20/11/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer hear from the candidates for the Ukip leadership and look ahead to the chancellor's Autumn Statement.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 20/11/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks - welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Theresa May says she'll deliver on Brexit but does that mean leaving


the EU's Single Market and the Customs Union?


Tory MPs campaign for a commitment from the Prime


The Chancellor pledges just over a billion pounds worth of spending


on Britain's roads but is that it or will there be


Their last leader was just 18 days in the job.


Now the second UKIP leadership election this year


Amid delays and growing frustration among passengers,


I'll be asking the Transport Minister Humza Yousaf if he thinks


Abellio are still fit to run ScotRail.


is it about a bigger conflict in Europe?


And with me - as always - and, no, these three aren't doing


the Mannequin challenge - it's our dynamic, demonstrative,


dazzling political panel - Helen Lewis, Isabel Oakeshott


and Tom Newton Dunn they'll also be tweeting throughout the programme.


First this morning - Theresa May has said


"Brexit means Brexit" - but can the Prime Minister -


who was on the Remain side of argument during the referendum


Well, Leave-supporting Tory MPs are re-launching


the "European Research Group" this morning to keep Mrs May's feet


Are you worried that you cannot trust Theresa May until payment to


deliver full Brexit was Magellan like I totally trust Theresa May,


100% behind her. She has displayed a massive amount of commitment to


making a success of Brexit for the country.


We don't know that yet, because nothing has happened. Why, then,


have you formed a pressure group? We were fed up with the negativity


coming out around Brexit. I feel positive about the opportunities we


face, and we are a group to provide suggestions. Who do you have in mind


when you talk about negativity - the Chancellor? No, from the Lib Dems,


for example, from Labour MPs. This is a pressure group for leaving


membership of the single market and customs union, correct? That is what


we are proposing. It has a purpose other than just to combat


negativity. When it comes to membership of the single market and


the customs union, can you tell us what Government policy is towards


both or either? Rightly, the Government hasn't made the position


clear, and I think that is the right approach, because we don't want to


review our negotiating hand. What we're saying... I'm not asking what


you are saying. Can you tell us what Government policy is towards


membership of these institutions? The Government wants to make sure


British businesses have the right to trade with EU partners, to forge new


trade deals with the rest of the world. We hope to Reza may speak at


Mansion house this week. -- we had Theresa May speak at Mansion house


this week. She has been clear, saying it was not a binary choice.


And she's right. Let's run that tape, because I want to pick up on


what she did say. This is what she had to say about the customs union


at Prime Minister's Question Time. On the whole question of the customs


union, trading relationships that we have with the European Union and


other parts of the world once we have left the European Union, we are


preparing carefully for the formal negotiations. We are preparing


carefully for the formal negotiations. We want to ensure we


have the best possible trading deal with the EU once we have left. Do


you know what she means when she says being in the customs union is


not a binary choice? I think she's right when she says that. At the


moment, and you know this, as long as we are in the customs union, we


cannot set our own tariffs or rules, cannot have a free trade agreement


with the US or China. We need to leave a customs union to do that.


Binary means either you are in or you are out, self which is it? We


still want to trade with the EU, and I think we can have a free trade


agreement with the EU. That is a separate matter, and it has to do


with the single market. What about the customs union? We need to leave


the customs union. We do it and properly. That is how to get the


most out of this opportunity. Summit is a binary choice? The Prime


Minister is right when she says it's not a binary choice. Both can't be


right. We can leave the customs union, get their benefits, and have


a free trade agreement with zero tariffs with the EU. So it is a


binary choice an either be stale really. Yellow like I am saying the


Prime Minister is right when she says it is not a binary choice. -- I


am saying the Prime Minister is right. We need clarity. Youth had


said -- you have said it is a binary choice. We need to leave the


constraints of the customs union. It pushes up prices. The EU is not


securing the right trade deals, and if we want to make the most of it,


we need to get out there and get some deals going. Do you accept that


if we remain in the customs union, we cannot do our own free-trade


deals? Yellow right 100%. That is why we have to leave. -- 100%. Do


you accept that if we leave the customs union but stay with


substantial access, I don't say membership, but substantial access


to the single market, that goods going from this country to the


single market because we're no longer in the union will be subject


to complicated rules of origin regulations, which could cost


business ?13 billion a year? I would like to see a free-trade agreement


between the UK and the EU. Look at the Canadian deal. I give you that,


but if we're not in the customs union, things that we bring in on


our own tariffs once we've left, we can't just export again willy-nilly


to the EU. They will demand to see rules of origin. Norway has to do


that at the moment and it is highly complicated expensive. I think if we


agree a particular arrangement as part of this agreement with the EU,


we can reach an agreement on that which sets a lower standard, which


sets a different level of tariffs, which protects some of our


industries. Let's suppose we have pretty much free trade with the EU


but we are out of the customs union, and let's suppose that the European


Union has a 20% tariff on Japanese whisky and we decide to have a 0%


tariff - what then happens to the whisky that comes into Britain and


goes on to the EU? The EU will not let that in. That will be part of


the negotiation. I think there is a huge benefit for external operators.


Every bottle of Japanese whisky, they will have to work out the rules


of origin. There have been studies that show there is a potential for


50% increase in global product if we leave. We're losing the benefits of


free trade. I understand, I am asking for your particular view.


Thank you for that. Is it not surprising Mr Hannan could


not bring himself to say we would leave the customs union? It is


messy. The reason there is this new group of Tory MPs signing up to a


campaign to make sure we get a genuine Brexit is because there is


this vacuum. It is being filled with all sorts of briefing from the other


side. There is a real risk in the minds of Brexit supporting MPs that


the remaining side are going to try to hijack the process, not only


through the Supreme Court action, which I think most Brexit MPs seem


to accept the appeal will fail, but further down the line, through


amendments to the great repeal bill. This is a pressure group to try to


hold the Prime Minister to account. There is plenty of pressure on the


Prime Minister effectively to stay in the single market and the customs


union, and if you do both of these things, de facto, you have stayed in


the EU. She is in a difficult position because there is no good


faith assumption about what Theresa May wants because she was a


Remainer. There is all this talk about a transitional arrangement,


but she can't sell that as someone who voted to remain. The way Isabel


has characterised it is interesting. There is a betrayal narrative.


