Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by Tim Farron, Iain Duncan Smith and Ukip's Bill Etheridge to discuss the latest political news, including the shadow cabinet reshuffle.
Browse content similar to 09/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Theresa May was cheered by the Tory faithful
as she charted her vision for Brexit.
We'll be talking about the plan - or what we know of it -
with Lib Dem leader Tim Farron and former Tory Cabinet
The olive branch might have withered but Jeremy Corbyn has
stamped his authority on the Labour Party
with a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle that's rewarded allies
And one Ukip MEP is still in hospital following an altercation
Just what exactly happened in a week which has seen
Could the Scottish Parliament stop a hard Brexit?
we'll be speaking to the Crofting Commission boss
And we'll be talking about the tape that's derailing Donald Trump's bid
We've also reshuffled our own top team here in the studio,
and we've ended up with three journalists who show all the unity
the humour of a Conservative Party conference speech,
and the anger management of a meeting of Ukip MEPS.
that means they'll probably be fighting in a few minutes.
Yes, it's Helen Lewis, Tim Shipman and Isabel Oakeshott.
So, where else would we start but with Brexit?
And the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has been talking
He coined a new term - full Brexit - and he was asked
if Britain was going to be leaving the EU's single market.
This is Brexit. This is full Brexit if you like. We are going to be
outside the European Union but we still, because it is over 40% of our
trade, we still want to maximise our trade with it. A final question in
the papers today. You see soft Brexiteers briefing against hard
Brexiteers and vice versa. This is terribly damaging for the Cabinet
presumably. We are all Brexiteers now. We have to make a success of
it. So, a lot of briefing against Mr Hammond after his speech to the Tory
conference. Then Mr Hammond's people briefing
against people like Liam Fox David Davis, Boris Johnson. Today, one
phrase was they were talking nonsense and garbage. When did we
get the first Brexit resignation? A good question. We have full Brexit,
open and close Brexit, hard and soft Brexit. The Prime Minister does not
want to provide a running commentary so ministers are trying to tell us
nothing but in interesting ways. I do not think anyone will resign but
what is interesting as you get a situation where everyone is a
Brexiteer now but there were very different views about how this is
going to go forward. The Prime Minister herself, she did two things
last week. She gave a speech for a domestic audience and a foreign
audience. She is trying to embody the hopes and dreams of a group of
people who feel they have been left out, the people who have been left
behind on the domestic front and also voted for Brexit. By embodying
those people fighting for their causes she is having to take a hard
line on immigration. There may be no one about to resign now but we are
only 100 days into this many government and the briefing on both
sides of the so-called hard Brexit versus the so-called soft Brexit was
the Treasury. It seems to embody the soft Brexit approach. The briefing
is fierce. It is going to lead to trouble, to blood. This is a
peak-time will stop we have just come away from the Tory Party
conference where every journalist worth their salt is working the
party circuit, going to dinners. It is an easy agenda to get every
cabinet minister you lunch or dine with to give you their version of
what Brexit said -- should mean. There is a melting pot here which is
bubbling away. Things may become more disciplined in the week ahead.
I do not think it is sustainable for Theresa May to say she will not give
a running commentary. It is a red rag to every journalist and all her
own Cabinet. You cannot keep that going for the next few months. She
will have to give a clearer guide as to whether it is hard, soft, in or
out, whatever it is. Theresa May is going to have to deploy the smack or
firm government. She has been smacking away already. All three
Brexit is happening to be airing personal opinions. The fact they are
ministers in charge of this is totally irrelevant. There is
political and economic things at work. What no one will say is that
you can have hard Brexit but it will probably almost certainly have
economic consequences. How do you go as a politician of the country and
say we hear you want to control Iraq -- immigration but that means the
country will be poorer? People will always be straddling it in a really
uncomfortable way. OK. We'll be talking more about this as the
programme goes on, you will not be surprised to hear.
This week, Theresa May closed her party's conference
with a speech designed to grab the centre ground
She positioned the Conservatives as champion of the working classes
and pledged to help those left behind by globalisation.
We'll wait to see what any of that that means in practice.
But it was what she had to say about Britain's exit
from the EU that had the biggest immediate impact,
not least on the value of the pound, as the world began to get a clearer
We now know when the process of leaving the EU will begin.
Theresa May has set a deadline of the end of next March
for triggering Article 50, which formally begins the Brexit
That allows only two years to do a deal, so we should be out
of the EU by the end of March 2019 by the latest.
The Government will also introduce a so-called Great Repeal
Bill next year, which will end our membership of the EU.
Theresa May talked of Britain being a fully
The Prime Minister also said she will prioritise
controlling immigration by ending the free movement
Because being subject to the European Court of Justice
and free movement are key requirements of membership
of the EU single market, this strongly suggests the Prime
Minister does not see Britain remaining a member.
But there were some mixed messages about life after Brexit.
The ability of EU citizens to stay in the UK remains a grey area.
Brexit secretary David Davis said they would be 100% able to stay
while Theresa May struck a more cautious tone.
And Home Secretary Amber Rudd's plan to shame firms that
take on foreign, rather than British, staff, faced a backlash
from business and political opponents.
There was also a range of mood music about life as we head for the door.
Chancellor Philip Hammond was at one end, warning the country
to brace for a roller-coaster ride ahead.
But Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson attacked what he called
gloomadon poppers and said Britain would be more active on the world
Well, I'm joined now by the Liberal Democrat Leader Tim Farron.
And the former Conservative Cabinet minister, Iain Duncan Smith.
Let me come straight to the point, first of all with you, Iain Duncan
Smith. Is it now clear that whatever relationship we will have with the
single market, we will not be a member of the single market when
Brexit is complete? I think when you add all these things together, it
becomes, I believe, is pretty clear that what the Prime Minister said,
what has been said by a number of Cabinet ministers, if the centre of
our negotiations is that we intend to control our borders and the flow
of migrants from the European Union, which has caused, in some cases, a
great deal of damage to workers and their incomes at the bottom level,
the skilled level, that means there is no way that the European Union
will be able to allow us to be a member of the single market. That is
not the same as access. Tim Farron, do you accept that is the way we are
going? Whatever access arrangements we have, and we will have some
arrangements. Even North Korea has access to the single market. But we
won't be a member. That looks to be the way the Government is taking us.
