17/07/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

After Friday's failed coup, the crackdown in Turkey begins

with thousands of arrests and threats of retribution,

including the death penalty for rebels.

What does the turmoil mean for Turkey's future,

Nato and the fight against Islamic State?

I wish you all the best and I am supporting you all the way. Do I get

a hug? Jeremy Corbyn's confident

that his fans will ensure he's re-elected - but he tells us

that the rules of Labour's leadership election are unfair

and the party's national executive She was a "Remainer"

but Theresa May's promised to deliver on the voters' verdict

and take us out of the EU - but how quickly will Brexit come

and what should it look like? Coming up on

Sunday Politics Scotland: I'll be talking

to the First Minister, And Labour MSP Neil Findlay will be

explaining why he's launching Since we broadcast last week,

a new Prime Minister, a new government, carnage in Nice

and an attempted coup in Turkey. The unexpected is now

commonplace, major news events But one thing that doesn't change

here on Sunday mornings is that we always bring you the best

and the brightest political panel in the business -

Steve Richards, Isabel Oakeshott So Friday night's attempted army

coup in Turkey failed and President Erdogan has moved

ruthlessly to re-establish He says the coup was "a gift from

God" because it gives him a reason A major clampdown on dissent is now

widely anticipated, Let's get the latest

from our Correspondent Is it underway? Is it expected to be

pretty ruthless? Yes. It is underway. The crackdown has already

taken place. Around 3000 soldiers have been detained including

high-ranking generals and around 3000 judges have been dismissed from

their posts. Many judges have also been detained. President Recep

Tayyip Erdogan had already said that those behind the coup attempt would

be paying a heavy price and that is what we are seeing at the moment.

Many people think that the crackdown will further deepen. The government

thinks that the movement of Fethullah Gulen is behind this

attempt. That is something that Fethullah Gulen denies. He is a

cleric based in Pennsylvania, Annex aisle who used to be on good terms

with the government, and Mr Hird one himself. -- Mr Erdogan. Fethullah

Gulen has said he has been involved includes himself, but he played no

part in this one. Although the square would normally be packed with

hundreds of tourists, the beauty of Istanbul being celebrated, but last

night it was a different story, packed with hundreds of supporters

of the government, chanting slogans like, God is great, in protest of

the coup attempt. They adhered to the call coming from President

Erdogan to take it out to the streets. They were jubilant because

they felt empowered, in the part they played in suppressing the coup

attempt. If there was a source of resistance to President is Erdogan,

it was not the army, and I would suggest that he is going to take

over the army, and he will have complete control. He was already

pretty authoritarian before this happened. Is Turkey now in danger of

a dictatorship? That is a question that many people asked. In Turkey

and in the world. People who do not necessarily aligned themselves with

the government policies were already cautious about Mr Erdogan's

tendencies about getting more executive powers. It is no secret

that President Erdogan once to change the parliamentary system in

Turkey to a presidential system which would give him powers that no

other president has seen before in Turkey. And now that he has managed

to suppress this coup attempt, many people in Turkey fear that this

could actually play into the hands of Mr Hird one, and turn the country

into an alt. Chrissie, as you have said. -- way into the hands of Mr

Erdogan. But on the other hand, Mr Erdogan's supporters are jubilant

and they think that this was a victory of democracy. Yesterday the

Turkish parliament convened an extraordinary session and all the

opposition parties supported the government. The portrayed a stand

against the coup attempt. The Prime Minister thanked them and said that

this could be a threshold moment for Turkish politics but considering

that Turkey is a polarised country and politics is divided, whether the

government can bring everybody together after these 48 hours of

trauma, it is a difficult task. They give very much. -- thank you very

much. We're joined by the Foreign Affairs

analyst, Tim Marshall. Let's look back at what happened

here. The Turkish army, traditionally does not like Islamist

leaning governments and has mounted three successful coups, turning

Turkey to a more secular at two secular government. What was this, a

gang that could not shoot straight or the keystone cops to make a bit

of both. It was white, they did most of the right things but they did not

have the depth above them. Above them, they had no support. They made

two massive errors. They did not kill President Erdogan. That is the

first thing you should do. I am not advocating it! It is a 101 guide to

coups! But that is paragraph one, kill or at least capture the

president. And shut down the media. They went to the state television,

and in the 20th century, all the media was in one building and you

would close it down. But they forgot that in the 21st-century, there was

CNN Turkey still on a, and they did not close down social media, so Mr

Erdogan, who hates social media and Twitter, pepper and --

hypocritically gets onto Facebook and says to Turkey, get into the

streets and because the coup is white and not deep, very soon the

call to prayer goes out, and they know it is not the proper time, and

it means going to the street. Within half an hour, the people outnumber

the troops and the pendulum swings the other way. If Turkey faces a

serious clamp-down, a move from authoritarianism to something

bordering on dictator -- a dictatorship, this surely has huge

obligations for Turkey's relations with America and the EU? And for the

fight with Islamic State. This goes from being a domestic event to one

with regional and geopolitical implications. And a Nato member.

It's funny, we talk about him all the time, but as your correspondent

It's funny, we talk about him all said, this is a parliamentary

republic, where traditionally the president is simply a figurehead but

because he is so dominant and has total control of the HK party, all

he had to do was switch from one job to the next. And all the power went

with him because of the atmosphere at not because of the law. But he

tried last year to move the powers legally into his office. He is

closing down the media, he is now getting rid of the remnants in the

Army that art not with him, and he has the support of the mosques and

parliament. It is becoming a democratic dictatorship, a phrase I

came up with for the loss of itch in Serbia, you bring two new radio

stations out that broadcast so loudly that free speech is still

allowed, but it cannot be heard. Remember the Civil War was the

Kurds? That will just be utterly ruthless. This is a hugely historic

event in Turkey's history because previous army coups have won and he

will now take out the army as an independent force and it will become

much more authoritarian, perhaps even autocratic. Where does this

leave Western relations with Turkey? I think we can agree that it is not

going to join the European Union any time soon so we can scotch that one.

