18/09/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


The latest political news, interviews and debate in Scotland.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 18/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Jeremy Corbyn insists he can re-unite the Labour Party if he wins


the leadership contest next week, but, as threats to deselect MPs


opposed to Mr Corbyn come to light, is Labour heading for meltdown?


She won the Ukip leadership on Friday, and by Saturday


was facing internecine spats and calls for her to ditch


So how can Diane James pull her party together,


and what's the point of Ukip post-Brexit?


Theresa May insists she doesn't need to call a fresh election,


so will she deliver every promise made in the 2015


We've updated our Manifesto Tracker to check how much of it


Coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland: I'll be talking


referendums with the Secretary of State for Scotland.


And John Swinney tells us some government money may soon go direct


it all over for the Lib Dems in the capital?


And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political


panel in the business - Tim Shipman, Helen Lewis


and Isabel Oakeshott, who'll be tweeting throughout


the programme using the hashtag #BBCSP.


By this time next week we'll know whether Jeremy Corbyn


will remain Labour leader, or if his challenger, Owen Smith,


Whoever wins, they face a big challenge to reunite the party


after months of hostilities between Corbyn supporters


in the grassroots and the majority of Labour MPs.


Tomorrow, two television documentaries are scheduled to air -


on BBC One and Channel 4 - which report on the


Speaking to the BBC's deputy political editor John Pienaar


for Panorama, Len McClusky, general secretary of the Unite


union, said opponents of Mr Corbyn need to get back


Some of the MPs have behaved absolutely despicably


and disgracefully, and they've not shown any respect


So those vocal dissidents who do not show the respect


to the leader that you describe, when it comes to deselection


they would simply be asking for it, you say?


I think they would, I think anybody who behaves in a way


that is totally disrespectful, and outwith the culture


of the Labour Party, is basically asking to be


Meanwhile, Channel 4's Dispatches programme secretly filmed a meeting


of Momentum activists in London - that's the organisation set up


to support Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, where the former


chairman of the Brighton Labour Party set out his views


on opponents of Corbyn, including the local


And we've been joined by the Labour MP for Hove, Peter Kyle.


Are you nervous about your future? I have seen that clip for the first


time now. I made three promises when I was up for selection, that I would


be the hardest working candidate, bring politics back to the high


street and engage with the public in a way that they never had in the


constituency before, and beat the Tories, and I have done all three of


those things. I have been incredibly hard-working with my team to make


sure politics is driven deeper and wider into the local constituency


than it ever has been before. We are more inclusive than any point before


and more hard-working... I want to ask you another question... If they


want to get me out of that seat, they have to work hard to do so. Is


there an organised campaign to remove you? You have just seen the


chair of my local party talking in a secret meeting somewhere to have me


ousted, so clearly there is a movement locally. I have been a


member of the Labour Party my whole life, there are people who have


fought for other parties their whole lives who have joined in the last


few weeks and are trying to beat the Labour Party in a different way, by


getting rid of me. I am going to carry on doing my job. They are


trying to get rid of you, aren't they? They are trying to


get rid of the only Labour seat for a 200 mile stretch of coastline.


That is extraordinary, we are surrounded down there by Tories and


they are aiming fire at a Labour MP working harder than any other down


there, trying to solve problems of the rail, the health service,


hosting a debate last week about abuse in the family Court against


women, all of these core issues for the Labour Party and that is what


they are aiming fire act. It does not seem to make any difference of


Mr Sandall, who was the head of the constituency, who was once


suspended, he says he does not -- you do not represent them any more?


He said I did not support the doctors, I did, I took the line


given by Heidi Alexander at the time, which was not to go to the


particular picket line. I have held round tables with doctors, spoken in


the chamber about doctors. He said a list of different areas where I have


not supported the Labour socialist left line, every one of them he is


absolutely categorically wrong. On rail renationalisation, I have never


spoken against it. I said it cannot happen for ten years so in the


meantime I am making sure I can make people's journeys home from work


better than the journey to work, which is what people expect. Who


will have the support, you all the people who want to get wood of you?


