23/10/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by former Ukip deputy leader Paul Nuttall, international development minister Rory Stewart and shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



There's another candidate in the race to become Ukip's next


leader: Suzanne Evans, the party's former deputy chairman,


This man might have something to say about that.


Paul Nuttal was Nigel Farage's deputy for many years.


So is he now ready to throw his hat in the ring?


The battle for Mosul: the Iraqi army and its allies advane


on the country's second city which has been in the hands of


But what will be the fallout from this key clash?


A former SNP leader warns the party against stumbling into


And are the Scottish Greens about to show their true colours?


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


panel in the business: Toby Young, Polly Toynbee and Tom Newton Dunn -


The last leader was in the job a mere 18 days before she decided


The favourite to succeed her then quit the party after a now infamous


Ukip's biggest donor says the party is at "breaking point".


This morning, the former Deputy Chairman, Suzanne Evans,


announced that she would be running for the leadership.


I've thought long and hard about this leadership bid,


and one of the reasons I've perhaps delayed announcing it is


because I wanted to be absolutely sure that I had the support


And I can confirm that I have more than enough signatures


on the nomination form already to be able to go forward.


Let's not forget that 3,000 people signed a petition in support of me


I know head office was besieged with letters in support.


I would not be doing this if I didn't have the backing


of our members, because our members are the most important


Well, Paul Nuttall was Nigel Farage's deputy for many years


and plenty of people saw him as a leader-in-waiting.


Let's ask the man himself - Paul Nuttall joins me now.


Yes. I've made the decision that I'm going to put my name forward to be


the next leader of Ukip. I have huge support across the country, not only


amongst people at the top of the party in Westminster and with the


MEPs, but also the grassroots. I want to be the unity candidate. Ukip


needs to come together. I'm not going to gild the lily. Ukip is


looking over a political cliff at the moment. It will either step four


step back, and I want to tell us to step backwards. You say it faces an


ex-distension or threat, which means it's possible it has no future at


all. Students of political history know that political parties take a


long time to get going. They can disappear pretty quickly. Ukip is


facing an existential crisis. What happened over the summer has put us


on a... We could be on a spiral that we can't get off. But I believe I am


the man to bring the factions together, to create unity within the


party, and to build on the structure and get us ready for the common


challenges. Why didn't you stand last time? Because I have spent the


last four or five years of my life travelling around the country. I


have done more Ukip meetings than anybody else, spending a lot of time


away from home. With Brexit, I felt that my job and Nigel's job was done


and we could hand over to the next generation. That doesn't seem to be


the case, and maybe it's time for someone who is an old hand. I'm very


experienced and I know the party inside out. Maybe it's time to step


in and bring the party together. You told the Liverpool Echo on the night


of July that you didn't wish to take on Nigel Farage, you didn't want


that to happen to your family and friends. What has changed? The party


is facing an existential crisis, and I want to make sure that Ukip is on


the pitch to keep the ball into the open net we have in politics. We


have a Conservative Party who is moving toward Brexit, but we have to


be there too. Why would you be better than Suzanne Evans? Suzanne


would be an excellent candidate. I thought the 2015 manifesto was the


best out of all the political parties. I would be the best


candidate because of my experience. I am not part of any faction within


the party. Is she? I get on well with everybody, and I believe I


could be the man to bring the party together. Do you get on with Iain


Banks, -- Aaron Banks, who is supporting one of your rivals? Yes,


I get on well with him. He is able to choose whoever he wants to be the


next leader of the party. After November 28, the leadership


election, we all say, the past the past. It becomes Daisy row for the


new leader. We forget all that has before and move on. You won the


referendum. Mrs May is adopting some of your policies, like grammar


schools. What is the point of Ukip these days? Twofold. We don't have


Brexit. Mrs May said she would not invoke Article 50 until the end of


March, and we don't know if that will happen. We need to ensure a


strong Ukip to make sure that Brexit really does mean Brexit. We have a


huge opportunity in working class communities where the Labour Party


no longer represents them. I believe Ukip can become the voice of working


people. If you were the leader, would Ukip be a bigger threat to


Labour in the north or the Tories in the South? You save Labour in the


north, and people often to make that mistake. There's working class


communities right across the country is. There are working-class


communities in Bristol just as in Newcastle. We are second in a


number of northern seats, and southern seats as well, and I


believe the party can move into these communities. It can only do so


if Ukip is on the pitch, and I intend to make sure that's the case.


I don't think we have portrayed a good image over the summer. Is that


called British understatement? A bit. It is dysfunctional. We have to


move on beyond Nigel Farage. We have to build a strong national Executive


Committee. We need to ensure our branches are ready for the fight and


concentrate on local elections. I've got the experience. I'm now throwing


my hat into the ring, and I'm the only person who can keep Ukip in the


game. What role would you give Nigel Farage, if any? I will be the


candidate of compromise. I would see what Nigel wanted to do. Would you


keep in the leader of the freedom and democracy group in the European


Parliament? There would have to be compromise on both sides, and we


would need to talk about it. I don't know what Nigel wants to do. Do you


think his support, his association with Donald Trump, helps Ukip win


female votes in this country? Personally, I would not have gone


out and campaigned or said anything about Donald Trump, but I don't


think Ukip has come out and backed Donald Trump 100%. Personally, I


wouldn't have even spoken about the American election, because I think


the two candidates are quite appalling. Some up for us. If you


win, what would be the hallmark of your Ukip leadership? The first


couple of months would be ensuring that Ukip unifies. Saying no to


factions, bringing people together. Suzanne Evans, Nigel Farage, all of


the MEPs, and ensuring that Ukip can move forward. If we don't unify,


Ukip will not be around for much longer. Thanks for being with us


this morning. We won't have to wait too long


to find out who Ukip's new leader will be -


the winner will be announced Who would be the best leader for


Ukip? I think the difference between the field a few weeks ago and today


is that this field is a lot stronger. Whether it's Paul or


Suzanne, I think... It is hard to say, with Aaron Banks and apparently


Nigel Farage hacking another candidate, Raheem, but I want Ukip


to be a strong force in British politics. I think the fact there is


a stronger field now is good news for Ukip. Is it a Labour's worst


nightmare in the north of England? It is. I think the personality


difference and presentational difference is interesting. Suzanne


Evans is going for the Conservative county vote. There's a lot to be


taken there by Ukip. He would probably be more appealing to the


Labour vote. It is interesting. At the moment, pollsters say that the


Ukip vote splits pretty easily between Labour and Tory. But things


always collapse. When they have made inroads into Tower Hamlets and


Barking, they collapse, because they fight amongst each other so much.