I think the ultimate dilemma must be for Nato. It is a security

organisation but it is also an organisation defined by certain

values and practices and if President Erdogan responds to the

coup attempt by tightening freedoms further, by intervening against the

judiciary and the Armed Forces further, then there must be a

dilemma at some stage for Nato. I thought it might have been telling

that three or four hours, I don't know if Tim agrees, for the US at

least, if not Nato, to say anything about the coup, when they did they

did not mention President Erdogan by name. I don't know if that suggests

they know what side there bread is buttered on and they were waiting to

see if the coup would succeed. But it is a huge event for the West and

Turkey. The state was founded on secular ideals. The Armed Forces

have always been seen as an invigilator of government. I am

right in saying that the Turkish president has never been

commander-in-chief, officially, in the way that a US president would

be. Or a French president. Many people think that what he wants to

do is create an executive style French presidency. You would still

have a parliament and a Prime Minister but it would be the

president that matters, rather than just being head of state. Turkey has

been so pivotal, first of all in dealing with the migrant crisis in

the eastern Mediterranean, with the situation in Syria, and Islamic

State, and in the region as a regional superpower that balances

Iran and even Saudi Arabia. We don't know where this is going to lead

now. And has been talk for a long time about how it is massively in

the interest of the West to have a stable Turkey. It has not been

stable for some time and it will not be, even if this coup was a somewhat

silly, ill thought through coup, it is clearly destabilising and will

have consequences for a long time to come. I would be interesting to -- I

would be interested to hear from Tim whether the EU has some leveraged

because Turkey's desire to join it. That dynamic, although clearly not

the agenda in spite of the farcical things said during the referendum

campaign, that gives the EU some leveraged in reshaping what happens

in Turkey. You wonder if that is even on his mind. It will not be.

But the president has so many domestic fish to fry, and that might

not be a very good metaphor given what he is about to do. If he is

about to reintroduce the death penalty, it becomes very difficult

to talk about Turkey being part of the EU. What do our diplomats do? It

is in our interest to encourage the dreamer but it does not look

compatible with the way that things are being carried out. Remarkably,

these events in Gneiss had been overshadowed by Turkey and yet it

only happened on Thursday night and this is Sunday morning. I suggest

that the reaction in France to Nice is going to be very different.

Charlie Hebdo, the Bataclan, there was great solidarity and it brought

France together. I think this is different because people have had

enough and it is different because there are clear security questions.

No barrier on the promenade. We are told that there was a barrier when

the military parades took place but it was removed after words, and

already the politicians are ganging up on the government and this is

becoming a major pre-election issue. That's right. The election is next

year and Marine Le Pen is positioning herself very strongly

with the National Front. There is a public divided on how to approach it

and even if this is not Islamic State, and I am not convinced that

it is, it happens in the context of Islamic State and of mass slaughter

in the name of something. It is another chip away at our freedoms.

And that is, in itself, a success. They are going to continue. I

believe the rise of the right is far from Peking. And it plays absolutely

into next year's presidential election. Going back from the

presidential election, that all comes into what the EU is going to

look like. We are in a state of flux. You are old enough, forgive

me, Andrew, to know that everybody always says it has never been as bad

as now and it is always untrue. But it is actually more corrugated than

I have ever known it. And you may agree. I do agree.

The Conservatives completed their leadership contest

in a matter of days, Labour's has barely begun.

There are now two candidates standing against Jeremy Corbyn -

Angela Eagle and Owen Smith - but the Labour Leader has told us

that the rules which exclude recently signed up members

from voting in the contest are unfair and he wants

the party's national executive to change them.

Adam Fleming went for a walk in the park with Mr Corbyn.

This is the lake that was built here in the 19th century,

rather strange lake on the top of the hill.

I went for a stroll round the Labour leader's

favourite local beauty spot - Finsbury Park in north London.

Do you have time to take a casual stroll with a journalist

Yes, because doing things in a relaxed way is important,

and doing other things is important, so going to a park, being in your

However busy I am, my allotment is tended.

It's in good order, we had a good crop of broad beans and we ate

A slightly less relaxing part of his week.

At a meeting of Labour's national executive on Tuesday,

Jeremy Corbyn secured an automatic place in the leadership election.

But he's not happy with new rules that say people who joined the party

There's going to be some quite intense discussions over the next

few days, I suspect, and I hope our party officials

and National Executive will see sense on this and recognise

that those people who have freely given their time and money to join

the Labour Party should be welcomed in and given the opportunity to take

part in this crucial debate, whichever way they decide to vote.

I'm hoping there will be an understanding that it is simply

not very fair to say to people that joined the party in the last six

months, "sorry, your participation is no longer welcome

because we are having a leadership contest."

In the next few days, various Labour factions will be

racing to sign people up as registered supporters,

It costs ?25, not ?3 like in the last contest.

For people who can't afford the 25 quid, what would you suggest

If they can't afford the ?25, what they do?

It seems to me the ?25 bar is quite high and not really reasonable.

A lot of people have said to me, people stop me in the street saying,

"I would love to vote in this election but I can't afford ?25."

He is also disappointed that virtually all local party meetings

have been suspended over fears of intimidation.

I haven't stopped party meetings taking place and I actually

I think party meetings should take place.

Intimidation of any sort by anybody is absolutely wrong,

but to cancel meetings because of the perception that

intimidation might take place I think is a big mistake.

The issues appear to be that where meetings have taken place,

far more people have attended than were expected and so there has

been issues about how people can get in the room,

whereas there's a fairly simple answer to that -

Talking of meetings, who was he with when Theresa May

was taking over as Prime Minister earlier this week?

I was with an all-party group, including Conservatives,

talking to two of the Miami five who had been in prison

in Miami and were released by the court decisions of USA

and the new rapprochement with Cuba and actually welcoming the fact

there had been an agreement reached in Cuba.

I was actually with Conservatives and Labour people.

I was there for about 20 minutes, then I went back to my office

And so you felt that was a good use of your time at that point

when the country was transitioning from one Prime Minister to another?