I don't think about that for a second, my job is to represent the


people who elected me. There is a 34% increase in the Labour vote in


Hove because of the way that my team ran the campaign. But they know all


that and they still want rid of you. Clive Lewis, fellow Labour MP, said


to the BBC this morning it is democratic selection. There is


nothing democratic about what they are doing,


there is nothing reaching out about what they are doing. Jeremy is the


first person I have come across who uses an olive branch as a weapon to


beat people with. On the same day they hold out an olive branch, they


released a list of MPs who they say hate Jeremy. This is not the kind of


inclusive leadership I would expect. If you face a battle to hold your


seat, you don't expect any help from Jeremy Corbyn? He has come down to


Brighton and said he would not stand in the way of my deselection. I am


100% focused on delivering for the people he elected me and I


represent, that is what I am in politics for, so if they want to


defeat me they have to work harder than me for the constituency, just


like the Tories would have to do. You have made that point several


times. You talk about being one of the few Labour seats in a sea of


Conservative seats in what in McLeod used to call the deep South, he did


that for a reason, but isn't your Brighton and Hove Labour party a bit


of a basket case? There have been examples of abusive behaviour, in


ballot, the NEC suspended it in July, it is a bit of a mess. When I


go out campaigning, which is every weekend, I have a massive team


around me, I am part of an incredible movement in Brighton and


Hove, and the vast majority of people in the Labour Party in


Brighton and nationwide want to do the right thing, they care about


social values and delivering it. We just have to win the argument but we


have to be more electable and Jeremy is not showing the calibre of


leadership that the official opposition needs, the


Labour Party needs, and the country needs to look to if we are going to


make the leap from opposition into power. Thank you for being with us


this morning. Later in the programme we hope to be joined by James


Schneider of Momentum. Allen, how typical is this


situation? Are a number of Labour MPs now going to face deselection


challenges? I think lots of people in the PLP are worried, more of them


are women than men, I don't know if that is coincidence or speaks to


something broader, but the boundary changes give golden opportunity for


some rethinking, Jeremy Corbyn is talking about selection. The idea if


you have a boundary change, if you have 40%, your steak on the seat is


the same but anybody not in that situation has to play a game of


the same but anybody not in that musical chairs and that is seen as a


good chance to reconfigure the party. It is good this is coming out


into the open because we have heard for months from Jeremy Corbyn's team


that this is a terrible smear but it seems to be something that people


like Len McCluskey, very close to the Labour leadership, want to


happen. It has been denied, but we had Len McCluskey now saying he is


up for the changes, particularly for people who have been very rude about


Mr Corbyn, Clive Lewis talking it -- calling it democratic selection,


Momentum, as we have seen from the film, clearly organising to move in


on a number of MPs, it is going to happen? Yes, I think it is, the


phrase Clive Lewis used this morning is a natural churn, are turn of


phrase which suggest the label -- upheaval. People are saying that


Jeremy Corbyn will reach out to all of these people, ask what he has


done wrong and bring everybody back together. The people on the other


side think that is a chance to line up loyalty pledges. Meanwhile we


hear this morning in the newspapers that Corbyn and the people around


him had a meeting in a country house a month ago in which they are not


just planning to go after MPs but also the leadership of the Labour


Party itself in terms of the staffing, the Management, the


general secretary is for the high jump, we hear, and the guy they are


thinking of lining up for that is one of Mr Paloschi -- Len


McCluskey's friends at Unite, you cannot imagine they would put too


many barriers in his way. That appears to be what is going on


behind the scenes. At every single stage where the moderates say this


is the worst thing that could happen, the Corbynistas said, oh,


no, it isn't, and you find out something worse is going on. If Mr


Corbyn is re-elected comfortably, perhaps by even more of a majority


than he was last time, isn't it only natural that they should then work


for the MPs to reflect more the views of the new membership? One of


the interesting aspects of what is going on it it seems to be the new


MPs like Peter Kyle who we have just had on who were under so much threat


here, and the reason is because they have not got that hinterland with


their party association, they have not built up that long-term trust.


One of the things that is furious about this party leadership contest


is that normally once a leadership contest is over, it is a cue for a


period of stability and calm, it brings things to


ahead everybody settles down and falls into line. I think the


opposite will happen here. There is absolutely no sign that Jeremy


Corbyn's return, as we expect to happen, to the leadership will in


some ways take the steam out of this thing. They do have a plan, I think,


at the moment, to give the Parliamentary party some more power


over the selection of the Shadow Cabinet, and that could be a way of


trying to work together better, but I can't see it working. We will talk


more about this later. Let's move on to the Conservatives.


Theresa May insists her Government will be markedly different


from David Cameron's, but doesn't appear to want


an early general election to provide her with a new mandate.


So, does that mean she'll stick by everything in Conservatives'


We've been busy crawling through the promises


made by David Cameron, and updated our Manifesto Tracker


to check which policies are being pursued and which have been ditched.


It's been an eventful period since we launched


Britain has voted to leave the EU and a new Prime


Minister is in place, but the Conservative Government


under Theresa May will still be held to the promises it made ahead


of the 2015 general election in their manifesto, and a few other


big commitments made during the campaign.


And this is how we are keeping track of their progress.


We have identified 161 pledges and loaded them into


We grouped them into categories covering all the major areas


of Government policy, from the constitution


And we have given each of the promises a colour rating.


Red means little or no progress so far.


Amber means the Government has made some progress.


While green is for delivered pledges.


Let's start by looking at one here in foreign affairs and defence,


The promise to hold a referendum on our EU membership.


We have changed that to green, as the Government did deliver


in June, even if it didn't get the result it wanted.


Many of the promises made while David Cameron was leader


were based around what he hoped he could achieve in his


renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, particularly


The manifesto said that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits


and child benefits must live here and contribute


The deal offered to David Cameron by the rest of the EU was a much


weaker version of the pledge, which, like the rest


of the renegotiation, was rejected by the voters


So we have given this a red, although it is possible


the Government could deliver on it once we have left the EU.


The same goes for the promise that if a child of an EU migrant


is living abroad, they should receive no child benefit


David Cameron's renegotiation failed to secure this policy


in full and it would be up to Theresa May's Government if it


The vote to leave has had big implications for manifesto


commitments in other areas, like here in the economy.


One of the central promises made by David Cameron


and George Osborne was this one, to eliminate the deficit and start


But after the Brexit vote, Theresa May confirmed that


while the Government aims to achieve a budget surplus,


it has dropped the target of doing so by the end


Now, those are some areas where the Government has made little


Well, it fought a major battle in Parliament to tighten the rules


This promise, which said strike action can only be called


when at least half the eligible workforce have voted, is now law,


As does this one, meaning that strikes affecting essential public


services like health, education, fire and transport,


will need the backing of at least 40% of those eligible to vote.


We have marked the majority of policies as amber,


meaning at least some progress is being made.


Here in welfare, for example, we have got the Government's


flagship reform, universal credit, which has been rolled out


for some job-seekers, although the timetable for full


delivery has been pushed back repeatedly and is currently


And another here, under the environment.


That's the promise to create a so-called bluebelt of protected


conservation zones in the water around the UK's coast.


That has been given amber, as the programme still


Now let's see how the Government is doing overall.


Out of 161 election commitments, the number of commitments we have


The number marked amber falls to 90, and the number of green or delivered


We will be returning to the Manifesto Tracker again,


but in the meantime you can find all of the data on the politics


And you can see the full details of our Manifesto Tracker


on the BBC website - that's bbc.co.uk/news.


I'm joined by the Conservative Cabinet minister, the leader


of the House of Commons, David Lidington.


