18/12/2016 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.

Are they trying to overturn the result of June's referendum

by forcing a second vote before we leave?

Australia's man in London tells us that life outside the EU "can be

pretty good" and that Brexit will "not be as hard as people say".

Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business

It's been called "disgusting, dangerous and deadly"

but how polluted is our air, how bad for our health,

Also coming up: Alex Salmond tells of the things the

Scottish Government could call a second independence referendum and

win it. And with me in the Sunday Politics

grotto, the Dasher, Dancer and Prancer of political

punditry Iain Martin, They'll be delivering tweets

throughout the programme. First this morning,

some say they will fight for what they call a "soft Brexit",

but now there's an attempt by those who campaigned for Britain to remain

in the EU to allow the British people to change their minds -

possibly with a second referendum - The Labour MEP Richard Corbett

is revealed this morning to have tried to amend European

Parliament resolutions. The original resolution called

on the European Parliament to "respect the will

of the majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom

to leave the EU". He also proposed removing

the wording "stress that this wish must be respected" and adding

"while taking account of the 48.1% The amendments were

proposed in October, but were rejected by a vote

in the Brussels Constitutional Affairs Committee

earlier this month. The report will be voted

on by all MEPs in February. Well, joining me now from Leeds

is the Labour MEP who proposed Good morning. Thanks for joining us

at short notice. Is your aim to try and reverse what happened on June

23? My aim with those amendments was simply factual. It is rather odd

that these amendments of two months ago are suddenly used paper

headlines in three very different newspapers on the same day. It

smacks of a sort of concerted effort to try and slapped down any notion

that Britain might perhaps want to rethink its position on Brexit as

the cost of Brexit emerges. You would like us to rethink the

position even before the cost urges? I get lots of letters from people

saying how one, this was an advisory referendum won by a narrow majority

on the basis of a pack of lies and a questionable mandate. But if there

is a mandate from this referendum, it is surely to secure a Brexit that

works for Britain without sinking the economy. And if it transpires as

we move forward, that this will be a very costly exercise, then there

will be people who voted leave who said Hang on, this is not what I was

told. I was told this would save money, we could put it in the NHS,

but if it is going to cost us and our Monday leg, I

would the right to reconsider. But your aim is not get a Brexit that

would work for Britain, your aim is to stop it? If we got a Brexit that

would work for Britain, that would respect the mandate. But if we

cannot get that, if it is going to be a disaster, if it is going to

cost people jobs and cost Britain money, it is something we might want

to pause and rethink. The government said it is going to come forward

with a plan. That is good. We need to know what options to go for as a

country. Do we want to stay in the single market, the customs union,

the various agencies? And options should be costed so we can all see

how much they cost of Brexit will be. If you were simply going to try

and make the resolution is more illegal, why did the constitutional

committee vote them down? This is a report about future treaty

amendments down the road for years to come. This was not the main focus

of the report, it was a side reference, in which was put the idea

for Association partnerships. Will you push for the idea before the

full parliament? I must see what the text is. You said there is a

widespread view in labour that if the Brexit view is bad we should not

exclude everything, I take it you mean another referendum. When you

were named down these amendments, was this just acting on your own

initiative, or acting on behalf of the Labour Party? I am just be

humble lame-duck MEP in the European Parliament. It makes sense from any

point of view that if the course of action you have embarked on turns

out to be much more costly and disastrous than you had anticipated,

that you might want the chance to think again. You might come to the

same conclusion, of course, but you might think, wait a minute, let's

have a look at this. But let's be clear, even though you are deputy

leader of Labour in the European Parliament, you're acting alone and

not as Labour Party policy? I am acting in the constitutional affairs

committee. All I am doing is stating things which are common sense. If as

we move forward then this turns out to be a disaster, we need to look

very carefully at where we are going. But if a deal is done under

Article 50, and we get to see the shape of that deal by the end of

2019 under the two-year timetable, in your words, we won't know if it

is a disaster or not until it is implemented. We won't be able to

tell until we see the results about whether it is good or bad, surely?

We might well be able to, because that has to take account of the

future framework of relationships with the European Union, to quote

the article of the treaty. That means we should have some idea about

what that will be like. Will we be outside the customs union, for

instance, which will be very damaging for our economy? Or will we

have to stay inside and follow the rules without having a say on them.

We won't know until we leave the customs union. You think it will be

damaging, others think it will give us the opportunity to do massive

trade deals. My case this morning is not what is right or wrong, we will

not know until we have seen the results. We will know a heck of a

lot more than we do now when we see that Article 50 divorce agreement.