Informing yourself by listening to people from all kinds of walks

This morning I was on the phone to friends in Istanbul and Ankara

And so when an issue happens anywhere in the world,

obviously I read all the briefings that I've been given,

obviously I follow the news and information, but also I quite

often know people in different places around the world so I call

Can I get a hug for that?

He also seems to know a lot of people in this park.

What do you think about Angela Eagle and Owen Smith

I have been trying to unregister from the Green Party so that I can

register with the Labour Party so that I can support you.

We were walking round with Jeremy Corbyn,

What did you shout out when you saw him?

I don't know what I said, something awful like...

Something like "you've ruined the Labour Party".

Something like, "step aside and stop ruining the Labour Party," I guess.

And I couldn't let Jeremy go without introducing him to the craze

sweeping the nation, Pokemon Go.

He didn't seem that bothered but then he's playing a much bigger

game, trying to hold onto his job, and that's no walk in the park.

Our work this morning has not been in vain.

And a longer version of that interview with Jeremy Corbyn

We're joined now from Salford though by the Shadow

Education Secretary, Angela Rayner.

Welcome to the programme. Jeremy Corbyn wants to allow people who

joined in the last six months of your party to vote, he thinks the

?25 fee is too high. Isn't it just typical of the chaos Labour is now

in that you are holding a leadership contest before you have agreed

rules? Good morning, I think it's important we recognise the Labour

Party is transformed with now over half a million members joined, which

is fantastic. We are the largest democratic social party across

Europe. For me it is about democracy. I asked about the rules,

should you be having a contest before you have agreed rules? The

rules were decided at the NEC meeting which lasted seven hours,

quite a lengthy marathon... You want to change them? People need to

reflect upon the current situation and there has been outrage. 130,000

people have joined since the referendum, and we have got to give

them the opportunity to have their voice heard. Have these 130,000 that

joined after the referendum been properly vetted? That is a situation

that the NEC and our party has got to approve and go through. We did it

last time, we had a huge number of people join our party recently. Have

that number been vetted or not? You have got to allow democracy. What we

do is we ensure we get more people, more staff, more ability to deal

with that issue because democracy is important, it is enshrined. Hold on,

you are starting the leadership campaign and you still haven't

vetted those who may be allowed to vote, that's what I mean by chaos,

if not fast. I don't think it's chaotic to have over half a million

people join our party and want to have a say, it is a positive step.

It is if you cannot vet them come you don't know if they are members

of the Socialist workers party, the Greens, the Communists, the National

front, the Conservatives. You have no idea. We have 130,000 people who

have joined in the last three weeks, which the Conservative Party have

around 150,000 members per se. We have over half a million members so

we are doing a great job. The Trotskyists and other groups you are

suggesting may be trying to join our party, they are not in the great

numbers we see at the moment. It is important to give people a say about

the future of our country and party. I love democracy. Will you

definitely be voting for Mr Corbyn this time because you didn't last

time. No, I supported Andy Burnham last time, but I recognise Jeremy

Corbyn had a significant mandate to lead our party. I don't think it's

time to have a leadership contest. I will not be nominating another

candidate, I will be recognising our democratically elected leader. I

asked who you will be voting for. I will be supporting -- our

democratically elected leader. Can you say the words, I will vote for

Jeremy Corbyn? I have made it clear what my position is, and that's

about democracy and our members making... Are you or aren't you? I

have told you I will be supporting our democratically elected leader of

our party. I want to hold the Government to account, we have a

bill coming up on Tuesday... I'm puzzled, are you voting for Mr

Corbyn? Your viewers want to see us holding this Government to account.

I have tried to answer your question but you don't want to listen to my

answer. Could you name the person you will be voting for in this

election? I will be listening to our membership and in the meantime

holding the Government to account and supporting our democratically

elected leader of our party, which is Jeremy Corbyn. A new poll shows

Theresa May leads Jeremy Corbyn 58% to 19, on who would make the better

Prime Minister. It shows 40% of Labour voters think Theresa May

would make a better Prime Minister. Why are you backing, if you are, I'm

still not clear, why are you backing a loser? Our party is seen as quite

divided and divided parties never win elections. We don't disagree on

policy points, we have to get our policy points across to the

electorate and then they will decide. Theresa May has the

challenge of bringing her Conservative Party together. There

was no competition, no democracy within the Conservative Party in

terms of who they wanted as leader. She has a job to do because the

country has never been more divided than it is now and that's directly

as a result of the Conservatives. You all seem to have a job to do.

Speaking of Mrs May, is the Labour Party now the nasty party? No,

Theresa May had it right, the Conservatives continue to be so.

