09/10/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland

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.