Everyone is looking to say that she has betrayed the true Brexit. Since


the Government cannot give a clear indication of what it once in terms


of the customs union, which sets external tariffs, or the single


market, which is the free movement of people, capital, goods and


services, others are filling this vacuum. Right. The reasons they


can't do this are, first, they don't know if they can get it or not. We


saw this with the renegotiation the last Prime Minister. What are they


hoping to get? The world on a stick, to get cake and eat it. You go into


a negotiation saying, let's see what we can get in total. Are they going


to ask the membership of the single market? Yellow I think they will ask


for a free trade agreement involving everything. You can demand what you


want. The question is, do they stand a cat's chance in hell of getting


it? They don't know. Welcome back. We will be back, believe me. It is


150 day since we found out the UK had voted to leave the EU, but as we


have heard, remain and leave campaigners continue to battle about


what type of relationship we should have with the EU after exit.


Leave campaigners say that leaving the EU


also means quitting the


Single Market, the internal European trading bloc that includes free


movement of goods, services, capital and people.


They point to evidence that leading Leave supporting


politicians ruled out staying in the Single Market during


Andrea Leadsom, for example, said it would almost


certainly be the case that the UK would come out of the Single Market.


When asked for a yes or no on whether the UK should stay


"No, we should be outside the Single Market."


And Boris Johnson agreed with his erstwhile ally, saying, "Michael


Gove was absolutely right to say the UK


They've released a video of clips of Leave campaigners speaking before


the referendum apparently saying that the UK should stay in the


Nigel Farage, for example, once said that on leaving


the EU we'll find ourselves part of the European economic area


Owen Paterson, the former Environment Secretary,


once made the startling statement that only a madman would actually


And Matthew Elliott, the Vote Leave chief, said


that the Norwegian option would be initially attractive for some


But do these quotes create an accurate picture of what


To cast some light on where these quotes came from we're


joined by James McGrory, director of Open Britain


Welcome to the Sunday Politics. . Your video has statements from leave


campaigners hinting they want to stay in the single market. How many


were made during the referendum campaign? I don't know. Not one was


made during the referendum campaign. Indeed, only two of the 12


statements were recorded after Royal assent had been given to the


referendum. Only one was made this year before the referendum.


Throughout the campaign am a leave campaigners lauded the Norwegian


model. Norway are in the single market but not in the EU. They went


out of their way not to be pinned down on a specific trading


arrangement they want to see in the future with Europe, when the


Treasury model the different models it was the EEA or a free-trade


agreement. I understand. Does it not undermine your case that none of the


12 statements on your video were made during the campaign itself,


when people were giving really serious thought to such matters? The


Leave campaign weren't giving serious thought to such matters.


They did not set out the future trading model they wanted to see.


But you cannot produce a single video with somebody saying we should


stay in the single market during the campaign. Daniel Hanna had talked


about the Norwegian model as a future option. One comment from


Nigel Farage dates back to 2009, when we didn't even know if we would


have a referendum or not. Does it not stretch credibility to go back


to the time when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister? The overall point


stands. It is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of the options.


Daniel Hannan, described as the intellectual godfather of the Leave


movement is saying that no one is talking about threatening our place


in the signal market. I think it's legitimate to point out the Leave


campaign never came forward with a credible argument. We have


highlighted some of the quotes you picked out from leave campaigners


over time. Do you think you have fully encapsulated their arguments


accurately? I don't think in a 92nd video you can talk about the full


thing. -- a 90-2nd video. Some of them want to seek a free-trade


agreement, some to default on to World Trade Organisation tariffs.


There is a range of opinion in the Leave campaign. Let's listen to the


clip you used on Owen Paterson first.


Only a madman would actually leave the market.


Only a madman would actually leave the market.


It's not the EU which is


a political organisation delivering the prosperity and buying our goods.


It's the market, it's the members of the market and we'll carry on


I mean, are we really suggesting that the


economy in the world is not going to come to come


to a satisfactory trading arrangement with the EU?


Are we going to be like Sudan and North


It is ludicrous this idea that we are going to leap off a


What he said when he said only a madman would leave Europe, was that


we would continue to trade, we would continue to have access. Any country


in the world can have access. What the Leave campaign suggested is our


trade would continue uninterrupted, they are still at it today, David


Davis used the phrase, uninterrupted, from the dispatch box


recently. You misrepresented him by saying only a madman would leave the


Single Market and stopped it there, because he goes onto say that of


course we want Leave in the sense of continuing to have access. I don't


think he was about axis, he is talking


about membership. He doesn't use the word membership at all. He talks


about we are going to carry on trading with them, we will not leap


off, we will carry on trading. Anybody can trade with the EU, it's


the terms on which you trade that is important and leave campaigners and


Patterson is an example of this, saying we can trade as we do now,


the government saying we can trade without bureaucratic impediments and


tariff free. The viewers will make up their mind. Let's listen to the


views of Matthew Elliott, the Chief Executive of Vote Leave.


When it comes to the Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that


it might be initially attractive for some business people.


So you then cut him off there but this is what he went on to say in


the same clip, let's listen to that. When it comes to the Norwegian


option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initially attractive


for some business people. But then again for voters


who are increasingly concerned about migration in the EU,


they will be very concerned that it allows free movement


of people to continue. Again, you have misrepresented him.


He said the Norwegian model has attractions but there are real


problems if it involves free movement of people, which it does.


But you cut that bit out. I challenge anyone to represent them


accurately because they took such a range of opinions. I don't know what


we are supposed to do. You are misrepresenting them. He is saying


the Norwegian option is attractive to business, I understand why. It


might not be attractive for voters. But then he said if it allowed free


movement of people it could be an issue. You took that out. You are


saying this is a definitive position. I'm suggesting you are


distorting it. This is what you had Mr Farage say.