They are cutting education funding by up to 8% in this Parliament, they

want to prioritise the NHS and have already been creeping that in. They

are not on the side of ordinary people in this country. Theresa May

has said she wants the Conservatives to be a party for everybody and

working people across the country. Now her words have to be matched by

actions. Let me ask you this about Labour. Meetings of constituency

Labour parties have been suspended from fear of intimidation. There are

death threats and violence, a brick thrown through the window of the

office block where Angela Eagle's constituency is housed. Police have

had to investigate. I ask again, is it not Labour that is the nasty

party? I think any act of abuse and intimidation is disgusting in

politics and many politicians from all sides of the house have had

death threats and threats of violence, and that has got to be

stamped out of a modern democracy. Why is it in the Labour Party this

is happening? It happens across the spectrum in politics and it is

disgusting. But it cannot stop democracy either, we have got to

continue to uphold and enshrined our democracy in everything we do

because it is important. It means a lot to a lot of people but you

cannot win on democracy by abusing, threatening and intimidating the

other side of the argument. You have got to have a constructive debate

and people have got to have their democratic right to vote. Thanks for

being with us this morning. Now, despite signing up

to David Cameron's Remain strategy, our new Prime Minister has put

navigating the UK's departure from the EU and retaining

the union at the centre We're joined now by the Conservative

MP and former attorney-general The appointment of three key Cabinet

positions to Brexiteers - Boris Johnson, David Davis,

and Liam Fox - reflects this. A few days before his appointment,

the Brexit Secretary set out how he'd proceed

with separation from the EU. He said triggering new trade talks

were a priority and wanted the UK

to negotiate free-trade deals with Mr Davis believes the UK should not

budge on control of our borders, but the tariff-free access to the EU

single market is still his preferred The Brexit Secretary

acknowledged that talks with the Scottish, Welsh, and

Northern Ireland governments And Theresa May made the first step

on Thursday, telling Nicola Sturgeon in Edinburgh

that she is willing to listen to options on Scotland's future

relationship Mrs May said Britain

would not rush into Brexit negotiations and would need

some time to prepare. However, Mr Davis said

Article 50 should be and mean Britain would be out

of the EU by January We're joined now by the Conservative

MP and former attorney-general Dominic Grieve, who campaigned

for Remain, and the Labour MP who chaired the Vote Leave campaign,

Gisela Stewart. We are joined by Dominic Grieve and

the chairman of the boat Leave campaign, Gisela Stuart. -- Vote

Leave. As Theresa May delivered? I think she has. I think it was

important that you made clear that Brexit meant Brexit. We had to make

a clear that there was no second referendum in the offering. That

required certainty for the country. Are you satisfied with that? I am

completely satisfied with her approach, yes. It is clear that the

vote, as expressed in the referendum, has to be respected. We

have to take forward a programme for removing the United Kingdom from the

EU. Really that is going to be an immensely comported process and it

also carries with it economic risks, certainly in the short to medium

term. I am also open-minded as to how one best does that. I think

we're going to have to respond to events as well as trying to shape

them. We have seen a blueprint published by my friend and

colleague, David Davis, about Britain's outside the EU. I expect

that 99.9% of conservatives would subscribe to that but getting to it

is more congregated. We need to unpick this bit by bit. When do we

trigger article 50? You need to go in reverse, like a reverse accession

process. The most important thing is trade negotiations. As I understand

that you cannot have a bilateral agreement unless you have notified

Article 50. But you must have some idea of the time? The sooner the

better. When do you think we should trigger article 50. I think we

should trigger at when there is some clarity as to what the scope of the

negotiations that will follow will be. This is the first big hurdle.

Clearly if our European partners do not want to negotiate with us at

all, even informally, prior to triggering Article 50, that might

presents difficulties but from the point of view of the Prime Minister,

she will make up her own mind. Actually getting some clear idea of

what it is that the United Kingdom is seeking in terms of a future

relationship is going to very important. And I think it is

impossible to give a particular time frame. But I agree with Gisela

Stuart. But the time frame has to work and it has to be done in good

time for the 2020 election, so you can work back from that. I think you

can, but I think that she needs, the Prime Minister needs to be given

maximum flexibility about this because boxing herself in to how she

goes about what is going to be one of the most difficult political

transformations this country has gone through in modern times, I

think that requires pragmatism. Does it require a vote of Parliament to

trigger Article 50? Not necessarily. Let's come back to something. This

is not just about our relationship with the EU, it is our relationship

with the rest of the world. Triggering Article 50 has also been

interpreted into how we talk with other countries. But we can talk

with them without concluding deals? But in terms of negotiations, there

comes a point that to make it meaningful, you have to trigger it.

But I want to ask you, do we need a vote in parliament to trigger

Article 50? Undoubtedly. It is a matter of convention. The idea that

a government could take a decision of such massive importance to the

United Kingdom without Parliamentary approval, it seems to me to be

extremely far-fetched. It is not about law. It is about convention

and reality. Do you agree? I can see the arguments from both sides but I

don't think you absolutely have to do it. We have not got a lot of

time, would you vote for triggering Article 50? Yes. I have made it

quite clear that the result of the referendum must mean that we have to

be willing to embark on the process. I put in one rider to that which is

that it seems to me that any sensible decision has to be made at

the time you make it. But that is not a suggestion that I am going to

suddenly decide not to support triggering Article 50, but

triggering Article 50 is an important political step to withdraw

from the EU. One has to keep that in mind. Do you worry that people like

Dominic Grieve are teeing themselves up to call for a second referendum

on the nature of the deal we will do? I do. I think if there is one

on the nature of the deal we will thing the European Union is very

good at, it is that when political necessity is in the interest of both

sides, they are capable of rewriting the rules. So the European Union

itself has to look at the problems it faces, and then at what the best

deal is. There is a danger that those who do not like the outcome of

the referendum get themselves hooked on Article 50, rather than saying

that there is a new reality out there and we need to deal with that

in the interests of the United Kingdom. If you could bring it

about, you would have a second referendum, wouldn't you? Not

necessarily. The justification for having a second referendum is if the

circumstances that prevail at the time and justify it because there is

some legitimate question to put to the electorate. I am very wary of

circumscribing oneself. The referendum is no different from the

general election in this sense. It is a statement at the time of what

people want in terms of the way policy is taken forward. If people's

opinions change, it would be extraordinary. And I think the only

way you can judge that is by looking and listening to what people are

saying to you. Opinion polls can measure it. Like the opinion polls

that told you your site was going to win the referendum? I am not sure I

ever believe those polls. But they did. If you take a decision on the

base of those polls... But what is the question that one might be

asking. What the public have asked us to do is quite clear. They have

given, by a majority of 1.2 million people, not insubstantial, they have

said they want a fundamental change to the UK's relationship with the EU

and they see that relationship as being one where we are outside of

it. I have to respect that. And we have not got much time so I am going

to interrupt. You have had a good save. Gisela Stuart, here is the

point. There is a lot of people on the Labour side listening to Dominic

Grieve and nodding their heads. Owen Smith, one of the leadership

contenders, he basically wants a second referendum, and you are going

to have to start gearing up for that. Do you fear that this could be

foisted upon you? I think it would that. Do you fear that this could be

be a disastrous step because both political parties need to search why

they were so out of step with the electorate, particularly the Labour

Party. It is a Parliamentary democracy were we get elected to do

a job and that is to either hold the government to account or to be the

government. We have asked them and they have reflected, in large

numbers, they have said that we want to leave. And they expect us to get

on with the job. I am sorry to rush you but we have been short of time.