We will know the terms of the divorce, we will know how much we

still have to pay into the EU budget for legacy costs. We will know

whether we will be in the single market customs union or not. We will

know about the agencies. We will know a lot of things. If the deal on

the table looks as if it will be damaging to Britain, then Parliament

will be in its rights to say, wait a minute, not this deal. And then you

either renegotiate or you reconsider the whole issue of Brexit or you

find another solution. We need to leave it there but thank you for

joining us. Iain Martin, how serious is the

attempt to in effect an wind what happened on June 23? I think it is

pretty serious and that interview illustrates very well the most

damaging impact of the approach taken by a lot of Remainers, which

is essentially to say with one breath, we of course accept the

result, but with every action subsequent to that to try and

undermine the result or try and are sure that the deal is as bad as

possible. I think what needed to happen and hasn't happened after

June 23 is you have the extremists on both sides and you have in the

middle probably 70% of public opinion, moderate leaders, moderate

Remainers should be working together to try and get British bespoke deal.

But moderate Leavers will not take moderate Remainers seriously if this

is the approach taken at every single turn to try and rerun the

referendum. He did not say whether it was Labour policy? That was a

question which was ducked. I do not think it is Labour Party policy. I

think most people are in a morass in the middle. I think the screaming

that happens when anybody dares to question or suggest that you might

ever want to think again about these things, I disagree with him about

having another referendum but if he wants to campaign for that it is his

democratic right to do so. If you can convince enough people it is a

good idea then he has succeeded. But the idea that we would do a deal and

then realise this is a really bad deal, let's not proceed, we will not

really know that until the deal is implemented. What our access is to

the single market, whether or not we are in or out of the customs union

which we will talk about in a minute, what immigration policy we

will have, whether these are going to be good things bad things, surely

you have got to wait for four, five, to be good things bad things, surely

six years to see if it has worked or not? Yes, and by which stage

Parliament will have voted on it and there will be no going back from it,

or maybe there will. We are talking now about the first three months of

2019. That is absolutely the moment when Parliament agrees with Theresa

May or not. One arch remain I spoke to, and arch Remainiac, he said that

Theresa May will bring this to Parliament in 2019 and could say I

recommend that we reject it. What is he on or she? Some strong chemical

drugs! The point is that all manner of things could happen. I don't

think any of us take it seriously for now but the future is a very

long way away. Earlier, the trade Secretary Liam Fox was asked if we

would stay in the customs union after Brexit.