Your biggest manifesto fail to date is immigration, how are you ever


going to get net migration below 100,000? A number of different


measures and clearly the nature of the renegotiation now as we leave


the European Union will have a very important bearing on that, but one


thing the Prime Minister set out very clearly is that we remain


committed to getting the reduction in net migration that she has talked


about consistently, but there's no quick fixes. People come to this


country through a number of different routes, son to marry


citizens, some for work reasons, some for asylum claims, some of the


study, and we have got to look at each of those and work out how we


can make sure the numbers are managed and controlled in the way


people would expect. But you have been in power for six years and you


have been in control of non-EU migration for six years, and it is


still running at 190,000 net per year, even on the part of migration


you are on complete control, you are nowhere near the 100,000 target.


Why? Because in part our economy has been very sexual and other


universities have been successful in attracting people to come here. We


need to make sure that people, when they come here legitimately, to do a


university course or take out a work permit opportunity for a limited


period of time, do actually return home after they have completed that


time they are permitted here, that we, as we have done, cut the number


of bonus colleges... 190,000 net per year of non-EU, and you didn't say


we will cut it to 100,000 unless we run the economy well. There were no


ifs, no buts, was David Cameron's exact phrase. Can we get some


honesty here, this whole project is Mission impossible. The meteor


manifesto pledge, you would have to cut EU migration to below 50000 and


non-EU migration to below 50,000. It's not going to happen, is it? We


are committed to the ambitions, the object of the Prime Minister has set


out. I think the public accepts that people who come here bona fides as


tourists, workers to fill a skills gap we have got, that's fine but


they expect people then to go back after their term here. And they also


expect, which we are doing, to make sure school leavers have the


opportunity to be trained so they can take the jobs that are


available. They expect you to meet the promise you have made twice. He


made it in the 2010 manifesto and again in the 2015 manifesto. I think


many people watching this will say, why do you repeat a pledge you know


you cannot keep? I don't agree it cannot be kept, but what I have said


to you is that this is a complex challenge. There are no quick fixes


to this, this is something Theresa May has repeatedly said. But just as


we have introduced restrictions on access to benefits that we have


introduced a requirement for people coming to marry a British citizen to


speak English and reach a certain standard before they come here, we


need to look at that level of detail at each of the tracks that people


used to come here. Net migration is running at three times your target.


In the manifesto you said you would insist EU migrants would need to


live and work here for four years before they could claim welfare


benefits. The EU said no. Now we are leaving the EU, is that the minimum


we will insist on? Clearly anything to do with EU citizens already here


and prospective inward migration by EU citizens or British citizens to


other EU countries is part of the negotiation. Is that still a pledge?


That specific pledge was part of the last manifesto, it was actually


delivered in a number of different ways through the restrictions that


we did place upon, and are still in force, on EU migrants coming here


seeking work and getting access to out of work benefits. The big issue


at the renegotiation David Cameron lead was access to tax credits and


in work benefits. He came to a deal on that which limited it, but that


failed after the referendum. It wasn't that you don't get anything


unless you have been here for four years, your manifesto also promised


the required EU job seekers to leave if they haven't found a job within


six months. Will that be fulfilled pledge in this Parliament? That is


already a policy we have taken. How many EU citizens have you removed? I


think we can agree to close the norm. You have not kept that pledge,


EU job seekers are here, aren't they? That is one very important


part of the exit negotiation is now under way, but it wouldn't be


sensible to give a running commentary on the detail of that.


Post Brexit, it would be reasonable to think EU migrants still coming


here would be regarded more favourable than non-EU migrants? We


were part of the club for 40 years. What they get more favourable


treatment if they were EU citizens? That is speculation about what comes


out of the negotiation, and we will go into that with a range of


objectives, both in terms of control over migration by EU citizens, which


I think is what British people expected when they voted as they


did, but also with the objective of getting the best possible outcome


for British business. On tax and spend, one of the key promises in


the manifesto was to move to fiscal surplus from fiscal deficit by the


end of the decade, do you still intend to keep that? The PM said she


remains committed, but not by the end of the parliament. When you look


at the fact there is uncertainty in the world economy, clearly some


uncertainty in the aftermath of the referendum outcome, that was a


sensible, pragmatic decision to take. So do we have an idea of when


the target of surplus will be? The Chancellor will give his Autumn


Statement in the next few weeks, and will set out the Government's plan.


The pledge to start a move towards surplus in the 2018/19 manifesto, it


said we are set to move into surplus of them, that is now off the cards?


We are committed to it, but not with that timing. When you set out to a


destination, if the traffic conditions say you should take


different route, that's what you do. But we don't know if Brexit will be


as dire as people like you predicted, so until we do know that,


why ditch the planned to head the surplus that you promised the


British people? Because there is uncertainty in the world economy. It


seems sensible to make that adjustment, but the destination


still remains. You have no evidence anything has changed. You work on


the basis of evidence remains but Philip will be working on these


details in the Autumn Statement shortly. Will Theresa May's ferment


continued to implement the 2015 manifesto? Is she committed to it in


its entirety as much as David Cameron? Yes, she was very clear out


her first cabinet meeting that she wanted every departmental minister


to go back to the manifesto on which we were elected with a majority, and


to ensure that we were delivering on those objectives. I think your


tracker is a good idea. Just not when it comes to the surplus or


immigration? One point of the tracker is that it enables you and


the public to see where we are making progress, as we are for


example on getting more poorer people out of tax and into work and


so on, and where we have taken the decision to alter the course of it.


