16/10/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by secretary of state for Scotland David Mundell MP and Conservative MPs Adam Afriyie and Kwasi Kwarteng.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Boris Johnson hosts a summit of allies in London


to discuss how to broker a peace settlement in Syria.


But as war continues to rage, could "no-bomb zones" -


thought to be backed by the Foreign Secretary -


protect civilians, and how would they work?


We were told by the Remain campaign that a vote to leave the EU would


But with the economy growing and employment at record


Can Theresa May make a decision on airport expansion


without triggering a Conservative cabinet bust-up


We look at what's at stake, as the PM prepares to choose


And on Sunday Politics Scotland - the SNP aim to put Scotland


at the heart of Europe and call for a cross-party coalition


against a hard Brexit at home, but will there be any takers?


All that to come before 12.15 - and the Scottish Secretary, David


Mundell, on Nicola Sturgeon's plans for a second referendum


And with me throughout - Tom Newtown Dunn,


Julia Hartley-Brewer and Steve Richards.


They'll all be tweeting their thoughts and comments


So, in just over an hour, the Foreign Secretary,


Boris Johnson, will host a meeting of foreign allies in London,


including US Secretary of State John Kerry,


to discuss military options in Syria.


Last week, Mr Johnson said the public mood had changed


after relentless bomb attacks on Aleppo


and that more "kinetic action" might be possible.


Has the public mood changed on Syria? There is a desire to end the


horror, but has the public mood really changed? Not really. When


asked, the Public say that something must be done and we must stop the


slaughter, but when also asked whether to put British troops there,


they say, probably not. We have a new Foreign Secretary and British


government, and we will have a new White House come January for sure.


So there is a feeling that what has gone so far in terms of not


intervening, not trying to oppose or block Putin from doing what he wants


in Syria has failed, so time to try something else. There was talk of a


no-fly zone. There's not so much talk about it now. Now there's


suddenly a no-bomb zone. Are we clear what that would be? It is


meaningless without a no-fly zone and no one is willing to enforce it.


For me, the biggest issue is, what is the point of the United Nations?


With Russia vetoing any possible peace plan, we are in a situation


where we are basically handing over our moral authority in the world for


dealing with humanitarian disasters and war crimes being committed by


the side regime and Putin to an organisation which is controlled by


Putin effectively because he has a veto on the Security Council. The


situation is untenable. We cannot sit and pretend we don't want to be


involved in this war. We are already at war, and we will be at war. We


need to get to grips with it sooner or later. If we are willing to say


that we don't care about Syrian children dying... But we are not


willing to say that, so we need to do something about it. We could care


deeply but admits there is not something we can do about it.


Indeed. When Julia says "Get involved", that does not translate


to anything precise or specific. The problem is you go round in circles


when it comes to reaction, because when people are then asked what the


endgame is - and you do need to have a sense of the end and an aim, and


one of the problems with Iraq was that there was not that - you can


simply say, something needs to be done and we are involved and there


should be military action, but that raises 10,000 other questions which


no one is capable of answering. As I understand it, the no-bomb zone


would be that we would designate areas where no bombing would be


allowed. We wouldn't have planes to stop it happening, but if bombing


did happen in those areas, we would use missiles to take out Syrian


infrastructure. It seems complicated, and to not take into


account what we would do if the Russians put anti-missile batteries


around this Syrian infrastructure, as well they might. And you could go


one step further. Your understanding is the same as mine. Doing something


to prevent drops being -- ones being dropped in that area, but without


engaging with Russia. You could fire cruise missiles into a runway, which


we were warned could be done, but the problem is, you could have a


Russian jet in the middle of that runway, or a bus of school kids. We


know that they are capable of doing that. You are looking towards a


confrontation with Russia, what ever you do. Boris Johnson would say this


is the kind of HARDtalk we need to get the man to listen, because


everything else has failed. Mr Kerry being there is significant, but at


this stage in the election cycle, it's hard to sue what -- see what Mr


Obama would do. We have no idea what to reason may's foreign policy is in


terms of intervention. The last thing she would want to do is to get


involved in a Middle Eastern war. But we are already involved. And the


idea that our entire foreign policy should be based on not having a


conflict in the Putin... The West as a whole is not wanting to have a


conflict with him, and that is why he is acting how he is.


Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, has repeated her


warning that, if the UK leaves the single market, she will push for


Speaking to Andrew Marr earlier this morning, Ms Sturgeon said


she would not hesitate to protect Scotland's economic interests.


There's a principle here about, you know,


Does what we think, and what we say, and how


And that's what's going to be put to the test, I think,


Theresa May, perfectly legitimately, says she values the UK,


In the Independence Referendum, Scotland was told repeatedly


My message to the Prime Minister is, it's now time to prove these


things, and demonstrate to Scotland that our voice does count


within the UK, and our interests can be protected.


Because if that's not the case, then I think Scotland


would have the right to decide whether it wanted to follow


I've been joined by the Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell.


Welcome to the Sunday Politics. During the Scottish referendum


campaign, two years ago, the ETA Together campaign claimed that the


only guaranteed way for Scotland to remain in the EU was to stay in the


UK. That turned out to be untrue. You owe the people of Scotland an


apology. That isn't the full facts. It was made clear during the


referendum in Scotland that there could be an EU referendum. Ruth


Davidson, on many occasions, made it clear that people in Scotland would


have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they remained in the


EU. What was clear in that referendum, and you played a


significant part in highlighting it, was that those who were advocating a


yes vote could not set out a clear route for Scotland to get into the


EU as an independent nation. They were told if they stayed in the UK,


that was their best route to remaining in Europe. It turned out,


it is obvious that that was untrue. It was a route that meant there was


going to be an EU referendum. That was made very clear throughout that.


People voted in Scotland decisively to remain part of the UK in full


knowledge that there would be a referendum on whether the United


Kingdom remained in the European Union. That is what the vote on the


23rd of June in Scotland was about. It was about the UK remaining in the


EU, not Scotland. The people of Scotland were told to vote for the


union to be sure of staying in the UK. They also voted 62% to 38% to


stay in the EU. Now they are being dragged out against their will.


