22/01/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

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

Theresa May will be the first foreign leader to visit US

President Donald Trump this week - she's promised to hold "very

frank" conversations with the new and controversial

Speaking of the 45th President of America,

we'll be looking at what the Trump presidency could hold

in store for Britain and the rest of the world.

And with the Supreme Court expected to say that Parliament should

have a vote before the Brexit process begins, we'll ask

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott what Labour will do next.

And on Sunday Politics Scotland, the Brexit Minister, Mike Russell,

says SNP MPs would vote against the triggering of Article 50

And to talk about all of that and more, I'm joined by three

journalists who, in an era of so-called fake news, can be

relied upon for their accuracy, their impartiality -

and their willingness to come to the studio

It's Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer

and Tom Newton Dunn, and during the programme they'll be

tweeting as often as the 45th President of the USA in the middle

So - the Prime Minister has been appearing on the BBC this morning.

She was mostly talking about Donald Trump and Brexit,

but she was also asked about a story on the front of this

It's reported that an unarmed Trident missile test fired

from the submarine HMS Vengeance near the Florida coast in June

The paper says the incident took place weeks before a crucial Commons

Well, let's have listen to Theresa May talking

The issue that we were talking about in the House of Commons

It was about whether or not we should renew Trident,

whether we should look to the future and have a replacement Trident.

That's what we were talking about in the House of Commons.

That's what the House of Commons voted for.

He doesn't want to defend our country with an independent

There are tests that take place all the time, regularly,

What we were talking about in that debate that took place...

I'm not going to get an answer to this.

Tom, it was clear this was going to come up this morning. It is on the

front page of the Sunday Times. It would seem to me the Prime Minister

wasn't properly briefed on how to reply. I think she probably was, but

the Prime Minister we now have doesn't necessarily answer all

questions in the straightest way. She didn't answer that one and all.

Unlike previous ones? She made it quite clear she was briefed. You

read between the Theresa May lines. By simply not answering Andrew Marr

four times, it is obvious she knew, and that she knew before she went

into the House of Commons and urged everyone to renew the ?40 billion

replacement programme. Of course it is an embarrassment, but does it

have political legs? I don't think so. She didn't mislead the Commons.

If she wanted to close it down, the answer should have been, these are

matters of national security. There's nothing more important in

that than our nuclear deterrent. I'm not prepared to talk about testing.

End of. But she didn't. Maybe you should be briefing her. That's a

good answer. She is an interesting interviewee. She shows it when she

is nervous. She was transparently uneasy answering those questions,

and the fact she didn't answer it definitively suggests she did know

and didn't want to say it, and she answered awkwardly. But how wider

point, that the House of Commons voted for the renewal of Trident,

suggests to me that in the broader sweep of things, this will not run,

because if there was another vote, I would suggest she'd win it again.

But it is an embarrassment and she handled it with a transparent

awkwardness. She said that the tests go on all the time, but not of the

missiles. Does it not show that when the Prime Minister leaves her

comfort zone of Home Office affairs or related matters, she often

struggles. We've seen it under questioning from Mr Corbyn even, and

we saw it again today. Absolutely. Tests of various aspects of the

missiles go on all the time, but there's only been five since 2000.

What you described wouldn't have worked, because in previous tests

they have always been very public about it. Look how well our missiles

work! She may not have misled Parliament, but she may not have

known about it. If she didn't know, does Michael Fallon still have a job

on Monday? Should Parliament know about a test that doesn't work? Some

would say absolutely not. Our deterrent is there to deter people

from attacking us. If they know that we are hitting the United States by

mistake rather than the Atlantic Ocean, then... There is such a thing

as national security, and telling all the bad guys about where we are

going wrong may not be a good idea. It was her first statement as Prime

Minister to put her case for renewal, to have the vote on

Trident, and in that context, it is significant not to say anything. If

anyone knows where the missile landed, give us a call!

So Donald Trump's inauguration day closed with him dancing

to Frank Sinatra's My Way, and whatever your view on the 45th

President of the United States he certainly did do it his way.

Not for him the idealistic call for national unity -

instead he used Friday's inaugural address to launch a blistering

attack on the dark state of the nation and the political

class, and to promise to take his uncompromising approach

from the campaign trail to the White House.

