27/11/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/11/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.


Was Fidel Castro a revolutionary hero or a murderous dictator?


After the Cuban leader's death, politicians divide over his legacy.


Can the NHS in England find billions of pounds' worth of efficiency


The Shadow Health Secretary joins me live.


Should we have a second Brexit referendum on the terms


of the eventual withdrawal deal that's struck with the EU?


Former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown and former Conservative cabinet


minister Owen Paterson go head-to-head.


And on Sunday Politics Scotland, I'll be speaking to the Scottish


Secretary David Mundell about the Autumn Statement,


And we'll take a look at how Stirling will benefit


And with me, Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme


Political leaders around the world have been reacting to the news


of the death of Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary who came


to power in 1959 and ushered in a Marxist revolution.


Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson described the former leader


as an "historic if controversial figure" and said his death marked


Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Castro was "a champion of social


justice" who had "seen off a lot of US presidents"


President-elect Donald Trump described the former Cuban leader


as a "brutal dictator", adding that he hoped his death


would begin a new era "in which the wonderful Cuban people


finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve".


Meanwhile, the President of the European Commission,


Jean-Claude Juncker, said the controversial leader


was "a hero for many" but "his legacy will be judged


I guess we had worked that out ourselves. What do you make of the


reactions so far across the political divide? Predictable. And I


noticed that Jeremy Corbyn has come in for criticism for his tribute to


Castro. But I think it was the right thing for him to do. We all know he


was an admirer. He could have sat there for eight hours in his house,


agonising over some bland statement which didn't alienate the many


people who want to wade into attacked Castro. It would have been


inauthentic and would have just added to the sort of mainstream


consensus, and I think he was right to say what he believed in this


respect. Elsewhere, it has been wholly predictable that there would


be this device, because he divided opinion in such an emotive way.


Steve, I take your point about authenticity and it might have


looked a bit lame for Jeremy Corbyn to pretend that he had no affection


for Fidel Castro at all, but do you think he made a bit of an error


dismissing Castro's record, the negative side of it as just a floor?


He could have acknowledged in more elaborate terms the huge costs. He


wanted to go on about the health and education, which if you actually


look up the indices on that, they are good relative to other


countries. But they have come at such a huge cost. He was not a


champion of criminal justice. If he had done that, it would have been


utterly inauthentic. He doesn't believe it. And he would have


thought there would be many other people focusing on all the epic


failings. So he focused on what he believed. There are times when


Corbyn's prominence in the media world now as leader widens the


debate in an interesting and important way. I am not aware of any


criticisms that Mr Corbyn has ever announced about Mr Castro. There


were four words in his statement yesterday which is spin doctor would


have forced him to say, for all his flaws. He was on this Cuban


solidarity committee, which didn't exist to criticise Castro. It


existed to help protect Castro from those, particularly the Americans,


who were trying to undermine him. And Corbyn made a big deal yesterday


saying he has always called out human rights abuses all over the


world. But he said that in general, I call out human rights abuses. He


never said, I have called out human rights abuses in Cuba. In the weeks


ahead, more will come out about what these human rights abuses were. The


lid will come off what was actually happening. Some well authenticated


stories are pretty horrendous. I was speaking to a journalist who was


working there in the 1990s, who gave me vivid examples of that, and there


will be more to come. I still go back to, when a major figure diet


and you are a leader who has admired but major figure, you have to say


it. That is the trap he has fallen into. He has proved every criticism


that he is a duck old ideologue. But he is not the only one. Prime


Minister Trudeau was so if uses that I wondered if they were going to


open up a book of condolences. I think it reinforces Corbyn's failing


brand. It may be authentic, but authentic isn't working for him.


When I was driving, I heard Trevor Phillips, who is a Blairite, saying


the record was mixed and there were a lot of things to admire as well as


all the terrible things. So it is quite nuanced. But if you are a


leader issuing a sound bite, there is no space for new ones. You either


decide to go for the consensus, which is to set up on the whole, it


was a brutal dictatorship. Or you say, here is an extraordinary figure


worthy of admiration. In my view, he was right to say what he believed.


There was still a dilemma for the British government over who they


sent to the funeral. Do they sent nobody, do they say and Boris


Johnson as a post-ironic statement? There is now a post-Castro Cuba to


deal with. Trump was quite diplomatic about post-Castro Cuba.


And Boris Johnson's statement was restrained. The thing about Mr


Castro was the longevity, 50 years of keeping Marxism on the island.


That was what made it so fascinating.


Before the last election, George Osborne promised the NHS


in England a real-terms funding boost of ?8 billion per year by 2020


on the understanding that NHS bosses would also find ?22 billion worth


Since last autumn, NHS managers have been drawing up what they're calling


"Sustainability and Transformation Plans" to make these savings,


but some of the proposals are already running into local


opposition, while Labour say they amount to huge cuts to the NHS.


Help is on the way for an elderly person in need in Hertfordshire.


But east of England ambulance call operators


they're sending an early intervention vehicle


with a council-employed occupational therapist on board.


It's being piloted here for over 65s with


When they arrive, a paramedic judges if the patient can be


treated immediately at home without a trip to hospital.


Around 80% of patients have been treated this way,


taking the strain off urgently-needed hospital beds,


So the early intervention team has assessed the patient and decided


The key to successful integration for Hertfordshire being able


to collaboratively look at how we use our resources,


to have pooled budgets, to allow us to understand


where spend is, and to let us make conscientious decisions about how


best to use that money, to come up with ideas to problems


that sit between our organisations, to look at things collaboratively.


This Hertfordshire hospital is also a good example of how


You won't find an A unit or overnight beds here any more.


The closest ones are 20 minutes down the road.


What's left is nurse-led care in an NHS-built hospital.


Despite a politically toxic change, this reconfiguration went


through after broad public and political consultation


with hospital clinicians and GPs on board.