It is a massive mistake. I think Ian is wrong to say there has been a
massive decision in favour of us leaving the single market and if
that is what he is implying. It is given that a small majority voted to
leave the EU but no one voted to leave the common or single market.
It seems to me to be flying in the face of all the economic indicators
of whatever the British people want, or is best for British jobs. It
seems, for the Conservative Party, to be a reinterpretation of the
result for a hard Brexit that nobody voted for. That is strong point. We
do not have too much time this morning, so I'm going to try to keep
this moving quickly. How do respond to that, Iain Duncan Smith? It is
utter rubbish. The British people made it clear decision. They were
asked a simple question. Do you want to stay in or leave the European
Union? Were they asked whether they wanted to leave the single market?
You need to have a look at the rules around this. The single market as
part of the European Union, whether you like it or not. Do you think we
should be in the single market? Do you agree with the overwhelming
majority? No, no. I am sorry. The massive benefits which exist are
asked to be able to trade with the European Union and have access.
America has access. They sell more to the European Union than we do.
Hold on. There is no point talking over each other because you are too
far-away. Let me come to Tim Farron. If you want to be in the single
market, you have to accept free movement. You have to accept the
jurisdiction of the European port. In effect, that is membership of the
EU. Isn't that what we voted against? -- the European Court. Tim
Farron I am talking to. The reality is, and I accept the result of the
referendum. It is the direction of the United Kingdom being towards the
European Union as we stand. The deal we get at the end, as Lord Kurt, the
writer of Article 50, agreed with me overnight because destination is not
the same. You cannot start this process with democracy and end up
with a stitch up, which is what the British people will get. Many people
around the country voted to leave the European Union but there will
not agree, I am certain, with having imposed upon them complete exit from
any relationship with the nearest market and friends and neighbours,
which will cost tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Let me get you to
respond to that, Iain Duncan Smith. When article 50 was drafted, he did
not mean it to help any country leave, he deliberately designed it
so it would make it so difficult to leave it would almost be nigh on
impossible. The second thing about the point that Tim makes, which is
complete nonsense, is the added that we will lose tens of thousands of
jobs. What we are looking for is a free trade relationship with the
European Union. That is the key point. We are not leaving Europe, we
are leaving the European Union. This is the problem. There is not a
problem in that for common-sense and decent people. Hold on, Tim Farron.
Sterling has slumped at the prospect of hard Brexit as it has dawned on
the markets that the Government is heading for a so-called hard Brexit.
Doesn't that give you pause for thought? Doesn't it make you think
it might not be the right course? If you go to the airport at the moment,
you would be lucky to get 1 euro for ?1. Doesn't that make you think? Not
really. What you know about the free-flowing currency is it will
fall and rise in accordance with what people speculate about and the
prospects for the future. The point to look at is what the underlying
story is for UK business. It used to be that the BBC generally spent its
whole time telling us how terrible things work if you look at the FTSE
250 or the FTSE 100. In the same period we have seen the FTSE 250,
the small and medium companies, at record levels high. Much higher than
before we decided to leave the European Union. Here is the other
point. There is hugely a story about a strong dollar. The pound rose
against the yen was the dollar rose against the euro, the yen, and the
pout. Here is the deal. The pound is doing our supporters a of good. --
the pound. There is no point heckling. That is my job. The point
is that the pound having fallen means British business is doing very
well. And that is a very good thing. Other than the slump in Stirling,
what has gone wrong for the UK economy since the 23rd of June?
First of all, I am not saying everything is completely calamitous.
I take the views of all of the business leaders, people who wrote
to the Financial Times yesterday, people who are former members of the
Prime Minister's business advisory council, who say that whatever your
view on leaving the European Union, departure from the single market
would be calamitous. Really worrying indicator, this 31 year low drop in
the pound, and we have not even left yet. That is what worries me. And
what worries me more than anything else is that you've got the British
business community, who now feel that the Conservative Party are
listening to the English nationalist forces that have taken over the Tory
party, rather than to good common-sense business practice. When
Roger, who, the Ukip MEP, tells you that you have gone too far here,
then you probably have gone too far. Iain Duncan Smith, let me bring you
back in. We haven't got time for speeches this morning, from either
of you. Iain Duncan Smith - don't we need to give just a bit on free
movement, to secure open access? If we want really good access to the
single market, we will have to give something on free movement?
Actually, I wrote about a week ago in a paper which set out how you
have control of your migration policy which is flexible enough to
allow people to come into jobs inside the UK or outside the UK. And
that is the kind of flexibility which leaves the British Government
controlling the idea about how you access work through work permits.
That means for higher skilled people, it will be a very light
touch regime, but for the low skilled, which is where the most
damage has been done, you have tight regime. You say, listen to British
businesses - these are the self appointed losers of British
business. That meet you something - these are the same people who told
us before that Brexit... They told us, just like you did, Tim, that we
would crash and burn afterwards, there would be a calamitous fall,
the British economy would be destroyed. Some of us had a more
lofty view. I wish everybody would get calm because what we want is
Britain to do well. It is not my party... I have got one more
question for you, Tim Farron - why have you now lost a second here in
the House of Lords, Baroness Manzoor, who says you are not
recognising the will of the people in the referendum by calling for a
second referendum? She has joined the Tories, so that's Brive - how
many more to go? Well, we are 20,000 up, Andrew. It is a peculiar
decision which I totally respect. You only need to look at what's
happened since June, with the Liberal Democrats gaining 20,000
members. Thousands of them from the Conservatives, hundreds since their
conference last week. You look at the by-election gains, the Liberal
Democrats winning 18 in the last few months, and half of them... You are
not set to lose her? I am always sad to lose people, but I am joined
overjoyed to have gained 20,000. Come and joiners in the studio next
time, where we can get a proper grip on this debate!
With Parliament returning tomorrow, Jeremy Corbyn has been
reshuffling his Shadow Cabinet, following his thumping win in this
And unlike previous reshuffles, it's been a pretty decisive affair,
which has seen him give big jobs to his supporters.
Mr Corbyn has moved ally Dianne Abbott to Shadow
Home Secretary, keeping Emily Thornberry at Shadow
Foreign Secretary and moving Clive Lewis to Business.