On D+1 we'll find ourselves part of the European economic area


This is what he then went on to say in that same clip that you didn't


run. There is absolutely


nothing to fear in terms of trade from leaving


the on D+1 we'll find ourselves part


of the European Economic Area and we should use our


membership of the EEA as a holding position from which


we can negotiate as the European Union's biggest export


market in the world, as good a deal, my goodness me,


if Switzerland can have one we So there again, he says not that we


should stay in the Single Market as a member, but that we stay in the EA


as a transition until we negotiate something. -- EEA. This whole clip


is online, how would you get away with this distortion? It is not a


distortion, the whole point is to point out they do not have a


definitive position, he is arguing for membership of the Single Market,


for a transitional period. For the transition. How long does that go


on, what does he want to then achieve? Not very quickly but he


does not say we should stay members of the Single Market and you didn't


let people see what he went on to say, you gave the impression he


wanted to stay in the one it. It would not be a video then, it would


be a seven-week long lecture. They took so many positions, and the idea


now that they were clear with people that we should definitely leave the


Single Market I think is fictitious. You are trying to make out they all


had one position which was to remain members of the one it. You see the


full clips that is not what they are saying. We are trying to point out


there is no mandate to leave the Single Market. The idea the Leave


campaign spoke with unanimity and clarity of purpose and throughout


the whole campaign said we will definitely leave the Single Market


is not true. That is the whole point of the media. We showed in the


montage in the video just before we came on, we said that then Prime


Minister, the then Chancellor, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, being


categorical that if you vote to leave the EU, you vote to leave


membership of the Single Market. What bit of that didn't you


understand? Under duress they occasionally said they wanted to


leave. Some of them wanted to leave the Single Market. All of the other


promises they made, whether ?350 million for the NHS, whether a VAT


cut on fuel, points-based system. You do not have a single quote of


any of these members saying they want to be a member. Daniel Hannan


has said consistently that Norway are a part of the Single Market. You


spend the referendum campaign criticising for Rim misrepresenting


and misrepresenting and lying and many thought they did. Having seen


this many will conclude that you are the biggest liars. I think it is


perfectly reasonable to point out that the Leave campaign did not have


a clear position on our future trading relationship with Europe.


That is all this video does. It doesn't say we definitely have to


stay in the Single Market, it just says they do have a mandate to drag


us out of our biggest trading partner.


Now people have seen the full quotes in context our viewers will make up


their mind. Thank you. Now - voting closes next week


in the the Ukip leadership contest. The second Ukip leadership contest


this year after the party's first female leader - Diane James -


stood down from the role Since then the party's lurched from


farce to fiasco. It's a world gripped by uncertainty,


split into factions. Yes, 2, because they're


having their second Watch as the alpha male,


the Ukip leader at Nigel Watch as the alpha male,


the Ukip leader Nigel Farage, hands power to the new alpha


female Diane James. The European Parliament


in Strasbourg, October. Another leading light and possible


future leader, the MEP Steven Wolfe,


has been laid low after an alleged tussle with a colleague


during a meeting. A few days later he is


out of hospital and I will be withdrawing my


application to become I'm actually withdrawing


myself from Ukip. You're resigning from the party?


I'm resigning with immediate effect. And this week a leaked document


suggested the party improperly spent EU funds on political


campaigning in the UK. Another headache for whoever takes


over the leadership of the pack. One contender is Suzanne Evans,


a former Tory councillor and was briefly suspended for


disloyalty. Also standing, Paul Nuttall,


an MEP from Liverpool who has been by Farage's side


as his deputy for six years. There's another big beast


in the Ukip leadership contest, and I'm told


that today he can be spotted He's John Rees-Evans,


a businessman and adventurer who is offering members the chance


to propose policies via a website We've got really dedicated


passionate supporters who feel like they're not really


being listened to and are not even Typically what happens


is they just basically sit there until six months before


a General Election when they are contacted and asked to go out


and leaflet and canvas. Even at branch level people feel


there is not an adequate flow of communication


up-and-down the party. Are you not going to take part in


any hustings? He left a hustings saying


the contest was an establishment coronation and has


made colourful comments in the past. He's in favour of the death penalty


for crimes like paedophilia. I think there is a clear


will amongst the offences should be dealt with


decisively. But again, on an issue like that,


that is something that Our members are not


going to agree with me on everything and I don't believe that


I would have any authority to have the say and determine


the future What method would you use


for the death penalty? Again, that is something that could


be determined by suggestions made So you'd have like an online


poll about whether you use the electric chair,


or lethal injection? For example, arguments would be made


in favour of This is such a small aspect


of what I'm standing for. Essentially, in mainstream media


they try to by focusing on pretty irrelevant


details. This is one vote that


the membership would have. What I'm actually trying to do


in this party is to revolutionise the democratic


process in the UK, and that's really what your viewers should


be concentrating on. With him at the helm he reckons Ukip


would win at Meanwhile, in New York,


on a visit to Trump Tower, Nigel Farage admired the plumage


of the President-elect, a man he has described as


a silverback gorilla, a friendship that's been condemned by some


in this leadership contest. There are also elections


to the party's National Executive Committee, a body


that's been roundly criticised by And we're joined now by two


of the candidates in the Ukip leadership election -


Suzanne Evans and Paul Nuttall. We are going to kick off by giving


each of them 30 seconds to lay out their case as to why they would be


the less leader starting with Suzanne Evans.


Ukip is at its best when it is scaring the political establishment,


forcing it to address those problems it would rather ignore. But it


really change people's lives for the better and fast, we need to win


seats and elections right across the country. To win at the ballot box we


need to attract more women, more ethnic


minorities, and more of those Labour voters who no longer recognise their


party. I know how to do that. Ukip under my


leadership will be the same page about it, common-sense, radical


party it has always been, just even more successful. Thank you, Suzanne


Evans, Paul Nuttall. I'm standing on a platform of unity and experience.