It's a notable achievement that's surely of interest to 60% of NHS


trusts in England that reported a deficit at the end of September.


It's not just here that the NHS needs to save money and provide


The Government is going to pour in an extra ?8 billion into the NHS


in England, but it has demanded ?22 billion


worth of efficiencies across the country.


In order to deliver that, the NHS has created 44 health


and care partnerships, and each one will provide


a sustainability and transformation plan, or STP, to integrate care,


provide better services and save money.


So far, 33 of these 44 regional plans, drawn up by senior people


in the health service and local government,


The NHS has been through five years of severely constrained spending


growth, and there are another 4-5 years on the way at least.


STPs themselves are an attempt to deal in a planned way


But with plans to close some A units and reduce the number


of hospital beds, there's likely to be a tough political battle


ahead, with many MPs already up in arms about proposed


This Tory backbencher is concerned about the local plans for his


I wouldn't call it an efficiency if you are proposing to close


all of the beds which are currently provided for those coming out


of the acute sector who are elderly and looking


That's not a cut, it's not an efficiency saving,


All 44 STPs should be published in a month's time,


But even before that, they dominated this week's PMQs.


The Government's sustainability and transformation plans


for the National Health Service hide ?22 billion of cuts.


The National Health Service is indeed looking for savings


within the NHS, which will be reinvested in the NHS.


There will be no escape from angry MPs for the Health Secretary either.


Well, I have spoken to the Secretary of State just this week


about the importance of community hospitals in general,


These are proposals out to consultation.


What could happen if these plans get blocked?


If STPs cannot be made to work, the planned changes don't come


to pass, then the NHS will see over time a sort of unplanned


deterioration and services becoming unstable and service


The NHS barely featured in this week's Autumn Statement


but the Prime Minister insisted beforehand that STPs


are in the interests of local people.


Her Government's support will now be critical for NHS England


to push through these controversial regional plans,


which will soon face public scrutiny.


We did ask the Department of Health for an interview,


I've been joined by the Shadow Health Secretary,


Do you accept that the NHS is capable of making ?22 billion of


efficiency savings? Well, we are very sceptical, as are number of


independent organisations about the ability of the NHS to find 22


billion of efficiencies without that affecting front line care. When you


drill down into the 22 billion, based on the information we have


been given, and there hasn't been much information, we can see that


some of it will come from cutting the budget which go to community


pharmacies, which could lead, according to ministers, to 3000


pharmacies closing, which we believe will increase demands on A and


GPs, and also that a lot of these changes which are being proposed,


which was the focus of the package, we think will mean service cuts at a


local level. Do they? The chief executive of NHS England says these


efficiency plans are "Incredibly important". He used to work from


Labour. The independent King's Fund calls them "The best hope to improve


health and care services. There is no plan B". On the sustainable


transformation plans, which will be across England to link up physical


health, mental health and social care, for those services to


collaborate more closely together and move beyond the fragmented


system we have at the moment is important. It seems that the ground


has shifted. It has moved into filling financial gaps. As we know,


the NHS is going through the biggest financial squeeze in its history. By


2018, per head spending on the NHS will be falling. If you want to


redesign services for the long term in a local area, you need to put the


money in. So of course, getting these services working better


together and having a greater strategic oversight, which we would


have had if we had not got rid of strategic health authority is in the


last Parliament. But this is not an attempt to save 22 billion, this is


an attempt to spend 22 billion more successfully, don't you accept that?


Simon Stevens said we need 8 billion, and we need to find 22


billion of savings. You have to spend 22 billion more efficiently.


But the Government have not given that 8 billion to the NHS which they


said they would. They said they would do it by 2020. But they have


changed the definitions of spending so NHS England will get 8 billion by


2020, but they have cut the public health budgets by about 4 million by


20 20. The budget that going to initiatives to tackle sexually


transmitted diseases, to tackle smoking have been cut back but the


commissioning of things like school nurses and health visitors have been


cut back as well. Simon Stevens said he can only deliver that five-year


project if there is a radical upgrade in public health, which the


Government have failed on, and if we deal with social care, and this week


there was an... I understand that, but if you don't think the


efficiency drive can free up 22 billion to take us to 30 billion by


2020, where would you get the money from? I have been in this post now


for five or six weeks and I want to have a big consultation with


everybody who works in the health sector, as well as patients, carers


and families. Though you don't know? I think it would be surprised if I


had an arbitrary figure this soon into the job. Your party said they


expected election of spring by this year, you need to have some idea by


now, you inherited a portfolio from Diane Abbott, did she have no idea?


To govern is to make choices and we would make different choices. The


budget last year scored billions of giveaways in things like


co-operating -- corporation tax. What I do want to do... Is work on a


plan and the general election, whenever it comes, next year or in


2020 or in between, to have costed plan for the NHS. But your party is


committed to balancing the books on current spending, that is currently


John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor's position. What we are


talking about, this extra 30 billion, that is essentially current


spending so if it doesn't come from efficiency savings, where does the


money come from? Some of it is also capital. Mainly current spending. If


you look at the details of the OBR, they have switched a million from


the capital into revenue. Why -- how do you balance spending?


That is why we need to have a debate. Every time we ask for


Labour's policy, we are always told me a debate. Surely it is time to


give some idea of what you stand for? There's huge doubts about the


Government 's policy on this. You are the opposition, how would you do


it? I want to work with John McDonnell to find a package to give


the NHS the money it needs, but of course our Shadow Chancellor, like


any Shadow Chancellor at this stage in the cycle, will want to see what


the books look like a head of an election before making commitments.


I am clear that the Labour Party has to go into the next general election


with a clear policy to give the NHS the funding it needs because it has


been going through the largest financial squeeze in its history.


