper and German Corbyn was saying he expects, as the incumbent leader,


to automatically get on the ballot paper, said there is going to be a


row over that. Len McCluskey warned that if he doesn't get on the ballot


paper, you're going to be facing a split anyway because of the huge


revolt from Jeremy Corbyn's supporters. It is the point Andrew


Neil was putting too Angela Eagle, isn't it? It is ridiculous to have


someone who was elected by 60% of the membership not allow to stand


again after less than a year. That is the big weakness of the


Jeremy Corbyn position. If Angela Eagle is seen to be a stalking horse


and she stands to force an election and then somebody comes through on


the left is acceptable to both sides but is not Jeremy Corbyn, that is a


possible way of uniting the party but even that it is difficult to see


how it might work. That would but even that it is difficult to see


reasonably require Jeremy Corbyn Wai but even that it is difficult to see


Phyo OK the game is up but perhaps I could be in the Shadow Cabinet.


Someone close someone close good say he could stand on so long as he is


given his way. It is difficult to see how he could possibly back down


now. Tories, leadership contest, that one is getting nasty by the


minute as well? Indeed it is. Andrea led some in trouble over some


comments she has been making. She denies they were made in the way the


Times newspaper has said they have reported them. It is not a great


start for Andrea led some but I wonder if it is because this is how


the will be decided by the Tory membership it is not going to


matter. It will not be the rest of us who get to decide, it is those


Tory members and perhaps they like Andrea led some. I am not say the


decision not to have children is not important to some people but it is


quite extraordinary that this Tory leadership contest has turned into a


debate about someone having not having children rather than the fact


they will have to negotiate an exit when they come into office. I think


what it showed is the inexperience of Andrea Leadsom. When the comments


came out she should have had a measured response to them rather


than flying off the handle and accusing the times of this, that and


the next thing. It shows a gulf of experience between Theresa May and


Andrea Leadsom. My feeling is with all the people we have had over the


past couple of weeks that those Tory members will want safety and


security and stability. For that reason they will want probably to


vote for Theresa May go the way things are at the moment who knows.


We will hold you to that! I'll be back at the


same time next week.


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by guests including Labour's Lord Falconer and shadow education secretary Angela Rayner MP. On the political panel are Janan Ganesh, Helen Lewis and Isabel Oakeshott.

Download Subtitles