I'm glad you think the tracker is a good idea. Come back in the future


and we will talk more about it. She says Ukip is the official


opposition in waiting. But how can Ukip's new leader,


Diane James, stop the infighting and factionalism that's threatened


to destroy the party's And what's the point


of Ukip now that the UK Diane James joins me


live in just a moment. First, Ellie Price reports


from Ukip's party conference in Bournemouth, where the new leader


moved swiftly to put her stamp It is an absolute pleasure


to announce, with 8451 votes, the leader of the UK


Independence Party, Diane James! There you have it,


the biggest non-surprise in politics in years -


Diane James is the She's been the frontrunner in this


election campaign all summer. Of course, the challenge now


is going to be convincing this lot What I will be doing is stepping


into his leadership shoes, but I will be doing everything


to achieve the political success that he's handing over to me


and to you. But, as the new leader, Diane James


knows she has big shoes to fill. Nigel's a great almost wartime


leader, he said that during his speech, and I think


Diane's a different kind of leader. There's talk of war,


there's talk of peace times, but unfortunately there aren't peace


times within Ukip at the moment. I think this pretty much


settles the issue. Diane is strong on these


sorts of issues. In many ways, Nigel


was slightly weak, actually. There's really only about four


or five people who cause trouble in Ukip, and I'm pretty sure that's


the end of the story. But just before a live interview


with Ukip's Steven Woolfe, I was literally caught in the middle


of what you could describe You've seen and heard what was said


in the media, and so... The reason for Neil


Hamilton's anger? Diane James had rewritten the next


day's conference schedule It certainly seems like a quixotic


decision from somebody who an hour or two ago was talking


about the need for party unity. He was replaced by his rival


in Welsh Ukip. You said to me the other day


there would be a bloodbath, Is this the beginning


of the bloodbath? I think it's the beginning of Diane


putting her foot down, showing that she is the leader,


and that she wants the rest of the conference to go the way


that she wants it to go. We're fine, just


wondering who you are? That's Douglas Carswell,


by the way, the party's only MP. The now ex-leader thinks


he knows exactly who he is, and was using his new-found


freedom to explain. During the referendum campaign,


he's really done all he can But the new leader was there,


symbolically, to greet him. Damaging comments from


Mr Farage this morning, Lots of people in politics say


all sorts of things. Diane James was also


more than happy to share This conference ends


on a conciliatory note, and there are signs this


party is already moving And we've been joined by


the new leader of Ukip, Diane James. Good morning, thank you. What is the


point of Ukip? We are the only party 100% committed to Brexit, we have a


Tory Government that is still split, a Labour Party that has no idea


which direction it is going in. You have what is left of the Liberal


Democrats relying on their voice in Europe, their single voice in


Europe, to get their message across, and we are the one party that will


stand up for the over 17 million people that wanted to leave the


European Union, simple. Except that you are dysfunctional? No, we are


embarking on a brand-new era, as I said on a conference. I know you


will pick up on the changes I made to the programme but the new leader


has the prerogative to do that. I understand that, and leaders should


lead, but Paul Nuttall, the outgoing deputy leader, has spoken of a


cancer at the heart of the party that has led to leading light using


Ukip as a football. You have huge problems in Wales, its huge problems


with the NEC, an issue with Nathan Gill, with many favoured candidates


who ended up not standing, senior colleagues falling out, membership


and funding declining, which bit of that is not dysfunctional? Thank you


for reminding me of the issues I have got to tackle over the next few


weeks. I made it clear in my events around the country that I would have


a 100 day plan, focusing on precisely the sort of issues you


have outlined. I don't agree with one of them, by any means, but in


100 days I hope to be able to show that we are turning a corner and


that we are embarking on a new era. You claim you will be the real


opposition to Government but you only have one semidetached MP in


Westminster, it is delusional? No, it is not, look where we are at this


point, potentially four by-elections, we said we would not


stand in one out of respect to Jo Cox but three others, look at those


by-elections in the context of the dysfunctional position Labour is in,


and we are ripe to take those seats. Do you accept your only MP, Douglas


Carswell, is pretty semidetached at best? I would not call him


semidetached, I heard the speech he gave at the conference, the


endorsement he gave me and the endorsement he has given


subsequently, and I see him as being a member of the Ukip team going


forward. You have asked to move a Private members Bill to invoke


article 50, has he agreed? He stated he would do his level best. That is


not the same as agreeing. He made the point that there is another


option, to repeal the European communities act and instigate a


debate on that. We have an individual prepared to launch a two


pronged attack in the House of Commons and forced Theresa May into


doing something. A two pronged one-man attack. He told me on Friday


that Ukip should be, quote, a free-market Libertarian party. If


that your vision? If I can remind you, from my speech, my vision is


probably slightly different words, it is global, positive, outward


looking, enterprise building and making this country great again


outside of the EU control. But if it free-market and libertarian? That is


his vision, I am trying to work out the vision -- if the vision of your


only MP is the same as the new leader? OK, I will say it is the


same. So you are free-market and libertarianism? Yes, we are about


enterprise Britain... Given the leadership campaign was a policy


free zone, what will be the most distinctive policies Ukip will stand


for under Diane James? Certainly the issue of migration and immigration,


certainly the issue of defence, giving us back the ability to defend


this country... These are existing policies? No, these need a major


refresh out of EU control. The aspect of Homeland Security, the


aspect we have not got a functioning Border Force, we have not got a


functioning passport control system, we have even got a Home Secretary


continuing the project via aspect of we have even got a Home Secretary


a beaver charge for people going into Europe or coming to the UK.


Absolutely bizarre. I am just trying to find out what the policies will


be. The major one for me, given my background, the state that the NHS


is in, and if we can show a very clear vision and stand up to what


Jeremy Hunt is doing in terms of decimating the NHS, I will be


delighted. You will agree that is not a policy but an attitude...