You say Labour will always give the NHS the money it needs, that is not


a policy, it is a blank cheque. It is an indication of our commitment


to the NHS. Under this Conservative government, the NHS has been getting


a 1% increase. Throughout its history it has usually have about


4%. Under the last Labour government it was getting 4%, before that


substantially more. We think the NHS should get more but I don't have


access to the NHS books in front of me. The public thinks there needs to


be more money spent on health but they also think that should go cap


in hand with the money being more efficiently spent, which is what


this efficiency drive is designed to release 22 billion. Do you have an


efficiency drive if it is not the Government's one? Of course we


agree. We agree the NHS should be more efficient, we want to see


productivity increased. Do know how to do that? One way is through


investments, maintenance, but there is a 5 million maintenance backlog.


One of the most high risk backlogs is something like 730 million. They


are going to switch the capital spend into revenue spend. I believe


that when you invest in maintenance and capital in the NHS, that


contribute to increasing its productivity. You are now talking


about 5 billion the maintenance, the chief executive says it needs 30


billion more by 2020 as a minimum so that 35 billion. You want to spend


more on social care, another for 5 billion on that so we have proper


care in the community. By that calculation I'm up to about 40


billion, which is fine, except where do you get the and balance the


account at the same time? We will have to come up with a plan for that


and that's why I will work with our Shadow Treasury team to come up with


that plan when they head into the general election. At the moment we


are saying to the NHS, sorry, we are not going to give you the


investment, which is why we are seeing patient care deteriorating.


The staff are doing incredible things but 180,000 are waiting in


A beyond four hours, record levels of people delayed in beds in


hospitals because there are not the beds in the community to go to save


the NHS needs the investment. We know that and we know the


Government's response to that and many think it is inadequate. What


I'm trying to get from you is what your response would be and what your


reaction will be to these efficiency plans. Your colleague Heidi


Alexander, she had your job earlier this year, she warned of the danger


of knee jerk blanket opposition to local efficiency plans. Do you agree


with that? Yes. So every time a hospital is going to close as a


result of this, and some will, it is Labour default position not just


going to be we are against it? That is why we are going to judge each of


these sustainability plans by a number of yardsticks. We want to see


if they have the support of local clinicians, we want to see if they


have the support of local authorities because they now have a


role in the delivery of health care. We want to see if they make the


right decisions for the long-term trends in population for local area.


We want to see if they integrate social care and health. If they


don't and therefore you will not bank that as an efficiency saving,


you will say no, that's not the way to go, you are left then with


finding the alternative funding to keep the NHS going. If you are


cutting beds, for example the proposal is to cut something like


5000 beds in Derbyshire and if there is the space in the community sector


in Derbyshire, that will cause big problems for the NHS in the long


term so it is a false economy. An example like that, we would be very


sceptical the plans could work. Would it not be honest, given the


sums of money involved and your doubts about the efficiency plan,


which are shared by many people, to just say, look, among the wealthy


nations, we spend a lower proportion of our GDP on health than most of


the other countries, European countries included, we need to put


up tax if we want a proper NHS. Wouldn't that be honest? I'm not the


Shadow Chancellor, I don't make taxation policy. You are tempting me


down a particular road by you or I smile. John McDonnell will come up


with our taxation policy. We have had an ambition to meet the European


average, the way these things are measured have changed since then,


but we did have that ambition and for a few years we met it. We need


substantial investment in the NHS. Everyone accepts it was


extraordinary that there wasn't an extra penny for the NHS in the


Autumn Statement this week. And as we go into the general election,


whenever it is, we will have a plan for the NHS. Come back and speak to


us when you know what you are going to do. Thank you.


Theresa May has promised to trigger formal Brexit negotiations


before the end of March, but the Prime Minister must wait


for the Supreme Court to decide whether parliament must vote


If that is the Supreme Court's conclusion, the Liberal Democrats


and others in parliament have said they'll demand a second EU


referendum on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal before


And last week, two former Prime Ministers suggested


that the referendum result could be reversed.


In an interview with the New Statesman on Thursday,


Tony Blair said, "It can be stopped if the British people decide that,


having seen what it means, the pain-gain cost-benefit analysis


John Major also weighed in, telling a meeting


of the National Liberal Club that the terms of Brexit


were being dictated by the "tyranny of the majority".


He also said there is a "perfectly credible case"


That prompted the former Conservative leader


Iain Duncan Smith to criticise John Major.


He told the BBC, "The idea we delay everything simply


because they disagree with the original result does


seem to me an absolute dismissal of democracy."


So, is there a realistic chance of a second referendum on the terms


of whatever Brexit deal Theresa May manages to secure?


Lib Dem party leader Tim Farron has said, "We want to respect


the will of the people and that means they must have their say


in a referendum on the terms of the deal."


But the Lib Dems have just eight MPs - they'll need Labour support


One ally is former Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith.


He backs the idea of a second referendum.


But yesterday the party's deputy leader, Tom Watson, said that,


"Unlike the Lib Dem Brexit Deniers, we believe in respecting


To discuss whether or not there should be a second referendum


on the terms of the Brexit deal, I've been joined by two


In Somerset is the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown,


and in Shropshire is the former Conservative cabinet minister


Paddy Ashdown, let me come to you first. When the British people have


spoken, you do what they command, either you believe in democracy or


you don't. When democracy speaks, we obey. Your words on the night of the


referendum, what's changed? Nothing has changed, Andrew, that's what I


said and what I still believe in. The British people have spoken, we


will not block Parliament debating the Brexit decision, Article 50, but


we will introduce an amendment to say that we need to consult the


British people, not about if we go out but what destination we would


then achieve. There is a vast difference in ordinary people's


lives between the so-called hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Soft Brexit,