Surely that is grounds for a second Scottish referendum? I don't accept


that. I've voted to stay in the EU, but I didn't do so on the basis that


if I didn't get my own way that Scotland would be dragged out of the


United Kingdom. We have had a once in a generation vote as to whether


Scotland remained part of the UK. There was a decisive result in that.


On the assumption that we would also remain part of the European Union,


so a major change has taken place. I don't accept that analysis. People


were told that there would be a vote on whether the UK remained in the


EU. The reasons for Scotland remaining in the UK were


overwhelmingly economic, and those issues remain today in relation to


the UK single market. It is very odd that people who are concerned about


the EU single market are quite willing to


give up the UK single market, which is four times as valuable to


Scotland, and responsible for a million jobs. If the Scottish


Government demands another referendum, will the UK Government


grant it? The UK Government will have two agreed to a referendum, but


we want to argue that there shouldn't be another referendum. It


is in Scotland's best interests at the two governments work together


with 18 UK approach to get the best possible situation for Scotland...


If the Scottish Parliament decides that we do want -- we do not like


the terms of Brexit and we want another referendum, would you grant


it? There would have to be an agreement between the two


governments in the same form as the Edinburgh Agreement. The great shame


of the Edinburgh Agreement, which the SNP used to quote repeatedly, is


that they have not adhere to it, because a fundamental part of that


would be that both sides would respect the result. Viewers will


notice that you haven't really answered my question. Could Scotland


remain inside the single market in Europe as part of the Brexit


process? From the outset, I have said we would listen to any proposal


that the Scottish Government brought forward in relation to Scotland's


interests. We have had for months and no specific proposals have come


forward. Nicola Sturgeon was talking about proposals this morning, but at


this moment, I see it impossible that Scotland could remain within


the EU whilst the rest of the UK leads. It would be difficult to see


how that could be achieved. But we will listen to any proposals the


Scottish Government bring forward in relation to achieving the best


interests of Scotland. I am convinced that Scotland's best


interests are being part of the UK. You praised Scotland's membership of


the single market during the referendum. In March of this year


you said it secured jobs, was vital to tourism and industry, inbound


visitors and the rest of it. So why would you not want to retain it for


Scotland? I agree with the benefits Scotland has received from the


single market, but we are in a different situation now. The UK is


negotiating its exit from the EU. The Prime Minister has said it is


not going to be on the basis of existing arrangements, it will be on


the basis of a new arrangement, and as part of that, we will want to


secure the best arrangement for Scottish businesses. Given the


history we have gone through, do you want to guarantee a special post


Brexit status for Scotland. We leave the EU, but Scotland will have a


distinct status? I'm willing to look at any proposal brought forward that


looks at Scotland's interests. We have had no specifics from the


Scottish Government. They say now that they have them. It is a bit rum


to attack the Scottish Government. The principle is, could Scotland


have a special position, and would you help that or not? I am willing


to listen to any proposal brought forward. Will fishing and farming go


back to Edinburgh? The devolution settlement are going to be a


change,... Will they go to Edinburgh or to London? We will have a


decision at the end of that process. I want to make sure we have the best


arrangement for Scotland. You can't answer the question? We want to


listen to what fishermen and farmers say, and the people of Scotland. It


will be a package of arrangements, clearly, that need to be taken


forward as a result of leaving the EU. One final question. If the


Scottish Nationalist MPs vote against grammar schools, which are


purely for England, isn't that proof that your English votes for English


laws isn't working? It demonstrates all MPs in the


Parliament have the opportunity to vote on all issues. You wouldn't


mind if they voted to stop Grammar schools? Of course I wouldn't --


would mind... I think we have got the balance right in that


legislation. It is meaningless if they can vote to stop grammar


schools when it doesn't affect Scotland. They have to answer for


that, based on an opportunistic approach and cause resentment in


England. Thank you for being with us.


During the EU Referendum campaign, leading Remain supporters repeatedly


warned that a vote to leave the European Union would cause


Three months on, were their forecasts accurate?


Since the vote on June 23rd, the economic news


The value of the pound has been in pretty steady depreciation


since referendum day, falling to a 31-year


It was as low as $1.18 but has still rebounded a bit.


The weak pound left Tesco in a situation.


They stopped selling Marmite and other products for a day online


And a leaked Treasury report said that Government tax revenues


could be down by 66 billion a year in a post-Brexit economy.


Though the report emanated from Project Fear days.


However, many of the short-term economic fundamentals


The dominant service sector grew a healthy 0.4% in July.


In the same month, the unemployment rate dipped to under 5%,


House-buying has also been rising since the referendum,


nearly 110,000 properties were purchased in August.


Is the economy already suffering from the Brexit blues or not?


Joining me now is the former shadow Europe Minister,


the Labour MP Pat McFadden, who was a Business Minister


Do you know concede that nearly all the short-term economic forecasts


made by the Remain campaign have turned out to be untrue at best,


scaremongering at worst? No, I think this week was the week that the


beginnings of the economic effects of Brexit began to take hold, most


obviously on the currency fall. You talk about short-term, this began on


the night of the referendum itself and was given booster rockets by the


signals sent out by the Conservative Party conference. In terms of the


warnings next to reality, the warnings about the fall of the


currency speculated that it might fall in value by about 12%, the


reality is closer to 20%. Let's look at some of the warnings. We will


come back to the currency, but let's look at this. The Treasury report on


maybe 23rd said the following: That turned out to be untrue, didn't


it? What has happened here, which isn't in line with those warnings,


is consumer confidence has remained high. The actions of the Bank of


England in cutting interest have been important, so the short-term


effect in terms of consumer confidence... So it is wrong? Hasn't


turned out in line with that, but it would be complacent in the extreme


to conclude that with the effects of the currency which we know also from


the Bank of England's comments the other dates will feed into higher


prices, which will hit lower income consumers hardest. But we don't know


yet, I will come onto that but in the short term, I will show you


another one. A month before the referendum, the Chancellor George


Osborne said this: That turned out to be wronged too,


didn't it? We are not in recession but if you look at the forecasts of


growth over the next few years, the Bank of England have forecast growth


next year to not be the 2.3% it thought before the referendum but to


be 0.8%. Is it forecasting a recession? No, but it is forecasting


a slowdown which would mean GDP after two years would be for the ?5


billion less than the estimates before the referendum took place.