It is a policy in terms of the NHS. We don't know about the policy


because you refused to debate with other candidates during the


leadership campaign and campaigned on a no policy platform, white? I


launched my own series of national events, nationwide, and I gave


members and activists, and, in fact, the press, the media, anybody who


wanted to come along, there was not a bar in terms of membership only,


to come along and interact with me for two hours. That gave


individuals, all of the members in the audience, a solid two hours to


scrutinise what I had to say. That was a much higher quality programme


that anything hustings would have given. But why not debate with your


rivals? Because there was no need, we were not fighting a general


election, we were fighting, if you wish to use the phrase, to elect the


new leader of Ukip, and I chose to go direct to the members, to


interact with them directly and give them quality time with me and


respond to all of their questions. Many think Ukip's best chance is to


win over disaffected working-class Labour voters in the north, so how


does the epitome of the Home Counties bourgeoisie do that? You


tell me! It is not my job. I have never heard such convoluted


language! Can you simplify that so we know what you are talking about?


There have been a number of leaders your party could have chosen, Paul


Nuttall, Steven Woolfe, who would have had a clear, more distinct


appeal to the north. Paul Michael chose not to stand. You need to ask


him his reason. I'm just asking how you will appeal to the North. Steven


Woolfe, a superb colleague of mine, regretfully there were issues in


terms of getting his information in in time. The point I have made


throughout my programme of events is that I want to have two chiefs of


staff, people who will ably assist me in developing our programme, our


policies, our strategy is to appeal both to the north and also the


policies, our strategy is to appeal south. What will you do about Wales,


where Ukip seems to be involved in civil war? I will ask Neil Hamilton


to focus on Welsh Assembly, on winning the elections in Wales, and


I will ask Nathan to continue doing a superb job he does in terms of


representing Wales in the European Union and Parliament, and in the


voting in Strasbourg. So you will have two Kings? No, Nathan has my


complete and utter support, he has had a huge legacy in terms of his


membership, a huge wealth of knowledge in terms of the issues


facing Wales if Mrs May does not action about to leave the European


Union. He has got my full support. Neil, I am asking you, step up to


the plate, but focus on Wales and the assembly. One of your party's


main funders was an errant banks, in the process of turning leave. EU


into a momentum of the right, to mirror the Jeremy Corbyn movement on


the left, do you have a problem with that? I have just been elected head


of a political party. If he wishes to support a political movement,


that is his decision. Other than Vladimir Putin, who is your main


political hero? Certainly not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I did not


ask who was not, who is? I cannot think of anybody apart from Margaret


Thatcher and Winston Churchill. think of anybody apart from Margaret


Putin, Churchill and Thatcher. We hope to see you again. Thank you.


It's just gone 11.40, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


The man charged with improving education in Scotland tells this


programme money may soon be sent directly to schools,


And I'll be asking the leader of the fifth largest party


in the Scottish Parliament if the Liberal Democrats can avoid


But first, it's two years to the day since the Independence referendum,


billed at the time by senior members of the SNP as a


Well, two years really is a long time in politics.


Since 2014 we've seen the return of a majority Conservative


government and Britain voting to leave the European Union.


Yes campaigners were out yesterday campaigning for another


No campaigners were also out, arguing against another referendum.


Well, I'm joined now by David Mundell,


He made a speech yesterday arguing another referendum is that last


Despite what you are arguing, Alex Salmond says the British Government


will mess up Brexit, and there will be another referendum within two


years. I think it is quite clear now that the SNP position is


independence at any cost. The pretence we had two years ago that


somehow independence would be economically beneficial, but it


would lead to prosperity in Scotland, has been abandoned. It is


clear that Mr Salmond and others just want independence. That is


quite clearly what they are obsessed about, regardless of the fact that


they signed the Edinburgh agreement to say that the result of the


referendum would be respected, despite saying immediately before


the referendum that it would be a once in a generation event. People


in Scotland have voted decisively to remain in the United Kingdom. We


need to respect that and get on with the other challenges we face, such


as the day-to-day business of taking forward the Scottish Government's


programme. We should be focusing on that. In terms of Brexit, we did to


come together, Scottish Government and UK Government, to get the best


possible deal for Scotland. In an article today in one of the


newspapers, Ruth Davidson says she agrees with Jim Sellers that the SNP


Government has no mandate for another referendum. But both Ruth


Davidson herself and indeed you yourself have said previously on


this programme that you think the British Government should not stop a


second referendum if the SNP Government wants to have one. Is


that still your position? Our position is quite clear. Of course


there could be another referendum. That is the sort of process issue


that the SNP want to get involved in. The argument is whether there


should be another referendum. And Ruth Davidson and I are absolutely


clear, as is Theresa May, as is the majority of people in Scotland, that


there should not be another referendum. There is an opinion poll


today that shows two thirds of people, even a significant number of


people who support independence, saying that they do not want to go


back to the division and divisiveness that the independence


referendum brought. We made the decision, it was supposed to be a


once in a generation decision, let's stick by that and move on. And let's


come together so that working together, the UK Government and


Scottish Government, can get the best possible deal for Scotland and


the UK out of these wrecks it negotiations. Later in this


programme we have an interview with the leader of the Scottish Liberal


Democrats, Willie Rennie, in that interview he says it would be


disgraceful if members of Parliament were not given a vote on the final


deal on Brexit. Is he right? I've made it clear that Parliament both


in Scotland and the UK will have a significant say over the


negotiations for leaving the EU. The parliament will not be a negotiating


the deal. It will be for the Government to negotiate the deal.