He's been replaced on the Defence brief by Nia Griffith,
There's also a job for new Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti,
who recently carried out a report into anti-semitism in the party.
And chief whip Rosie Winterton is out.
She's replaced by the veteran whip Nick Brown.
You may remember him from the Gordon Brown years.
Mr Corbyn has also brought back a number
of Shadow Cabinet members, who resigned in protest
They include Jon Ashworth, as Shadow Health Secretary.
Although he's also been removed from the National Executive
Committee, Labour's ruling body, where power has been finely balanced
Well, to discuss this, we're joined by the Labour MP, John Mann.
John Mann, who is a Corbynite critic. Mr Corbyn says this is the
most diverse shadow cabinet ever, the best team to take Labour forward
- what do you say? Well, it's his choice of team. And I think we
should get on with the job now. Think he has won, whether people
like it or not. And the last and we want I think is a year of
internalised, inward looking navel-gazing. Like the last year?
Like the last year. And I have said, I was not in favour of the timing of
this challenge, but we actually have to get to grips with the referendum
result and the fact that quite a lot of Labour voters voted to leave,
unlike the general view in the Labour Party. There's lots of issues
we should be looking at, but we should not be looking inwards. Is
there much of an olive branch from Mr Corbyn to the Parliamentary
Labour Party in this? I would not call it an olive branch. But if I
was him, I would have done pretty much what he has done. He's won the
election. If I was leader, I might choose different people. That
probably goes for everyone of the 200-plus members of the
Parliamentary party. But I think there is a bit of a... The idea you
can negotiate a shadow cabinet or cabinet, I mean, it's important that
he has all viewpoints represented somewhere, otherwise we'll be much
weaker. And so we wait to see whether every view is going to get
proper Leanne Wood. That's vital. But he's got to make the choices. --
every view is going to get properly aired.. Quite a lot of London
representation - how does that help people like you in the north and the
Midlands? It's following the trends of Tony Blair, was always keen on
having lots of people who worked in London, and Ed Miliband even more
so. So it is not a new trait. He's chosen the people, but what's
crucial is, with ceremony people from the metropolitan area, that
they spend a lot of time out in areas like mean, not talking to the
members, not doing photocalls, they can do that if they want, but going
and talking to voters. If they do that, I've got no objection. If they
don't, then that will mean that there is not sufficient knowledge of
what the wider electorate is thinking. Those shadow cabinet
members, every week, should be out there knocking on real doors, in
areas that perhaps they are not too familiar with. Keir Starmer, your
new shadow Brexit secretary, he has said that there should be a vote on
article 50, that when the Government moves it, Parliament should vote.
What do you think of that? Well, let's see what... We are quite a way
away from seeing what Google is going to do. I think what is vital
in terms of Brexit is actually to get into the detail, because there's
a lot of slogans, the full Brexit, the soft Brexit, the hard Brexit...
Actually, the issue is, what access do we get to markets, what access do
we give to our markets? And is there any form of restriction on the free
movement of labour? They are the three big issues. We need detail.
And it's the negotiation not in the British Parliament but with the
Germans and the French in particular that is vital. And of course that
hasn't begun. Mr Corbyn told us at the Labour Party conference that he
was not really that interested in controlling immigration. Keir
Starmer said this morning on the BBC that immigration has become down -
you must encouraged by that? What a coalition! Keir Starmer as the
person responsible I hope we'll be talking to those of us who supported
the Leave campaign in the Vale, and more fundamentally, getting out of
those areas where the vast majority of Labour voters voted to leave. If
he's going to do his job properly, that is critical. I'm confident that
he will do that. Do you know yet what the party policy is on
immigration? I'm sure that will emerge over the time. I do not know
what the Conservative Party's ease, either. We do not know what the
response of the Germans and the French will be. They have got
elections next year. This is rather a movable feast in those countries.
Therefore, we should be in 20 new negotiations, as Labour. It's
crucial that our leadership talks and listens to Labour voters and to
those who have voted Labour in the past.
Jeremy Corbyn's re-shuffle has upset the Chair
He represents the party's backbench MPs.
In an e-mail, John Cryer said Mr Corbyn "did not
engage" in a promised plan to reunite the party by allowing MPs
Mr Cryer said he had been in talks with the leadership
with the aim of "striking an agreement which would allow
some places to be filled through elections, while the leader
But on Wednesday it became clear "a reshuffle was under way,
which had not been discussed or mentioned".
Well, we're joined now by Barry Gardiner.
He's kept his job as Shadow International Trade Secretary.
What happened to the idea of electing at least part of the Shadow
Cabinet? Well, I was part of the discussions in the Shadow Cabinet,
with Rosie Winterton, who was the chief whip. And she made it very
clear that what would need to happen is, there would need to be a vote
first of all at the NEC to change the party rules. So I don't think
anybody was under any illusion that we could have direct elections now
to the Shadow Cabinet without that change in the party rules. Is the
idea dead for the foreseeable future? Doormen, is the honest
answer. That is for Jeremy to decide. But I think what would be
clearly wrong is, if we now going to almost rerunning what was the
election contest. And it would be foolish to saddle a leader with a
group of people in the Shadow Cabinet that were out of sympathy.
And indeed, that was why the Parliamentary Labour Party, when Ed
Miliband asked us to give him the right to appoint the Shadow Cabinet,
rather than the previous system, which had been elected... What do
you make of the chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Mr
Cryer, complaining that Mr Corbyn did not engage with him in this
reshuffle? Look, I don't know what discussions took place. John is a
very good friend. He's a very good representative of the PLP, as its
chair. But he's one of the best connected people in the party, and
the idea that anything took face without his knowledge I find it
difficult to believe. He says, Niall Quinn OMP backing him up was a
charades in the negotiations? That is a separate question. And I don't
think that's true at all. Because the Shadow Cabinet said to the
previous NEC meeting delegation, to actually initiate those
negotiations. But I think John Mann, who sat here just a few moments ago,
got it absolutely right - the Labour Party now must not look inwards for
the next year, it must begin to look outwards. It must be challenging the
government on what it is doing in our education system and saying, it
is wrong to segregate our children. They must be challenging the
government on housing and homelessness. I am delighted that
John has come back into the Shadow Cabinet, nobody better to take
forward our fight for housing in this country. If you want to appeal
across the country, are there not too many London metropolitan types
at the top? The four great Shadow offices of state all seemed to come
from within walking distance of each other. It's a kind of shadow cabinet
of all BMW one talents? Well, you could ever welcomed the fact that
two of those great offices of state, for the first time ever, are held by
women. -- NW1 talents. Broomstick is, it is very London centric. It is
not because you have got five MPs from the north-east in the Shadow
Cabinet, four from Greater Manchester, all of whom are women.