And it might be wrong, because look, it was wrong about the recession. Is


anybody now forecasting a recession? I don't know if anybody is


forecasting a recession. The IMF are certainly forecasting a slowdown in


a similar way to the Bank of England. George Osborne also said


house prices will plummet by 18%. Any sign of that? House prices are


not plummeting by 18%. Your side that you represent made much of the


IMF's claim that provoked Leave would mean an immediate slide into


recession, a collapse in house prices, and a crash in stock markets


which of course are currently at record levels. Even the IMF admits


there is none of that. There maybe longer term dangers but in the


short-term it happen. In the short-term it didn't happen. In the


short term what has happened here, as I said a moment ago, is consumer


confidence has remained high, the Bank of England cut interest rates


which put more money into people's pockets and I think the action they


took was important, but I think it would be wrong to say imply that


because these things haven't happened in the first few months


that we are somehow out of the woods on the economy. I understand that,


that's the last thing I would say, but here's the question - most of


these forecasters are still pretty gloomy about the long-term but if


they couldn't get the last few months right, why would you trust


them for 2025 when they couldn't say what will happen in September? Why


would you trust them to say what happens five years from now? People


will ask the question but the big tangible we have is in the decline


of the currency and that is a real and now effect. We can talk about


whether it is lost or minus, but the Government said the other day this


would bring inflation back, to use his words it is going to get


difficult, particularly for people on lower incomes and that will feed


into people's purchasing power. The international markets partaking of


you have our future prospects and at the moment it is not a vote of


confidence. Do you agree with the latest Remain mantra that people


might have voted to leave the EU but didn't necessarily vote to leave the


single market? I do agree with that. A lot of people have said people who


voted to leave didn't know that's what they were voting for, so let me


show you a clip of David Cameron at the height of the referendum


campaign. The British public would be voting if we leave to leave the


EU and the single market, we then have to negotiate a trade deal from


outside with the European Union. There you have it loud and clear on


BBC television, voting Leave means leaving the single market, not


losing access to it but leaving the membership of it. We have George


Osborne on tape saying the same thing, so why do you make out Leave


voters didn't know what they were voting for? I think people voted


Leave for a number of different reasons. For some it might have been


immigration, for some it might have been the promise of more money for


the NHS, but there are number of countries outside the EU which can


have full access to the single market, we know about Norway and on.


But they all have to pay in and have free movement. We can come onto that


but what I'm saying is it's not the case that when you are outside the


EU you necessarily have to be outside the single market and the


reason this is important is because this has been a cornerstone of


British economic policy for many years, particularly in terms of our


inward investment, and the reasons why both manufacturing industry and


financial services has invested and created employment in the UK, and I


think it would be cavalier to begin this negotiation by closing the door


on that. Is it Labour's policy, I know you don't speak for Labour


leadership, but is it their policy to remain in the single market? You


are right, I'm a backbencher, but it is the policy to have as full access


as possible to the single market. At least what we have now in terms of


goods and services. You can call it membership or not but that is what


Keir Starmer and the Labour Party wants. The old party home affairs


select committee is blaming Jeremy Corbyn's lack of leadership for


creating a safe space for what they call vile anti-Semitism. Do you


agree with that? I think this report should be taken seriously. The


atmosphere in the Labour Party, there has been a lot of nasty things


said on social media over the past year in particular. I hope we don't


make the mistake of shooting the messenger, I hope we take the report


seriously and I hope we don't fall into the trap that sometimes I see


when these accusations are wielded, that we point to antiracism records


and say look at our virtue in our record here, that must mean we


cannot be anti-Semitic. Let me be clear about this, pointing to your


own sense of righteousness is no excuse for nastiness or cruelty to


someone else so we should take this very seriously indeed. Pat McFadden,


thank you for being with us this morning.


A third runway at Heathrow was first given the green


light by Gordon Brown's government in 2009.


Almost eight years on, could Theresa May be about finally


to allow Heathrow expansion to go ahead?


Or could she surprise everyone and back Gatwick instead?


Maybe she will come out in favour of both of them!


A decision is expected imminently, but it's not straightforward


Several members of her cabinet are opposed to any plan to expand


Heathrow, and reports suggest as many as 60 of her backbenchers


Our reporter, Mark Lobel, has been looking at


A growing number of people want to take more flights and some


accuse the Government of dragging their feet over


All the while, our airports are operating flat-out.


So this is fully autonomous, you just have to press the start


Matthew Hill is from a business-backed group campaigning


We haven't had a full-length runway in London and the south-east


Gatwick was built in the 1930s, Heathrow in the 1940s,


Heathrow is full, Gatwick will be full in the next few years.


Matthew's group claims the lack of a new runway is costing us


I think there are huge economic benefits from the construction


At the moment, because we don't have that new runway, we don't


have that new capacity, the new flights to new markets,


we are missing out on ?9.5 billion a year in lost trade.


Until we get that decision and we get that runway


built, we will continue to lose out on that trade.


One airport that's eager to expand is Heathrow,


either by expanding this northern runway, the one closest to us here,


or, the Airports Commission's favourite proposal, building


a new runway parallel to here, about a kilometre that way in place


It's said that would offer 40 new destinations from the airport,


carry lots more air freight, provide 70,000 new jobs


and an overall boost to economic activity in the country,


with a promise of no night flights, new environmental and community


Heathrow's hub status also services many of the UK's other airports,


On average, every year a quarter of a million passengers travel


to and from this key exporting region via Heathrow,


While we've been very strong supporters of a third runway


at Heathrow, we think it's in the best interests


of the north-east, we also think it's in the best


Our services connect to many, many destinations across the world,


and allow businesses to trade right the way across the globe.