But not always with fists! Does Ukip have a future? And who would best


secure that future? It does for at least two years, until we Brexit. We


have to believe that that will happen. That was an impressive pitch


there from Paul, certainly as the unity candidate, after the car crash


we have seen on TV screens this morning. But it doesn't go beyond


May 20 19. What then? There is no point being called the United


Kingdom Independence party any longer. What will happen after May


2019? If you want to hoover up votes of the back of Brexit, you need to


start looking further ahead than two years. The person who wins that


leadership contest is the person who will sum that up the best. We shall


see. In June 2014, the group which calls


itself the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant captured Iraq's


second city, Mosul. Later that month the group announced


it was establishing a 'caliphate', or an Islamic state,


on the territories it This week 30,000 Iraqi troops, aided


by Iranian-backed Shia fighters, Kurdish Peshmerga and Western air


support, began the assault Then they spot a truck bomb


from so-called Islamic State. They destroy it before


it destroys them. These are the first steps


in the battle for Mosul, the Northern Iraqi city IS has


made its stronghold since 2014. Controlling the city of around


2 million people means that they established governance,


they establish a territorial base. This is what has obsessed everyone,


because with a territorial base you are capable of doing more


than if you are simply an insurgency movement in the fabric


of another society. It's being billed as the biggest


military operation in Iraq since the war in 2003, the biggest


moment in the international effort Here is how the various forces


are approaching the city. Heading to Mosul from the south,


the elite troops of the Iraqi army. Known as the Golden division,


trained and accompanied From the North, a force made up


of Kurds, known as the Peshmerga, Also from the South,


a militia made up of Shia fighters who have been accused


of human rights abuses. British planes have bombed outlying


villages, reportedly guided in by British personnel


on the ground. To the North West, a corridor


has been left for some of the 3000 plus IS fighters,


in theory an escape route which could limit the bloodshed


when fighting starts in the city. We've had 4-5 days of battle


and it's taking place in the outlying villages


and there have been some successes and some failures,


but the momentum is building. And the real question will be


when the attackers get towards the city itself,


how strong are the defences? It will crack but it might crack


within 48 hours or 2-3 weeks. IS has fought back,


on Friday they attack sites in the city of Kirkuk,


including a power station. The United Nations believes hundreds


of thousands of families have been rounded up


as potential human shields. The battle could be bloody,


but what about when it's over? The Shia militias, the Iraqi army,


the Peshmerga guerrillas, some of the Turkish elements,


they all want a share of the action. They are in Mosul, not


for altruistic reasons. They are there because they want


to be part of whatever happens next. The biggest issue is how the Sunni


majority in Mosul reacts to the Shia militias which have


helped to liberate them. ARCHIVE FOOTAGE: When Sir Francis


Humphrey went to Mosul If it all seems like something


from the archive, when the Middle East went up in flames


and was then carved up, it is because that is what is


happening in Iraq right now. National identity has been cut


across by other identities such And that means that putting together


a so-called nation state again Almost certainly there will be


a new form of Kurdish state, almost certainly in northern Iraq


at the end of this crisis, and what is happening in Mosul


is a microcosm of what is happening elsewhere across the Levant


which is that it is melting down. Big questions, questions that


come after the battle. The coalition forces are advancing


but this is just the beginning. I'm joined now by the International


Development Minister Rory Stewart. In a former life he was


the coalition Deputy-Governor of two provinces in Southern Iraq following


the Iraq intervention of 2003. Is there any doubt that at


stage Mosul will fall to the forces of Iraq and its allies? The first


thing is that war is very uncertain and there are cliches about it being


the graveyard of predictions and we don't want to make confident


predictions but the basic structure is that there are 30,000 Iraqi


forces outside and only a few thousand Daesh fighters inside and I


would say it is overwhelmingly likely that the batter will one


STUDIO: -- the battle the won by the Iraqi forces.


June 2014 was a great success, they took a city of over in people and


they created what they tried to create a million state of 7 million


people, stretching across the Iraqi Syrian border, but since then they


have lost territory quite rapidly. Now they are losing the outskirts of


have lost territory quite rapidly. Mosul, and that is a fundamental


blow. Islamic State is all about territory and holding state, that is


what makes it different from Al-Qaeda. If they lose Mosul that


will be a cynic -- significant blow to their credibility. Hillary


Clinton said on Wednesday's presidential debate that when Iraqi


forces with their allies including the United Kingdom gain control of


Mosul they should continue to press into Syria to take back Raqqa which


is the de facto capital of the caliphate, what is left of it, do we


want Iraqi forces to pursue IS into Syria? Very important question.


Delayed in Raqqa needs to come from people on the Syrian side of the


border and that is an important principle -- the lead. In the end of


that enemy, Islamic State, is a common enemy for odd members of the


coalition including the Iraqi government. -- all members. There is


likely to be a humanitarian crisis especially if it ends up with street


to street fighting and IS are difficult to dislodge what are we


doing about that? We are doing very detailed scenario planning. It is


very uncertain what the scenario will be but much investment has gone


into creating a network of camps, refugees STUDIO: Refugee camps


around cash refugee camps, and that is where money, British money, ?40


million has gone recently into supporting that, especially in terms


of medical support to people. The United nation's emergency response


budget is ?196 million but only one third funded which sounds like we


are putting up a big chunk of what is already being funded. Why is


that? The international committee can't say they haven't seen this


assault coming, and the humanitarian fallout they may see from it. You


are absolutely right. We have seen it coming and we have been planning


since debris and we have put in about ?167 million into this --


planning since February. There has been a change in the nature of the


appeal, and if there is a lag in the accounting of it, but the money we


need at this stage is in place and we do have the support structure in


place for those refugees. You are right the United Nations is


continuing with its appeal and is asking for more money at the moment.