you remain in the single market, you have to accept and agree on


immigration. Hard Brexit you are out of the single market, we have many


fewer jobs... Why didn't you say before the referendum there would be


a second referendum on the terms? Forgive me, I said it on many


occasions, you may not have covered it, Andrew, but that's a different


thing. In every speech I gave I said this, and this has proved to be


true, since those who recommended Brexit refused to tell us the


destination they were recommending, they refuse to give any detail about


the destination, if we did vote to go out, it would probably be


appropriate to decide which destination, hard Brexit or soft


Brexit we go to. They deliberately obscure that because it made it more


difficult to argue the case. It wasn't part of the official campaign


but let me come to Owen Paterson. What's wrong with a referendum on


the terms of the deal? We voted to leave but we don't really know on


what conditions we leave so what's wrong with negotiating the deal and


putting that deal to the British people? This would be a ridiculous


idea, it would be a complete gift to the EU negotiators to go for an


impossibly difficult deal because they want to do everything to make


sure that Brexit does not go through. This nonsense idea of hard


Brexit and soft Brexit, it was never discussed during the referendum


campaign. We made it clear we wanted to take back control, that means


making our own laws, raising and spending the money agreed by elected


politicians, getting control of our own borders back, and getting


control of our ability to do trade deals around the world. That was


clear at all stages of the referendum. We got 17.4 million


votes, the biggest vote in history for any issue, that 52%, 10% more


than John Major got and he was happy with his record number of 14


million, more than Tony Blair got, which was 43%, so we have a very


clear mandate. Time and again people come up to me and say when are we


going to get on with this. The big problem is uncertainty. We want to


trigger Article 50, have the negotiation and get to a better


place. OK, I need to get a debate going.


Paddy Ashdown, the EU doesn't want us to leave. If they knew there was


going to be a second referendum, surely there was going to be a


second referendum, surely their incentive would be to give us the


worst possible deal would vote against it would put us in a


ridiculous negotiating position. On the contrary, the government could


go and negotiate with the European Union and anyway, the opinion of the


European Union is less important than the opinion of the British


people. It seems to me that Owen Paterson made the case for me


precisely. They refuse to discuss what kind of destination. Britain


voted for departure, but not a destination. Because Owen Paterson


and his colleagues refused to discuss what their model was. So the


range of options here and the impact on the people of Britain is huge.


There is nothing to stop the government going to negotiate,


getting the best deal it can and go into the British people and saying,


this is the deal, guys, do you agree? Owen Paterson? It is simple.


The British people voted to leave. We voted to take back control of our


laws, our money, our borders. But most people don't know the shape of


what the deal would be. So why not have a vote on it? Because it would


be a gift to the EU negotiators to drive the worst possible deal in the


hope that it might be chucked out with a second referendum. The


biggest danger is the uncertainty. We have the biggest vote in British


history. You have said all that. It was your side that originally


proposed a second referendum. The director of Leave said, there is a


strong democratic case for a referendum on what the deal looks


like. Your side. Come on, you are digging up a blog from June of 2015.


He said he had not come to a conclusion. He said it is a distinct


possibility. No senior members of the campaign said we would have a


second referendum. It is worth chucking Paddy the quote he gave on


ITV news, whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%, when the British


people have spoken, you do what they command. People come up to me and


keep asking, when are you going to get on with it? What do you say to


keep asking, when are you going to that, Paddy Ashdown? Owen Paterson


has obviously not been paying attention. You ask me that question


has obviously not been paying at the start. Owen and his kind have


to stick to the same argument. During the referendum, when we said


that the Europeans have it in their interest to picket tough for us,


they would suffer as well. And that has proved to be right. The European


Union does not wish to hand as a bad deal, because they may suffer in the


process. We need the best deal for both sides. I can't understand why


Owen is now reversing that argument. Here is the question I am going to


ask you. If we have a second referendum on the deal and we vote


by a very small amount, by a sliver, to stay in, can we then make it


best-of-3? No, Andrew! Vince Cable says he thinks if you won, he would


have to have a decider. You will have to put that income tax, because


I don't remember when he said that. I don't remember when he said that.


-- you have to put that in context. Independent, 19th of September. That


is a decision on the outcome. The central point is that the British


people voted for departure, not a destination. In response to the


claim that this is undemocratic, if it is democratic to have one


referendum, how can it be undemocratic to have two?


referendum, how can it be Paterson, the British government, on


the brink of triggering article 50, cannot tell us if we will remain


members of the single market, if we will remain members of the customs


union. From that flows our ability to make trade deals, our attitude


towards freedom of movement and the rest of it. Given that the


government can't tell us, it is clear that the British people have


no idea what the eventual shape will be. That is surely the fundamental


case for a second referendum. Emphatically not. They have given a


clear vote. That vote was to take back control. What the establishment


figures like Paddy should recognise is the shattering damage it would do


to the integrity of the whole political process if this was not


delivered. People come up to me, as I have said for the third time now,


wanting to know when we will get article 50 triggered. Both people


who have voted to Remain and to Leave. If we do not deliver this, it


will be disastrous for the reputation and integrity of the


whole political establishment. Let me put that you Paddy Ashdown. It is


very Brussels elite - were ask your question but if we don't like the


very Brussels elite - were ask your answer, we will keep asking the


question. Did it with the Irish and French. It is... It would really


anger the British people, would it not? That is an interesting


question, Andrew. I don't think it would. All the evidence I see in


public meetings I attended, and I think it is beginning to show in the


opinion polls, although there hasn't been a proper one on this yet, I


suspect there is a majority in Britain who would wish to see a


second referendum on the outcome. They take the same view as I do.