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

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland and Wales, who leave us

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon tells this programme Theresa May did not tell her

the British Government would block a second independence referendum.

Labour's Neil Findlay is here to explain why

And if all that's not enough for you,

because Tory grandee and former Foreign Secretary

Sir Malcolm Rifkind is here too, with some entertaining views

on Boris Johnson, among other things.

On Friday, Theresa May made her first visit to Scotland

as Prime Minister and seemed to suggest that Article 50

would only be triggered with the agreement

Since then, there has been much speculation

could it only go ahead with Scotland's backing?

Such a move would put Nicola Sturgeon at the heart

But it would be at odds with what the new Brexit Minister

He has made it clear that he wants to see Article 50 enacted

Since the First Minister has made it clear she is determined

both positions surely cannot be tenable.

Well, shortly before we came on air, Nicola Sturgeon came into the studio

and I asked her if she believed she had a veto.

I didn't use that word, but I do think Scotland's got a strong

position right now. In the talks I had with Theresa May she said that

she would listen to options that the Scottish Government brings forward

to give effect to have Scotland voted within the wider UK context.

After the meeting she said she would not trigger article 50 unless she

thought she had a set of circumstances that were acceptable

to the whole of the UK. But she didn't say that to you.

It's an extension of what we talked about.

I think we've got a window of opportunity that -- between what is

back where we are now and the triggering of article 50, to see if

there is a way of effectively squaring the circle, a way that

Scotland can protect its relationship with the EU in line

with how Scotland voted. I am not going to sit here today and

say that is possible, there are significant challenges along the

way, but I've always -- also said repeatedly that I'm going to examine

all options to protect Scotland's's interests.

But you would be in favour of Scotland and ended the UK staying as

part of the single market? Of course. Is it your understanding

that if the Scotland Government says that has to be a bottom line in

whatever is being negotiated with Europe, that you could stop her

triggering article 50 and you get that?

I don't know did -- definitively what the answer to that is, we're in

the bizarre situation where the UK Government doesn't even appear yet

to know what relationship it is seeking to help with the European

Union. I've had over the last few days since Theresa May became Prime

Minister different ministers in her Government articulate different

positions on whether or not the UK should remain in the single market.

So I think we are at such an early stage of this process that it is not

possible to answer these definitively.

But did Theresa May says she would not trigger article 50 until she had

you on board? She said she would listen to all

options. Now, what exactly the interpretation

of that turns out to be, we will have to wait and see. But we have a

window of opportunity. We've already started work to look at, in these

unprecedented time, whether there are ways of protecting Scotland's

relationship within a UK context. Will that proved to be possible? I

can say at this stage, but I've got a duty to examine all options.

And if it proves impossible to protect the interests of Scotland,

jobs, investment, universities, our rights as citizens, within the UK,

then of course we have to have the option of considering independence

on the table. Before we move on, I want to ask you

something else about these discussions. She was very strong

afterwards in saying she didn't think there needed to be another

independence referendum. Did she, in your talks, say that the UK

Government would block you holding another referendum?

She didn't say she would block a referendum, and interestingly in the

interview I had afterwards she didn't say that after. -- either.

She said she didn't want Scotland to become independent, I don't think

anybody's going to be surprised that that is her position. But we've also

heard in recent days, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the

Secretary of State for Scotland, saying they don't think it would be

right if the UK blocked a referendum that wanted independence.

But did she say what Ms Davidson said, that they would not do that?

Our discussions were focusing on the process that is about to get

underway in the aftermath of the Brexit phone. I said already that in

the circumstances Scotland now finds itself in, which is facing exit from

the EU against its will, if in these circumstances a Scottish parliament

decided that the only way to protect our interests was to offer the

Scottish people the choice of independence, I find it

inconceivable that any UK Government stand on of that.

You seem a bit unclear on whether you have been handed a veto over the

triggering of article 50 or not. If you are asking whether I think

Theresa May will never ever trigger article 50 unless we are saying I am

happy with the direction the UK is taken, I don't know that is the

case, but she did seem to indicate that she wanted, as I want, to see

if we can find options that respect how Scotland voted, just as I

respect how England and Wales voted. So I'm going to take that window of

opportunity to see if we can find these options. That is in line with

what I committed to doing in the morning after the referendum.

Should it come to December when they might trigger article 50, and you

are not satisfied, but you are not on board, and the British Government

says, we are doing this anyway, realistically is there anything you

can do? I did this out the morning after the

referendum. I am also in parallel to this discussion is making sure that

the Scottish Parliament is making preparations to have another

independence referendum if we find ourselves in that position.

But would you take that as a trigger point for a referendum?

I don't want to get too far ahead, but of course that would be an

option that I would have to to consider.

What, in six months' time? Is whether we had found it

impossible to protect Scotland's interests in the UK. I am going to

play as far as I can, with a straight bat here, and come at this

Scotland's interests. Scotland's interests.

-- of protecting. But would you want a referendum of independence say in

the first half of next year? I will have one if I come to a

conclusion but I think that is in I will have one if I come to a

the interests of Scotland. I've always said that. My job is to seek

to protect Scottish interests. It would be up to the Scottish people

to decide whether they thought that was the way to go.