You've got five from Yorkshire. In terms of the population of the
country as a whole, it's very representative of whether Labour
votes are. John Ashworth accepted the Shadow bridge but is no longer
on the National Executive Committee. Does Mr Corbyn now have a majority
on the NEC, the ruling body of the Labour Party? The majority would
always be on issue by issue. I don't think anybody goes to the NEC
determined to wage wall or battle. I assure that people go there to
listen to arguments and decide what is in the best interest of the party
and the country and take Ossetians accordingly. Why was it important
that Mr Ashworth stepped down? I don't know whether it was important.
John has been a superb member of the Shadow Cabinet. He has always
represented very clearly the views of party members, and I think he
will do a fantastic job at health. We will leave it there.
I still have energy and can. When we last spoke, I put it to you that we
were massive importers of energy including gas. I came here primed
for that. Next time I will bring the power with meat!
The party with the third highest vote share at the general election
has, just since Tuesday, lost a leader, seen
the return of Nigel Farage - even if only temporarily -
and seen the favourite to take over end up in hospital
after an altercation in the European Parliament.
Our Ellie's been watching the soap opera unfold.
So, we've all heard the rumours about the internal
Well, this week, they played out in front of our very eyes on the TV
screens in the most dramatic of ways.
It was only just over three weeks ago.
18 days later, she realised that wasn't going to happen.
In her resignation statement, she said she didn't have
sufficient authority, nor the full support, of her MEP
colleagues and party officers to continue.
There was also this clue in the official form she filled
in for the Electoral Commission, where she signed her name
In the meantime, Nigel Farage seemed pretty chipper, explaining
I keep getting over the wall and running for the hills.
Before I am finally free, they drag me back.
It doesn't have one because she's resigned.
The Ukip constitution is quite clear.
In these circumstances, the National Executive Committee has
the right to appoint an interim leader, which I presume it will do
at its meeting on the 17th of October.
I'm told the NEC might have met earlier but someone
is on is on a cruise, so it wouldn't be quorate.
It was starting to feel a bit like a soap opera.
It's almost like being a part of Dynasty.
By close of play, this man, who probably would have been leader
last time if he hadn't been barred from standing had thrown
But then things went really off script, when he, Steven Woolfe,
after a meeting with colleagues that went...
There are mixed accounts of what happened.
It's two grown men getting involved in an altercation.
We're talking about a dispute that finished up physically.
I understand there was an argument between some MEPs and Steven,
I think, picked a fight with one of them, and came off worst.
It later transpired that the MEPs had been arguing about reports that
Mr Woolfe had considered defecting to the Tories.
That had ended in a scuffle with this man.
It was, as people in Hull would say, handbags at dawn.
He even tweeted a picture of his hands to prove it.
But Mr Woolfe's team questioned that version of events and said his
Either way, the two men have been in touch and say
they want to meet - handbags and all -
But that might not be the end of the story.
So, part of Ukip's charm has always been to say and do
things the other party would never even dream of.
But this week has been different and a number of senior Ukip sources
have told me that what happens next will be make or break for the party.
They say that will depend on who the next leader is.
Before all this happens, Steven Woolfe, seen
as a disciple of Nigel Farage, would have been favourite.
It must surely have been obvious to anybody, having seen this,
that Steven Woolfe, and of course Mike Hookem,
I don't think Mike would put his hat into the ring.
Surely they can't now consider that either of them could stand
The party's biggest donor, Arron Banks,
It's fairly indicative of the party split between those who think
the new leader should be moulded in Nigel Farage's image,
and those who can think of little worse.
The party is bigger than any one individual.
Everybody has a responsibility within Ukip to safeguard
its reputation and that's what I'm asking all people to do now
The drama may be over for this week but with the leadership campaign
looming, there will be plenty more episodes to come.
And we're joined now by the Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge.
He was at the meeting where the "altercation"
between Steven Woolfe and Mike Hookem took place,
and he stood to be leader in the party's last
leadership contest, which only finished in September.
We have learned, while on-air, that Steven Woolfe has left the hospital
in Strasbourg. Bill Etheridge, were punches thrown? First of all, as all
MEPs we should apologise to our member ship and supporters for all
this nonsense. With regards to punches thrown, I was first on the
scene. I did not see punches thrown. I saw Mike with his hands down his
side and is Steven Wolfe halfway through and unlatched door. --
Steven Woolfe. He was on the floor. Before you got on the scene, there
could have been blows exchanged? In the 15 to 30 seconds before I got
there, there is a possibility but Mike has denied that there were any
punches thrown and I have not seen any evidence that their world. The
friends of Steven Woolfe has said independent medical examinations
suggests he does have wounds and bruising which cannot be explained
by simply a fall to the floor. I am sure the chairman of the party will
look into that and see the exact information being discussed. When it
is something put out by sources or friends, let's wait and see the
actual information. Was it the idea of Steven Woolfe that the dispute
should be settled outside? Yes, Stephen stood up and said, if this
is the temperature of your comments, I think we should sort out
man-to-man. He took off his jacket and walked outside. Unfortunately,
and he has said he regrets it, Mike went outside and did the same thing
himself was that neither of them should have done it. It was foolish.
