27/11/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland

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.