But it's up to you when it would be. Absolutely, I will seek to take

these decisions as far as I possibly can in line with what I judged to be

in the best interests of our economy, of business, of jobs, of

our universities, of our freedom to travel. All of these interests that

are no potentially seriously damaged by the Brexit vote. Where you

offered or do you expect to be offered as a Government, as you

personally, a formal role in the Brexit negotiations? I expect the

Scottish Parliament to be fully involved. But you would be

negotiating with Europe? This process, and I'm not trying to dodge

these questions, but my ability to answer this question rests on the UK

Government getting its act together. We don't yet know what shape this

process is going to take. Theresa May gave me a commitment to the

Scottish parliament being centrally involved in this process. So our

officials are already talking to those of the UK Government as they

begin to shape this process. But would you expect your officials to

be involved in negotiations with Europe alongside David Davis? Was

any formal offer made to you? Theresa May doesn't yet know what

this process looks like from a UK perspective. She has said we will be

centrally involved, but that extra bit of a commitment is that that is

not an involvement in a process that just accept as inevitable Scotland's

except from EU, it is a process that options that the Scottish Government

bring forward will be is considered. Is one of the things you would want

before you got on board the way Theresa May indicated, would you

want separate Scottish powers over immigration? That's one of those

issues were already, putting the Brexit vote to one side, there is a

tension between what is in the entrance of Scotland and what

appears to be the direction of the UK Government. We have a case now of

a family... But I'm want to smack I'm looking for an indication of

whether that is something you would want the power over. I'm not going

to get into specifics, because we don't yet know what the UK

Government is going to try to achieve or how this process is going

to go forward. But as to the issue of freedom of movement, we are in

the single market right now, we have freedom of movement, which is not

just the right of people to come to this party is my country, but the

right of all of us to go on travel and study in other countries,

Scotland voted to retain to all of these rights and that is what I have

got to achieve -- fight to achieve. In the more medium term, is it your

idea that if you are to have another independence referendum, I think you

said on this programme a couple of weeks ago you would like to have it

before Britain actually left the EU. For that to work, you are presumably

want some sort of commitment by the EU that Scotland would either never

leave the EU or the fast track -- or be fast tracked back in. I think I

did say this on this programme, of course it makes sense. I'm using the

term "If". This is speculative at this stage, but if we are in the

situation of considering independence again, of course makes

sense for that to happen before the UK leads the EU.

But if you don't get that commitment, it doesn't matter when

you have a referendum. There are all sorts of unknowns and uncertainties.

I'm in a position I did not choose to be in. My job as First Minister

is to seek to navigate Scotland through these uncertainties. We

don't net know what the timescale for the UK will be. We heard Philip

Hammond say in the House of Commons last week he thought it would take

six years for the UK to exit the EU. So some of the uncertainty we are

facing just now draws inevitables on the referendum... The scenario...

facing just now draws inevitables on The UK Government does not yet have

a grip on where it wants to take its relationship. That Scotland could

somehow leave or be fast tracked, has anyone in the EU given you any

indication that might be possible? We are weeks away -- on from a

referendum when there was massive uncertainty and you exit me to say

we have absolute certainty! These are discussion we will be having.

But nobody in Europe gave you any reason to believe that? Firstly, I

was not asking for that commitment, I was going to make sure there was

an understanding across Europe of the different positions Scotland was

in and that we wanted a different outcome. But when I went to Europe,

I found a warmth of response and an openness and sympathy that the

Scottish Government did not find... But the commitment? I was not asking

for hard and fast commitments. As we go through these process, I go back

to what I said on the morning after the referendum, I will be frank with

the people of Scotland about the opportunities and challenges we

face. But we did not ask to be in this position, so we have to

navigate the best way through for Scotland and that is what I remain

focused on doing. Another big subject coming up, Trident, you are

calling for a vote in the House of Commons to be delayed, why? Is it

that you think there is a realist to prospect that you, together with

other people, could stop it? -- a realistic prospect. I would love to

think so. Whether it is tomorrow or at any point, the SNP will vote

against its renewal. By delayed? We are still in a period of huge

uncertainty for the principal party of opposition is in chaos, the party

of government has been in chaos for the last few weeks, there has not

been the opportunity to focus properly on the massive issues that

are involved in a decision like Trident. Do you think there is a

chance that enough MPs will vote against it? I would hope so but it

will give people a chance to properly scrutinise this decision,

which has not been, and I think it is wrong to have this decision as a

way of playing games with the chaos is wrong to have this decision as a

in the opposition, which I think is what the Tories are trying to do.

Nicola Sturgeon, thank you very much.

As Secretary of State for Scotland under Margaret Thatcher,

then Defence and later Foreign Secretary under John Major,

Sir Malcolm Rifkind has held some of the major offices of state.

Shortly before we came on air, he came into our London studio.

I'm curious as to what you make of what Theresa May has told Nicola

Sturgeon at the end of last week, that she wants all the nations on

board before she triggers Article 50. Do you interpret that as a veto?

No, I don't and I don't think anyone else would seriously think it should

be. The United Kingdom else would seriously think it should

has to have the last word on our foreign policy and our relationships

with the rest of the world. She is saying, I'm sure, that you

understands that there is a specific Scottish dimension as well as Wales

and Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that there

should be constant dialogue with particularly Scotland and Northern

Ireland on their view of the way things are going. So that the

Scottish Government says, well, for example, we insist on retaining

access to the single market and that is not what David Davis once, you

think he rules? I don't think we should speculate at the beginning of

this process, and the UK clop-mac will spend the next few months

deciding what it is because heating, what its era of compromise might be,

where it could be flexible, it will want to hear views from Northern

Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It is the UK Government that must take

that decision because it is the only body that it can take it as a

perceived the needs of the whole of these islands. One other thing that

Nicola Sturgeon said was that Theresa May did not say to her that

if she planned another independence referendum, that the UK Government

would try to block it. That is Theresa May, we have had Ruth

Davidson saying the British... Should not block another referendum

and we have David Mundell as well. Do you agree? The crucial point is

that nobody, including Nicola Sturgeon, is pressing for a decision

on a referendum or another referendum in the immediate future.