If that is response by Steven Woolfe to an argument, no matter how
heated, among his own MEPs, does that disqualify him to stand as
leader? It does not disqualify him. It says something about his
temperament. What I will say is it was not heated argument at the
start. We were discussing the fact he had been in a conversation with
the Conservative Party about joining. Only a day or two earlier
he had said he was not going to join for that we asked if that was to do
with the fact that he heard Diane James was standing down. That was
the purpose of the meeting, to find out what Steven Woolfe was doing
about the Conservative Party. Due to this altercation, we never got an
answer. I personally would like need to know what he was doing. What was
said? I and stand this happened quite quickly into the meeting. What
was it that was said which meant, take the jacket off, we will settle
this outside? Steven Woolfe had said about how upset he was that he could
not stand in the summer, his form were late by 17 minutes. Mike said
whether it is your fault and no one else's. Steven Woolfe reacted
angrily and we could get no further conversation. That was the extent of
the provocation, to say it was your fault. He was not swearing but he
basically said, that's your fault, it is your responsibility. Are you
going to stand in this leadership contest now? Up until this happens,
I was seriously considering rolling in to try to make sure we did not
have people who had been negative towards the party and towards Nigel
taking over. Now I do not feel I can support Steven Woolfe and, yes, I
will be standing. Isn't the bitter truth, your previously the last for
18 days. Two MPs have now said to step outside and we will sort this
with jackets. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Ukip is not a
proper, functioning party without Nigel Farage at the helm? You cannot
survive without him. Nigel is a fantastic leader. He has led us very
strongly and powerfully. It is up to us to take responsibility. That is
one reason I want to do it to bring the party together. Every time he
goes quickly fall apart. There is no functioning Ukip I would suggest
without Nigel Farage. Up to us to make sure we get systems in place
and make sure we have strong leadership and pull the party
together. We can do it. We have 4 million voters than 30,000 members.
They must be feeling very let down. It is up to us to make sure we do
the right thing and look after them and be there to represent them.
Thank you. Good morning and welcome
to Sunday Politics Scotland. The Government has a mandate
for leaving Europe but does it have
a mandate for a hard Brexit? Despite a vote
of no confidence, the convener of
the Crofting Commission tells this programme
he refuses to stand down. Will the Scottish
Government now intervene? And from 'banking
collapse' to Brexit, we're in Hawick to see
how one Scottish town has been coping
with difficult times. Now, the meanings of 'Brexit means
Brexit' proliferate by the moment. MPs right across
the political spectrum are demanding they be given
a vote on whether there should be
a so-called Hard Brexit or whether Britain can stay
in the single market, There have been threats
from the Scottish Government to frustrate the process
as much as possible. But does the Scottish Parliament
have any power in this area? A little earlier, I spoke
to Professor Alan Page, who has advised Holyrood,
Westminster and the EU Well, the good all the Scottish
Parliament and bought a's repeal bill the short answer to that
question is no it could not. It could withhold its from the repeal
Bill depending on its precise terms but that is not the same as blocking
it. The Scottish Parliament would, however would it not have to pass
legislation that means that it's all legislation does not have to comply
with EU law I am not sure the Scottish Parliament would have to do
that. But legislation would have to be passed by Westminster I think. In
order to relieve the Scottish Parliament of the obligation to
comply with EU law. And if they're anything the Scottish Parliament
could do to block that it could as I said, with all that is there
anything the Scottish Parliament could do to block that? It could, as
I said, withhold its consent which would be underlining its opposition
to the UK and Scotland leaving the European Union. But simply
withholding its consent without war would not affect the validity of the
amending legislation. That I think if the crucial point. It is also
ambiguous is it not while the Scottish Government might want to
vote against that in the Scottish Parliament, for political reasons
there are other political reasons in favour of it. For example minimum
pricing on alcohol would presumably be within the power of the Scottish
Parliament if they did not have to comply with the UK law. Sorry EU
law. Well that is a very good point point. Acts of the Scottish
Parliament should no longer be open to challenge on grounds within
incompatibility with EU law and that would mean for, assuming that the
Scotland act was amended to that effect that legislation could no
longer be blocked or its recommendation delayed on the
grounds that it was incompatible with EU law and alcohol in pricing
is the current example of that. Do you have any thoughts on a slightly
different issue, which is rearing its head in some of the papers this
morning which is members of Parliament not the Scottish
Parliament, the hang on a minute we might not have a bowl on when to
trigger article 50 but could we really have for example a Hard
Brexit and we MPs at an point would have any say on what kind of leaving
the European Union would take part in I think that is an absolutely
compelling argument. It is a very powerful argument but what is needed
clearly is an MPs to support it. You could say that Parliament sold the
past once with the European Union referendum act in the sense that it
did not make any provision for what was going to happen in the event
that the electorate, the people the United Kingdom people both to leave.
So that question was left completely open, which is why we are in the
position we are today. But, having voted to leave people beginning to
think about the actual implications of that, yes I think there is a case
for saying do we agree or not agree with what has actually been proposed
but as they say enough MPs would actually need to comment on and
support that. But either in for the Scottish Parliament because even if
you accept the argument that the referendum on the EU was a UK vote
that Scotland had already voted to stay part of the UK so it applies in
Scotland as much as anywhere else presumably members of the Scottish
Parliament could say hang on we are being asked to accept a had breaks,
we do not think you Westminster the British government have got any
mandate. Scottish MSPs will undoubtedly see that. But, as I
indicated earlier that will have no effect unless that argument
resonates with Westminster, and in particular with a sufficient number
of MPs at Westminster for them to do something about it. All right thank
you very much indeed. I'm joined now by the Scottish
Conservatives' constitution spokesperson Adam Tomkins,
and in Dundee is the SNP's Europe spokesperson
at Westminster, Stephen Gethins. Stephen, that was pretty on there is
nothing the Scottish Parliament can do to block Brexit no matter what
the Scottish Government says. Well, let's not forget we are going to go
to one of the greatest constitutional crises, which huge
impact on the Scottish Parliament's powers so it is right that is
Scottish Parliament should have a say on this. Remember through this
Scotland act but according to Alan Page, it does not have any say. I
think the Scottish Parliament have to have a say. If we are to take to
at her word when she is talking about involving the Scottish
Government involving the Scottish Parliament then the Scottish
Parliament should have a say and I hope that Westminster is not use its
powers of at that we were told it did not exist last year during the
Scotland act to force that on the Scottish Parliament. But the point
Alan page is making is that she the British Government decided to go for
a hard exit exit, no matter how much it may well have consulted the
Scottish Government what that means there is nothing the Scottish
Parliament can do to stop it. Well, it was clear from the Conservative
party conference this week is that it was clear from the Conservative
we are heading for the hardest of hard Brexits. We have not been told
if it is soft or hard it is definitely a dog's Brexit because we
have not had that many details. That is a joke you prepared earlier It
have not had that many details. That was good was at not they need to be
in. We are in a bit of a mess and I wonder whether Professor Tomkins can
tell us whether we are going to be in the single market. We need more
details from the government and the need to be respecting the will of
the Scottish people and respecting the Scottish Parliament's
responsibilities as well. Adam, what is your take on what will happen.