There would be limitations on what we would do in terms of tariff

setting which could limit the deals we would do, but we want to look at

all the different deals. There is hard Brexit and soft Brexit as if it

is a boiled egg we are talking about. Turkey is in part of the

customs union but not other parts. What we need to do is look at the

cost. This is what I picked up. The government knows it cannot remain a

member of the single market in these negotiations, because that would

make us subject to free movement and the European Court. The customs

union and the Prime Minister 's office doesn't seem to be quite as

binary, that you can be a little bit in and a little bit out, but I would

suggest that overall Liam Fox knows to do all the trade deals we want to

do we basically have to be out. But what he also seems to know is that

is a minority view in Cabinet. He said he was not going to give his

opinion publicly. There is still an argument going on about it in

Cabinet. When David Liddington struggled against Emily Thornbury

PMQs, he did not know about the customs union. What is apparent is

Theresa May has not told him what to think about that. If we stay in the

customs union we cannot do our own free trade deals. We are behind the

customs union, the tariff barriers set by Europe? Not quite. Turkey is

proof of the pudding. There are limited exemptions but they can do

free trade with their neighbours. Not on goods. They are doing a trade

deal with Pakistan at the moment, it relies on foreign trade investment

but Europe negotiates on turkey's behalf on the major free-trade

deals. This is absolutely why the customs union will be the fault line

for the deal we are trying to achieve. Interestingly, I thought

Liam Fox suggested during that interview that he was prepared to

suck up whatever it was. I think he was saying there is still an

argument and he intends to win it. He wants to leave it because he

wants to do these free-trade deals. There is an argument in the cabinet

about precisely that. The other thing to consider is in this country

we have tended to focus too much on the British angle in negotiations,

but I think the negotiations are going to be very difficult. You look

at the state of the EU at the moment, you look at what is

happening in Italy, France, Germany, look at the 27. It is possible I

think that Britain could design a bespoke sensible deal but then it

becomes very difficult to agree which is why I ultimately think we

are heading for a harder Brexit. It will be about developing in this

country. So, we've had a warning this week

that it could take ten years to do a trade deal

with the EU after Brexit. But could opportunities to expand

trade lie elsewhere? Australia was one of the first

countries to indicate its willingness to do a deal

with the UK and now its High Commissioner in London has told

us that life outside the EU He made this exclusive film

for the Sunday Politics. My father was the Australian High

Commissioner in the early 70s when the UK joined

the European Union, Now I'm in the job,

the UK is leaving. Australia supported

Britain remaining a member of the European Union,

but we respect the decision that Now that the decision has been made,

we hope that Britain will get on with the process

of negotiating their exit from the European Union and make

the most of the opportunities that Following the referendum decision,

Australia approached the British Government

with a proposal. We offered, when the time was right,

to negotiate a free trade agreement. The British and Australian

governments have already established a working group to explore a future,

ambitious trade agreement once A free trade agreement will provide

great opportunities for consumers Australian consumers could purchase

British-made cars for less We would give British

households access to cheaper, Our summer is during your winter,

so Australia could provide British households with fresh produce

when the equivalent British or Australian households would have

access to British products Free-trade agreements

are also about investment. The UK is the second-largest source

of foreign investment in Australia. By the way, Australia also invests

over ?200 billion in the UK, so a free trade agreement

would stimulate investment, But, by the way, free-trade

agreements are not just about trade and investment,

they are also about geopolitics. Countries with good trade relations

often work more closely together in other fields including security,

the spread of democracy We may have preferred

the UKto remain in the EU, We may have preferred the UK

to remain in the EU, but life outside as we know can

be pretty good. We have negotiated eight free-trade

agreements over the last 12 years, including a free-trade agreement

with the United States This is one of the reasons why

the Australian economy has continued to grow over the last 25 years

and we, of course, are not Australia welcomes Theresa May's

vision for the UK to become a global We are willing to help

in any way we can. Welcome to the programme. The

Australian government says it wants to negotiate an important trade deal

with the UK as efficiently and promptly as possible when Brexit is

complete. How prompt is prompt? There are legal issues obviously.

The UK, for as long as it remains in the EU, cannot negotiate individual

trade deals. Once it leaves it can. We will negotiate a agreement with

the UK when the time is right, by which we mean we can do preliminary

examination. Are you talking now about the parameters? We are talking

already, we have set up a joint working group with the British

Government and we are scoping the issue to try to understand what

questions will arise in any negotiation. But we cannot have

formally a negotiation. Until the country is out. Why is there no

free-trade deal between Australia and the European Union? It is a long

and tortuous story. Give me the headline. Basically Australian

agriculture is either banned or hugely restricted in terms of its

access to the European Union. So we see the European Union, Australia's,

is a pretty protectionist sort of organisation. Now we are doing a

scoping study on a free-trade agreement with the European Union

and we hope that next year we can enter into negotiations with them.

But we have no illusions this would be a very difficult negotiation, but

one we are giving priority to. Is there not a danger that when Britain

leaves the EU the EU will become more protectionist? This country has

always been the most powerful voice for free trade. I hope that does not

happen, but the reason why we wanted Britain to remain in the European

Union is because it brought to the table the whole free-trade mentality

which has been an historic part of Britain's approach to international

relations. Without the UK in the European Union you will lose that.

It is a very loud voice in the European Union and you will lose

that voice and that will be a disadvantage. The figure that jumped

out of me in the film is it to you only 15 months to negotiate a

free-trade deal with the United States. Yes, the thing is it is

about political will. A free-trade agreement will be no problem unless

you want to protect particular sectors of your economy. In that

case there was one sector the Americans insisted on protecting and

that was their sugar industry. In the end after 15 months of

negotiation two relatively free trading countries have fixed up

nearly everything. But we had to ask would be go ahead with this

free-trade agreement without sugar west we decided to do that. Other

than that it was relatively easy to negotiate because we are both

free-trade countries. With the UK you cannot be sure, but I do not

think a free-trade agreement would take very long to negotiate with the

UK because the UK would not want to put a lot of obstacles in the way to

Australia. Not to give away our hand, we would not want to put a lot

of obstacles in the way of British exports. The trend in recent years

is to do big, regional trade deals, but President-elect Donald Trump has

made clear the Pacific trade deal is dead. The transatlantic trade deal

is almost dead as well. The American election put a nail in the coffin

and the French elections could put another nail in the coffin. Are we

returning to a world of lateral trade deals, country with country

rather than regional blocs? Not necessarily. In the Asia Pacific we

will look at multilateral trade arrangements and even if the

transpacific partnership is not ratified by the Americans, we have

other options are there. However, our approach has been the ultimate

would be free-trade throughout the world which is proving hard to

achieve. Secondly, if we can get a lot of countries engaged in a

free-trade negotiation, that is pretty good if possible. But it is

more difficult. But we do bilateral trade agreements. We have one with

China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, and the list goes on, and

they have been hugely beneficial to Australia. You have been dealing

with the EU free deal, what lessons are there? How quickly do you think

Britain could do a free-trade deal with the EU if we leave? Well, there

is a completely different concept involved in the case of Britain and

the EU and that is at the moment there are no restrictions on trade.