The converse magazine wrote this week that preparations for a big


exodus of people leaving the city have been made -- Economist


magazine. But confidence is not high in the preparations, is that a


unfair conclusion? If you can imagine the different scenarios, it


could be a few thousand and it could be a few hundred thousand coming out


of the city through a front line where the war is going on, that is


very difficult. You have to screen those people and disarm them, and


keep families together, and transport them and you have to bring


them into the refugee camps. The people working on this have been


working on this for long time, we have mapped the different routes we


have good camp infrastructure in place and we have people who have


worked in south to dam and other areas who are putting their


structures in place -- South Sudan. It is never easy but I think we have


done everything we can in the preparation for this. What is the


British role in what will probably be an even bigger issue, assuming


that Mosul is liberated and retaken, the humanitarian crisis is dealt


with, what role will we play in the rebuilding of Mosul? That will be


crucial to the future of Iraq, the second-biggest city and it will need


to be rebuilt. It will need to be rebuilt as a community as well as


bricks and mortar. And eight Sunni community that is not harassed by


the Shia. -- and eight. You are right. One of the core drivers is


that the Sunni community felt excluded and they did not feel they


have the trust from the Baghdad government. A lasting solution is


stopping some of Islamic State coming back, that involves making


sure the Sunni community have a stake in their future. That is


making sure that the governing structures are in place. The UK's


response is twofold, we have got to get the humanitarian aid right, that


is the short term, people who might be malnourished, coming out of the


front line. The second thing is working with the Iraqi government to


make sure that as we rebuild Mosul we do so in a way that that


population feels a connection to the Iraqi state. Islamic State is losing


territory everywhere in the Levant, it is almost finished in Iraq, we


think. It is down to one district in Libya, as well, just one small part


of the town. I suppose the risk is, if life is becoming more difficult


across these areas, it can start to look more in Europe and the United


Kingdom as a place to continue its terrorist attacks? That is a real


danger. You are right. This is a group which has proved over the last


five years very unpredictable and it changes for it quickly full stop


often it does unexpected things. In 2009 its predecessor had been


largely wiped out in Iraq and when it was under pressure in Syria it


went back into Iraq, and in the past it didn't hold territory but now it


holds territory, so you are right. There is a serious risk that as it


gets squeezed in the middle East it will try to pop up somewhere else


and Mac could include Europe and the United States -- that could. They


say that is something they have focused on full stop we also have a


big focus on counterterrorism security and making sure that we


keep the United Kingdom and Europe say. One final question. -- say. --


safe. Maybe events in Mosul could add to the migration crisis in


Europe, is that a possibility? Again, you are right, we have seen


in Syria it can push migration, the biggest push the migration was the


conflict in Syria, and that's the reason why we have but so much


energy into getting those refugee camps in place and getting the


humanitarian response in place -- put so much energy. People will want


to remain in their homes, this is their country, but we have got to


make it possible for them and that means in the short term looking


after their shelter and in the medium to long-term making sure they


have livelihoods, jobs and an economic development which is why


our support in Iraq is in the UK National interests because it deals


with these issues of migration and terrorists. Thanks for joining us.


I'm joined now by the Shadow Defence Secretary.


Does Labour support British participation in this offensive? We


fully support the participation in this offensive, extremely important


move forward and we voted for this back in 2014. We are asking the


government question is, of course, I was asking the Secretary of State


this week about this very offensive but we are fully behind our RAF


pilots out there and be trading that has been going on to help the forces


on the ground. -- the training full stop that is very clear. I wonder if


you'll lead it shares that clarity and that position. -- is your


leader. This is what Jeremy Corbyn has said.


What's been done in Iraq is done by the Iraqi


government, and currently supported by the British government.


I did not support it when it came up.


Well, I'm not sure how successful it's been, because most


of the action now appears to be moving in to Syria, so I think we


He doesn't sound very supportive. The issue about Mosul, it has been


very carefully prepared as Rory Stewart said and I hope we have


learned the lessons from previous offensives where we haven't learnt


sufficiently, and that is going to be crucial in this context. How the


aftermath is going to be dealt with. Of course will stop that clip was


from November last year, and things have changed. Two weeks ago he told


the BBC" I'm not sure it is working", in reference to air


strikes in Iraq, but it is working. We have got to see what happens in


Mosul, it is a very high-risk operation, but we also have to face


the fact that the people there are living under tyranny at the moment.