I believe the party must come together if it is to survive and


prosper. I believe I'm the best candidate to ensure that happens, I


am not part of any faction in the party, and beyond that I have done


every single job within the party, whether that is as head of policy,


whether that is Party Chairman, deputy leader for Nigel for the past


six years. I believe Ukip has great opportunities in Labour


constituencies where we can move in and become the Patriot invoice of


working people, and beyond that we have to ensure the government's feet


are held to the fire on Brexit and we get real Brexit, not a


mealy-mouthed version. How will you get a grip on this? People have to


realise that the cause is bigger than any personality, we have to get


together in a room and sort out not just a spokespeople role but roles


within the organisation, Party Chairman, party secretary, and


whatnot. But as I say, Ukip must unite, we are on 13% in the opinion


polls, the future is bright, there are open goals but Ukip must be on


the pitch to score them. He says he's the only one that can get a


grip on this party. I disagree, I have a huge amount of experience in


the party as well and also a background that I think means I can


help bring people together. I have always said nothing breeds unity


faster than success and under my leadership we will be successful.


There is concern about the future of our National Executive Committee


going forward. Mr Farage called it the lowest grade of people I have


ever met, do you agree? I think he must have been having a bad day, I


think we need to make it more accountable to the membership, more


open, more democratic. What would you do with the National Executive


Committee? I have been calling for the National Executive Committee to


be elected reasonably since 2010 giving the members better


communication lines and make it far more transparent. Would you have a


clear out of the office? I wouldn't, I think the chairman of the party,


Paul Upton, the interim chairman, is doing a good job and the only person


who has come out of the summer with his reputation enhanced. Let me show


you a picture we have all seen of your current leader, Mr Farage, with


President-elect Donald Trump. Paul Nuttall, you criticise Mr Farage's


decision to appear at rallies during the American election and called Mr


Trump appalling. Do you stick by that? I wouldn't have voted for him.


I made it clear. Do you still think he's appalling now that he is


President-elect? Some of the things he said were appalling during the


campaign that he said. But he would be good for Britain, trade,


pro-Brexit and he is an Anglo file and the first thing he did was put


the bust of Winston Churchill back in the Oval Office. You, Suzanne


Evans, called Mr Trump one of the weakest candidates the US has had. I


said the same about Hillary Clinton. They cannot both be the weakest. The


better candidate on either side would have beaten the other, that is


quite clear. Do you stand by that, or are you glad that your leader Mr


Farage has strong ties to him? I am, why wouldn't I be? For Ukip to have


that direct connection, it can be only good for a party. Were you not


out of step and Mr Farage is in step because it looks like your vote is


according to polling I have seemed like Mr Trump and his policies? Let


me finish. If I am the leader of Ukip I will not be involving myself


in foreign elections, I will because in trading here in this country


ensuring we get Ukip people elected to council chambers and get seats in


2020. The other thing your leader has in


common with Mr Trump is that he rather admires Vladimir Putin. Do


you? I don't. If you look at Putin's record, he has invaded Ukraine and


Georgia. I am absolutely not a fan. I think that Vladimir Putin is


pretty much a nasty man, but beyond that, I believe that in the Middle


East, he is generally getting it right in many areas. We need to


bring the conflict... Bombing civilians? We need to bring the


conflict to an end as fast as possible. The British and American


line before Donald Trump is to support rebels, including one is


affiliated to Al-Qaeda, to the Taliban. We need to clear these


people out and ensure that Syria becomes stable. This controversial


breaking point poster from during the referendum campaign. Mr Farage


unveiled it, there he is standing in front of it. You can bend it - do


you still? Yes, I think it was the wrong poster at the wrong time. I


was involved with the vote Leave campaign as well as Ukip's campaign,


and I felt strongly that those concerned about immigration were


already going to vote to leave because it was a fundamental truth


that unless we left the European Union we couldn't control


immigration. I thought it was about approaching those soft wavering


voters who weren't sure. I don't think I said it was racist, but it


was about sovereignty and trade and so forth. That was where we needed


to go. I was concerned it might put off some of those wavering voters.


People may well say, it was part of the winning campaign. It was Ukip


shock and all, which is what you stand for and what makes you


different. I said I would know how that I said I would not have gone


for that person and I thought it was wrong to do it just a week out from


the referendum. However, I believe it released legitimate concerns,


with a deluge of people making their way from the Middle East and Africa


into the European continent. Where is the low hanging fruit for you,


particularly in England? Is it Labour or Conservative voters? I


want to hang onto the Conservative voters we have got but I think the


low hanging fruit is Labour. Jeremy Corbyn won't sing the national


anthem, Emily Thornbury despises the English flag. Diane Abbott thinks


anyone talking about immigration is racist. Not to mention John


McDonnell's feelings about the IRA. Labour has ceased to be a party for


working people and I think Ukip is absolutely going to be that party.


It is clear, I absolutely concur with everything Suzanne has said. I


first voiced this back in 2008 that I believe Ukip has a fantastic


opportunity in working-class communities, and everyone laughed at


me. It is clear now that we resonate with working people, and you have


seen that in the Brexit result. Would you bring back the death


penalty? It wouldn't be Ukip policy. Absolutely not. Would you give more


money to the NHS and how would your fanatic? You like it is important to


fund it adequately, and it hasn't been to date. We promised in our


manifesto that we would give more money. Where does the money come


from? It is about tackling health tourism. I think the NHS is being


taken for a ride at the moment. That may be right, but where does the


money come from? It is about scaling back management in the NHS, because


that has burgeoned beyond control. They are spending far more money on


management. Where would you save money? We need to look at HS two,


foreign aid. Now we have Brexit and we will be saving on the membership


fee. We need to cut back on management, as Suzanne says. It


cannot be right that 51% of people who work for the NHS in England are


not clinically qualified. The NHS needs money now - where would you


get it? From HS two. That is capital spending spread over a long period.