So you and the EU would be talking about whether you will direct

barriers to trade. We are outsiders and we do not get too much involved

in this debate except to say we do not want to see the global trade

system disrupted by the direction of tariff barriers between the United

Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy in the world, and the European

Union. Our expectation is not just the British but the Europeans will

try to make the transition to Brexit as smooth as possible particularly

commercially. Say yes or no if you can. If Britain and Australia make a

free-trade agreement, would that include free movement of the

Australian and the British people? We will probably stick with our

present non-discriminatory system. Australia does not discriminate

against any country. The European Union's free movement means you

discriminate against non-Europeans. Probably not.

It could lead to a ban on diesel cars, prevent the building

of a third runway at Heathrow, and will certainly make it

more expensive to drive in our towns and cities.

Air pollution has been called the "public health crisis

of a generation" - but just how serious is the problem?

40,000 early deaths result from air pollution every year in the UK.

Almost 10,000 Londoners each year die prematurely.

It seems at times we can get caught up in alarming assertions

about air pollution, that this is a public health

emergency, that it is a silent killer, coming from politicians,

But how bad is air quality in Britain really?

Tony Frew is a professor in respiratory medicine and works

at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital.

He has been looking into the recent claims

It's a problem and it affects people's health.

But when people start talking about the numbers

of deaths here, I think they are misusing the statistics.

There have been tremendous improvements in air quality

There is a lot less pollution than there used to be

and none of that is coming through in the public

So what does Professor Frew make of the claim that alarming levels

of toxicity in the air in the UK causes 40,000 deaths each year?

It is not 40,000 people who should have air pollution

on their death certificate, or 40,000 people who

It's a lot of people who had a little bit of life shortening

To examine these figures further we travelled to Cambridge to visit

I asked him about the data on which these claims

They come from a study on how mortality rates in US cities

First of all, it is important to realise that that 40,000 figure

29,000, which are due to fine particles, and another 11,000

I will just talk about this group for a start.

These are what are known as attributable deaths.

Known as virtual deaths, they come from a complex statistical model.

Quite remarkably it all comes from just one number and this

was based on a study of US cities and they found out that

by monitoring these cities over decades that the cities which had

a higher level of pollution had a higher mortality rate.

They estimated that there was a 6% increased risk of dying

each year for each small increase in pollution.

So this is quite a big figure, but it is important to realise

it is only a best estimate and the committee that advises

the government says that this figure could be between 1% and 12%.

So this 6% figure is used to work out the 29,000

Yes, through a rather complex statistical model.

And a similar analysis gives rise to the 11,000 attributable deaths

How much should we invest in cycling?

Should we build a third runway at Heathrow?

We need reliable statistics to answer those questions,

but can we trust the way data is being used by campaigners?

I think there are people who have such a passion for the environment

and for air pollution that they don't really

see it as a problem if they are deceiving the public.

Greenpeace have been running a campaign claiming that breathing

London's air is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.

If you smoke 15 cigarettes a day through your adult life,

that will definitely take ten years off your life expectancy.

If you are poor and you are in social class five,

compared to social class one, that would take seven

If you are poor and you smoke, that will take 17 years off your life.

Now, we are talking about possibly, if we could get rid of all

of the cars in London and all of the road transport,

we could make a difference of two micrograms per metre squared in air

pollution which might save you 30 days of your life.

There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for you,

but if we exaggerate the scale of the problem and the impact

on our health, are we at risk of undermining the case for making

And we are joined now by the Executive Director

You have called pollution and national crisis and a health

emergency. Around the UK are levels increasing or falling? They are

remaining fairly static in London. Nationally? If you look at the

studies on where air pollution is measured, in 42 cities around the

UK, 38 cities were found to be breaking the legal limit on air

pollution so basically all of the cities were breaking the limit so if

you think eight out of ten people live in cities, obviously, this is

impacting a lot of people around the UK. We have looked at in missions of

solvent dioxide, they have fallen and since 1970, nitrogen dioxide is

down 69%. Let me show you a chart. There are the nitrogen oxides which

we have all been worried about. That chart shows a substantial fall from

the 1970s, and then a really steep fall from the 1980s. That is

something which is getting better. You have to look at it in the round.

If you look at particulates, and if you look at today's understanding of

the health impact. Let's look at particulates. We have been really

worried about what they have been doing to our abilities to breathe

good air, again, you see substantial improvement. Indeed, we are not far

from the Gothenberg level which is a very high standard. What you see is

it is pretty flat. I see it coming down quite substantially. Over the

last decade it is pretty flat. If you look at the World Health

Organisation guidelines, actually, these are at serious levels and they

need to come down. We know the impact, particularly on children, if

you look at what is happening to children and children's lungs, if

you look at the impact of asthma and other impacts on children in cities

and in schools next to main roads where pollution levels are very

high, the impact of very serious. You have many doctors, professors

and many studies by London University showing this to be true.