They all realise, Nicola Sturgeon as much as Theresa May, that it would

not serve any reasonable interest. All evidence indicates that Scotland

as a whole does not want another referendum, only a minority of

people see that as being appropriate, and I think Nicola very

wisely has remembered, as we all did, that in the last referendum not

only did the SNP lose quite seriously but also Scotland as a

whole was deeply divided, families and communities were divided, a lot

of unpleasantness, more than we are normally used to in Scotland, and I

do not think Nicola wants to go through that again in the short to

medium term. Yet, the issue still remains on whether the British

Government should even consider blocking such a proposal. She said

it might even be that she could not sit there would be one but it would

be possible to have another independence referendum in the first

half of next year. As I understand the legal situation, the UK

Parliament would have to give approval before any referendum could

be held on an issue of this kind and I didn't think anyone serious doubts

that. Theresa May has already indicated that she believes... It is

less than two years since we had a referendum, which came... But the

point is, if Parliament blocked it, it would be explosive. But first of

all there is not a proposal at this moment for any referendum to

actually happen. Nicola Sturgeon has been very careful and she said the

issue is on the table. She chooses her words carefully, unlike perhaps

Alex Salmond, who is a bit more explosive on these matters.

Something being on the table is a very diplomatic expression. I

remember it from my time in the Foreign Office. You use these

expressions when you do not want to commit yourself either way. You were

Foreign Secretary. The new Foreign Secretary is Boris Johnson. We have

already said that it is a risky appointment. Yesterday was a gamble.

One that might pay off if he can reinvent himself. What advice would

you give them dubbed him? I think Boris is a very intelligent guy, he

is not like Donald Trump, he is very civilised and intelligent who could

be a very good Foreign Secretary. But he has really made him made his

name as a celebrity and you cannot be a Foreign Secretary, cowering at

the serious problems of international diplomacy and at the

same time expect to continue to be a celebrity. What does reinventing

himself mean if you are Foreign Secretary? Less puzzled air? Fewer

off-the-cuff remarks? -- less tousled hair. I would recommend him

to have a haircut and tucking his shirt into the back of his trousers!

But to be more serious, I think he has got to adopt a conversation that

does not just get an enjoyable headline that cheers are so a Monday

morning, he has to demonstrate he is conscious of the real issues. We are

talking about the future of the Middle East, the war in Syria, what

British policy will be on that, and about the future of our relationship

with Russia. Crucial issues of that kind. One other person you have

commented on, George Osborne, you seemed to regret he was leaving.

Would you like Theresa May to bring him back? No, that decision has been

taken. I said I was surprised, not surprised that he seems to be

Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he is a real heavyweight, I personally

think he has been a successful Chancellor and I think he would

still love to contribute. I think Theresa May put him on the

backbenches... You might enjoy the realisation from the time being. Why

don't you be an adviser to Boris Johnson was like That is the Boris

to decide! We will have to leave it there, thank you.

Nothing better illustrates the turmoil in developing our

political system than the state of the Labour Party.

At a time when this country so desperately needs

a strong opposition, they seem intent on publicly

Well, I'm joined now by Labour MSP Neil Findlay,

who will launch the Scotland for Corbyn campaign

at a rally in Glasgow shortly after this programme.

So, what exactly are you going to do? We will be gathering together a

group of people, a large group, I expect, who will be getting

themselves involved in organising the campaign might just acquitted a

year ago is very successfully, and I look forward to that this afternoon.

Be split in the Labour Party is hopeless at the moment, isn't it? I

think it is very, very regrettable that this has happened. At a time

when we have had the Tory Party on the ropes, the Prime Minister had

resigned and what we should have been in there, putting the boot in

to the Tory Party, finishing them off. Instead the Parliamentary Party

turned on itself and I think that is hugely regrettable. Jeremy Corbyn's

new Shadow Education Secretary was interviewed by Andrew Neil a few

minutes ago and she would not even say she would vote for Jeremy Corbyn

in the leadership election. This is hopeless, even the people replacing

the people who have resigned do not seem to support Jeremy Corbyn. She

stepped up to the plate and serve, unlike some others who deserted. I

think there is great credit to people like her, loyal to the Labour

Party, who stepped up to the plate. Everyone will have a decision to

make as to who they support the leadership candidate. They are

entitled to make that decision in a free and democratic election. I

welcome a free and democratic election. If there is such an

election and Jeremy Corbyn wins, what about the 80% of liver-mac MPs

who do not support him? I think you might want to direct a question to

some of them. -- Labour MPs. I hope they would respect the mandate, the

views of the members, never forget they are the people who do the

leafleting, do the phone calls, raise the money, work day in, day

out, we in, week out for these MPs who give them the privilege to serve

in Parliament. I think members should be respected in that

framework that. If that happens there will be a split in the Labour

Party. I hope not. I hope all candidates in this election and all

their supporters will abide by the result, whoever wins, and we all get

together and move forward. I certainly will be making that today.

I hope that all the candidates and their supporters unite around that

one principle that whoever wins, we gather round and support and move on

and get on with the business of taking on the Tories and the SNP.

There has only been a division in the Labour Party between people who

believe that conference should decide everything, that the Liberal

Party fish be mandated by the militia, and those who believe that

MPs have a slightly different role, they are collected by millions of

people, that they have some independent base. These divisions

are in all parties. -- mandated by the membership. But the two views

are not compatible any more. Be Conservative members last week

complained that the Tory Party election was fixed, it really

involves their members. These tensions within parties, that is

what happens. But most of the Cabinet has not resigned whereas

most of the Shadow Cabinet has. Of course, and that is the regrettable

part of this. Yes, but it still looks hopeless. It should not be

hopeless and that is what I think we looks hopeless. It should not be

have to get home, all sides has two get home to the candidates, that the

people who draft on our behalf are demanding that the Labour Party gets

its act together and that this election clears the air and we move

on, united together to do what we have to do, hold a dreadful

Government to account. Neil Findlay, thank you very much.

Perhaps it has always been true that people decide who to support or how

to vote based on gut feelings, not on who has actually presented

But it has been claimed that now we are living in an era

of "post-truth" politics, so competing sides in the political

debate don't even bother with complicated things

Instead, it is said, they rely on slogans

and spin to shore up support and win over doubters.

Some have pointed to the Euro referendum as proof of that.

Across the channel they are watching what we are up to.

It's becoming a bit like Game of Thrones meets Monty Python...