Iain Duncan Smith spoke to and renewal earlier. He is was that the
British people had voted to get out of the single market because they
single market its part of the European Union and we voted to that
out of the European Union. Arguably that is not what the people in
favour of leaving the worst the campaign. The British people voted,
70 but people, voted to leave the European Union. -- 17 point people.
That is what Brexit means. The United Kingdom will leave
institutions of the European Union. We will no longer be a member state
that is what it means. So when you leaders of during the campaign, look
exactly what relationship we have with the opinion is up for
discussion afterwards, this boat is just about whether or not we are
members actually what that meant was wear out of the single market we are
out of the customs union and there will be no free movement of labour.
You are arguing that actually we voted for all of that. I am not. I
am simply arguing that we've voted to leave the European Union meaning
that we will cease to be a member state. The live question now is what
the of relationship with the Union, with the individual member states of
the European Union but Iain Duncan Smith's argument says it means we
cannot be part of the single market market.
A core part of that argument will be what kind of access or participation
in the single market when now on. The Scottish Conservatives have been
clear we won't have much access to the single market and as much part
of in that, as is compatible with leaving the European Union. I am
sorry, Ruth Davidson was on this programme last week saying all that
and that she liked free movement of labour and wanted to be part of the
single market. Iain Duncan Smith and his views seem to be a by the
British Government is saying that we voted against all of the stuff that
Ruth Davidson and Adam Tomkins said it was like to see. It is simply not
going to happen. The... The... The board was not about membership the
single market it was about ownership of the European Union Union. . --
the. We will no longer be a member state and the question is what kind
of relationship with the EU including what access to the single
market and participation in the single market we will now seek to
negotiate in the national interest. Stephen, there was also sorts of
rhetoric from the Scottish Government immediately after the
vote. Nicola Sturgeon went off to Brussels the role of that Scotland
could from her stay in the single market as the rest did not. There
was some desire that should Scotland vote for independence by European
leaders it would be fast tracked back in. Absolutely nothing
whatsoever has come of that. What you got from the Scottish Government
after the vote was leadership. It was a setting up an expert group to
look at the range of options. It was speaking to a European partners. It
was on capital investment to offset the danger and damage that
Conservatives are doing to our. And it was reassuring EU nationals about
your future and that Scotland is their home. We have had none of that
from the Conservatives. Now and on the single market now answers from
EU nationals just more hard rhetoric at the conference that frankly they
should be ashamed of. The Scottish Conservatives are arguing they have
said others, nobody is listening to them you do not like the Tories we
get the message! In terms of getting any commitments from Europe about
anything to do with Brexit Nicola Sturgeon and anybody else in the SNP
has got absolutely nowhere. getting we are still waiting for
details. Our European partners don't know what they are planning to do
next. The Scottish Government rightly came out and set clear
leadership. We have had nothing from the UK Government, absolutely
nothing, they can't even tell us if they have the objective of remaining
part of the single market. Their newspaper reports this morning
saying a lot of MPs, including many Tory MPs, want a vote on some of
this, that are concerned. They accept they cannot overturn the
referendum vote to leave the European Union, but they are worried
that there will be no point at which MPs are allowed to say for example
that they don't want a hard Brexit or something more like Stephen
Gethins want or more like you want, and this is just wrong. I don't
understand where that concern comes from. The Prime Minister made it
clear in her first conference speech on Sunday last week in Birmingham
that there will be a great Repeal Bill as she calls it, to recall the
European communities act 1972, the instrument which took us into the EU
in the first place in the 1970s. Only Parliament can repeal
legislation. Neither the Prime Minister or the government can do
legislation. Neither the Prime that. A vote on a bill is not the
same as parliament being able to say, for example, we don't want a
hard Brexit, we will accept some form of staying in the single
market. I don't accept that. I think repealing the European Communities
Act will require Parliament to have its say over what will replace it
once it is repealed. Really? That is the nature of legislation. Let me be
clear, there is an elementary constitutional point, only
Parliament can repeal Parliament pod at --'s registration. It will be up
to parliament not Theresa May. Stephen Gethins, do you accept that
Parliament will have a vote on what kind of Brexit? Parliament should
have a vote and the Scottish parliament and the UK Parliament
because Professor Roy was setting out that tens of thousands of jobs
could be affected. We are out of time. Will the SNP demand... Will be
SNP demand along with people like Ed Miliband at Westminster and some
conservatives that Parliament be given the right to decide what type
of Brexit we are in for? Of course, and there has to be full
Parliamentary scrutiny. I have put down an urgent question that Theresa
May needs to come to the House tomorrow to talk about this
triggering of article 50. We will have to leave it there, thank you
both very much. The body responsible for protecting
and regulating Scotland's crofting is embroiled in some dramatic
internal politics of its own. pressure is increasing on the head
of the Crofting Commission to resign after the Scottish Government
became involved. Scotland has nearly 20,000 crofts
overseen by the Crofting Commission. After suspending two local grazing
committees in Lewis on the grounds of financial mismanagement it was
forced into a U-turn. There were claims the commission was
heavy-handed and may have acted illegally. The Scottish Government
is now involved. It called on the commission and its convener, Colin
Kennedy, to apologise. Last week Mr Kennedy walked out of the
commissioners meeting. Those that remained issued that apology then
passed a vote of in Mr Kennedy. The First Minister gave their take on
events in Parliament earlier this week. I know crofting commissioners
have unanimously called the convener to resign. The Scottish Government
has requested more information in relation to the events. While the
government would not ordinarily intervene in the operations of an
independent statutory body, the legislation gives Scottish ministers
power to act if required. MSPs are watching developments with interest.