We have to ask very cirrus question shall stop he says he's not sure it


is working, when Mosul is the last major target be cleared of Islamic


State in Iraq. The combination of Allied air power has worked, why is


he not sure it is working? Because we have seen difficulties in the


past. But this was two weeks ago. It is essential that the work is done,


both planning for the refugees as Rory Stewart referred to, but also


in terms of reconstruction of the city and its community as you


mentioned. These are vital. This was about the ability to make progress


with Allied air power, special forces in Iraq, on the ground, do


you accept so far that has a strategy that seems to be working to


read Iraq of Islamic -- to read Iraq of Islamic State the question of the


car began placement. Ulloa -- we can't be complacent. The problems


they are creating where ever they are urged that we must continue to


pursue them. This is the first time we have spoken to since you have


become the Shadow Defence Secretary. I hope we will have a longer


interview. Will Labour's next manifesto include a commitment to


the renewal of Trident? It will. We made that commitment in 2007, that


is a firm commitment and we will honour that to our coalition allies


and our industrial partners and that is the vote which was taken


democratically and repeatedly has been reaffirmed by Labour conference


and we are a democratic party vote up you have squared that with Jeremy


Corbyn? He's in favour of democracy and he understands the situation,


but we also want to push for the UK to play a much bigger role on the


international stage on multilateral disarmament talks. You were very


clear there, I thank you for that. Support for Trident will be in the


next Labour manifesto. What has happened to Labour's review of


Trident policy? That review has been taking place over the year, we had a


very clear reaffirmation in the conference boat this year, we are


reaffirming our commitment to Trident -- vote. The review can't


change that? There is a process of review and a fair number of issues


related to defence, all parties do this. Of course. The review can't


change the commitment to Trident? We are not changing the commitment to


Trident. Russia is now the main strategic threat to this country? It


is a major strategic threat and we have got to work with our Nato


allies very closely and make sure that we respond and that we do not


let things pass. For example, we should be calling out Russia for the


way it has been a bombing humanitarian aid and we should be


taking them to international court over this, but we should also be


taking them to international court strengthening sanctions, somewhat


imposed over Ukraine. We try to do that, but the Italians wouldn't let


us. The Italians did not want to participate in the European


initiative but that doesn't stop individual countries for the Britain


should step up? Yes, we should look at what is practical to impose.


Thanks for joining us. Mosul is not the only major battle


being waged in the Middle East. The city of Aleppo in northern Syria


has seen some of the heaviest bombardment since Syria's


five-year-long civil war began. This week Russian warships,


in a deliberate show of power, sailed west through the English


channel en route to Syria. Nato says it's Russia's "largest


surface deployment" since the end of the Cold War in what is thought


to be preparation for a final assault


on the besieged city of Aleppo. In the city itself fighting


resumed overnight - following a 3-day ceasefire -


with more air strikes and heavy clashes in the city's


rebel-held eastern districts. Almost 500 people have been


killed and 2,000 injured since Syrian government forces,


backed by Russian air strikes, This week Theresa May condemned


Vladimir Putin's involvement in Syria, accusing Moscow


of being behind "sickening atrocities" in support


of President Assad's regime. But European leaders are divided


on how to respond and, with the United States preoccupied


with domestic politics, President Putin senses this


is his moment to bring the Syrian I'm joined now by the BBC's former


Diplomatic and Moscow Correspondent, Bridget Kendall, who is now Master


of Peterhouse College in Cambridge. Welcome. Good to see you in the BBC


studio again. Let me put up this satellite image of Aleppo here, to


get an idea of the scale. It was the biggest city in Syria. It was the


commercial capital and a huge cultural hub as well. Almost the New


York of Syria, to give you an idea of its significance to the country.


Let me show you now how it's been divided. The rebels are now in


control of the eastern part, about eight miles long and three miles


wide there, they're in purple. They are under great attacks still. Is it


inevitable that that purple part falls to the regime? That is what


President as Saad, the Russians and the Iranians hope. The fierce


bombardments we have seen is part of that. I'm reminded very much in the


Russian tactics of what happened in grudgingly in Chechnya in 2000, when


the Russians said, a warning for all civilians to lead, and then they


went ahead and they basically raised it to the ground. They are talking


about Al Nusrah as being one of the rebel groups. They got rid of all of


the terrorists. They talk about it being an Al-Qaeda offshoot. The


purpose of going in is to get rid of them. You get the civilians out and


then you take it. But this isn't like Chechnya. It is much more


complex. We have seen an attempt to take Aleppo before, and then there


was a rebel counter offensive. It's not so certain. And there are so


many different parties involved. We have seen the alarm in the west of


the extent of the civilian casualties. There have been


rumblings in the west of, the United States do something?


Shouldn't they stop the Syrian air force? This Russian aircraft carrier


steaming its way towards the Eastern Mediterranean is a symbolic gesture,


both to its own people, but also to the West, to say, don't get involved


in Aleppo if we go ahead. Don't try and stop us because we could up the


ante. They have not been great visual pictures, because the


aircraft carrier looks a bit clapped out, belching out smoke! If the


rebel controlled area does fall, it would be seen as a great victory for


President as Saad and his Russian allies. What is the aim of Russia


here? What would they then do, if Aleppo Falls? It is part of a plan


that President Putin set out in his UN speech in 2014, before Russia


went into Syria. The aim is to put President Assad back in charge.


President Putin said this weekend that either is Assad in Damascus, or


its Al Nusrah. There is nothing in between. They want to eliminate the


argument for a moderate opposition. They want to make it plain that the


only way to get a stable Syria is to have Assad back in charge. Even sue


argue for a rump steak lit, leaving aside what is happening with IAS.


They have already said they want to have an enlarged military presence


at their bases. And they have a big naval base. It is. It is a chance to


push for this when he sees the West is being distracted and divided.


Europe and America, by elections and so on. Just before the US elections.


The Americans are worried about that, Europeans are being distracted


by Brexit. He can push to his maximum advantage now, before there


is a new US president. If they do take that part of Aleppo, and that


part of northern Syria, does Mr Putin want us to recognise, to


admit, that that is now his sphere of influence? I think the rhetoric


from the Russians is that they want the West to recognise that they are


an equal powerful partner. It's not just the US that runs the writ in


the Middle East. Russia is as important as it is. It is engaging


with Saudi Arabia and has mended fences with Turkey. Syria is the


place from which it can launch its message that it is a big player in


the Middle East. Russia wants the West to understand that this isn't a


country that was dismembered after the end of the Soviet Union and is


now a week. It is back, and it is strong. That is an important


message. Looking at the economy. It is in recession. GDP has been


falling, partly because of the price of oil. It is highly dependent on


hydrocarbons, and is expected to of oil. It is highly dependent on


fall again. Its people are falling again. People don't realise how


small the Russian economy is. Its GDP is about the size of Italy's. It


is smaller than the UK economy. Bigger than it was 15 or 20 years


ago. But so is Britain's does it help to take people's mind of this?