Gatwick Airport also wants to expand with another runway here.


By doubling Gatwick's capacity, the plan would create 22,000


new jobs, a vastly expanded short-haul network, and more


I think the expansion of Gatwick will bring firstly


the certainty of delivery, we can have spades in the ground


in this Parliament and we can be operational in the next,


so that's within ten years we can have a new runway,


and Gatwick can provide the increased capacity at a price


Now, before anyone gets carried away, there are of course some


people who would far prefer no extra planes in the sky.


We already fly more than everybody else,


most of these are leisure flights, well who's taking


Actually 70% of all of our flights are taken by 15% of the population.


It's a wealthy frequent-flying elite.


But with approval of a third runway looking likely,


could more protests be on the horizon?


I can tell you now, they are dusting off the handcuffs, you know,


And you have to remember, Heathrow, if they choose to expand


Heathrow, you are talking about hundreds of homes


being bulldozed, whole communities being eradicated, wiped off the map.


Over the last few years, since the last big protest around


Heathrow, the relationship between local people around


the airport and grass roots climate change activists


Those guys are going to get together and just cause merry hell for people


The Prime Minister, Theresa May, who once called for a better not


bigger Heathrow whilst in opposition, will chair a select


group of colleagues expected to decide imminently


on whether to build a new runway and where.


It will then take months for a national policy statement


outlining the new works to get drawn up before MPs get to vote on it,


leaving plenty of time for any further opposition to airport


I've been joined by two Conservative MPs.


Adam Afriyie is opposed to Heathrow expansion,


Adam, the independent Daviess report into runway expansion said the case


for Heathrow was clear and unanimous in the Commission. 180,000 more


jobs, more than ?200 billion in economic benefits. So why are you


putting the interests of your constituency before the national


interest? I will fight tooth and nail for the interests of my


constituents, but the wonderful thing about the binary choice


between Heathrow and Gatwick is that it is not in the regional or


consumers' interests to expand Heathrow. The Daviess report has


already been largely undermined. There are 17 reasons why it doesn't


work and is wrong. Number one, they said Gatwick would not have 42


million passengers until 2024. This year, they already have 42 million


passengers. Gatwick have increased their destinations to 20 now, which


they didn't expect either. The Davies review was good in its day,


but is it had a limited remit. They were talking about Heathrow as a


hub, but the airline industry has changed. We have to pay to this for


more than 15 years. The government White Paper in 2003 suggested we


should expand Heathrow. ?20 million and 12 years later, the Davis Report


came to the same conclusion. We are never going to get any form of


progress on this is competing MPs never going to get any form of


are allowed to frustrate the process. You could have had about


three people who are Gatwick MPs arguing very passionately against


Adam's desire to expand Gatwick. The point is, we are in a paralysis. We


are having a theological debate that will last decades, and Heathrow


is... Why Heathrow? Why not expand Gatwick and increase the capacity of


our regional airports? I thought the government's strategy was to


rebalance the economy in favour of the North and the Midlands. If you


listen to northern MPs, or people representing Northern or Scottish


interests, they all say they want to increase Heathrow. The SNP said last


week they wanted Heathrow to be expanded. If you want to help the


economy is in those areas, listen to what they are saying. They are


saying expand Heathrow. 32 regional airports support the expansion of


Heathrow to maintain its position as one of the global hubs. Even the


Scottish Government agrees with expanding Heathrow. They all say, we


want to be a serious player in aviation. We need a global hub, and


that is Heathrow. The interesting thing is that there is no argument


that Heathrow is the UK hub, and no one is trying to get rid of that.