There is no doubt there has been fallout amongst commissioners caused
by the behaviour of the convener of the Crofting Commission. This
organisation needs a new convener and a reconstituted board with the
ability to get back to doing what it is meant to do, work for crofters
across Scotland. We understand Mr Kennedy has no plans to resign but
would make no further comment. The implication is clear, will he jump
or be pushed? a lawyer and blogger specialising
in crofting matters. Well, the crofting commissioners
have no confidence in their leader. He will not resign the Scottish
have no confidence in their leader. Government has threatened to get
involved, what is on? It all goes back to December last year when they
decided to put out of office committee in Lewis. In 2016 they put
out two other. -- two other committees. What I don't understand
is that Mr Kennedy, the commissioner, is accused of issuing
edicts over things like payments over common grazing, and people's
backs are up about this, but how can he do that, surely the commissioners
have to decide. The commission should decide. It looks as though he
has been instrumental in pushing these issues forward. There are
three main issues. The first one was the payment by the grazing committee
to shareholders in common grazing is of money that had come into the
grazing funds. His argument was the money needed to be paid immediately
to the shareholders, and if monies were required back they would issue
a levy on to the shareholders. Nowhere in the Lord does it say
these payments had to be made, and indeed it didn't make logical or
common sense to deal with it that way. Subsequently there were two
other issues, one was that he was seeking to stop common grazing is
committees receiving funding, grants from the government to assist in the
maintenance of common grazing, and latterly there was an issue in
registration where it was being said that common grazing could not be VAT
registered whereas historically it always has been. What happened, at
some point, the commissioners had a vote of no-confidence? That was just
over a week ago, and that was on the back of Colin Kennedy walking out of
a meeting. He closed the meeting and walked out on the basis that the
commission from the Western Isles said he was no longer declaring an
interest in the Western Isles cases, which he previously did, and now
wanted to vote on any issues concerning the Western Isles. On the
face of it you would think if the commissioners have no-confidence in
has to go but he was elected. He was, and nothing in the law states
if the commissioners have a vote of no confidence he must go. One would
imagine that if all the commissioners are against you, if
imagine that if all the the Scottish cup Max crofting
Federation,, the NFU and the press are all saying it is time to go, it
you would think, what is the point in clinging on here? The Scottish
Government has threatened to get involved. What can they do? In terms
of the Crofters Scotland act 1993 they have the power if they consider
the Commissioner is unable or unfit to exercise the functions of the
member or unsuitable to continue as a Member, they can then remove a
Member from office. Just to give us a sense of what the background to
this is, because it is complicated, the issue underlining this, is it to
do with use of land and the fact that for example wind farms and
housing want to commend, and it is about whether common ground is
allocated to the community, funds from individuals... It is linked to
funds coming into common grazing. As you mentioned wind farming, in
recent times, the potential for larger sums of money to come into
common grazing exists and it is linked to distribution of those
monies. There an insistence on the part of the convener that those
monies be paid out as soon as received, with no ability to hold
onto the money and use it to spend on improvements within the common
grazing. The Scottish Government said that was not the correct view
at all. We have to leave it there, Brian Inkster, thank you very much.
Well, earlier I spoke to Colin Kennedy on the phone from Coll.
He is the Crofting Commission boss in the middle of this controversy.
Will you stay in the post? I have no intention of resigning. Why not? As
I understand, I believe the commission have acted wholly within
the law at all times, and until such times as we have legal advice to the
contrary, I will maintain my position. But the Scottish
Government has said it has the power to get involved. If it does and says
you have to go, you will have to go, won't you? That would be the case,
yes. So just to be clear, is the Scottish Government says, given your
commissioners have voted no confidence in you, we don't think
you can stay in post, you will have to resign? That may be the case. Why
are you so determined? You walked out of the meeting, didn't you, the
other week? Why have you fallen out with all the commissioners? I didn't
walk out, I formally declared the meeting closed in light of an
advancement by the Commissioner supported out by the Deputy
accountable officer that they obtain information from the standards
commission I requested site of, which failed to materialise.
Accordingly, given the nature of the business at hand, I have no
alternative other than to formally close the meeting of the Crofting
Commission -- I had no alternative. OK, but the commissioners have now
said they have no confidence in you which is not brilliant from your
point of view, is it? I am unaware of the commissioners saying they
have no confidence in me. You are not aware of that? Correct. So as
far as you are concerned, what, the Crofting Commission is carrying on
as per normal? I would suggest at this moment the Crofting Commission
conducted a meeting on the 28th of September which was in noncompliance
are accordance with standing orders of the Crofting Commission,
therefore in my view it would appear to be advisory. If they still have
confidence in you why would they do that? I couldn't compact comment on
what they do in an informal constitution. But they filed a
meeting without you for reasons which are inexplicable. Correct. The
substance of this is about... They allege you made various
determinations about things like payments in the form of edicts that
they weren't consulted on. Absolutely incorrect. At no time
under my leadership have any decisions being taken without full
endorsement of the board, and based on legal advice. And if I could
comment, that prior to those decisions, the board minister on
September 15, 2015, prior taking to those decisions, a formal request
was made to the chief executive to obtain legal advice to support the
papers presented to the board on which the board took the decision.
Colin Kennedy, we have to leave it, thank you for joining us. Thank you.
Now, four areas in Scotland have been selected to benefit
from a new funding programme designed to stimulate
The Scottish Government has allocated ?10 million to
the new Local Economic Development Fund, with the bulk of the money
When the financial crisis began in 2008, Hawick was quickly hit
Like so many other towns across the country, its high street
Our reporter Cameron Buttle has been to Hawick to see
There is a saying here, a day out of Hawick is a day wasted. This is a
passionate Borders town, passionate about its great history, passionate
about tradition. But like so many other Scottish towns, its high
street is really struggling. I walked down -- walked down Hawick
high street this morning, 15 for sale or to let sign which gives you
an indication of the pressures we have in our high street today. And
there is a feeling something has to be done? Absolutely, there is a mood
for people to come to Hawick. People living in the town want to see it
regenerated, they want to see shops open and lights on. To help with
that the town has to get more than ?3 million for regeneration projects
from a new Scottish Government fund. I would like to see this money being
spent encouraging new start-ups. It is important we channelled this
money into encouraging people to start a new business. At the same
time we must try to spend some of that money on protecting existing
businesses as well. One new venture is the Hawick Paper, only eight
editions in, it is seen as the vote of confidence in the ability of a
town and its people to weather the of confidence in the ability of a
bad times. There is a great sense of history and community. I think there
are few places in Scotland with a sense of community Hawick has got.