A huge shock to the Russian economy was a drop in the price of oil and a


price of gas. A drop in the price of the ruble as well. This is hurting


the people of Russia. On the one hand, it is the war in Syria, which


is very important for Russia to sort out that part of the world and


dispensed terrorists who might be danger to -- is dangerous to Russia.


But he had also has presidential election is going up. They are


supposed to be 2018, but some feel he will bring them forward to 2017,


because the economy is not doing so well. But you need a good story for


the Russian people. Thank you very much.


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


Coming up on the programme: Nicola Sturgeon publishes her draft


referendum bill and warns Theresa May if there's a hard Brexit


there will be another vote on independence.


We'll hear from a former SNP leader why he thinks that's


The Scottish Greens could scupper another independence referendum.


I'll be asking their leader whether they might.


And Pravda is coming to Edinburgh.


The former leader of the SNP, Gordon Wilson, has warned the party


to put its own house in order before going for a second referendum.


He fears that, with the IndyRef2 Draft Bill published,


there will be those in the party who'll push


A message was do not push for independence right now.


The reasons against having one is that Scotland potluck Independent is


unlikely to win because there a gap between ten point between 45 and 55.


Quite narrow territory in which to fight it. Of course if there is


another provocation from London which seems to be the case with


Theresa May and her ministers being very harsh on the consultation with


Scotland, who can tell what the result will be. If you go back to


the first referendum, then of course there will be a huge gap to begin


with. It started moving in favour of independence when George on spawn


was Chancellor of the Exchequer and started threatening Scotland that he


could not use the pound. For now, you do not think it should be done.


My preference is that over the longer times and we should focus on


the narrative of it. Why is God and should have it what the economic


advantages would be, what weaknesses we need to resolve in our society,


in other words to do the basic homework. People will want to know


and want to touch this solution and see if it is solid enough for them


to rely on. Of course, beyond that there is a question of identity.


That seems to fall into place automatically. There are dangers on


there? On an interview on the radio comedies said a second referendum at


the moment could be a waste of time. It is more than that, if they lost a


second referendum, it would be a waste of time and it would be


counter productive. That was me being dogmatic about it. Of course


Theresa May faces the same problem. Theresa May faces the same problem.


-- diplomatic about it. If she Theresa May carries on in the way


she is legible push Scotland towards independence. It is a gamble for


both sides. Your golden rule is to not have a referendum and less you


know you can win it. That is my preference in business and in life.


It is far better to be in a strong position, having laid down the


conditions under which it will take place and I think in the current


rather difficult situation of Brexit, then it is going to be a


very complicated question to answer. And I am not sure it can easily be


done over the course of our six-month referendum campaign.


Having said that, one of the things you have got to note is the access


to the single market. Nicola Sturgeon is pushing the independence


line as a means of kicking the British Government into looking at


line as a means of kicking the Scotland's needs. Scotland will


suffer the pretty badly if the Brexit deal does not look at our


particular needs in economy and society. She is quite right.


Unfortunately, this. Its people do not show the aim enthusiasm. Because


if they showed support for independence and another referendum,


then you would find that London's views would change very sharply. Do


you think before you have a referendum that 55 or 60% favour in


the polls is then you would need? Yes. My figure is like 55 to 60 is


safer territory. Like most former politicians I am fairly


opportunistic in these matters and things can change radically. At the


moment, the consensus view is that we need a bit of a buffer. Do not


forget that we are living in tremulous times with the UK pulling


out of the European Union. That is both a plus and a minus factor and


there are the Scottish economy declining in the last couple of


years because of the drop in oil revenues and oil activity affecting


jobs. It is not the best of time, but on other hand there are


challenges and there are opportunities. One must keep their


mind open. You would like a longer opportunities. One must keep their


term campaign for independence, not a referendum necessarily. But that


to one side. For independence. That campaign should be separated out


from the SNP Government, wouldn't you? I think the thing that the SNP


has to keep in mind is that the outcome of a referendum may be a


vote on it's popularity. The success of the 2014 independence referendum,


there was a way in which it brought together all sorts of people out of


the dark so to speak and into the political arena. New enthusiasms.


They still exist, although I suspect a lot of the phase has gone out of


the bottle since. We have to get them together to get the argument as


to why Scotland needs independence and so that they consider you to


their friends and family and neighbours. Also, the work has to be


done. My experience as a member of Parliament for 13 years was I had


been naive view of being elected that I had plenty of finding thing.


In actual fact, I was on a treadmill had no time to think will stop --


plenty of time to think. The running of the management was subcontracted


by the SNP. Image of a priority to the question


of independence itself. It should be stressed that a referendum is only a


means to an end. It is not meant to itself. The end must be independence


for the point of view of the nationalist community. We have got


to prepare the ground so that people are persuaded that the best possible


thing for Scotland in the long run and the middle term is to attain


independence. By definition that would involve bringing in other


people out of the SNP. One of the reason I am asking you this is that


I will be talking later in this programme to Patrick Harvie, the


leader of the Scottish Greens. I don't know what he will save, but I


know there is a feeling amongst some who are in favour of the


independence but are not in the SNP, but they are being a bit patronised


and being left out. You might have a solution to that? Yes. I don't


think... I have relaxed with the years. There is an example, in the


early 70s there was a body called radio free Scotland which was


separate from the SNP, but worked alongside it and produced the


message. I would think that we don't need to separate bodies, but we


message. I would think that we don't need the S and the governing


Scotland and giving a good there. -- the S NP governing Scotland. Also


the economic and social case for independence. That is where we need


to take the voices of other people including people like Patrick Harvie


and the Greens. Including many others in various organisations


which mushroomed during the referendum. They are still there.