The thing is, we do not want pollution. If we can get rid of

pollution, let's do it. And also we also have to get rid of CO2 which is

causing climate change. We are talking air pollution at the moment.

The point is there is not still more to do, it is clear there is and

there is no question about that, my question is you seem to deny that we

have made any kind of progress and that you also say that air pollution

causes 40,000 deaths a year in the UK, that is not true. The figure is

40,000 premature deaths is what has been talked about by medical staff.

Your website said courses. It causes premature deaths. What we are

talking about here is can we solve the problem of air pollution? If air

pollution is mainly being caused by diesel vehicles then we need to

phase out diesel vehicles. If there are alternatives and clean Turner

tips which will give better quality of air, better quality of life and

clean up our cities, then why don't we take the chance to do it? You had

the Australian High Commissioner on this programme earlier. He said to

me earlier, why is your government supporting diesel? That is the most

polluting form of transport. That may well be right but I am looking

at Greenpeace's claims. You claim it causes 40,000 deaths, it is a figure

which regularly appears. Let me quote the committee on the medical

effects of air pollutants, it says this calculation, 40,000 which is

everywhere in Greenpeace literature, is not an estimate of the number of

people whose untimely death is caused entirely by air pollution,

but a way of representing the effect across the whole population of air

pollution when considered as a contributory factor to many more

individual deaths. It is 40,000 premature deaths. It could be

premature by a couple of days. It could me by a year. -- it could be

by a year. It could also be giving children asthma and breathing

difficulties. We are talking about deaths. It could also cause stroke

and heart diseases. Medical experts say we need to deal with this. Do

you believe air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year. I have defined

that. You accept it does not? It leads to 40,000 premature deaths.

But 40,000 people are not killed. You say air pollution causes 40,000

deaths each year on your website. I have just explained what I mean by

that in terms of premature deaths. The question is, are we going to do

something about that? Air pollution is a serious problem. It is mainly

caused by diesel. If we phased diesel out it will solve the problem

of air pollution and deal with the wider problem of climate change. I

am not talking about climate change this morning. Let's link to another

claim... Do you want to live in a clean city? Do you want to breathe

clean air? Yes, don't generalise. Let's stick to your claims. You have

also said living in London on your life is equivalent to smoking 50

cigarettes a day. That is not true either. What I would say is if you

look at passive smoking, it is the equivalent of I don't know what the

actual figure is, I can't remember offhand, but it is the equivalent

effect of about ten cigarettes being smoked passively. The question is in

terms of, you are just throwing me out all of these things... I am

throwing things that Greenpeace have claimed. Greenpeace have claimed

that living in London is equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and

that takes ten years off your life. Professor Froome made it clear to us

that living in London your whole life with levels of pollution does

take time off your life but it takes nine months of your life. Nine

months is still too much, I understand that, but it is not ten

years and that is what you claim. I would suggest you realise that is a

piece of propaganda because you claim on the website, you have taken

it down. I agree it has been corrected and I agree with what the

professor said that maybe it takes up to a year off your life, but the

thing is, there are much more wider issues as well, in terms of the

impact on air pollution, and in terms of the impact on young

children. We can argue about the facts... But these are your claims,

this is why I am hitting it to you. It does not get away from the

underlying issue that air pollution is a serious problem. We are not

arguing for a moment that it is not. Do you think the way you exaggerate

things, put false claims, in the end, for of course we all agree

with, getting the best air we can, you undermine your credibility? I

absolutely do not support false claims and if mistakes have been

made then mistakes have been made and they will be corrected. I think

the key issue is how we are going to deal with air pollution. Clearly,

diesel is the biggest problem and we need to work out a way how we can

get away from diesel as quickly and fast as possible. Comeback and see

us in the New Year and we will discuss diesel. Thank you.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Good morning, and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

The Scottish Government prepares to reveal its Brexit plans.

Alex Salmond tells us they could call and win another

And 2016 - a historic year in Scottish Politics, from A to Z.

Nearly six months on from the vote to leave the European Union,

the Scottish Government is about to reveal its Brexit plans.

On Tuesday, it's widely reported that the proposals will be based

on the so-called Norway Model - where Scotland would remain

in the European Free Trade area and a member of the single market.

But how realistic is that, and where does it fit with the UK

And it can be lonely at the top. Theresa May was in Brussels for a

European summit this week, the EU's 27 of these leaders met to discuss

Brexit without the PM. Downing said Brexit without the PM. Downing said

-- Downing Street said it reinforced the view that Brexit means Brexit.