Here's Adam Fleming, with a reminder of how

First, dropping by for a cup of tea and a slightly awkward exchange

Then, friends, foes and predecessors watched

I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear...

The crowds seemed smaller than previous inaugurations,

the speech tougher then any previous incoming president.

From this day forth, it's going to be only America first.

In the meantime, there were sporadic protests in Washington, DC.

Opponents made their voices heard around the world too.

The President, who'd criticised the work of

the intelligence agencies, fitted in a visit to the CIA.

There is nobody that feels stronger about the intelligence community

And, back at the office, in the dark, a signature signalled

the end of the Obama era and the dawn of Trump.

So, as you heard there, President Trump used his

inauguration to repeat his campaign promise to put "America first"

in all his decisions, and offered some hints of what to expect

He talked of in America in carnage, to be rebuilt by American hands and

American Labour. President Trump has already started to dismantle key

parts of the Obama Legacy, including the unwinding of the affordable care

act, and the siding of the climate action plan to tackle global

warning. Little to say about foreign policy, but promised to eradicate

Islamic terrorism from the face of the Earth, insisting he would

restore the US military to unquestioning dominance. He also

said the US would develop a state missile defence system to deal with

threats he sees from Iran and North Korea. In a statement that painted a

bleak picture of the country he now runs, he said his would be a law and

order Administration, and he would keep the innocents safe by building

the border war with Mexico. One thing he didn't mention, for the

first time ever, there is a Eurosceptic in the oval office, who

is also an enthusiast for Brexit. We're joined now by Ted Malloch -

he's a Trump supporter who's been tipped as the president's

choice for US ambassador to the EU, and he's

just flown back from Washington. And by James Rubin -

he's a democrat who served Let's start with that last point I

made in the voice over there. We now have a Eurosceptic in the oval

office. He is pro-Brexit and not keen on further European Union

integration. What are the implications of that? First of all,

a renewal of the US- UK special relationship. You see the Prime

Minister already going to build and rebuild this relationship. Already,

the bust of Winston Churchill is back in the oval office.

Interestingly, Martin Luther King's bust is also there, so there is an

act of unity in that first movement of dusts. Donald Trump will be

oriented between bilateral relationships and not multilateral

or supernatural. Supranational full. What are the implications of someone

in the White House now not believing in it? I think we are present in the

unravelling of America's leadership of the West. There is now a thing

called the west that America has led since the end of World War II,

creating supranational - we just heard supernatural! These

institutions were created. With American leadership, the world was

at peace in Europe, and the world grew increasingly democratic and

prosperous. Wars were averted that could be extremely costly. When

something works in diplomacy, you don't really understand what the

consequences could have been. I think we've got complacent. The new

president is taking advantage of that. It is a terrible tragedy that

so many in the West take for granted the successful leadership and

institutions we have built. You could argue, as James Rubin has

argued in some articles, that... Will Mr Trump's America be more

involved in the world than the Obama won? Or will it continue the process

with running shoes on that began with Mr Obama? President Obama

stepped back from American leadership. He withdrew from the

world. He had a horrendous eight years in office, and American powers

have diminished everywhere in the world, not just in Europe. That

power will reassert. The focus will be on America first, but there are

foreign interests around the world... How does it reassert itself

around the world? I think the institutions will be recreated. Some

may be taken down. There could be some new ones. I think Nato itself,

and certainly the Defence Secretary will have discussions with Donald

Trump about how Nato can be reshaped, and maybe there will be

more burden sharing. That is an important thing for him. You are

tipped to be the US ambassador to Brussels, to the EU, and we are

still waiting to hear if that will happen. Is it true to say that Mr

Trump does not believe in EU integration? I think you made that

clear in the speech. He talked about supranational. He does not believe

in those kinds of organisations. He is investing himself in bilateral

relationships, the first of which will be with the UK. So we have a

president who does not believe in EU integration and has been highly

critical of Nato. Do the people he has appointed to defend, Secretary

of State, national security, do you think that will temper this

anti-NATO wretched? Will he come round to a more pro-NATO situation?