They should still be consulted and that should be a strength that that


should be. We have to be careful about that because too much


independence and that point of view should cause anarchy. There has to


be some guidance. The SNP should not be heavy-handed. You said in a radio


interview that we did that was broadcast earlier that there was


home to be done. We talked a bit about the deficit that Scotland


might have should it become independent. I should apologise, I


said it was 15% of GDP. It is axing 15 million pounds, it is 10% of GDP.


A very big number still. We should talk about how the Scottish


Government should head of those objections and have a more balanced


budget. I know that you think that the figures don't reflect the state


of the Scottish economy. Is woke in that interview that these civil


service might be cut back. That is a tiny amount of money, isn't it? The


civil service contributes quite a bit of money in itself. The main


problem I have with the civil service from experience and looking


at it latterly is that it is not all that efficient. I would say that an


efficiency drive within the civil service itself, including a drop in


numbers, would be desirable, whether or not you had for independence. It


is also a bad thing to exist solely on 1's for services. The point I was


making was that it may or may not be a good thing to have more efficiency


in this double service, but it might not address the deficit problem. It


is such a small amount of public spending on the civil service. What


people don't realise is that when you take the figures that is the


estimate of Scotland boss might budget, which is based upon the fact


that the money that is allocated to Scotland is not spent in Scotland.


Foreign service, defence, Social Security. Some of it of course is


spent in Scotland. There are things that are excluded. What we don't


have at the moment is a Scottish budget. I think that Scotland should


re-fashion it's budget to suit the realities of independent Scotland.


We are not a cutdown party. One more thing I want to do ask you about


briefly. At the Lee Mack one point you made earlier was that you said


briefly. At the Lee Mack one point that support for independence was


27% at the beginning of the referendum campaign on one of your


points was that why was it only 27% after seven years of SNP Government.


What is your answer to that question that you raise? The reason is fairly


simple. The SNP had been preparing for Government over a period of


years and in fact, it's way of looking at independence was that it


became a Scottish referendum party and then surprisingly found itself a


nobility with able to deliver. Most of the gone into the thought of


independence and too much money had gone into Government. If your other


objective and is independence, then that is exactly. That is exactly the


point I'm making for the future. There should be a longer term


established in and protection for the case for independence so we


don't make the mistake of the 27% as in 2014.


As the delegates leave the Scottish Greens conference


in Perth this afternoon they'll surely be musing on the party's


While supporting the SNP's key objective of independence,


they've also committed to finding new ways to wring concessions


Relatively small in number, they have six MSPs, the Scottish Green


Party are not strangers for fighting to causes close to their hearts.


They made a stand on council tax and fracking and then there is the


Scottish Government 's backing of a third runway at Heathrow and a cut


in air passenger duty, moves which Patrick Harvie described as


unthinkable. With the Scottish Greens the only Scottish party in


unthinkable. With the Scottish favour of independence they should


be in a strong position to win concessions. We would like to see


the SNP standing their ground on being progressive, as they claim to


be, to get in in previous governments. They have said some


good words and done a few good things but there are areas where we


need to keep holding their feet to the fire and that is what we will


do. There are other policies where we will try a nudge the SNP in the


right direction, the progressive direction, away from looking after


big business which is tempting for them. Good Green Party support in


parliament be conditional? Personally I would put it that way


parliament be conditional? but whether that will be party


policy I can't comment because I am not involved in that but from a


personal point of view I would like to see conditions. The Patrick


Harvie message to the SNP is to commit to meaningful progress of


changes and you would get our support, failed to commit and you


risk being remembered as a timid government.


Well, joining me outside his party's conference in Perth


is the Scottish Green's co-convener Patrick Harvie.


I was going to say how blessed you are being in the fair city but it


appears to be raining! Well, we have had mixed weather in Perth, to be


fair, but there has been a very good atmosphere inside the conference,


not only as we celebrate the election of our additional MSPs in


the most recent Holyrood election but prepare as well for the local


elections next year where we will be fielding the biggest number of


candidates ever and with the capacity we have grown across the


country to get out and campaign on a scale that has been lacking in the


past so we are really optimistic about the achievement of getting


more councillors elected right about the achievement of getting


across Scotland. Can I get your view on something that Gordon Wilson was


talking about there, where he is keen on the idea of separating a


campaign for independence from the SNP running the Scottish Government


and he talked about having perhaps initially a think tank, something


that is independent of the SNP, which would involve people like


yourselves. Presumably you would welcome that. I would welcome a kind


of development. One of the challenge is to get over in that is how you


would ensure that the multiple arguments, the many cases on


independence would be heard within that, rather than just one dominant


voice. That was one of the problems of the 2014 campaign which we have


said openly in the past. The diversity of arguments about what an


independent Scotland could be light is one of the strengths and a


democratic system. We should be celebrating diversity arguments as a


strength in our culture, not regarding it as a weakness. There


are different arguments to be made about what kind of policies or


directions or economic futures the idea of an independent Scotland


could encompass. Just look at the question of oil and gas. We have


been arguing consistently that investment in a sustainable and


long-term economy that can provide jobs that last for the long-term is


an urgent priority, instead of just pretending Matfield is coming to the


end of their lives will somehow lost for ever. That is not realistic.


end of their lives will somehow lost With your extra MSPs, which you were


very quick to mention, the Scottish Greens have an incredibly powerful


position in this Parliament. You have been talking at this conference


about how your support for the SNP budget would be conditional on


various things like fracking and air passenger duty but it is not the


real power you have. The real power you have is that they cannot have


another independence referendum unless you back them. I think it


would be quite wrong for any political party to use the fact of


minority government as something to start playing games like that. I am


not going to trade off our support for a policy that we agree with in


exchange for completely different issues. The case needs to be


strengthened for independence, and I would agree with Gordon Wilson on


that point although I do not think I would agree with all the arguments


he might want to put, but the case needs to be strengthened.