But Parliament will have a say, and will inevitably be involved in the


legislative necessities which will follow from the exit from the EU. It


is wrong to suggest that argument will not be significantly involved


in scrutinising and having a say in the EU negotiations and the final


agreement. Will the British Parliament be able to vote yea or


nay on the final deal for leaving the European Union? Parliament will


be part of the process in terms of scrutinising that, holding the


be part of the process in terms of Government to account. But this was


a decision by the British public over the whole of the United Kingdom


that the United Kingdom should leave the EU, and that is the UK


Government's mandate for negotiating agreement. That agreement will


inevitably involve legal processes, probably legislation, to enable the


agreements to be implemented, and of course Parliament will have the


decisive say over that legislation. So Parliament will be able to say


yea or nay to the final deal on the So Parliament will be able to say


European Union common leaving, is that what you are saying? I think


I've explained twice that Parliament will be involved in the process. It


is already begun, both in Scotland and Westminster, where there have


been significant debates already. There have been questions,


scrutiny... You said this before, but... That process will continue


throughout. At the end of the process, what I've just said, is


that clearly legislation will inevitably flow from bidding


agreement into place, and Parliament will have the final say on that. But


Parliament will not have the final say on whether Britain leaves the


EU. The British people have made that decision, and the Government


will implement it. So you don't foresee the Government at some point


coming back to Parliament and saying, we have had negotiations


with the European Union, here is what the deal is, you can accept or


reject it? I expect that the Government will keep both


parliaments fully involved in the process as the negotiations


continue, and allow them to scrutinise the deal. But it will be


for the Government to determine the deal. The British people have


mandated them to do that through voting to leave the EU in our


referendum. Many people would argue that what you are saying, which is


that in effect there will be no chance for Parliament to reject a


final deal on leaving the European Union, is quite a fundamental


undermining of British Parliamentary democracy. We have had a referendum,


adding that referendum people across the UK voted to leave the EU. The


Government respects that verdict and will implement it. Just as, if two


years ago today, Scotland has voted to leave the United Kingdom. That


decision would have been implemented. And some of the very


people who are at the forefront of alleged outrage at Parliamentary


scrutiny of this deal would have been making absolute hay and call


them if they thought the UK Parliament could override the


referendum result. The referendum results are mandates to the


Government to carry out the wishes of the people, and that is what we


are doing. Can I ask, this idea that Parliament will not have a final


chance to reject a Brexit deal, whatever that deal should turn out,


is this something you have discussed in Cabinet? Is this the position of


the British Cabinet? The Government and to Reza may have made it quite


clear that Parliament -- Government and to Reza may have made it clear


that there will not be a second referendum to override the decision


to leave the youth. Parliament and indeed the Scottish Parliament will


be fully involved in scrutinising this process as negotiations


proceed, although there will not be a running commentary on


negotiations, and there will not be negotiation by Parliament, but


Parliament will be fully involved. As I explained in my previous


answers, Parliament will of course have to pass legislation in relation


to the likely process of except from the EU, and Parliament will have the


definitive say in relation to those arrangements. But what it won't be


able to do, it will not be able to override the will of the British


people to leave the EU. We will have to live there. David Mundell, thank


you for joining us. The Scottish Government has


made its defining mission for this Parliamentary term the closing


of the attainment gap It wants to turn around a schools


system which is failing pupils But critics fear this is just


a twin-pronged attack on councils, which are fiercely protective


of their pivotal role A little earlier I spoke to


the Eduction Secretary John Swinney. Before we talk about education, we


should mention the second anniversary of the independence


referendum. Alex Salmond has been saying another one in two years,


Nicola Sturgeon wrote a piece this morning she did not mention a time


frame. What is your view? I think the debate about independence is


still a dominant part of Scottish politics, because the events of the


last few months have brought all the issues of the democratic choice of


the people of Scotland into focus with the decision of the UK to leave


the European Union, against the wishes of the people of Scotland. So


I think the debate is very much alive. The First Minister has set


out clearly that our priority is to negotiate the protection of


Scotland's relationship with the EU, but that is not able to be achieved,


then the option of an independence referendum is highly likely as a


consequence. Within two years, Alex Salmond says. Do you agree? I think


it is dependent very much on the negotiations take a lease with the


UK Government and the European Union on the UK's exit from the European


Union. Those timescales are difficult to nail down at this


stage, but undoubtedly the approach the First Minister has taken off


saying that our priority is to protect our EU membership for


Scotland, even that that is what people voted for in the referendum


back in June, we have to prioritise that, and that is exactly what the


Government has been doing. It is why Mike Russell was in Europe during


the week taking four of those negotiations, and the outcome of


those negotiations will create the conditions as to whether there is


another independence referendum and when that might take place. In your


new job running education, you announced last week in review of the


way that schools are run, and you said you wanted to devolve


decision-making to schools. I am curious to get some examples of the


kind of thing where you want evolution to schools. What I have


started is a discussion with the whole of the public in Scotland, a


very wide and open consultation, based on the principle that I


believe it is in the best interests of the educational journey of young


people in Scotland if decisions about their education are taken as


close to those young people as possible, within schools. I want to


open up a debate about what are the right issues, the right questions,


the right decisions that should be taken close to young people in


schools, which decisions should be taken at another level. I understand


that, I am curious as to the sort of examples you may people together of


things that could be devolved to schools. It might be choices about


the commissioning of particular services to come into schools. To


give you an example, I visited a school the other week with a have a


particular challenge for primary children who have a vocabulary gap


when the primary children come to school in the first place, and the


school has taken decisions within the reports as available to them to


have a speech therapist available, not a referral, but in the classroom


all the time, helping young people to overcome challenges they face in


vocabulary. That is one practical example of where a headteacher is


able to take decisions about resources that are available to them


to take a very specific different course to ones that might be taken


in other schools. That is what the children in that school require the


most. It is decisions of that nature, decisions that will make a


difference to the educational achievement of young people. There


is some concern among local authorities that they may lose


power. Is it your intention that decisions which are present made by


local authorities should no longer be made by them? There may be some


decisions taken by local authorities that would be taken by schools


instead. For example, if further financial flexibility is devolved to


individual schools and they are able to take decisions about the way


resources are used within schools, then conceivably some of these


decisions would have been taken by local authorities in the past. That


would mean money going directly to schools and bypassing local


authorities. That is what we will consult about as part of the


governance review, it is an exercise that will be undertaken in March


next year. It is entirely conceivable that is what would


happen, because it would give schools the ability to take


decisions that relate directly to the educational opportunities for


young people in Scotland. But I have also made it clear that I want local


authorities to retain democratic control over education services


within Scotland, but that I want to encourage a much greater degree of


cooperation between local authorities in how the use their


services to add value to the educational experience of young


people. What would your reply Peter local authorities who would say, if


money is going to go directly from central Government to schools and


bypass local authorities as you have just said is quite conceivable under


what you're suggesting, they would say, that does erode, the democratic


accountability of schools to local authorities.