It really helps the town recover from economic blows, but having said
that, it can only take you so far. There comes a point when you
Government assistance to bring about some sort of recovery, and that's
what we have now. It has been a long time coming, you feel? Far too long.
I remember when Pringle shut, that was nine or ten years ago now, and
ever since, the town has been waiting and hoping for a new
industry to commit to Hawick and it has never happened. Too late? I
don't think is too late, we certainly have a workforce here in
Hawick who can turn their hand to most things, it is just getting that
new industry into the town. I know it's not easy but will make a hell
of a difference to the town. Four communities will benefit from the
Local Economic Development Fund, a total of ?10 million. Hawick will
get the most common web than ?3.5 million, Fife will get more than
?2.5 million, Clackmannanshire ?2 million and Irving more than ?1.5
million. It is targeted money, but more widely we are trying to give a
stimulus to capital funding to get the economy going, and we would
certainly encourage the UK Government to do as much as it can
in the Autumn Statement to expand spending in the economy and drive
growth at this time. While the money has been welcomed, there are
concerns about the timescale of the funding allocation and its long-term
impact. Whatever they do how are we going to
ensure for example if business hubs are created I will be ensure that
they are funded in the long term to entice new industries to that time?
We could go into it scenario where the money is pumped into these hubs
but going forward who will pay to ensure that they are financed to
attract the new jobs and investment I think there are concerns about
whatever project are set how they are funded in the the long term.
whatever project are set how they Hawick there is a sense of hope that
they have been through the worst. And there are signs that some
businesses are doing well well from others living in. People in Hawick
have had their fair share of knock backs over the years. We are very
strong proud community. But when we see what is going on in commercial
Road we have got a new Hotel that opened stores last week the signs
are encouraging. The seeds of prosperity are there but we need to
focus at this particular time on a high street and do what we can do
help the businesses. It's time to look back at the events
of the past week and see what's I'm joined now by the journalists
Lindsay McIntosh and Kevin McKenna. Let's talk about Europe. We are
supposed to have great clarity where we not this week because of the Tory
party conference. Is it any clearer? It is not. I like to Stephen's joke
about it being a dog's Brexit. But he does have a very good point. As
you say however many days at the Tory party conference and we seem to
have mixed messages about we seem to be heading towards a Hard Brexit but
the team to beat dissenting voices that the Tory party. It is unclear
whether legally or politically we need a boat at Westminster about the
type of Brexit we have. The one thing that is reasonably clear is
that the Scottish Parliament will not be able to block it they can
make an offer a lot of noise about it and store up a constitutional.
But, realistically they will not block at. We urge hearing the
arguments. Iain Duncan Smith seeing two and revealed that the single
market as part of Europe and we voted to leave Europe therefore we
voted to leave the single market. That was not during the referendum.
No. And it is not what Adam Tomkins with about ten minutes ago. It is
not been part of the aspirations of the Brexiteers since. It is as clear
as mud, and it all feeds into feeling of the that they
Conservatives are making it up as they go along on Brexit. But it is
great it is joy for the SNP. They are heading into a conference this
Thursday, their annual autumn conference in Glasgow where
previously they would have expected to come under some pressure from the
fundamentalist wing as to when Nicola is going to announce the date
for a second referendum if that is what she wants to do. But this
basically right her speech and writes the speech for just about
every other Cabinet minister in Scotland how the Tories are in
abject confusion three months after the 23rd of June on what Brexit
means, when you can't even get the new people in the party agreeing
what the policy is what the discussions are going to be and for
heaven 's sake whether at they are going to have... Be able to debate
it or be able to vote on some parts of it and if they were what parts it
is an art confusion. I wonder if it is the case as Kevin suggests that
the pressure will be entirely of Nicola Sturgeon. Presumably there
will be a wing of the SNP saying that we want an independence
referendum and we wanted it now, or at least one it is going to be. I
think there is always going to be an element of the assembly that is
going to want a referendum tomorrow. But I think it is right that they
can over Brexit means there is a very clear line that Nicola Sturgeon
can take which is, look we do not know what the constitutional
position of the UK is going to be for at least two years come next
year so let's wait until we get some clarity before we hold another vote.
And we have seen some quite senior voices in the
SNP that are moving towards that position. You know, think that we
need to push those further down the road. Not least because they clearly
don't have the majority for it at the moment and it would be self
sabotage to go for it at the moment. Kevin, I get your point that it
takes the pressure of them on one sense but the event are just putting
them by, to some extent at the moment. There is all this debate is
not really involved in and they are left on the sidelines saying if we
do not get what we want we will have another independence referendum. Yes
they came out of the traps immediately after the 20. Nicola
Sturgeon and her party Nicola Sturgeon looked very statesman-like.
She seemed to be offering leadership and she was talking about
independence and people in England were saying in the midst of all this
confusion this woman seems to know what she is doing this letter from
Scotland. But in three months that has the Volvo. You're absolutely
right. Where there is confusion at the upper echelons of the
Conservatives about Europe there seems to be a degree of confusion in
the same areas of the SNP as to how do we make something of this what...
How is this an opportunity for us to advance the case for independence?
And if so do we do it now or wait far closer to the day Mr Mark
useful, in that case Lindsay would be if they got some commitments from
anybody seen your in Europe on anything. They need lot of
commitments from anybody seen you in Europe to make anything happen there
and there was a big boost from Nicola Sturgeon are laid to try to
get those commitments and they do not seem to have been forthcoming. I
mean, let's be honest in Europe we have got a number of national
elections we have got Brexit Scotland is Lord down the list.
Thank you very much indeed. I'll be back at the
same time next week.
Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by leader of the Liberal Democrats Tim Farron, Conservative Iain Duncan Smith and Ukip's Bill Etheridge to discuss the latest political news, including Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet reshuffle. Panellists include Helen Lewis of the New Statesman, Isabel Oakeshott of the Daily Mail and Tim Shipman of the Sunday Times.