Fundamentally this is a conflict between two referendum results. Let


us come that a moment. The real power you have is that you can say


to the SNP government, if you abolish air passenger duty we won't


vote for a seven part around -- separate referendum. If you don't


abolish fracking we won't vote for a separate referendum. I've always


understood that independence for you as a more tactical thing and it is


not your obsession but it is a way of getting the green policies you


want, so why subordinate the green policies you want and turn


independence into some kind of principal? The idea of Scotland


becoming independent is absolutely a means to an end, and means of


achieving the Sarah Scotland we would be more able to deliver with


the powers of independence. It is not a bargaining chip. Why not?


Because I think it would be at Tiley unethical way to do politics. We


will argue the case on fracking, as we have done, and pushed the


Scottish Government to add underground gas to that moratoria


manned ban it altogether but I am confident that working alongside all


of those who support a ban on fracking we will achieve that. The


Tories piping up and say how brilliant fracking would-be helps to


make our case for that. On the budget we are going to argue for


progressive taxation and make sure that we can protect the public


services that we need to value in Scotland. Why would you block their


budget but not their referendum? It is on the referendum that you have


the power. Unless they give in to what you want they simply can't have


it. You have immense leadership when it comes to the referendum. They


will find people in other parties it comes to the referendum. They


support them on their budget but only you can deliver their


referendum. I think it remains to be seen whether they find more support


on the budget and a new Finance secretary will have to give some


ground from the SNP 's manifesto position if he wants to persuade


others to support the budget. The idea that we would drop a policy


that we support, the idea of supporting independence or putting


that we support, the idea of that to the electorate on the basis


of a grubby deal about other issues, I don't think that would be


principle that all. But we have a pro-conflict between the way


Scotland voted in 2014 and 2016. I know and respect that not everyone


who voted remain this year will suddenly want to switch and --


support independence but we have to respect the fact that not everyone


who voted no in 2014 is willing to sit Scotland dragged out of Europe


against our will, surrendering rights, having rights taken away


from people that we did not vote to surrender. 62% of us voted to remain


in that mandate is being utterly disregarded by the UK Government and


I think the case is strong that the people of Scotland to need at least


the possibility of having that question put to them so that they


can resolve that conflict in the only way that is legitimate, a


democratic process, and the vote of all people, including the people who


were denied a vote in the EU referendum and EU nationals whose


lives are in turmoil as a result of that. Isn't your argument there from


a democratic point of view a bit iffy? To say that somehow or other a


a democratic point of view a bit pretty clear referendum vote that


was made two years ago is now cast into doubt? It is patronising to the


people of Scotland. Many people who voted no will say, I'm sorry, we


understood perfectly well what we voted for, we want to be part of the


United Kingdom and for you to start claiming that somehow we didn't know


what we were doing and therefore we have to vote again, sorry, we are


not having it. I don't think for a moment that people didn't know what


they were doing. We had a long and engaging debate in the long run up


to that campaign but the reality is if you voted no and then you voted


remain, you are not going to get what you want. We have to resolve


this fundamental conflict and there will be many people who voted no who


are willing to leave the European Union, but there are also people who


voted no who believed better together when they said that VoIP --


voting yes would put our future in Europe at rest and voting there


would safeguard it. That was a piece of nonsense as many of the lies of


the league campaign this year were shown to be utterly spurious


nonsense is oh there is a real conflict, fundamental conflict,


between the results of the way people in Scotland voted in these


two referendums. Your argument might have some credibility if there had


been a big upsurge in the polls in favour of either having a second


referendum or voted for independence, but there hasn't been,


so a lot of people in Scotland will say, thank you very much for


sympathising with our alleged democratic deficit that you are just


making this up and we are not interested. I think the polls are


showing there has been movement in real directions. The UK Government


are taking a 52% result across the UK and turning it into a mandate for


Art Brexit and taking us out not only of the European Union itself


but also out of the single market with all the economic consequences


that will have four people's jobs and incomes and coal industries. We


have just been speaking to some of the higher education sector in


Scotland here at the conference who are deeply concerned about the level


of interest from EU students coming to study here and their ability to


cooperate and collaborate with higher education institutions in


terms of research grants and funding. Scotland has made a


fantastic contribution to a lot of those projects and that kind of


thing is being put at risk and as people see the consequences of that


hard Brexit, of Liam Fox and Boris Johnson and others who have no


regard at all for the way Scotland voted, that is what they have been


aiming for and we will reject that. Going back to the beginning of this


conversation, there seems to be an acceptance within the SNP that some


aspects for the prospectus of independence, including the


currency, were not really convincing enough. We have had the collapse in


oil prices and the risk of a large deficit in Scotland. Everyone is


saying these issues must be addressed but the problem seems to


be that they are not, as a matter of fact being addressed, are they? We


are not getting answers. Well, the Scottish Green Party I think are the


only party who made any credible effort to suggest a credible


economic path of Scotland that ends our reliance on fossil fuels but


invest in economies and industries that will create the jobs that


communities, particularly those most reliant on fossil fuels, they need


to see a positive future rather than, as with previous ways of


deindustrialisation, people being left on the economic scrapheap. We


are also trying to do work and we will continue that this year on the


are also trying to do work and we alternatives of currency but the


idea of a currency union with a non-EU member state, if we were to


become independent and seek to be a full EU member, I think that is even


more problematic than it was in 2014 so I am glad there is some


willingness to start finally looking at laying the groundwork for the


other options that need to be made credible and need to be made


realistic options for Scotland. We have to leave it there. Thank you


very much. Russian warships have been


in the English Channel this week, in what some have seen


as a display of power. But Russia is also interested


in getting its world view So we've seen an expansion


in so called "soft power" too, with new state controlled media


outlets broadcasting And there've been reports


in the past few days that something called Pravda International,


apparently a successor to the once-powerful


Communist newspaper, Pravda was once the voice of the


Soviet Communist Party. If you read it in Tempra temperament grow one,


you knew it was what they were thinking in the Kremlin, probably.