What began with an open democratic process cannot end with a government


stitch up. Contrary to what Owen suggests, there is public support


for this. And far from damaging the government and the political class,


it showed that we are prepared to listen. We shall see. Paddy Ashdown,


have you eaten your hat yet? Andrew, as you well know, I have eaten five


hats. You cannot have a second referendum until you eat your hat on


my programme. We will leave it there. Paddy Ashdown and Owen


Paterson, thank you much. I have eaten a hat on your programme. I


don't remember! It's just gone 11.35,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. Good morning and welcome


to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up on the programme,


in a moment, I'll be asking the Scottish Secretary,


David Mundell, which powers he thinks should be devolved


to Scotland as a result of Brexit. Nicola Sturgeon heads to Dublin this


week to talk Business and Brexit with Irish politicians,


but is this Scottish government diplomatic offensive


really getting anywhere? And will a new city deal mean


a new renaissance for Stirling? Could even more powers be devolved


to Holyrood as a result of the UK's That appears to be the indication


from the Scottish Secretary It comes against the backdrop


of more capital investment for Scotland, which was announced


in this week's Autumn Statement. David Mundell, first of all, on the


Autumn Statement, there was much fuss made about helping ordinary


families, wasn't there? The issue for fiscal studies reckons that


families, wasn't there? The issue people on average earnings are still


not earning as much as they did before the financial crash, and will


not be earning as much as they did before the financial crash by the


end of the forecasting period, which is 2020-21. That can't be something


you are particularly proud of. What we've tried to do in the Autumn


Statement is specifically help those people and help those people by


increasing the personal allowance, help people on the lowest wages by


increasing the national living wage, by changing the taper on universal


credit. But nobody is denying, and the Chancellor didn't deny in his


Autumn Statement, the challenging circumstances that we face. He


didn't deny the Prime minister's statement that more needs to be done


to support those very people, people who are just getting by. And that


will be very much the focus of her government and its policies. The


Resolution Foundation estimates all the budget measures, including the


ones you mentioned, only take away 7% of the cuts that people on


universal credit face because of the freezing of benefits. How is that


helping ordinary people? Well, it is a change to the taper, so that it


is, I think, fairer. It means that the incentive and benefit of being


in work is clear, which is what universal credit is all about.


That's what the focus of Theresa May's government is going to be on,


it's going to be on helping people who are just getting by. That's why


the budget sought to take a greater proportion of income tax from those


on the highest earnings, closing down even more tax avoidance, tax


evasion schemes, so that there was a greater fairness in the system. Of


course, what the Chancellor also made absolutely clear is that there


would be no changes to existing benefit proposals that have been


previously announced, there will be no further cuts to benefits, which


is something that should be welcomed. You've been talking in an


interview in the Sunday Times today about how more powers could come to


the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit. Can you give us any


specific examples of what you have in mind? What I think, Gordon,


hasn't been fully understood and is only just beginning to be debated,


which is what I want to encourage, is that by leaving the EU, that will


have a fundamental change and the devolved settlement here in Scotland


and, indeed, elsewhere in the United Kingdom because these settlements


were predicated on the basis that the UK was in the EU. Therefore,


there are a number of powers and responsibilities which are currently


exercised by the EU which will have to return to the UK or to Scotland


and the other devolved nations. Can you give us any specific examples


relating to Scotland? What I want to do is encourage debate, and


discussion, on these issues because that is how we've always proceeded


in relation to powers in the Scottish Parliament. Self evidently,


agriculture and fisheries are two of the issues currently exercised at


European level. Both the NFU in Scotland and the Scottish fishermen


's Federation are coming forward with their views as to how these


sorts of powers should be taken forward, leaving the EU, but there


will be significant powers in the area of the environment, and there


will be powers in relation to the criminal justice system as well. And


we are at an early stage because we don't know the shape of the final


deal. There are areas of other important is that might be included.


I think that we need to have a debate and discussion in Scotland on


that. We have focused, rightly, in some regards to the single market


migration, but one of the most significant differences we could


feel in Scotland, post-Brexit, is in the changes to the devolution


settlement. On this programme last June, shortly after the referendum,


we were talking about another independence referendum, and you


made it quite clear you think they should not be won, and I'm sure that


is still your position. However, you also said that should the Scottish


government decide to hold one, the British government shouldn't stop


them doing it. I'll quote you. The people of Scotland ultimately


determined they want to have another referendum, there will be one. Is


that still your position? The position that I have set out and the


Prime Minister has I think is absolutely consistent with that. Of


course, there could be another referendum, that is a process issue.


The British government should not stop it? Of course they shouldn't.


We have had an independence referendum. I believe we should


abide by the Edinburgh agreement and respect the outcome of that


referendum. The Scottish government's own consultation paper


on a referendum recognises that referendum would require an


agreement of the UK Government and would require legislation in the


Westminster Parliament. So, they know what the processes. I'm asking


you... They want to pursue the issue of having another independence


referendum, so another referendum -- independence referendum could only


proceed with the agreement of both governments but at the moment the


Scottish government haven't put that proposition on the table and I think


the argument to continue to be that they be another independence


referendum. The overwhelming number of people in Scotland don't want


there to be a referendum. Fine, fine, but let me give you another


quotation from Ruth Davidson who said on this programme last July,


"Constitutionally, the UK Government should not block it. No." Would you


agree with that statement? What I say is that, you know, what the SNP


Scottish government ought to do is they want to get into a process row


about... You've said that... But we want to ask... What they


shouldn't... They shouldn't be an independence referendum because the


people of Scotland have made their decision and the overwhelming


majority of people don't want it. But the process is quite clear if


there were to be another independence referendum, and the


consultation document acknowledges that that the two governments would


have to agree on the basis... You've said that about five times now.


Because it is the factual position! Ruth Davidson said constitutionally


the UK Government should not block it, no. Would you agree with that


statement? Yes or no? What I... My position isn't inconsistent with


what Ruth's said. So, you do agree with that? Blocking it isn't the


what Ruth's said. So, you do agree same as reaching an agreement on it.