I think those of us who care about America's situation in the world

will come in to miss President Obama a lot. I think the Secretary of

State and the faculty of defence will limit the damage and will urge

him not to take formal steps to unravel this most powerful and most

successful alliance in history, the Nato alliance. But the damage is

already being done. When you are the leader of the West, leadership means

you are persuading, encouraging, bolstering your leadership and these

institutions by the way you speak. Millions, if not hundreds of

millions of people, have now heard the US say that what they care about

is within their borders. What do you say to that? It is such

an overstatement. The point is that Donald Trump is in a Jacksonian

tradition of national populism. He is appealing to the people first.

The other day, I was sitting below this page during the address, and he

said, everyone sitting behind me as part of the problem. Everyone in

front of me, the crowd and the crowd on television, is part of the

solution, so we are giving the Government back to the people. That

emphasis is going to change American life, including American

International relations. It doesn't moving the leak back -- it doesn't

mean we are moving out of Nato, it simply means we will put our

national interests first. There were echoes of Andrew Jackson's

inauguration address of 1820. That night, the Jacksonians trashed the

White House, but Mr Trump's people didn't do that, so there is a

difference there. He also said something else in the address - that

protectionism would lead to prosperity. I would suggest there is

no evidence for that in the post-war world. He talked about protecting

the American worker, American jobs, the American economy. I actually

think that Donald Trump will not turn out to be a protectionist. If

you read the heart of the deal... This is referring to two Republican

senators who introduce massive tariffs in the Hoover

administration. Exactly. If you read The Art Of The Deal, you will see

how Donald Trump deals with individuals and countries. There is

a lot of bluster, positioning, and I think you already see this in

bringing jobs by the United States. Things are going to change. Let's

also deal with this proposition. China is the biggest loser of this

election result. Let me say this: The first time in American history

and American president has set forth his view of the world, and it is a

mercantile view of the world, who makes more money, who gets more

trade, it doesn't look at the shared values, leadership and defends the

world needs. The art of the deal has no application to America's

leadership of the world, that's what we're learning. You can be a great

businessman and make great real estate deals - whether he did not is

debatable - but it has nothing to do with inspiring shared values from

the West. You saying China may lose, because he may pressure them to

reduce their trade deficit with the US. They may or may not. We may both

lose. Right now, his Secretary of State has said, and I think he will

walk this back when he is brief, that they will prevent the Chinese

from entering these islands in the South China Sea. If they were to do

that, it would be a blockade, and there would be a shooting war

between the United States and China, so US - China relations are the most

important bilateral relationship of the United States, and they don't

lend themselves to the bluff and bluster that may have worked when

you are trying to get a big building on second Ave in Manhattan. Is China

the biggest loser? I think the Chinese have a lot to lose. Gigi and

Ping was in Davos this week -- Xi Jin Ping was in Davos.

Is Germany the second biggest loser in the sense that I understand he

hasn't agreed time to see Angela Merkel yet, also that those close to

him believe that Germany is guilty of currency manipulation by adopting

a weak your row instead of the strong Deutschmark, and that that is

why they are running a huge balance of payments surplus with the United

States. American - German relations may not be great. There is a point

of view throughout Europe. You only have to talk to the southern

Europeans about this question. It seems like the euro has been aligned

to benefit Germany. Joe Stiglitz, the famous left of centre Democrat

economist, made the same case in a recent book. In this case, I think

Germany will be put under the spotlight. Angela Merkel has shown

herself to be the most respected and the most successful leader in

herself to be the most respected and Europe. We who care about the West,

who care about the shared values of the West, should pray and hope that

she is re-elected. This isn't about dollars and cents. We're living in a

time whether Russian leader has another country in Europe and for

some inexplicable reason, the American president, who can use his

insult diplomacy on everyone, including Mrs Merkel, the only

person he can't seem to find anything to criticise about is Mr

Putin. There are things more important than the actual details of

your currency. There are things like preventing another war in Europe,

preventing a war between the Chinese and the US. You talk about the

Trident missile all morning, nuclear deterrence is extremely important.

It doesn't lend itself to the bluff and bluster of a real estate deal. I

understand all that, but the fact we are even talking about these things

shows the new world we are moving into. I'd like to get you both to

react to this. This is a man that ended the Bush Dynasty, a man that

beat the Clinton machine. In his inauguration, not only did he not

reach out to the Democrats, he didn't even mention the Republicans.