There has to be democratic accountability in all aspects of our


public services, and part of the consultation is exploring exactly


how we can take that forward to ensure that we have that


relationship of accountability. But fundamentally the question that the


consultation is asking is how can we best structure Scottish education in


a way that ensures the key educational relationship between


teachers and pupils is enhanced and supported by the intervention of


other bodies and institutions? That is not just about local authorities,


that is about education in Scotland, the inspectorate, the involvement of


government, the involvement of a whole range of other players to make


sure we get the right balance to support and develop education within


Scotland. You have ruled out selective schools and grammar


schools in your review. But would it be possible for some schools to be


organised outside local authority control, for example by trusts


formed off parents and teachers? It is not part of my proposition or


make plans I have set out this week. What I am asking is how do we take


forward the best structuring of Scottish education within a system


of local democratic accountability, but by empowering schools to take


more decisions about the opportunities and challenges that


face young people in the education system? It does not form part of my


plans that such an approach would be taken because I believe that every


community in the country, young people should be entitled to go into


it a school and receive an education that will be delivered in an


atmosphere of excellence within that atmosphere of excellence within that


-- within an atmosphere of equity, where we can challenge the


attainment gap and close it, and where we can support young people to


achieve their potential, no matter where they enter the education


system in Scotland. The new regional education board, you have referred


to them already, will they have any formal role in the way schools are


run, or are they for exchanging ideas? The issue I am raising there


is about the quality and strength of the support service that can be


provided, principally on educational issues, to enhance educational


opportunities in individual schools. So what I want to encourage, and


this is largely a responds to the OECD report, to strengthen the


middle of Scottish education, to encourage local authorities to work


together, to strengthen the support services in place to develop


educational potential within Scottish schools, and make sure


young people are beneficiaries as a consequence. So the proposals at a


collaboration between local authorities. They are not an extra


level of authority, they are collaboration between authorities to


make sure support services to education are strengthened as a


consequence. Your main task and the task Nicola Sturgeon has set herself


is to reduce the so-called attainment gap. She wants to be


judge on that. This might sound like a really daft question, but what is


it we are measuring here? Because attainment gap could mean the


difference between the lowest performing pupils and the best


performing in each individual school, or the difference across


Scotland, or it could mean the number of students from lower income


backgrounds which end up going on to university. What is your definition


of the attainment gap? Firstly, there is nothing wrong with there


being a number of different measures of the attainment gap within


Scotland, because on almost all the measures you mentioned, they are all


legitimate measures to be measures you mentioned, they are all


considered. Essentially what we have to demonstrate its progress on a


number of fronts because the attainment gap could be measured as


the vocabulary gap of children who enter primary one. That could be one


major of the attainment gap, another major could be the proportion of


young people from deprived backgrounds going to higher


education compared to young people from more comfortable backgrounds.


So there is a variety of different measures. Presumably you will


publish benchmarks you want to attain so that we can judge whether


you have a paying them. We cannot do what Nicola Sturgeon wants to judge


her on this, unless we know what we are judging. That is precisely


correct, which is why the National improvement framework has been set


out and why we are gathering the information to inform the National


improvement framework and will publish some of this material later


this year which will show, essentially, one starting point for


that assessment, and then we will be able to look at comparative data


over the next few years to see how much progress has been made, then we


will be able to be judged on that. The clear point I would make is that


there are a number of specific measures of the attainment gap, and


that is not good enough to close one of them but not the others, we have


to close all elements of the attainment gap, which is why the


national improvement framework has been established, to gather the data


together, to publish it and have an open conversation about our


performance in tackling that, and to put in place the resources and


mechanisms to make sure we are successful.


Rate, I am now strapped into a seat so I cannot wonder about aimlessly!


In the space of five years they went from coalition government to having


In Holyrood, where once too they helped run the country,


they're now the fifth party behind the Greens.


So when the Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron claimed yesterday


that the party is now "stronger and more relevant than ever",


you'd be forgiven for thinking that all the pressure may have driven him


A little earlier I spoke to the Scottish Liberal Democrat's


Even the most optimistic Liberal Democrat standing in the sunshine


could not claim things were going well for the party at the moment.


How was this conference going to change things round? Well, 20,000


new members, games from the SNP in the Scottish elections, vibrancy


following the Brexit thought that we are the party that stands up for the


UK and the European Union together means that we're in the best we have


been for some time. So I am very optimistic and especially because we


are in the sunshine in Brighton. But you say that Europe is going to be


your big issue, that is the main thing you're going to focus on? That


is the big aspect that has divided the country. That, combined with


Nicola Sturgeon's clear determined effort to seek independence in the


middle of all this turmoil. I think what we should be doing is setting


forward a very clear message that Scotland is best placed in the


United Kingdom and also in the European Union, and Liberal


Democrats are unique in standing for that with a progressive platform, we


are united in that support. So the combination of all those issues


means we are rejecting the dismal prospect of the division that is


proposed by the SNP and the Tories on the constitution. You say there


is a divide between you and the SNP in Europe. The SNP Government here


is arguing for staying in the single market. You presumably would agree


with that? Of course we would agree that we should be in the single


market, but not for one minute do I believe Nicola Sturgeon is doing


this because she is pro-European, she is doing this because she wants


independence, that is what has driven her household -- driven her


whole elliptical life. I reject it. I do not believe her pronouncements


on the European Union because it is for her, all about independence.