What we know that is in relation to having an independence referendum,


that requires agreement between the two governments. That was the case


in relation to the previous referendum, we had the Edinburgh


agreement... You've said there is referendum, we had the Edinburgh


now about six times. We have set out...! I'm afraid, Gordon, it is


because it is the factual position! We know the process the having


another referendum. If the Scottish government have a proposal to bring


forward another referendum, then they come for to the UK Government


and we look to reach agreement on that basis. There isn't such a


proposal and I want to continue to argue that they shouldn't be such a


proposal because the people of argue that they shouldn't be such a


Scotland don't want another independence referendum. I redo the


credit in. Constitutionally, the UK Government shouldn't block it, no.


All I'm inviting you to say is I agree with that statement. I don't


disagree with the statement. I don't think the UK Government would block


it. What the UK Government would do... OK, all right... Is seek to


reach agreement about the referendum, which is what I have


said on the last six or seven occasions. You are, in a sense,


Scotland's representative in the Cabinet. You favoured remaining in


the EU. And, as you know, most people in Scotland voted to remain


in the EU. Are you arguing in the people in Scotland voted to remain


Cabinet for staying in the single market? Firstly, the referendum that


we had in relation to the EU, Gordon, was whether the UK stayed in


the EU. That is what people in Scotland voted on, for the United


Kingdom to stay in the EU. I voted that way. I didn't do it on the


basis that if I didn't get my own way, Scotland would be dragged out


of the United Kingdom and that the whole independence debate would be


started up again. That is very regrettable. That isn't what I asked


you. Of course, what I'm arguing for regrettable. That isn't what I asked


is that Scotland gets the best possible access to the single


market. That is access I'd want to see for the whole of the UK. Sorry,


I'm not asking you... I don't think we will need to see a separate


Scottish deal about access to the single market because I want to see


a United Kingdom deal that gives the best possible access to that single


market. Yes, I didn't ask you whether they should be a separate


Scotland deal, I asked you as whether Scotland's representative in


the Cabinet you are arguing for Britain to stay in the single


market. I'm arguing for Britain to get the best possible access to that


single market. As I've said, the Prime Minister and others have said,


the UK is going to get a unique deal in terms of the arrangements that we


reach with the EU, in relation to how our access to the market is


structured. Our overriding priority is to get the best possible access


without barriers and tariffs, which is what we are seeking to achieve


because that is in the best interest of Britain and Scotland. There is an


because that is in the best interest idea of having a transition period


where we stay in the single market of 5-10 years. And that gives both


David Davis Liam Fox time to do their trade deals. And it would also


give a proper chance to negotiate something with the EU. Is that a


good idea? I think we should look to ensure


that we can complete the deal with the timescale, of course there are


other eventualities and nothing has been ruled out. Nothing has been


ruled in in that regard. I genuinely believe that other European


countries will want to see is speedy resolution to this issue, they will


want to see a definitive arrangement with the United Kingdom, and


therefore I think that we will be able to achieve the objective of a


deal within the two years of the triggering of article 50.


David Mundell, thank you very much indeed for joining us.


Later this week Nicola Sturgeon will become the first serving head


of a government to address the upper house of the Irish Parliament.


She'll also take the opportunity to hold talks with politicians


and business leaders and is expected to remind them of the


"long tradition of co-operation" between Scotland and Ireland.


Glenn Cooksley reports on the First Minister's continuing


efforts to strengthen Scotland's ties with the EU


Two days ago, Nicola Sturgeon was in Cardiff for the first meeting of the


British, Irish Council since it convened in July to discuss the


outcome of the UK's referendum on EU membership. She outlined her latest


thinking on the way ahead for Scotland.


There should be an approach that is about staying inside the single


market because I think that is the best outcome, or other the least


worst outcome, for businesses and a whole range of other interest in the


UK and every single nation of the UK.


This week she's in Dublin, and as well as addressing the upper house


and talking to Irish business people, she is expected to meet the


Irish president Michael Higdon 's, who was welcome to Scotland in June.


Although it is believed there will be no direct over Brexit, the first


list has said she's looking forward to using the Dublin visit to speak


about her plans for Scotland but to using the Dublin visit to speak


interest in the EU. It will be the latest in a long line of diplomacy


by the Scottish Government of further its single market cause. The


UK free trade Association and the European economic area, which


includes lift and sewing, Iceland and Norway, are denied as potential


routes. In addition, there are attempts to strengthen already


established ties, including talks with ambassadors, dialogue with


politicians abroad, and the formation of the standing Council in


Europe, which is advising the Scottish Government in the aftermath


of the Brexit vote. Dublin has been seen as the latest opportunity for


the First Minister to outline her single market vision for Scotland.


Well, I'm joined now by The Scottish Government's Cabinet Secretary


This diplomatic offensive to stay in the single market, with a separate


Scottish deal, so far you have managed to get the Spanish covenant


to say, there is no way Scotland can have a separate deal. The First


Minister of Wales has said Scotland cannot have a separate deal, and the


trade Mr of Norway has said Scotland cannot join separate from the rest


of the UK. If this is a diplomatic success, I would hate to think what


of the UK. If this is a diplomatic a failure might look like.


You are being offensive in terms of what we are trying to do here.


Because you're putting words in the modes of others, you are not


understanding... You are not understanding the process. Nobody is


negotiating with anybody, because article 50 has not been triggered by


the UK Government, and because the UK Government has not set out its


own position, other countries are not negotiating. We are expanding


Saughton's position. We are not negotiating, we are not saying to


the Spanish, this is our position. What we are doing is talking to


everybody who agrees with us, and had the BBC covered, has the BBC


been at Cardiff, you would have heard what Carwyn Jones said. He was


agreeing with Nicola Sturgeon on the importance of the single market but


making sure that we have access and participation in the single market,


including freedom of movement. That is where we are. That is his


position, but what he also said, would you be bubbly don't


understand, is that we have to be aware of the positions of the


different parts of the United Kingdom. He is interested in what we


are developing. That is the current position and it is important to


understand that. Clearly I don't understand it. Can


you give me some counterexamples to the offensive examples I gave? Can


you tell me any politicians in Europe who have said, we think the


Scottish Government should have a separate deal from the UK in Europe?