These are changed days for us. They are, and change can be good or

disastrous. I'm worried that it's easy in the world of diplomacy and

in them -- for the leadership of the United States to break relationships

and ruin alliances. These are things that were carefully nurtured. George

Schultz, the American Secretary of State under Reagan talked about

gardening, the slow, careful creation of a place with bilateral

relationships that were blossoming and flowering multilateral

relationships that take decades to create, and he will throw them away

in a matter of days. The final word... I work for George Schultz.

He was a Marine who stood up America, defended America, who would

be in favour of many of the things that Donald Trump and the tramp

Administration... Give him a call. His top aide macs that I've spoken

to are appalled by Mr Trump's abdication of leadership. He is

going to our radically -- he's going to eradicate extremist Islam from

the face of the year. Is that realistic? I know people in the

national security realm have worked on a plan. They say they will have

such a plan in some detail within 90 days. Lets hope they succeed. We

have run out of time. As a issues. Thank you, both. -- fascinating

issues. So Theresa May promised a big speech

on Brexit, and this week - perhaps against expectation -

she delivered, trying to answer claims that the government didn't

have a plan with an explicit wish-list of what she hopes to

achieve in negotiations with the EU. To her allies it was ambitious,

bold, optimistic - to her opponents it was full

of contradictions There are speeches,

and there are speeches. Like Theresa May's 12 principles

for a Brexit deal leading to the UK fully out of the EU

but still friendly in terms This agreement should allow

for the freest possible trade in goods and services between

Britain and the EU's member states. It should give British

companies the maximum operate within European markets

and let European businesses do She also said no deal would be

better than the wrong deal, We want to test what people think

about what she's just said. Do we have any of our

future negotiating As the European Parliament

voted for its new president, its chief

negotiator sounded off. Saying, OK, if our European

counterparts don't accept it, we're going to make

from Britain a sort of free zone or tax haven,

I The Prime Minister of Malta,

the country that's assumed the EU's rotating presidency,

spoke in sorrow and a bit of anger. We want a fair deal

for the United Kingdom, but that deal necessarily needs to be

inferior to membership. Next, let's hear

from some enthusiastic leavers, like, I don't

know, the Daily Mail? The paper lapped it up

with this adoring front page. For Brexiteers, it was

all manna from heaven. I think today means we are a big

step closer to becoming an independent country again,

with control of our own laws, I was chuckling at some of it,

to be honest, because There were various phrases there

which I've used myself again and Do we have any of those

so-called Remoaners? There will, at the end

of this deal process, so politicians get to vote

on the stitch-up, but We take the view as

Liberal Democrats that if this process started

with democracy last June, We trusted the people

with departure, we must trust them Do we have anyone from

Labour, or are you all watching it in a small

room somewhere? Throughout the speech, there seemed

to be an implied threat that somewhere along the line,

if all her optimism of a deal with the European Union didn't work,

we would move into a low-tax, corporate taxation,

bargain-basement economy on the I think she needs to be

a bit clearer about what The Labour leader

suggested he'd tell his MPs to vote in favour

of starting a Brexit process if Parliament was given the choice,

sparking a mini pre-revolt among Finally, do we have anyone

from big business here? Of course, your all in Davos

at the World Economic Clarity, first of all, really

codified what many of us have been anticipating since

the referendum result, particularly around

the I think what we've also seen

today is the Government's willingness to put a bit of edge

into the negotiating dynamic, and I Trade negotiations are negotiations,

and you have to lay out, and you have to be pretty tough

to get what you want. Although some business people

on the slopes speculated about moving some of their

operations out of Brexit Britain. We saw there the instant reaction

of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, but how will the party respond

to the challenge posed by Brexit Well, I'm joined now by the Shadow

Home Secretary, Diane Abbott. People know that Ukip and the Tories

are for Brexit. The Lib Dems are four remain. What is Labour for? For

respecting the result of the referendum. It was a 72% turnout,

very high for an election of that nature, and we believe you have to

respect that result. You couldn't have a situation where people like

Tim Farron are saying to people, millions of people, sorry, you got

it wrong, we in London no better. However, how the Tories go forward

from here has to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Is it Shadow