But there's another way of looking at the choice we've faced, a

conflict between head and heart, facts and feelings.

Did the former Chancellor believed his warnings about more austerity if

we voted for Brexit? There will be a hole in the public

finances. Taxes will have to go up, spending will have to be cut.

And did they leave campaign think her claim about the cash the UK pays

to Europe was the whole truth? Are we in an age of what some have

called "post-fact politics"? I would say there is such a thing is

that. My definition of it, because it is a loose area in terms of

study, would simply be the use of barefaced lies and manipulation of

the facts at either end of that sort of moral spectrum.

What you are doing is isolating the of moral spectrum.

best points of your argument, that has been done for hundreds of years.

We all do that in our everyday lives. But there is a big difference

between that and telling lies. There is a view that the big problem

is we have forgotten how to have respect for, grown at political

arguments. I think there has been an

infantilisation, we have gone from the maturity of serious and lengthy

reflection down to the idea of immediate, emotional response. I

call that infantilisation because we are behaving less like adults are

more like children. So basically, I think we need to

grow up, and read to recognise that these are difficult matters, we need

to think long and hard about them and we need to realise that other

people have good intent, and not denigrate them all push aside their

arguments by just misrepresenting them as demons or on the other side

angels. But some say there is no such thing

as post-fact politics. It is just sour grapes from the losing side.

I think this is really lazy thinking, it is like saying that

people don't accept your point of view other people are a bit silly or

stupid in some way, and they just go for emotional responses while some

other side is the truth and the facts. It seems to be what is really

at stake here is not bad at all, what is happening is that if people

cannot get their argument across, it is either because they are not

addressing the real fears or issues that are in the mind of the other

side, or they are just very bad at expressing it and the other side are

very good at putting their figures out or they are very quick.

Perhaps one defining moment of the EU referendum came from Michael

Gove. I think the people have had enough

of experts with organisations... Had enough of experts?!

Organisations with acronyms saying they know best.

What you are saying is I will give you a simple truth to a set of

complex problems. The problem comes when there is genuinely a context

problem to be solved, and in the area of politics you dug up much

more conjugated than that. The problem has when you have a

politician saying he has a simple solution, don't worry, what he is

saying is "Don't think." I used to teach people how not to

answer questions, and that felt like a smart thing to do because it

allowed you to escape from difficult issues. But I think we are now

entering an era where people would really respect a politician who came

out and told it like it was, whether it was good news or bad news.

A straight talker, who tells it like it is. That's exactly what his

supporters see him as. Opponents, of course, say he is the ultimate

"post-fact politician". If there is such a thing.

Now it's time to look back at the events of the past week

and see what's coming up in The Week Ahead.

Here with me now are the journalists Katie Grant and Paul Hutcheon.

Let's start with this whole Scotland and Brexit thing, Paul. Nicola

Sturgeon was saying this veto is maybe not quite a veto, although she

was open about saying she doesn't actually understand whether it is or

not. I do think that the current situation benefits Theresa May more

than the First Minister. If you think back a few days when it looked

like there might be a Tory leadership contest, Theresa May was

quite categorical that she wanted to trigger article 50 next year. I

think what she said to Nicola Sturgeon a few days ago fits into

that, she's given herself a bit more time to negotiate a UK wide deal.

She is saying, oh K, if you think you can negotiate some sort of

Scotland only package, let me see it, I will consider it, probably

knowing it can never happen, and so I think it looks good for the Prime

Minister. And she could perhaps use it, Katie, if she wants to restrain

David Davis. Yes, I think Theresa May has been very astute in making

her first visit up here. I think it was very nice to see her and Nicola

Sturgeon sitting having a relaxed in a way conversation, and I think in

the interview with Nicola Sturgeon earlier it was very refreshing to

hear her say we don't really know. And so I think that sort of honesty,

despite the truth and lies you've just been seeing, were actually help

Nicola Sturgeon cement her position as somebody who is looking for the

best in Scotland. Theresa May did not say, look, you cannot have a

second independence referendum. No, because she is far too wise to say

that. We've had with Davidsson saying the same thing, and David

Mondo pretty much the same way. I don't think she's an expert on

Scottish politics, and I think inevitably we will be having a

second referendum. This idea of talking to EU partners about a third

way for Scotland, I don't think that will result in anything substantial,

legal or significant. And I think Nicola in about a year's time will

probably look at it and think the only option is a second referendum.

This turmoil in British politics doesn't involve tanks and shooting

in the streets and bombing parliament. What do you think this

could happen in Turkey now, there are fears that the president rather

than thinking -- using this as a festival of democracy will simply

use it to crack down on people he is cracking down on anywhere? What we

are hearing sounds like with all these people being arrested but that

is what is good happen. I think Mr Erdogan has shown himself very good

at clamping down on what appears on the outside. It is a very troubling

sort of situation here, because he actually -- he is not a person who

you would think is not -- full of democracy, that's been very

difficult for Turkey, and although nobody wants a military coup, nobody

wants the place to become yet more restricted. But I suspect that what

we hear will be a rather gentler version of what is naturally going

on. We're taking a break for the summer, and we were good to have a

crystal ball here for you to gaze into, but we couldn't afford it. So

you have to imagine one. By the time we come to the autumn, what big

things do you think will have changed in Britain? I think that

there will be relative Tory unity, and I think the divisions you have

seen in the Labour Party will be even greater than they are today. I

would agree with that, I don't think the Labour Party's and to come

together any time soon. I think the honeymoon period for Theresa May may

be slightly over, people will be becoming slightly impatient about if

we voted for Brexit, sort of, where is it? So I think we will be more...

I think things will be less trouble than they are now. Split in the

Labour Party? I think if Jeremy Corbyn wins, some moderates will

form a new party. There will be on STP style split, as you saw in the

early 1980s. Right, -- in a macro is DUP. -- STP. -- SDP style.

Like both Parliaments, we're having a break over summer,

but we'll be back again in September.

They were yum. The children are going to love them.

This week, Gregg and Chris show how spending less on food...