If it was in Pravda, you knew that is what they wanted you to think


they were thinking in the Kremlin but what they were thinking could


sometimes be slightly different. But the break-up of the Soviet Union


changed everything for everyone, and for Pravda. Pravda failed to appear


today for the first time since the 1917 revolution. It was split into


two. There was a Pravda newspaper publication and also an online


Pravda and there was a dispute about who earned the name and there was a


court case and the court said that both entities could coexist.


Sputnik, funded by the Russian government recently set up in


Edinburgh, so it didn't seem too surprising when it was reported that


a new version of Pravda, Pravda International was also going to


establish a newsroom in the capital. There is a clear emphasis on


presenting the Russian viewpoint and the Russian perspective so they


presenting the Russian viewpoint and invested heavily in foreign news,


Sputnik publishes its languages in Sputnik publishes its languages in


-- articles on a number of languages which is all part of sending out


messages and getting the Russian message across and most people refer


to that as Russian soft power. Was it true? One of the first things


that struck me was no one was talking about in the Russian media.


This story got coverage in the Scottish media but it also got her a


little bit of attention down south in the Guardian and the times. The


Russian media normally pays quite close interest in what is happening


in England and the rest of the UK and so it was quite strange they


hadn't picked up on it. Trying to check out the details, starting with


the Pravda International website and it gets order and order. When I went


on to that website I found there were a lot of Hollywood celebrities


reading a Russian newspaper but it was not Pravda, it was an obscure


but eventually newspaper and there was an interesting story behind it.


These photos were real but I thought they might have been photo shopped,


but they were real and they were taken by a Hollywood producer and


his wife who happen to come from a root skewer little town and they had


done it has a weird publicity stunt. The photos were real but why they


were on the website of Pravda International was strange and it set


my mind thinking that it looks like a bit of a hoax.


And let this story that is nothing more than smoke and mirrors?


Brothers say it is nothing to do do with them. Neither do the people


that we have been able to trace who are linked to Pravda International.


More recently, the spat between the Russian international and the bank.


Some people have interpreted this as a attempt to silence Russian


opinion. This could potentially be a way for people to say it is not that


easy to quieten Russian opinion. There remains a possibility that


just perhaps there is some proof behind this story. It could not and


it still cannot completely be ruled out that there is a genuine


initiative here from people connected to the Pravda brand. It


seems unlikely. There is an old Soviet joke. There are two main


newspapers in the Soviet Union. There is one that means news and one


that means truth. Soviet citizens is to say that there is no truth in one


and no news in the other. Time now for a look


at the week ahead. I'm joined now by political


commentator Hamish Macdonell and Jenni Davidson of Holyrood


Magazine. Let us start by looking ahead. This


meeting tomorrow with Nicola Sturgeon and the other nations of


the UK, including Theresa May. What we expect to happen? For the first


time, it is no exaggeration to say these are crunch talks. They are


very important. The opportunity that Nicola Sturgeon has two sets of the


Scottish view to Theresa May. We cannot expect anything to come from


it. We know where the British Government sands. It really is an


occasion for both sides to get into a room together and know where they


are come out and say we had a decent discussion but more talks will have


to take place. Do you think these talks are five able to be fudged in


any way? It is quite difficult. If they had been more moderate and how


they put forward their positions, then that might have been the case.


Now Nicola Sturgeon has any set a red line in terms of what she wants.


Or else, it is another independence referendum. Because Theresa May and


David Davis have both said they are not giving this, then that is very


difficult to back down from. I am not sure how they are going to go


into negotiations from this point well they have 07 what they want.


There are possibilities other not? I have counted three different things.


One, there has been talk that the British Government might pay into


the budget if they can have the passport in rights for financial


services. This means that banks will not have the setup in London and do


business all across Europe. There is allsorts of talk for special


provisions for Northern Ireland because of the border with the


Republic. There has also been talk after the meeting Theresa May had


after the owner of Mr -- Nissan. That may be that it could be paid


into the car budget. There is a bit of grit therefore Nicola Sturgeon to


get into their and say there is not much difference between this and


what we are saying about Scotland. Yes, there would be if Nicola


Sturgeon had not been so strong about the position she had taken.


She says that she wants access to the singer market, full protection


for Scottish residents and free movement of labour. If we just think


for a second that these are two friendly sides want to reach a


copper mines, then a comprised could friendly sides want to reach a


be reached. We might not have Scotland in the single market, but


we might have it more in it than other parts of the UK. If we were


talking about two Unionist administrations then perhaps we


could be. But we're talking about a Scottish Government that have the


dark hour red line issues and if we do not get them they are our red


line issues. If it does not deliver those things, Nicola Sturgeon has no


choice but to go to the people game because she has said that that is


what she will do. Do you agree with that? Isn't there some room? I do


yeah. Of course that I was making maximum demands because that is the


sensible thing to do when you start a negotiation. She could say I have


got this and that but it is not exact what we have asked for but you


can't always got what you want. I agree with Hamish. It was a


different party, a Unionist party, she could say this is my starting


point for negotiations. Something less is OK. Because she did -- is


already under parties pressure to deliver a second referendum, then


she cannot back down if you does not get what she wants. It will be


difficult. She gathers and off, but she has to deliver. That track she


can put it off. She will be saying thanks for nothing, mate. Gordon


Wilson represents an important strand. He says: also let us not


rush into this. I was at the SNP conference a week or two ago. A few


people said that if we get this wrong and rush into this then we are


finished. That is the line Gordon Wilson are saying. Let us not rush


into this. Take the time and make sure we get it right. If we get that


wrong then it will be finished. Thank you very much.


I'll be back at the same time next week.


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by minister of state for international development Rory Stewart, shadow secretary of state for defence Nia Griffith and Paul Nuttall MEP. Political panellists include The Sun's Tom Newton Dunn, The Guardian's Polly Toynbee and The Spectator's Toby Young.

Download Subtitles