But if you are adding a single new runway, is it better to add it at


Heathrow or Gatwick, and for me it is overwhelmingly clear. Heathrow is


the most expensive airport in the world. If you add another runway at


taxpayer expense, you make it even more expensive. So flight prices go


up. Whether or not Heathrow could ever be delivered is another


question. My own Borough Council as part of the legal action... So even


if the decision is made, we may not see the capacity. At Gatwick is dirt


cheap. It can be delivered within ten years. But it is not a global


hub airport. But the hub that we have at Heathrow is perfectly


adequate for the next ten or 15 years. It is running at 99%


capacity. Every airline, the new planes being ordered... The airline


have decided that the hub capacity is sufficient and they are moving to


a different model. Let me ask you this. We haven't built a major new


runway in London and the south-east for 60 years. Since 1946, so 70


years. Why not expand Heathrow and Gatwick? Personally, I would do


both. If we are serious about having international trade and Golding


links to the outside world, especially after Brexit, we have to


get serious about aviation and accept that we need more capacity. I


think it's scandalous we haven't managed to expand capacity for 70


years, when we think of the economic growth that has happened in that


time. If we want to build a prosperous economy, it seems bizarre


we are reluctant to increase aviation. Whatever the decision, do


you think there will be a free vote on this? I think this is one area


where I think the government does need to take a lead, and I hope they


will make a rational choice for Gatwick. If the government comes out


for Heathrow, will you defy the whips? Yes. I will always vote for


for Heathrow, will you defy the Heathrow, because it doesn't make


for Heathrow, will you defy the economic sense. If MPs are happy at


the prospect of Heathrow... Does the figure strike a chord with you? I


would hope there would be more, but it depends on the political position


of Labour and the SNP. I hope that the government decides


inclusively... Ad is doing what he feels is the best for his


constituents. I think 60 is way off the mark. I don't know what


journalists suggested 60 Tory MPs. My sense is that it is probably


about 20 hard-core people in the House of Commons. I think it will be


a free vote. If it is 20 hard-core, you will need Labour to get it


through? Labour MPs were very keen on supporting Heathrow, in my


experience. It may be delayed again, of course. After 70 years, what's


another week here or there! Good morning and welcome


to Sunday Politics Scotland. She's set out the stall -


Scotland at the heart of Europe We'll be asking the SNP's newly


elected deputy leader just how the party will to turn its grand


plans into reality. We will also work to persuade


others, labour, liberals and moderate Tories to join us in a


coalition against a hard Brexit, not just for Scotland, but for the whole


of the UK. Labour's only MP in Scotland tells


us if he thinks the call for an alliance against hard Brexit


matches the mood in Westminster. So the First Minister's set


piece speech at the end of the SNP conference was -


as promised - full There were initiatives


on trade, and Trident. And a revolution in the way young


people in care are looked after. But - inevitably -


analysts will be poring over the details of what Nicola Sturgeon


did - and didn't - Not least because -


at the start of the conference - she'd announced a quick consultation


on legislation for The SEC see a Glasgow plays host to


all kinds of events. Just a couple of weeks ago, at comic con, super


heroes and villains took over the halls. For the past few days, the


costumes have been more restrained, but the conference has had heroes


and heroines. On day one, they stood and applauded as the First Minister


promised a consultation on and independence referendum. The


independence referendum bill will be published for consultation next


week. Once the speech was over, what did they think of that? She said


this because it's the democratic right of the people in Scotland to


not be dragged out of Europe against their will and we have to start


laying the foundations for a new their will and we have to start


referendum, should all other avenues fail. Scotland needs to get out of


the nightmare situation that we are in right now, being bossed by


Westminster. It's what Scotland voters need to hear. We will have


the consultation next week and see what is in that. I'm not saying we


are shooting ourselves in the front, if this is to quit. A fringe event


discusses renewing the case for independence. Has something gone


wrong with the argument or the weight is presented? It is


self-evident that is the case for independence always has to be


reviewed and updated and we have to look at what things worked in 2014


and what didn't. We also have to look at how the world has changed


since then. There is a lot of thoughtful going on on what the next


offer of Independence will actually look like. It is looking at those


areas that we maybe didn't give enough information to the public who


were maybe under standard or the voters, that helped them come to the


conclusion that independence is the way forward. We have to have sound


answers about currency, about banking, about what we would


nationalise, what we wouldn't. To build the basis, for building a new


Scotland. A country that works and is effective. The organiser wants a


new claim of Right for Scotland, published on St Andrew's Day 2018.


What we need now is not a more sprawling vision document like last


White Paper, but something that is a consolidated business plan, so it is


a workmanlike business plan saying what processes, institutions, rules


we would need to produce to create an independent Scotland that we


currently don't have an saying here is how we will do it, this is what


it will cost and this is how we will get it done. Nicola Sturgeon was


back on stage yesterday, picking up the I word. Your Mac or not that


one. Not yet! The word I want you to remember is this. Inclusion.


Inclusion is the guiding principle for everything we do. She went on to


talk twice about Scotland's home rule journey. So what did delegates


and members leaving the conference think? She was reserved enough but


gets us happy in terms of keeping independence on the table. She has


been quite clear that that is on the table amongst other options.


Inclusion is important. Inclusion is really important. We want a much


fairer Scotland. We are on our way. What she said today is I don't care


what you say, somewhere along the line if we don't get the deal we


want from down the road, we will go for independence two. But David


Cameron's story tells us things can for independence two. But David


go badly wrong for a leader who calls a referendum just to keep


their party happy. Avoiding that trap may need political superpowers


their party happy. Avoiding that will stop so perhaps there is more


in common with comic con than you might imagine.


Joining me now from Moray is the SNP's newly elected deputy


Angus, Nicola Sturgeon this morning said she was focusing on trying to


convince the British government to take seriously some of the Scottish


permits's proposals on Brexit. She seemed to accept that Scotland could


not really, in any meaningful sense, negotiate with the EU. You would


accept that, too, presumably? The focus is absolutely on trying to


impress on the UK Government that it has to do find a bespoke solution to


the Brexit conundrum that satisfied both the 62% vote in Scotland to


remain within the EU, but also the vote south of the border in favour


of Brexit. That is why the Scottish Government has laid an offer on the


table to work with the UK Government to try to protect Scottish interests


in the EU context, foremost amongst to try to protect Scottish interests


that is remaining within the single market, but there are other areas of


priority which the Scottish element will be outlining in the weeks


ahead. Have you had any indication... Have you had any


indication... You are the lead at Westminster. The indication is the


UK Government will take that seriously. Whilst the straws in the


wind are not particularly good, the rhetoric saying that, of course one


is going to liaise with the Scottish Government and so on, the rhetoric


exists, but the reality points to something far less convincing. Just


this week, for example, we have the publication of the key committees


that the UK Government is considering Brexit in the Secretary


of State for Scotland is not a serious player in that. It doesn't


look as if the UK Government is taking things seriously thus far,


which is why I think the First Minister's unambiguous statements


are very helpful and it has clearly been heard, as we know the rounds of


interviews on today because of political programmes across the


networks have all led on the Scottish dimension to the Brexit


challenge. And so I hope and we hope quite genuinely that to reason me


and her colleagues understand that they do have to seriously work with


the Scottish Government is to try to find ways of protecting Scotland's


place in Europe whilst quite properly having to respect the


mandate that exists south of the border in favour of Brexit. I


wondered if you and the SNP had noted the meeting that is to reason


me had with the boss of Nissan on Friday, which he seemed very happy


with. There was all sorts of talk in the financial papers afterwards that


there might be... Can you repeat that? I wondered if you noted the


meeting that to Reza me had with the head of Nissan, who seemed happy


after the meeting. I'm sorry, the sound is breaking out. I heard was I


aware of the meeting between the Prime Minister and suddenly from


Nissan. I've not. But I hope that the UK Government is listening to


the great many people in the business community, for whom the UK


remaining within the single market, not just having access to it, is


fundamentally important. That is really relevant in the north-east of


England with the Nissan works there, but there are many other companies,


many other industries for whom being a part of the single market is


really important and I join you from the heart of Scotland's food and


drink industry, where it is really, really important that if you are


producing foodstuffs or shellfish, which are largely exported into the


single market or all of the whiskey distilleries that surround me, it is


really important that we don't support the kind of barriers in


place to the largest single market in the world. My apologies for this


line, Angus Robertson. I hope you can hear me. The point I was going


to make is that there are suggestions the British government


might negotiate deals whereby specific industries, like the car


industry, could sort of stay in the single market, even if Britain


leaves, and my point about Nissan was I wondered if the SNP would say,


if that should apply to industries, why not geographical areas like


Scotland? It makes the case that the First Minister has been pressing and


weighing the SNP at Westerners are having underlining. Whilst it is not


simple, and we understand that it is not straightforward, it is possible


to find different solutions. We know that already within the UK, there


are different solutions and relationships with Europe, so take


for example the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. In the case of