Nobody is talking about any deals because the UK has not, as the


member state... Can you caught me anyone who has


said they can? The pony is -- diplomacy is


something you do. We have spoken to ministers in Paris, the Italian


government, we have been in Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic. People


are very sympathetic and understanding of the position


Scotland is in, six to 2% of this country voted to remain -- 62%. We


want to have the best possible proposition for the UK as a whole,


that is our position. We want to see the strongest position for the UK.


If they were to visit that back -- put a position forward including


freedom of movement, vital to our economic interest, that is what


we're trying to the UK Government to do.


You can quote me a single person in Europe who has come out and said


that is a good idea. -- cannot. If you understood where the EU are,


they are operating as a block, they are not saying anything about


Scotland. But neither are they saying anything about the UK,


because the UK has not set out its position.


Except some of them are seeing things about a special deal for


Scotland. We have not set out a special deal


for Scotland, so how can we comment on something that has not been set


out. In this incredibly complex process,


what are you hoping to get in Ireland this week?


We're building on the continuing relationship we have that we have


been building up over a number of years. We have had 12 ministerial


visits in Ireland and Scotland over the past year, a lot of business and


government interest, and we have spoken to the Irish government in


relation to our interest. What did they say?


I have also met... What would you like to say?


That's the UK Government as a whole should get the best in terms of


That's the UK Government as a whole participation in the single market,


that protects our economic interest. If that is not possible, to be


open-minded to consider a situation that there could be a differentiated


deal with in the United Kingdom in terms of what they put forward for


article 50. You do want them to say they are


sympathetic to that? Remember, the EU 27, with most of


the government representatives, ministers and ambassadors of all of


the EU 27, they are not prepared to make any statement about any deal,


either for the United Kingdom or for Scotland, until Article 50 has been


triggered. That is the basic ABC as to what has been happening as part


of the process. Your massive unprecedented


consultation with the people of Scotland, that comes to an end in a


few weeks' time, doesn't it? Tell us what some of the results are.


I don't know, I am not counting or allocating looking at the results.


But my experience is a lot of interest from people that voted no


for Scottish independence but voted to remain in the EU. Very


disenchanted with the fact that against their will very likely to be


taken out of the EU. A lot of people are rethinking their position.


But you don't know the final results?


I don't know the final results. When will they be published?


It is a listening in the party exercise. I am not part of the


consultation process. I am expecting to have the results of what comes


forward... There have been suggestions it will


not be published. I am not part of the party operation


doing that. There has been a lot of campaigning, we have had so many


elections and referendums over the last five years.


What is the point of view listening if you don't tell the public what


you hear? I have spent my time talking to the


different governments and nations and ambassadors. I am looking


forward to hearing what the results are, but I am not sure what point


that will be. What will be interesting is to hear the


priorities people have, whether it is the economy, or in terms of


services, or Social Security, etc. The independence referendum number


two, it is your position still that you will not have another one until


the polls show for a substantial period of time that you will win it?


The first one was quite clear, there had to be some material change, but


also distinct support for independence. We are quite aware


that in this very fluctuating period of time, as we know from the EU


referendum, and a lack of certainty for what the UK is setting out, that


we need a bit more certainty. You still want the polls to be seen,


people want this? We want to persuade the UK as a


whole, in relation to the... But you still want the polls?


I want Scotland to be independent. But the polls are showing that at


the moment. Yet you're still going around threatening that saying,


promising, you will have a second referendum if you don't get your way


in the European Union. But if the polls are still where they are now


and you don't get your way in the European Union, the two things that


you said, the material change plus support in the polls, both of them


contradict each other. Not necessarily. The important thing


is to persuade people not to threaten them. That is the point


where we have got to make sure we're in a period of listening...


Rouble not have an independence referendum even if you get your way


in the European Union -- you will not.


We want to make sure that we have the options to deliver the best deal


for Scotland, and that is why we are consulting on an independence


referendum. You will not hold that unless the


polls are going your way. We're a long way from considering


where we will be. What I am saying is that the two


things contradict each other, and you need both of them, don't you?


People should read the manifesto, I strongly believe that Scotland would


prosper best as an independent nation.


But that is not the question I am asking.


The period of time we are in is very much fluctuating. People want


certainty, the UK is not providing that. We do not know what the


prospects for Scotland will be, whether we will be in the single


market. You still won't propose to go your


way, before the referendum? We were elected on a manifesto on


the point of view. In the manifesto is said only if the


polls go your way? You had a discussion with David


Mundell about the context and the content of the proposition. Europe


will be completely different in two years' time. We are living in a


period of uncertainty, but we want to set out some certainty and we are


trying to do that in the best we possibly, possibly internationally


and in the terms of Scotland. Thank you.


This week's Autumn Statement was, well, a little flat


But one which was by and large welcomed was the proposal


The UK government's now discussing schemes like this for each


But what does it mean for these areas?


If you're into urban regeneration, economic development and all that


kind of stuff, then the big buzzword right now is city deal. Essentially


it provides public cash to help get local project off the ground, to


create jobs. Some parts of Scotland already have city deals, and those


that don't have them are trying very hard to get them. This week,


Stirling learned it was going to get a city deal from the Chancellor, but


how will it work and will it do any good?


One of the key projects that the city deal aims to deliver is a new


digital district which is going to be based right here in the old


headquarters Stirling Council. Local businesses hugely welcome that, they


say that is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to grow the


economy. This normal looking industrial Park on the edge of


sterling is home to businesses of the future. The ploy is of the


successful company do not spend all day playing games -- the employees.