Where will you get the money now? OK, another one. We spent ?25


million every day on foreign aid to countries who sometimes are richer


than ourselves. Through the Barnett formula. You would take money away


from Scotland? Yes, I think they get far too much. PG tips or Earl Grey?


Colegrave. PG tips. Strictly come dancing or X Factor? Neither.


Strictly. I would love to be on it one day. There you go. Thank you


It's just gone 11:35am, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


The Transport Minister tells there's a strong arguments


for a unified railway system under public ownership.


The Scottish and Welsh Governments win the right to intervene


in the Supreme Court Appeal over Article 50 - but with growing


pressure on Prime Minister May to abandon the appeal altogether,


And after picking-up mysterious signals emanating from Westminster,


our reporter Huw Williams goes beyond the final frontier.


Worth over ?7 billion the ScotRail franchise is the single biggest


The current recipient of this handsome public purse


All does not seem to be going well. In a moment we will hear from the


transport minister saying he is holding a meeting next week to


create a public sector company to bid to run the railways. On Thursday


morning a train broke down between Haymarket and Waverley, causing


chaos. Here are some views of the passengers. It is a shambles. A


joke. We were on the train for over three hours. We were coming from


Livingston. It took two and have ours. I had better go. I am late for


work. We had to stand there and no one told us what was going on. We


were told there were replacement bus services but they never came.


Well, later the same day under questioning


from Labour's Kezia Dugdale, the First Minister apologised


for Abellio's performance and accepted it's not good enough.


I am sorry for the disruption that was caused this morning and any


disruption that any passenger faces on any day of the week. That is


ScotRail's position and it is mine. I accept things are not good enough


and that is why the improvement plan is in place and we will stick with


that until things are running to a standard the public have a right to


accept two expect. I'll be speaking with the Transport


Minister Humza Yousaf shortly, but first, here's Robert Samson


from the rail passengers lobby group Transport Focus and I asked him


if things are getting worse Yes. Passengers are experiencing


poor journeys, punctuality is going down. They are going from 90% down


to 80%. Passengers are suffering right now. Is this a problem to do


it with Abellio or is it a more generalised problem? We have met


with senior management from Abellio last week and there is a problem


with punctuality but there is not one major issue. That are a number


of issues, such as trains breaking down, infrastructure problems. It is


attention to detail that is required to resolve it and hopefully the


performance improvement plan over the next couple of months will see


that punctuality get back up to 90%. Is the problem that Abellio have not


been paying that detailed attention in way that first were when they


were running it? They have been paying attention to the detail but


there have been a number of other factors as well, such as industrial


disputes. Even the problems such as the fourth road works closure meant


that poor performance for ScotRail because they had to amend their


that poor performance for ScotRail timetables to deal with passengers


getting in from Fife to Edinburgh. What they would say is that a lot of


these things you mentioned where beyond their control. Yes, there are


a number of that terrorists that are beyond the control but there are


numbers of factors that are within their control. -- a number of


factors. Such as Saint Mel 's not failing and points failing not


failing. Both those are in control of Network Rail and within the


ScotRail Alliance. We hope the attention to detail with this


performance improvement plan will give passengers the train service


that they want. Some of the issues they mention their sound to me like


Network Rail issues, rather than Abellio issues. Passengers do not


care if they are Network Rail issues or ScotRail issues and there is an


alliance that is coming together, ScotRail and Network Rail, it is up


to the them together to solve the problem and deliver the railway


system that passengers want. Passengers do not want to hear


excuses. It is the infrastructure owners fault, they do not care. Just


fix the problem. Take me through this. If you are someone who relies


on the trains to commute from Glasgow to Edinburgh or Dundee to


Aberdeen or whatever, what are the sort of common problems that regular


commuters are coming across? Regular problems are trains being delayed


and even the performance measure. Commuters especially notice if


trains are two or three minutes late. They want the trains to be on


time. We have done research and high ratings are punctuality and being


able to get a seat. A lot of times in the morning and evening rush hour


passengers are unable to get a seat. Those are the basics that we want to


passengers are unable to get a seat. deliver. What about the state of the


trains themselves? The trains in the morning and evening are overcrowded


and that is a problem for passengers. When things do or wrong,


they want a good level of information to see how long the


delay is going to be and what alternatives are in place. When it


works, it is good. It is patchy and what we want as consistent delivery


of information so that passengers can make an informed choice. Thank


you very much indeed. Well, the man hopefully with a plan


to get Scottish rail back on the right tracks


is Transport Minister Humza Yousaf. First of all, when the Abellio


contract was awarded your Government described it as world leading. Could


you explain to me in what ways Scotland's railways are better than


any others in the world. World leading in terms of what it offered


workers at the time. No compulsory redundancies, the living wage. Let's


be clear, ScotRail's performance has been not good enough. The understand


that I have told them and two in no uncertain terms that the performance


must improve and if it does not improve, there will be serious


consequences. It is not world class yet. It is a franchise and we will


be working to get it the best railways on these islands. It is not


good enough. ScotRail know it is not good enough. Is it world leading in


any respect? Some of the protections it gives employees are unmatched


across these islands. You will understand that people are


frustrated at not being able to do their commute. There are criteria in


using it as the best in the world is not the staff being made redundant.


I would agree. Passengers have been frustrated. Passengers tell me they


are angry. I was that the really at peak time and I have heard that.