Mrs May was joined by Ivan Rogers. He had to slip out of the car while

she created eyed devotion, after it was reported he thought a post

Brexit trade deal would take ten years. And many are awaiting the

First Minister of Scotland's Brexit plan to keep Scotland in a single

market. But Nicola Sturgeon's opponents say it is a nonstarter

because it would trap the nation in a deal over which it would have no

influence. So what does all that mean? Continued uncertainty over the

future of the UK. Just before we came

on air I spoke to the SNP Foreign Affairs Spokesperson,

Alex Salmond. First of all, there is much talk of

people in the SNP, you and Nicola Sturgeon, about how the British

catchment is obliged to consider your proposals that you are about to

publish. What does that mean? Are you saying they have two keep either

Britain or Scotland in the single market all that is a breach of their

operation? That is certainly the First Minister's view, and her

proposal. And things looked like they are turning in that direction.

The opinion poll this morning for the first time showed people across

the UK giving priority to the single market. In Scotland it is 2-1 to

that. So there is a position to try to force that on the Government. So

whatever happens in terms of the UK, the First Minister wants to be clear

how Scotland cameras aim remain within the single market. I'm

curious about all the talk of another referendum on independence.

If the Scottish Government doesn't get some sort of deal, that is. Is

that the red Line for you? That Scotland would one way or another

have to be in the single market all they would be another referendum?

What matters is what Nicola Sturgeon's red lines are. And she

has enunciated a simple one, two, three. One, keep Scotland within the

second -- single market. And if the UK is unwilling to listen to our

representations, it is likely that there will be a referendum within

the next two-year is. I'm curious as to whether you see that as the red

line. There could other deals. Repatriated and of powers from the

European Union to the Scottish Parliament for example. Whether

Britain was a segment can say we have given you lots. Are you saying

it is the single market that has been the Red Line? Nicola Sturgeon

has put forward her priorities. That is staying in the single market,

equal treatment for other Europeans, and the rights of Scottish workers.

I'm sure in the strategy document that is to be published this week,

she will be outlining a range of other things that Scotland requires,

particularly the powers that we will need to secure Scotland's position.

There are certain powers, as you are aware, fishing, agriculture, some

control of immigration, that would be required within the single market

place for Scotland to operate within it, as well as the full powers of

Scottish independence. Again, I don't understand. Are you saying

Scotland having control of for example a fisheries policy, would do

as a compromise was to mark that seems to be the opposite of staying

in the single market. Scotland could get all sorts of powers by breaking

away, but are you saying staying in this market is the main thing? It

isn't the opposite. We just need to glance across the Northsea, to see a

country called Norway which is within the single marketplace but

has powers over its fishing industry. As we saw this week,

fishing is very interesting, because it is probably the sole real

fishing is very interesting, because industry in the rest recent European

referendum which was in favour of exiting the European Union. As we

saw from the House of Lords report, fishing depends on access to the

single marketplace in order to sell our products. It would be great to

get 20% more quarter -- quota but if there is 20% more tax any benefit

will be dissipated. The single market is important to every aspect

of the Scottish economy. Do you think you could win an independence

referendum at the moment? Yes. Why? Last time, when I was First Minister

and embarked on this process, support for independence was 28%. In

2012 we ended up at 45%. I don't think Nicola Sturgeon would have any

compunction about calling a referendum. What it depends on is

the arguments. And in a situation where the UK Government is

determined despite every opportunity to sever Scotland's links to the EU,

I think many people who were previously sceptical about

independence would come to the Yes side. And you think you would win?