Most of the time they designed mobile phone apps for a wide range


of clients across the UK and beyond. They say the Stirling city deal is a


huge opportunity. Having a digital district in the


centre will be really impactful. It will start to attract businesses


similar to ourselves, technology businesses, into sterling, which


will start to allow people to stay in sterling rather than having to


leave, Aust -- they will be able to stay in the area. This is going to


be one great big reason to come here.


One of the key figures behind the bid said winning a city deal was


crucial for the economy, and would bid said winning a city deal was


provide something which nobody else does.


If we didn't see the investment coming into the EU, I think there


was a concern that economic growth might go into decline. That is not


great for sterling. Neither is it great for the Scottish economy or


the UK economy. I don't necessarily see that Stirling competence against


the likes of Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen, but it does have a niche


part in terms of the broader economic growth we are all looking


for. In other parts of Scotland, city


deals have helped resurrect older projects, like the Glasgow airport


rail link, scrapped seven years ago on cost grounds. Fresh plans have


been unveiled thanks to Glasgow's billion pound city deal backed by


the UK and Scottish governments. Back in Stirling, proposals are also


underway to boost leisure and tourism and create a new Civic


Quarter. The leader of the local council says now it is time to get


on with it. Everyone wants the headline, this is


now about how do we deliver on the ground? We spent 18 months building


our business cases so that we would be ready to go, and I think it's


because Stirling has done so much groundwork, and we are just ready to


take those projects forward and make a change in people's lives, it is


what it is all about. As more parts of Scotland bid for


and win city deals, like Stirling, one concern as they become less


about helping those most in need. Then there are areas that might be


left out altogether because they can't get one. But, for now, city


deals are here to stay, it seems. Let's look back at the events of the


past we can see what's coming up in the Week Ahead.


With me now is Jenni Davidson of Holyrood Magazine and political


commentator at the Sunday Herald, Iain Macwhirter.


Let's start with this national... Survey. Competition would be more


fun! This was built up to such an extent at the beginning of this


year. It was. Hasn't been much talk about it sins. I don't think I heard


anything about it. It seems to have fallen flat. I'd almost forgotten


about it, it finishes in a few days' time, and there have been no


balloons or celebrating. Some suggestions it might not even be


public. My understanding is it was for internal use, research the SNP


would use themselves, and isn't going to be published afterwards. I


suppose it depends what the results are, whether or not they want to


publish it, they might want to keep it quiet if they don't like the


results. The original idea, Iain, is this would be a process of


reformulating the proposal for independence and they would address


things like the currency, but there doesn't seem to be any sign of that.


It was a result of a late-night brainstorm, a special adviser to


Nicola Sturgeon. He denies that, but it has gone down in history as being


an improvisation, if you like, that was introduced at the last minute to


appeared to give something for all the SNP troops to do when they're


not campaigning for a second independence referendum. So, it has


performed that function. Clearly, it was never intended to be made public


but everybody will be asking, obviously, after Friday, just what


were the results, and if you're considering the results --


concealing the results, they weren't very good, obviously. What about the


policies? It is a sensible thing to do to have an inquiry into these key


issues which were unresolved by the independence referendum campaign in


2014, most notably things like currency, issues about border and


relations with Europe. It makes sense. It's no secret that at a time


like this, after having two referendums in two years and two


Parliamentary elections, it's been an uphill struggle getting people to


contemplate the prospect of another referendum under these


circumstances. People are fed up with breaks and Trump. Repatriating


powers to Scotland, that is... Is a an exaggeration? It is complex. I


think the assumption would have been one of the advantages of Brexit is


we will get all these powers back from Europe. It isn't necessarily


the case that we, as in Scotland, will get them. They will get to the


UK Government. There's no obvious will get them. They will get to the


repatriation of powers over the environment, agriculture and.


Although that is a devolved area. There is lots of international


agreement that is involved in that that would be difficult to


repatriate without giving the Scottish Parliament and government


more powers to do international deals, so it'll be a big question.


There are certain things that'll happen automatically. For example,


agriculture's devolved so presumably whatever replaces... Whatever


replaces the Common Agricultural Policy will be administered in


Scotland, but possibly invented in Scotland as a different system using


the block grant the Scottish government has, they could invent a


different system from England, if they wanted to. It is up in the air


and David Mundell was assuming there some kind of logical progression


here that because Scotland has powers over these at the moment,


when they are repatriated from the ultimate powers from Brussels, they


will naturally go to Holyrood. There is no automaticity about that at


all. That will have to be decided in this long process of reformulating


what the Scottish Parliament's powers are because remember the


European communities act is written into the Scotland Act. All Scottish


legislation is written into that. It isn't automatic. It assumed things


like agriculture and fisheries will devolved to the Scottish Parliament.


What is the key question here is what happens to the funding of those


policies. I don't think Westminster's going to say, OK,


because 40% of the money that has been going into agriculture


subsidies. I don't think Westminster is necessarily going to say, OK, you


can handle all that revenue stream entirely on your own in future and


decide what it is. That's why a lot of the amenities are getting anxious


about this. They would drop a British agricultural policy which


would not apply in Scotland and through the Barnett formula... That


is what the farmers are worried about. Scotland gets 40% of the


agricultural subsidies that come to the UK, they go to Scotland. Under


the Barnett formula, that would be 8% - 9%, which is why farmers are


worried. Briefly, Jenni, diplomatic offensive... I was being offensive


by pointing that out! What is your impression of it? My impression is


that is going to be difficult to make a case for Scotland having... A


different set of international arrangements to be in the single


market if the rest of the UK is not. That is clear from what Spain is


saying. It would be difficult. We will have to leave it there, thank


you very much. I'll be back at the


same time next week.


Download Subtitles