When they go on the morning travels are back in the evening, I am on top


of ScotRail to improve the performance. It is not at your level


that is acceptable. Everyday when passengers go on their commute, I R


two and on top of ScotRail to make sure they are improving. Your


Government promised to deliver a world leading railway, which means


the best in the world and you have just sat there and told me that the


is no way in which it is the best really in the world. That is your


responsibility. Yes, it is my responsibility. Why do you not


resign? The only people calling for that are the party and Labour unions


affiliated with Labour. People want a transport minister... Are you


inviting passengers to call for your resignation? No. I am on top of the


job and listening to what passengers have to say and monitoring


ScotRail's performance. I demand a per two improvement. I will be


clear, there are very serious consequences for ScotRail and


Abellio if they do not improve their performance. Nicola Sturgeon said


the other day that you would keep the option of stripping Abellio of


the ScotRail franchise. That could happen when's there are a few ways


that could happen. One is performance dips between 83.4% for


three consecutive months. That is one way it could happen. What I


would also say it is that alternatives in terms of the public


sector bed is something I am exploring and looking at committing


to bring forward. When could that happen? The contract could be


terminated if performance falls below 83.4% that is when you would


start discussions about stripping the contract. You would have a


period of time whereby we would have to put other measures in place. We


have the operator of last resort if the Scottish Government and


transport Scotland had to dig over the railways tomorrow. We have


contingency in place. -- take over. We have the operator of last resort


to do that. If it came to that point, you would resign. If it came


to the point that you had to strip a world leading railway operator of


its contract and you either transport minister, could hardly


say, I have been a great success and I am going to continue. My job is to


make sure that Abellio make an live up to the standards of that


contract. If they do not and if they underperform, I will hold them to


account. That is my job. Abellio's job is to run the railway and the


franchise. My job is to hold them to account. If they do not perform and


if the fault below that threshold, of course their contract will be


terminated. -- fall below. Either no circumstances in which she would


resign? No, I am not suggesting that. I am not here to discuss


whether I will resign. This is not about me. This is about making sure


Abellio... It is about you. You either transport minister. It is


about making sure Abellio live up to the obligations in the contract. I


am responsible for making sure that happens. I am monitoring that daily


to make sure it happens. If it does not happen, I will and we will as a


Scottish Government take a very serious measures. That could include


stripping them of the contract. Is it your current


intention that Abellio will not be re-awarded the contract to run


ScotRail? Our current position is they have signed a contract until


the end of the franchise. There is a break clause in 2020. We're going to


put together a public sector bed. I am going to be calling the unions


this week and other political parties to join with me any


discussion about how we make and put together a viable public sector bed


that will be viable and competitive and that is what the alternative


that we have put forward will be. That could be ready for 2020. What,


Abellio do not get re-awarded the contract? That is not what I am


saying. We have a legal contract that we had to procure. We would


have liked the feel devilish and of railway powers. That was blocked by


other parties in the Smith position. Labour Party


Labour are calling for nationalising the railways in Scotland. Due


against that? We don't have the powers do so. I would love to have


full Devil lotion and full control over the railways. I would like to


have the full power, full control over railway powers. Why would you


not like to rationalise the railways? No. What's wrong with


saying nationalised the railways? I'm not saying I'm entirely against


the proposal. I will put together a public sector bed. Why is it wrong


to say nationalise the railways? What we have said... You have


explained that. Explain to me why it is wrong to... There is an argument


that integrating the railways to use the jargon, integrating the


operating company and infrastructure... I think it is a


very good argument that the railways can be in public ownership and that


has been something I have been committed to putting forward. What I


have said is that we will put forward a compat at a public sector


bed. Let me finish. I will be calling out to other political


parties this week and the unions to help us put forward a public sector


bed. We do not have the powers to nationalise the mill with. What


commuters want to know or are we on top of Abellio, will the performance


improved and that is I am determined to do. If Abellio do not improve


their performance, if the performance tips, they will be


stripped of their contract. You have been asking the British government


to devolve ownership over the railways. Would you think the best


option would be to integrate the network railway Wescott rain, and


make at one company? Network Rail is make at one company? Network Rail is


-- why I asked for a full devil lotion of Network Rail was because


we do not have control over them as they do real infrastructure projects


which are overshooting by hundreds of thousands of pounds. What you are


saying is that you would like one public sector company to run the


whole infrastructure? You can have a public body to tender for the next


round. That is not the same as nationalisation. They could lose


after that. Currently we do not have the powerless. I would like the full


powers over Network Rail. Currently water allows is for a public sector


bed. We have shell companies. You say you want a public sector company


to bid for it, a public sector operated company to bid for it. Is


anything like that in existence? operated company to bid for it. Is


That is the reason I am calling out to the Unionist... Does it exist?


The shell companies that exist as the operators... Does a real company


exist? No, the reason for that is to bring the unions and, other


political parties, what came to company do they want to see setup?


That takes time in order to put the bid together. We will be working on


that and we have internal work on that, I want to reach out to the


unions and other political parties to see if we can put together a


public sector bed that is viable. Thank you.


to intervene in the legal challenge at the Supreme Court over how


And there's been much talk over whether Scotland can remain


in the single market if it adopts the so-called "Norway model".


It's all getting a bit complicated, so here to make it a bit


easier to understand is Professor Sionaidh Douglas-Scott,


who's Anniversary Chair in Law at Queen Mary's University of London


and also a special adviser to the Scottish Parliament's European


and external affairs committee Brexit inquiry.