Yes. I take your point that at the beginning of the last campaign

support was lower. But surely because of the last campaign people

have made up their minds. There aren't a 20% who haven't made up

have made up their minds. There their minds. Therefore wouldn't it

be more difficult to get you over the line? I think there are a lot of

people with an open mind about Scottish independence. I think there

are people who are passionately in favour, and strongly against. But

there are still lots of folk in Scotland who would regard Scotland's

best rarity and securing their position, the rights of workers, the

treatment of fellow Europeans, access to the marketplace, as

priorities which if they could only be claimed by independence, could be

persuaded to vote in that direction. With careful argument and all Nicola

Sturgeon's powers of argument. The only problem the SNP might have is

not a reader polls show that the majority of people want to stay in

the UK, they also show the majority of people have no appetite for

another referendum. And they also show, as I mentioned, that more than

2000 -- two thirds of Scots want to maintain their position in the

single marketplace and want jobs Empress parity over control of

immigration. We are saying that it is a strong position to debate the

independence issue. Nicola Sturgeon, correctly, has said we want the UK

to stay in the single marketplace. If that is not possible we are

publishing a strategy that shows how Scotland can do that. And if the UK

Government says they are not interested, if they have a full

Philip Hammond attitude, then it would be a different context and we

would be in a strong position to have the next referendum. If the

British Government turns round to the Scottish Government and says we

are not going to stay in the single market... Nicola Sturgeon has talked

about this. What powers do you want as a result of Brexit? As someone

who reads up on these things, if you wait to see the strategy document 's

Nicola is publishing, the first strategy to emerge from any

political leader in these islands, I think you will find those questions

answered in full in enormous detail, if I know her. The sun is coming up

over your bridge, so we should leave you to it. Happy Christmas from the

north-east of Scotland. Well, listening to

that is Adam Tomkins Was he saying that Scotland has

say in the single market or they will have another referendum? It did

appear that he was saying that, which is quite different what I've

from what I think Nicola Sturgeon would want him to say. And it shows

again that the SNP are all over the place on this. Only two weeks ago at

the Scottish affairs committee said the only way they could stay was by

staying the member states and the UK... Was what he was saying any

different from what Nicola Sturgeon said this morning? We don't know

what she has said. Details are still to come. But what the Scottish

Conservatives want is for Scotland and the whole of the UK to have as

full access to and participation in the single market as is possible,

consistent with the result of the referendum on the 23rd of June.

Which is not necessarily what trees are made's Government wants. Let us

be clear, what the Scottish Conservatives want... It's not up to

you to decide. It is up to the UK to decide, because it is their decision

to leave the EU. A couple of years ago Scotland voted to remain in the

UK. And a few months ago the UK voted to leave the EU. The

difficulty Mr Salmond has is that they are in denial about the

referendum results. They are not random opinion polls put out in the

field, that they can choose to abide by or ignore... If you are a

democratic politician you have to abide by them. You say the Scottish

Conservative position is that we should stay in the single market...

We want as full and access and participation in the single market

as possible. There is no such thing as membership of the single market

unless you are a member state of the EU. And we just voted to leave. Are

you checking that David Mundell is arguing that in Cabinet? We are all

singing from the same hymn sheet. arguing that in Cabinet? We are all

There is no difference of opinion and there is no change in policy. We

want full access and participation as possible. I think that is exactly

what the Theresa May Government is working towards. But part of your

reply to add Alex Salmond would be that single market, or not single

market, Brexit means single market is not as clear a statement as it

might be. Absolutely. That is why a sensible Government like this one is

going slowly in order to figure out what access to the single market...

You were not in or out, you can have varying degrees of access depending

what is in the national interest. Everybody says, it has always been a

European union of bits and pieces. Switzerland's access is different

from Norway's is different from Canada's... Lastly, and briefly, as

a Scottish Conservative, do you think it is more likely that the

British Government will say to the Scottish Government, look, whatever

the single market views you have, here is a deal, you will control

fisheries, some of VAT, agriculture policy... Are you really going to

have another referendum if we offer you all of this? All of this is part

of the negotiation to come. It is plain that the UK Government is not

going to be rewritten Irving any fresh powers to Westminster. Some

powers will go to Westminster some will go to Hollywood. This will --

Holyrood. If the Scottish Government would stop sabre rattling about a

referendum, we need to pull together and not pull apart.

Brexit was one of the defining political events of 2016.

The EU referendum in June followed the Holyrood election.

Here's our A-Z of the last 12 months.

I think the more transparency bike we can have, the better. Before we

go any further we need to have a cold, calm, look at this. If a

company or individual avoids tax they should not be able to benefit

from public contracts. I will do everything I can as Prime

Minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months, but I do

not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers

our country to its next destination. This is a truly historic deal. It is

based on the principles I set out in earlier legislation... That will

pave the way for the Scottish Parliament to become one of the most

accountable parliament is in the world. It is based on the same

approach that I have used for setting all devolves taxes.

I will watch you from afar and wish you well for your future and the

There is no greater cause than to serve that of the people of this

country. And so with that it is from goodbye from me for now.

We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before

the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted.

I don't know the details of plan B, we don't have a plan B, we have a

plan A, we will stay in the European Union as an active member.

What makes you better to run the NHS? I'm not a big fan. Sorry. I

categorically voted in Parliament tonight. I saw the vote registered.

Ken Macdonald Tauscher is elected as Presiding Officer of the Scottish

Parliament. The measures I have announced today

means the total support of the Scottish Government and through

local taxation provides an increase in spending our local government

services, not of 59.6 million, but of 240.6 million three point 3%.

I can confirm today that the independence referendum bill will be

published for consultation next week.

I have never been and over wanted to be a career politician. My aim and

being in politics was to get Britain out of the European Union. The

country needs a strong Ukip now more than ever before, before F Ukip

ceases to be on the electoral law, then there will be no impetus on

Mere. The Scottish Government will

undertake a three-month period where we will take input from practitioner

's as well as parents, charities, as well as young people, those who

support the named person policy, and those who have concerns.