Denmark, look at how Greenland fits into the pictures. There are ways of


having asymmetric relationships, but it depends on the UK Government.


Let's go back to your first question. It is the UK Government


that will have the key negotiating discussions with the EU whenever


they trigger the article 50 procedure. It will depend on a UK


Government to take the needs, interests, concerns and expectations


of the Scottish Gottman and people, 62% voted to remain in the EU, to do


what they have said previously to respect the fact that they say


Scotland is an equal partner in the UK. They are prepared to find a


bespoke arrangements for companies or four industries, then they should


be prepared to do it for nations in the UK, like Scotland or Northern


Ireland. You have said that, should there be a hard Brexit, that will be


justification for a second independence referendum. Presumably,


the contrary is the case, that should the British government take


note of Scotland's concerns and those of some in England, and there


should be some sort of soft Brexit or medium way between soft and hard


Brexit, you will withdraw the proposal to hold a second


referendum. If the United Kingdom delivers on


the priorities that the Scottish Government is going to be setting


out in the next week, that is going to be the focus of our continuing


and renewed relationship with the European context. At the Scottish


Government is satisfied, I don't see how they would pursue a further


independence referendum. Given that all of the straws in the wind show


that the UK Government has not taken seriously this far, is exactly why


it is right and proper for the Scottish Government to begin


consultations on an independence referendum, just in case the UK


Government does not deliver on what is required. The premise of your


question is correct. If they do deliver on the priorities the


Scottish Government want, then we wouldn't need to go ahead with a


referendum. But it is right and proper, given that we don't have


those guarantees, to have all of those options on the table. This is


important, because you are arguing for an alliance. That is against


hard Brexit at Westminster. Conservative or Labour or Liberal


Democrat MPs say we might ally with the SNP and work together to oppose


it, but we are not going to do it if it is just another SNP data for


independence. But you seem to be accepting that strips you get some


of the stuff you want, independence is off the table? -- should you get?


Yellow I am not going to second-guess all of that. In terms


of the discussions with other members of the Westminster


Parliament, I've not yet had any conversations where there is an F


and but from others. There are moderate forces within the Labour


Party and even some moderate moderate forces within the Labour


conservatives for whom being taken out of the single market is


something so problematic that not only do we want to have properly


scrutinised it can Westminster, we need answers from the government. If


what they are proposing is so damaging and not something that the


government had a mandate for, then the SNP will be opposing that. You


want to work with others in Parliament against hard Brexit.


There has also been a lot of talk about a broader progressive alliance


against the Conservatives. What is your view of that? I didn't hear


again. My apologies. There has been much talk in the last few days about


a broader alliance against the Tories. A Progressive Alliance at


Westminster. Is that something you are in favour with? And are you


getting anywhere in trying to create it? Forgive me, you dropped out


again. But I did hear you talk about a Progressive Alliance. I will do my


best to interpret what the rest must have been. There are


parliamentarians across the House of Commons who are very fearful of the


impact of a hard Brexit. What it means is being taken out of the


single market, the biggest one in the world, and have barriers to UK


exporters to that key markets. This must be a concern for all of us. And


we were being given an impression by many people in the leave camp in the


European referendum that we would have full access to the single


market and we would even be able to remain. And that is why I think it


is really important for all of us who want to make sure that we do not


go through an even more damaging exit process that needs to be the


case. That we work together. I cannot predict how that is going to


develop. In the weeks and months ahead will have different potential


stages where we will be working together. We will be holding the


government to compound. And I have asked the Prime Minister question


she has not been able to answer. There will be a Brexit committee set


up. All of these circumstances, we will work together. We have to


protect Scotland's interests. And I am respectful of the rest of the UK


who wish to do the best for their part of the world, too. Thank you.


My apology for the quality of the sound line and that it didn't match


the scenery. Thank you. It might not have been


exactly an olive branch, but the First Minister's appeal


to Labour, Liberals and even moderate Tories to join the SNP


in a coalition against a hard Brexit may still have taken


some by surprise. It wasn't that long ago though


that the Shadow Scottish Secretary, Dave Anderson, and former


Shadow Defence Secretary, Clive Lewis, were making


overtures to the SNP. And there've been other rumblings


in Westminster that some form of loose or progressive alliance


may be the way forward. Joining us from London is Scotland's


only Labour MP, Ian Murray. Let's stick to the question of


Brexit. Angus Robinson and the SNP Let's stick to the question of


proposed an alliance with you and whoever is prepared to join them. --


Angus Robertson. To get a soft Brexit. Is that something you are


keen on? The First Minister is slightly behind the curve. This is


what we have been doing already. Angus Robertson's own Brexit spoke


person is from the SNP. Myself and Anna Seabury all ask the same


question to the Secretary of State, David Davis about page 74 of the


Conservative manifesto saying yes to the single market. We already have


that broad alliance in Westminster already against a hard Brexit. We


will be pushing hard on that to make sure that is what we get.


will be pushing hard on that to make Robertson, he said pretty clearly


there that should the Scottish Government get what it wants,


basically what you want, staying single market from its negotiations


with UK Government, that's the SNP would have no reason to call another


independence referendum. He was pretty clear on that. That is,


presumably, something you would welcome. Yes, but 40 or so said was


the Scottish Government set out their criteria on what they would


want at these negotiations. I can guess it will put something in there


that is undeliverable in order to keep independence on the table. --


he also said. Scotland being in the EU, which I agree with, is an


intelligent argument. We need to put the other referendum out of the


question. Rule it out and work for the other referendum out of the


the best possible solution for Brexit across the United Kingdom.