She speaks to me now in a personal capacity. First of all, the Supreme


Court, the fact that the Scottish and Welsh governments, they are


allowed to take part, what does that mean in practical terms, what can


they do that they can do last week? It means that they can make some new


arguments, these arguments were not considered in the High Court case


which was won by the claimants, and some of these arguments I believe,


although I have not seen the skeleton argument of the Scottish


Government, might involve this issue of legislative consent. If approval


is needed before the government can trickle and no Article 15 zero of,


the argument will be that the Scottish Government, Scottish


Parliament will also have to give its consent. This is an issue that


has been raised by the Brexit minister, Mike Russell, on several


occasions. If the Scottish Government refuse legislative


consent, it is excepted that that will not stop Brexit happening. It


might create some confusion and difficulties. The general agreement,


the consensus seems to be that it is a convention, notwithstanding the


parts of been written into the Scotland act 2016, but in the


British constitution, the impact of governments ignoring conventions


means that although legally they may be able to continue, that


Westminster could still legislate, constitutionally that action would


be unconstitutional. And that can have considerable consequences. Like


what? For example, I give an example from Canada. Which has a legal


system is similar in some parts to the British legal system, when the


Canadian Prime Minister wanted to be repatriated the Canadian


constitution, he ignored a constitutional requirement requiring


the quiet -- legislation or consent of Qu bec. That triggered some


of Quebec. That triggered some uncomfortable relations and to end


the dens -- independence referendums and Qu bec. For the British


and Quebec. For the British government to ignore the civil


convention, and No vote, would be unconstitutional. We can say that it


does not look good if governments act in a manner that is


does not look good if governments unconstitutional. It has been


suggested by one of the lawyers involved in the court case, that the


Scottish Government and the Welsh government could go to the European


court of justice and asked them for a ruling that the trigger laying of


Article 30 is revoke a ball. -- article 50. If MPs did not like what


was going on they could vote against what was going on and that would


cancel the triggering of article 50. Does that seem plausible to you or


desirable? It is a vexed question, whether the article 50 trigger is


reversible or not. There is no wording on it either way. The only


institution that can decide that question is the European Tour to


justice. If the Institute is raised in the Supreme Court by the Scottish


Government, then the question is whether the Supreme Court thinks


that a decision on that matter is necessary to determine the case. It


might think that and make a reference to the Luxembourg, the


European Court of Justice, and that the delayed matters further. And


there would be effects of that, of deciding that article 50 was after


all reversible. One might be that of two years down the line, the British


governments decide after all that Brexit did not mean Brexit, then


Britain would not be perhaps out on its knees without any deal at all.


So there are also some consequences that could follow. Briefly, there


has been much talk of Scotland perhaps being able to Norway stale


deal, even if the rest of the UK is perhaps being able to Norway stale


out of the single market. Is that plausible? It is perhaps possible


but difficult. The first problem is that for that to happen, they would


have to be some agreements from the UK Government, because it is the UK


Government that negotiates. There would have to be agreement on the


side of the EU. I can see that there are sums technical legal problems


arising about borders, for example what about classifications of goods


if they cross from England into Scotland? And there will be customs


unions issues and there would be issues of free movement. In Scotland


is in the single market, allowing for free movement of persons, but


England and perhaps the rest of the UK is not, then Scottish residents


would have rates of free movement that the rest of the UK would not.


Would that mean a change of UK passports. So there are some


technical problems. All right, we will have to leave it there. Thank


you very much for joining us. Expect to hear more


about the prospects of Scotland hosting the UK's spaceport later


in the week. A Conservative MP is due to ask


the Secretary of State David Mundell about discussions with other


Government departments on the benefits of locating


the facility here. If you were cynical,


you might see it as an opportunity for the Westminster government


to highlight the opportunities they Be that as it may, it is a reminder


that right now there are around 5500 scientists and engineers working


in the space sector in Scotland. And many see a spaceport as the next


logical development. Scotland is in space, not just the


pipes as a tribute to a collie, but in a commercial programme that has


been growing over the past few years. With Glasgow alone, there are


three companies. One company building five or six spacecraft a


month. And another small company has come through and they will be


launching their first spacecraft this year and that is within


launching their first spacecraft Glasgow. They join the 30,000 or so


man-made objects in orbit around Earth. This is the structure, it


would be filled with components and some are much larger, a few times is


all. My research focuses on how those satellites and objects would


actually re-enter our atmosphere and whether they are not whether they


hit the ground. But before they can come down, they have to go up. At


the moment, launching a Scottish built satellite into space means


putting it onto a rocket in the former Soviet Union or French


Guiana, but that could change of Scotland gets its own spaceport.


Ultimately it's about having that end-to-end capability. We are


greater coming up with ideas, we can build the spacecraft, we cannot


launch them. There is a gap in the middle that we as the UK need to


fill in Scotland is quite well-positioned for that by the


nature of the geography of the UK, Scotland has potential locations for


that. One personal menu is Prestwick. A satellite is just a


different type of cargo. Why do we need a spaceport? At the moment we


have no choice to go to Kazakhstan or French Guyana. It is very


uncertain to go there, costs a lot of money and it is limiting the


growth of the sector. And the main growth is coming from satellites in


space. There has been a lot of that in recent years and is being held


back. So why should it be on the Ayrshire coast? Affordability is a


factor because we do not need to have the same level of investment


that some of these places would have to have, but we do have around us is


a cluster of aerospace industries which are supporting us, which means


that as a business plan, going forward, we can be fairly certain


that we can actually make this work. But there are other contenders.


Airfields in Stornoway and Mac Hannah show. They are lengthening


the airstrip. Plans for a rocket range in the Outer Hebrides were


once controversial. Though no there isn't easy as for being home to a


spaceport. Britain is going to need a spaceport in future for commercial


space vehicles and Stornoway is certainly in the running for that.