Well, joining me now to discuss the year in politics

is Severin Carrell, Scotland editor for The Guardian, the UK

editor of The Big Issue, Paul McNamee, and Lindsay McIntosh,

Let's start with Alex Salmond, he was bullish about the independence

referendum. Is he right or do you think that is the Scottish

Government's you? I would think that on the face of it the numbers would

be in his favour. The idea that they took the Yes vote from 32 to 33% up

to 45% suggest they should be to get the line up to 50. But I do not

think Nicola Sturgeon is at one with them on the idea that this is a slam

dunk. They have a lot to do, a lot of critical questions from 2014 that

are hanging over them and even more critical questions over Brexit

hanging over them, and time is running out and they have a set of

pressures to manage, their own party, the yes movement and the

political reality that they are now left in. It is far trickier with

those facts. The other issue is that everything could be more ambiguous

now. Alex Salmond suggested that Scotland or Britain did not stay in

the single market could lead to another referendum vote. What does

the SNP see you then. Also, the other thing is the British

government could save here are more powers, over fisheries and

agriculture, even if they do not stay in the single market. Will you

still go through with their referendum even though we're giving

you all those powers? There are all these unanswered questions,

different parts of the deal that need to be worked out between the UK

and the EU and Scotland and the UK. Article 50 will be triggered at the

start of next year, that will be a two-year process. When does Nicola

Sturgeon feel that she will have enough clarity about what Scotland

will get to say to Scots, this is fine, or to go to the polls and

trigger independence too. The line has been over the past year, we will

have an independence referendum if the polls show that we can win it.

He did not seem at all swayed by that. Yes, you could say there is a

margin of error. It is not going up at the moment. It really is a major

gamble to hold a second independence referendum with the numbers as they

are at the moment. What about better exit macro itself poll? -- Brexit.

With each week, with each piece of debate it seems messier and messier.

Part of the problem with the Scottish Government is that if the

pollution a particular way with Brexit, the opposition could argue,

hold on you have got to govern the country before you start to think

about what Brexit is. I think that country before you start to think

is the case for a lot of other regions in Britain as well, whether

it is Northern Ireland or Wales, they have their own particular

issues and problems to deal with. Brexit seems to dominate our

thoughts. The and bolts of government for people is broadly

being left of it. And I think that is the problem. A big issue is two

views, one, the British government has a cunning plan which it is

trying to keep for its negotiating tactics. And the other is they do

not have a clue they are doing. They are altering up on television

studios, like Liam Fox did this morning, to punt their own version.

The Tory party, the referendum was supposed to sort out the Tory

party's internal warfare. What it has done it as it has exposed the

warfare inside the Tory party, like Liam Fox who believe that Britain is

much better as close to the United States is possible and away from

Europe, and those who would rather we did not leave the EU at all.

These unresolved problems are being worked out in public. I suspect they

are working at various strategies in how to work things through. They are

claiming 50 different teams. The problem is nobody knows quite how

all the different actors and Europe will behave because the EU may be

acting collectively in terms of Brussels and Strasbourg, behaving as

a unified force. Germany and Spain... One of the big stories may

not be whatever the British Spain... One of the big stories may

government decides to do, maybe what response they get. There are also

critical European elections taking place. Their own internal forces and

a lot of people think this depends on what Angela Merkel wants to do.

As the Germans think that keeping the UK as close as possible to

Europe is in the EU's interests, that will influence really what will

ends up happening. We have all the complications also to do with

Ireland as well. The other thing that has changed in Scotland, but we

had an election. And the SNP don't have the majority any more and

everyone went on as if nothing had changed. But when the budget was

produced last week, it becomes an issue, because they need to do some

deals? The most important thing on the budget was the U turn on the

council funding. The original plan was that council tax would get

increased, but it would be put into a central pot and distributed. At

the 11th hour he did a U-turn and said that individual councils could

keep their funding. It is significant that it recognises that

we are a minority government once again and the SNP cannot get

everything their own way. It was commendable to make that change. Do

you think they will do a deal? Yes, I think they will. The Greens are

who we should be looking at in this. They need abstentions, not support.

Paul, you mentioned the opposition. Where are they? Labour certainly

have. When we looked at the list, it could have been Jeremy Corbyn. Where

is he? At key points. Kezia Dugdale as well. The key points throughout

this year, the Labour Party have no when they're speaking with any

authority with leadership with clear policy. They have allowed themselves

to become a pressure group rather than a party for government. And

that is a tricky place for all of us than a party for government. And

to be in, when that regulation going on around Brexit. Thank you all very

much for coming in. That's all from us for this

week and this year. Until then, Merry Christmas

and a Happy New Year.