And make sure that if Scotland is open for business, let's take away


the uncertainty of a second independence referendum and move


forward together to get the very best out of this bad situation. What


about this idea that Angus Robertson was talking about about a broader


progressive allies against the Tories. That doesn't seem to be very


popular with Labour on Scotland. -- in Scotland. But it does seem to


have supporters amongst Jeremy Corbyn's back people. There already


is. We have always made clear that when there are issues we agree with


other parties on, we will come together and vote with them. And


make the argument in the House of Commons chamber parliament on in the


wider country. Where we disagree with parties, whether it is on our


own side or opposite, we will disagree with them. Jeremy Hunt


Kezia Dugdale have been clear that we cannot do a former progressive


Alliance, rather than make United Kingdom on Scotland better. So you


would rule out an electoral pact with the SNP? Yes. The irony is that


it helps the Conservative Party. They are able to play their own


agenda. That is what happened in 2015. It is likely to happen again.


If you look at the finance secretary and what he said that they will put


a judge -- budget together. We want fundamental differences. You rule


out an electoral alliance with the SNP. Would you rule out a government


with them? After the next election, if other forces have a majority,


would you rule out bringing the SNP into some sort of coalition? We have


discussed this at great length on your show for a number of times. We


are now talking about a General Election in 2020. All those issues


that are completely irrelevant at this point. What we have been


clearer than what we will this point. What we have been


been clear on is that when political parties agree, we will work with


them enthusiastically. Where we disagree, we will oppose them and


make sure it is Labour values and what the Labour Party wants to do.


One example is that we will be amending the Scottish budget to make


sure that it can raise the resources in Scotland to invest in public


services. The SNP are fighting that. They do not want to go forward with


investing in public services. Therefore, they are only doing


something that is marginally different of the Tories. We cannot


work with the SNP on that basis. What is extremely relevant right now


to the current electoral cycle is whether a Scottish MP should be


Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. Are you going...? It is a


very simple answer. I have not been asked. And, therefore, I will


continue to fight Scotland's corner from the backbenches. Out of the


shackles of the Shadow Cabinet, I can be of the select committee. But


if he asks you, will you rejoin? He has not. And I have been very clear


to Jeremy that I would rejoin if he brought back the shadow cabinet


elections. Are you saying that as a condition of rejoining? It has been


good enough for people like Kia condition of rejoining? It has been


Starmer. Jeremy Corbyn just won a victory. A second time in a year. If


that is good enough for people like him, wires and a governor for you? I


have been perfectly clear that I have backed him. We will all unite


and make sure we have an effective opposition. It is a huge issue. --


and make sure we have an effective why isn't it good enough for you? It


was right that he recognised that and went back into the Shadow


Cabinet. I have been clear that if he grabs the olive branch for the


Labour Party, brings back Shadow Cabinet elections... He said -- you


said he burned it. Therefore, we cannot have that conversation as I


resigned. He is a principled cannot have that conversation as I


politician. I have my own and I'm enjoying myself on the backbenches.


I have been able to press the Prime Minister as Secretary of State. And


this week I am trying to set up a cross-party group on the sectorial


interests of Brexit. I can be just as effective. You said that you


backed Jeremy Corbyn and since he was elected again. But, sorry,


saying the EU will not consider joining his Shadow Cabinet, unless


he implements elections, which he is clearly against, that is not


supporting him. That is surely just petulantly refusing to recognise a


huge vote for your party has just had? Not at all. We can be united as


a party. We will continue to be. I will say nothing to undermine Jeremy


Corbyn's leadership. Dave Anderson, you spoke to him, he is perfectly


capable of being surgery Secretary of State for Scotland. I can be on


the select committee. -- Shadow Secretary. I can ask loads of


questions. I can push the government on what is a huge issue. I can do


all that. I cannot do it if I'm sitting in the Shadow Cabinet. I


will be restricted. What you have just said might be perfectly


reasonable, where you any old Labour MP. You are not. You are only label


MP -- Labour MP in Scotland. Supporters right across Scotland


surely have the right to expect that the only Labour MP in Scotland will


act as the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland? You are letting all of


them down. Not just your own constituents. How possibly can I be


letting anyone down when I haven't been asked to serve? You could


offer? Yes, that you have just put conditions on it which Jeremy Corbyn


cannot accept. There is a whole list of conditions. I do not think people


in my constituency and across Scotland are worried about being in


the Shadow Cabinet. They want politicians to be arguing the case


for Scotland on issues like Brexit. Are you seriously saying...? Are you


seriously saying it does not matter whether or not Scottish -- a


Scottish MP is the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland? No. I able to


sit on the select committee which is doing great work under the


leadership of peat wisher. I can set up cross-party groups. I could not


do that if I was in the cabinet. We are making strong arguments and I am


making sure of that. I am the only politician in Scotland that is


currently arguing that of the moment. And the SNP with the


incoherent argument that the EU is good and the UK is bad. Do you think


Jeremy Corbyn can lead Labour into the next General Election? Do you


Jeremy Corbyn can lead Labour into think he can win it? I'm sorry. I


didn't catch the question. Well, everyone has the opportunity to win.


I know he had the opportunity. Do you think you can win it? It is


going to be difficult unless he has a policy platform that means he can


give the country hope in the Prime Minister of this country. Is that a


roundabout way of saying no? No. I don't think so. It is going to be


difficult for him. The next election will be in 2020. Unless Theresa May


brings forward something different. Three and a half years to lay out


that vision. Deal with globalisation and make sure working people are


looked after and progressing in the workplace. By making sure the next


generation is progressing. It takes time to build up a policy platform


that does that. We are in a good place of Brexit. You have seen the


Labour Party use their entire day of place of Brexit. You have seen the


opposition time to talk about it on Wednesday. We won the argument,


because we did not have to push this to a vote. We have worked across the


board to put forward those arguments. These are the things that


are important to people. And these other things we will be working hard


on to push in Parliament. That is what is important.