It has advantages over others. You can launch over the sea without any


land getting in the week and various other advantages as well. And the


hope is that wherever the spaceport ends up, it will become a hub,


attracting more activity and expertise. This spaceport will be an


economic boost to the area that comes to. But that will in turn


attract other people to the local area to use the test facilities and


to just have the access to the engineers and all the other people


who will be working in and around that site. That will create a circle


that will continue to build the sector. And experts hope that once


we have cracked the delivery of satellites into space, it will not


be too long before space tourism becomes a reality. That was Hugh


Williams reporting. This week the Chancellor Phillip


Hammond will deliver his first Autumn Statement, where he updates


the UK Government's Mr Hammond has already


abandoned his predecessor's plan to achieve a budget surplus by 2020


and there's no sign of the emergency budget threatened before


the vote for Brexit, I'm joined now by David Phillips


who's a Senior Research Economist at The I F S expect a deterioration in


the public finances over the next The I F S expect a deterioration in


couple of years. How much is this a direct result of Brexit? We have


crunched the numbers and we think, given tax revenues are coming in the


forecast, about 6 billion deterioration in the public finances


will be the result of things happening before Brexit. A far


larger part is downgrading the growth forecast over the next couple


of years. If we follow suit with an independent forecasters and the


growth forecasts. That'll be a bigger impact on the Government tax


spending. We found about ?25 billion lower revenues and ?5 billion higher


spending as a result of this law economy. That follows on from the


Brexit boat. The problem with this is that there has been all sorts of


talk about a big programme of investing in infrastructure to


create a fiscal stimulus. That becomes less possible as the budget


deteriorates anyway. Indeed. When you have a large stock of debt, the


Government debt is over 80% of GDP and we have a budget deficit, is


harder to find more money to spend an infrastructure or to boost


spending. On the other hand, interest rates are low at the


moment. We might see it's a good time to take advantage of that and


invest in infrastructure and also to provide a longer term based in


productivity. I think what we have seen so far from the drip feed of


information from the Treasury is that we are not looking at a very


large fiscal stimulus. We're not looking at tens of billions of


pounds but is smaller stimulus. We have seen measures on transport on


roads in England and housing... The problem here though is that there is


smoke and mirrors, couldn't there be? The chancellors and out every


year that that is going to big spending envelope structure. George


Osborne was always on about it. -- infrastructure. Governments would


announce capital spending projects. They do not amount to a fiscal


stimulus. I think that is the big question. How much of this is a


boost to underlying spending? Is it new spending measures or is it just


putting labels to be spending already announced? I think there


will be a small boost in the short-term but I think you are right


in saying that this is not the end of a sturdy. What this is is a


potential slowing down of austerity. They are targeting a surplus budget


for 2020. The longer term plan is for a budget surplus. Delayed rather


than abandoned. Very briefly, jam is for a budget surplus. Delayed rather


the new thing we have to talk about. These are people who are just making


it through. Theresa May would like to do something for them, it is sad.


10 million of them and it is very expensive. Is there anything she can


do. I do not agree with the big measures on tax year. We not


expecting that in the statement. What we might see is a small


increase in personal allowance. That would impact on Scotland because


that has not been devolved. We might see something on air passenger duty


and fuel duty. Also the cuts to benefits. The real term free...


Sorry, the tax freeze has been an ounce because of the higher


inflation. David Phillips, thank you very much indeed.


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


With me now is the Scotland Editor of the Guardian Severin Carrell


and Investigations Editor at the Sunday Herald Paul Hutcheon.


Severin Carrell, the politics of the Autumn Statement, do you think there


is a chance that he is going to come out and say there is a big


deterioration in finances because of Brexit and the hard Brexit, they


were mixers out to be an attempt to counter to by Philip Hammond. They


might do. The politics to them is as much as the Tory's position. They


are going to be concerned about whether Philip Hammond is able to


deal with the smaller topics that ordinary voters are concerned about.


The quality of roads, the very detailed and mundane aspects of


daily life. The macro politics around whether Brexit is going to be


disastrous to the economy is something that put cold parties and


disastrous to the economy is that cult leadership will feed on.


What Philip Hammond knows is that his party 's trusted more than any


other in Westminster with the economy. There was a poll today


saying that 40% of voters trust the Tories with the economy. That'll


make you feel much more confident. The old BR will be a serious issue


with him. The Brexiteer is all when to rally around him rather than pick


with him. The Brexiteer is all when a fight with them. The investigative


powers Bill was passed by the House of Lords this week. The snapper


charge at some call it. You are worried about this. What are your


worried about? Following the Edward Snowden revelations, the Government


want to get powers that the security services have had. We have gone


further than people expected. What Internet service providers now have


to do it legally is hold onto people's browser history for 12


months, which can then be accessed by Lauren Forstmann agencies and


MI5. Don't be do that already? -- law enforcement agencies. You have


this collection of data but also this police power now that is God


equipment interference and they can access your phone. -- police


equipment interference. That story in the Herald last week, I wonder


what he got that information, if they got the judge to improve and


the sees the computers and go through it and get your Internet


company to tell them where you have been browsing. There is a separate


element for journalists. They have to get additional information. The


journalist is not informed. It is all heard in private and the


journalist would never know about it. I am guessing the Guardian are


not mass of fans about this either? We are not fans of it either. We are


unhappy it has gone through without any opposition. There has been very


little debate about this. Like a lot of other things in daily particle


life and the life of the Government, everything has been obscured by the


EU referendum. I just wonder if this is... I happen to know that young


EU referendum. I just wonder if this people are very interested in this


particular issue and it is an issue with the media and the young people


do seem to have very serious concerns. That is true but ordinary


voters may be comfortable with this. We are already one of the most


surveyed societies in the world. We have a higher level of CCTV


surveillance in our ordinary life. It may be that the British


electorate as a whole are relatively sanguine about it. People like


myself and Paul and others whose job it is to challenge and investigate


and probe feel deeply unhappy about it. We are making efforts to try and


get past it. Brexit, Paul, shown that was very clear in expelling


some of the legal things. Does this amount any more than tossing a load


of spanners in the general direction and hoping they get caught up in it.


I had a chat with a couple of civil servants this week you were speaking


privately and anonymously they do not think that the Scottish


intervention is going to amount to much at all. I think it is more


intervention is going to amount to about the symbolism and gesture of


it. Being seen to do something. In the final analysis built in the


Scottish Parliament a say, will it be blocking Brexit? Of course it


want. It is based and not legally be blocking Brexit? Of course it


binding. I just wonder whether the legal rout of just triggering


Article 50, having to decide on what Brexit will be when the British


Government has finished its negotiations. Simply MPs will want


to say we will decide that. There are some in a different actors MS


that this could go on Sony different directions. The Supreme Court


decision is expected early next year. Having European judges...


Surely MPs are saying... This could go on and on. There is no doubt


about it at all. The layers of complexity are so great that I think


some people are strapping themselves in for some years of legal conflict.


We will have to leave it there. Thank you to the both of you.


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


is announcing the first Autumn Statement since the EU referendum.


The BBC will explain what that means for you,


with live coverage and expert analysis.


Download Subtitles