Yes, but what you're seeing now is there is nothing to differentiate


the SNP on the issue of Europe itself, it is just that you do not


agree with independence. Yes, but what I would not trust is an SNP


leader who is driven by the desire to break up Britain rather than


having the best possible relationship with the European


Union. I want somebody who can aspire to have the best possible


solution, which is to be in the United Kingdom and the European


Union, and that is what Liberal Democrats are uniquely fighting for.


In the elections in May, we set forward a very progressive upbeat


platform on investing in mental health services, having the best


education system in the world, guaranteeing our civil liberties and


protecting the environment. We wanted that to be the focus over


this next political period. But as a result of the Tory chaos and the SNP


desire to return to the independence referendum... We want to get back on


with the day job of making Scotland one of the best countries in the


world again. What are you arguing for, another referendum, for a


parliamentary vote on the final deal, or what? We are very clear,


what we want is the British people to have a say on whatever deal the


Conservative government negotiate with the European Union. That means


a referendum? Yes. What we did not know on the 23rd of June was exactly


what Brexit would mean. I think when the detail becomes clear it would be


only right for the British people to have a say on what the final deal


is. It is the only democratic thing we should be doing, which is why we


would support another referendum, not to rerun the referendum on the


23rd of June, but to have a final say on the deal that is agreed.


There have been some suggestions that not only should there not be


another referendum, but that Parliament will not be able to vote


on a final deal, at least it won't be able to veto a final deal on


would your reaction be to that idea? would your reaction be to that idea?


-- what would your reaction be? There is a lot of discussion going


-- what would your reaction be? on, we will need to see what comes.


But what I think would be a disgrace would be if the Conservative


Government was to deny Parliament and the British people are final say


on the deal. They did not know the deal on the 23rd of June. When we do


know the deal, that is when we should have a say on future. We


should be arguing that we should be remaining in the European Union


because it is the best thing for Scotland and Britain. Thank you very


much indeed, Willie Rennie. Tend to look back to the events of


the past week, and see what's Here with me now are the journalist


David Torrance and the former Shadow Scottish Secretary Margaret


Curran. First of all, what David Mandel and


Willie Rennie were saying about this process of exactly how Brexit is


going to happen is becoming more mysterious. I think it is just


another illustration of just how little preparation those that were


arguing for a Brexit gave to the whole process and shows that a


referendum obviously does not -- some things doesn't solve a problem.


It is hard to argue that Parliament can have no say in how the final


policy evolves, whatever the final deal is. You need to have some


parliamentary scrutiny. You cannot overtime the national decision of a


referendum, but there must be some role to get into the detail. You


cannot like a Prime Minister and Boris Johnson make deals... That is


going to be a big argument has it all unravels. I think a lot of MPs


would probably accept that they will not be able to reverse the decision


of the referendum, but I suspect a lot of them think they will be able


to say yes or no to whatever the deal is? Yes, but obviously that


would come much further down the line, at 2019, assuming it is


triggered. But this is being disputed, if it will be triggered in


January or February. The European act in 1992 the way -- 1972, needs


to be repealed, and that cannot be done in parliament. I am not sure


how they will get round that. I am not sure it is straightforward.


Isn't the way round it in technical parliamentary terms the Vote Leave


the European Union is a simple repeal, and ideal on a new trade


relationship is actually a different piece of legislation? Referendum is


at advisory constitution is, and that cannot repeal legislation.


Bashley at advisory constitution only. Presumably there is a lot to


the place if you just come out, there is a lot of laws that have to


be addressed and presumably put on the agenda. I do not think David


Mandel was suggesting Parliament would not have a vote on that, but


the suggestion that there was no definitive vote on the final deal.


It will be interesting to see our Parliament works around that. There


is not a majority in both houses in London and Scotland for Brexit and


this could reflect a degree of nervousness about putting that to a


vote. Second anniversary of the independence referendum. And we're


still talking to each other! It is interesting some of the newspaper,


we have today about the independence referendum and back to independence


being the end of everything else we do, no place for any other


discussion. And I'm not sure. I don't think that will go down


terribly well with people. We cannot spend all their time talking about


Rexach, talking about another independence referendum on the


recent much work to be done in Scotland. And I think the kind of


momentum and energy that the Yes campaign understandably mobilised,


and you have to acknowledge that, I think that will dissipate over a


period of time. I think people are anxious for a real change. You were


watching John Swinney forensically, and you thought he was being... I


must admit I did not pick it up and I was talking to him, but you


thought he was being rather more cautious than he appeared to be on


the referendum. He repeated something which Nicola Sturgeon and


other Nationalists have suggested, that they don't see Article 50 as a


decision on another independence referendum. As I think I heard John


Swinney say, they would have to wait and see the final deal that emerges,


and that suggests that they will not make a decision about another


independence referendum until 2019, not 2018 as Alex Salmond and others


on the usual manoeuvres have suggested. So I think they are


playing the long game on this, and abetting that has emerged, all the


mood music, points to another independence referendum later rather


than sooner. Which you can understand from their point of view,


to some extent, because if you look at the back, it was the second


referendum that actually killed a lot of the momentum for


independence. So to lose a second one would be very difficult for the


independence movement. So they have to be very careful and calculated.


But I do think there is more mental moving. Lament in what direction? --


momentum in what direction? I think the captured desire for real change


and my side of the argument did not reach out to that. They did want


change, they wanted a different country. Politics became less about


what you're going to achieve and more the kind of people you are. You


think there is momentum for having another referendum? I think people


who voted Yes, a lot of people want that referendum, they want that


change. Reducing to be suggesting there was momentum to having another


one. Let me try to be clear. I think those that voted Yes in the


referendum are very keen to have another one so that they can create


that change. If you are trying to manage that in a longer-term


basis... And in the background, David Torrence, the opinion polls,


the suggestion earlier in the year was 60%. I think that has gone out


the window. It solves have said it is an unrealisable goal, it is much


too high a Pressel. They will be happy with opinion polls showing


51-52 I'll be back at the


same time next week.


Download Subtitles