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


I'm joined now by the journalist Lynsey Bews and the SNP's former


What did you make... I was slightly surprised that Angus Robertson was


so open in saying if we got what we want, we wouldn't have a second


independence referendum. Do you think it is more spin? I think he


made a fit of an admission that actually, yes, the second


independence referendum would really be taken off the table if the wishes


of the Scottish Government are met. The trouble is, what the Scottish


pigment is asking for is quite a long wish list, really. They are


looking for remaining in the single market, they are looking for more


powers for Scottish Parliament, control over immigration in


Scotland, and the ability to make these international trade deals


themselves. It is whether or not you can see the UK Government actually


saying, OK, we will deliver that for you, and whether or not the rest of


the EU agrees with that proposal. It you, and whether or not the rest of


is a tricky one this because it is fungible in both directions because


it will always be possible unless it is an absolutely hard exit, for


Theresa May to say look, the SNP have been unreasonable, I did


conceive this, I did listen, and on the other side it will be possible


for the Scottish Government to say, they might have conceded this, but


they didn't concede that, that, and that. Theresa May will never concede


everything that was Scottish Government asked for. She only has


to concede a bit for Nicola Sturgeon's opponents to say, come


off it, this was all a ruse for a second referendum. She has conceded


some. And if she doesn't constitute all, Nicola can say the opposite. My


guess would be an independence referendum at some point in the


future. When do you think they would have to hold that? I think Nicola


Sturgeon herself said on this programme it would have to be... I


might be wrong, but my recollection is it would have to be before the


end of the formal negotiations which would be March 2019? You can say any


time from March next year to March 20 19. Any time in that timescale.


If you want a specific date, you are as well looking a figure out of the


air. I don't think anyone knows, I don't think Nicola herself as


probably decided yet. She won't until she says democracies which way


the wind is blowing. Obviously, they would need the permission of the


British government to have another referendum. Again, I think I'm right


in saying that both Ruth Davidson and David Mandel has said on this


programme over the past couple of months that while they didn't want


another independence referendum, they thought the UK Government


should not stand in the way of it. I don't know if you saw David on


Andrew Neil earlier, he was much more equitable, wasn't he? It is a


tricky one because I think, politically, it would be very


difficult to deny a second independence referendum if the SNP


can point to their manifesto and say, well, the circumstances have


changed. The circumstances set out for a second referendum that the EU


was part of that. Politically, it would be very difficult to say they


wouldn't get one. The British governance could say, hang on, you


are having a referendum before we have finalised a deal. We might


allow you to have won after it is final, but it is not reasonable to


have one before. That is where the timing becomes tricky. At what point


in the two-year period do we have the amount of certainty to know


exactly what the Brexit deal, which is going forward, is going to look


like. All negotiations are not going to have been completed. I think


Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP will probably want to have the second


independence referendum within that two-year period probably towards the


end of the two-year period if possible to try to take away some of


the difficulties of Scotland's membership of the EU if the UK and


Scotland as part of it has gone outside the EU. Everything is


unclear. There seems to be a bandwagon growing, not just from the


SNP, although they are part of it, in Parliament for MPs saying, hang


on, we've got to have some sort of say in what kind of Brexit deal


there is. So many people, especially south of the border, voted because


of the immigration issue. Now, they also probably... Boris Johnson told


them leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market. Well, you


can't have both. If you are in the single market, you have freedom of


movement. You can't have one without the other. If we are in the single


market, you have freedom of movement, which is the reason that


many people voted Brexit. Again, going back to David Mandel, he can


say Westminster will not allow another referendum... He doesn't say


that. It was unlikely. He hinted very strongly that they would oppose


it. I think it is politically unacceptable. This issue of MPs


having a say, again, there have been various interviews this morning. The


formulations are always, MPs will be involved, we've already had debates.


That is not what people like Nick Clegg and Nicola Sturgeon said this


morning in interview, she would agree with the demand that MPs be


given SA on article 50, but she would presumably agree that she


would be given a say on what kind of Brexit there would be. It is unclear


that will ever happen. Rio it is all very well to have a debate in


Parliament about what MPs think, but if there is no definitive say at the


end of that for MPs, it really doesn't make a difference as to what


the UK Government do. The triggering of Article 50, should we have a say?


The Brexit deal at the end, should they have a say over that? It is


more likely they will get a say of the Brexit deal at the end of it


rather than the triggering of article 50, but it is unlikely they


will get a say. Let's say there is a hard Brexit, and that is negotiated


by the British government. If the British government then comes back


to Parliament and says, right, you can vote on this, and Parliament, as


is quite possible, voted against that, what does that mean? Are they


saying go away for another two years and negotiate? Renegotiate, yes.


Interestingly, when the Scottish MEPs were discussing what would


happen in Europe regarding this, they said the MEPs would be asked to


vote on it and it could be likely that they would reject the deal put


forward to the European Parliament, which would mean that they would


have to go away and look at new terms around a new deal, so maybe


something like that would happen if the UK Parliament got a vote, but it


looks unlikely that they will. If you are still advising them, this


SNP idea of alliance in Parliament, would you go for that? Informally,


yes. No formal alliances. I cannot imagine a circumstance where Labour


would go into a formal alliance with the SNP. You mentioned earlier the


possibility of the SNP joining Labour in a future UK Government. I


cannot imagine that for a moment. Your ideas and Ian Murray's are very


similar. I'll be back at the


same time next week.


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by secretary of state for Scotland David Mundell MP and Conservative MPs Adam Afriyie and Kwasi Kwarteng. Panellists include Julia Hartley-Brewer, Tom Newton Dunn and Steve Richards.

Download Subtitles