Cabinet policy to vote for the triggering of Article 50? Our policy

is not to block Article 50. That is what the leader was saying this

morning. So are you for it? Our policy is not to block it. You are

talking about voting for it. We don't know what the Supreme Court is

going to say, and we don't know what legislation Government will bring

forward, and we don't know what amendment we will move, but we're

clear that we will not vote to block it. OK, so you won't bow to stop it,

but you could abstain? No, what we will do... Either you vote for or

against all you abstain. There are too many unanswered questions. For

instance, the position of EU migrants working and living in this

country. You may not get the answer to that before Article 50 comes

before the Commons, so what would you do then? We are giving to amend

it. We can only tell you exactly how we will amend it when we understand

what sort of legislation the Government is putting forward, and

in the course of moving those amendments, we will ask the

questions that the people of Britain whether they voted to leave remain

want answered. When you come to a collective view,

will there be a three line whip? I can't tell you, because we have not

seen the government 's legislation. But when you see it, you will come

to a collective view. Many regard this as extremely important. Will

there be a three line whip on Labour's collective view? Because it

is important, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. When we see what the

Supreme Court says, and crucially, when we see what the government

position is, you will hear what the whipping is. Will shadow ministers

be able to defy any three line whip on this? That is not normally the

case. But they did on an early vote that the government introduced on

Article 50. Those who voted against it are still there. In the Blair

years, you certainly couldn't defy a three line whip. We will see what

happens going forward. I remember when the Tories were hopelessly

divided over the EU. All these Maastricht votes and an list

arguments. Now it is Labour. Just another symptom of Mr Corbyn's poor

leadership. Not at all. Two thirds voted to leave, a third to remain.

We are seeking to bring the country and the party together. We will do

that by pointing out how disastrous a Tory Brexit would be. Meanwhile,

around 80 Labour MPs will defy a three line whip. It's too early to

say that. Will you publish what you believe the negotiating goal should

be? We are clear on it. We think that the economy, jobs and living

standards should be the priority. What Theresa May is saying is that

holding her party together is her priority. She is putting party above

country. Does Labour think we should remain members of the single market?

Ideally, in terms of jobs and the economy, of course. Ritt -ish

business thinks that as well. Is Labour policy that we should remain

a member of the single market? Labour leaves that jobs and the

economy comes first, and if they come first, you would want to remain

part of the single market. But to remain a member? Jobs and the

economy comes first, and to do that, ideally, guess. So with that, comes

free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the European, and a

free movement of people, the multi-million never shipped thief.

Is Labour prepared to pay that? Money is neither here nor there.

Because the Tories will be asked to pay a lot of money... The EU has

made it clear that you cannot pay a lot of money... The EU has

have... I am asking for Labour's position. Our position is rooted in

the reality, and the reality is that you cannot have the benefits of the

member of the European Union, including being a member of the

single market, without responsibility, including free

movement of people. Free movement, is remaining under the jurisdiction

of the European Court of Justice. Is is remaining under the jurisdiction

that the Labour position? You've said that Labour wants to remain a

member of the single market. That is the price tag that comes with it.

Does Labour agree with paying that price tag? We are not pre-empting

negotiation. Our goals are protect jobs and the British economy. Is it

Labour's position that we remain a member of the customs union? Well,

if we don't, I don't see how Theresa May can keep our promises and has

unfettered access... You said Labour's position was clear. It is!

It is clear that Theresa May... I am not asking about Theresa May. Is it

Labour's position to remain a member of the customs union? It is Labour's

position to do what is right for British industry. Depending on how

the negotiations go, it may prove that coming out of the customs

union, as Theresa May has indicated she wants to do, could prove

catastrophic, and could actually destroy some of her promises. You do

accept that if we are member of the customs union, we cannot do our own

free trade deals? What free trade deals are you talking about? The

ones that Labour might want to do in the future. First, we have to

ones that Labour might want to do in protect British jobs and British

industries. If you are talking about free trade deals with Donald Trump,

the danger is that Theresa May will get drawn into a free-trade deal

with America that will open up the NHS to American corporate... The

cards are in Theresa May's hands. If she takes us out of the single

market, if she takes us out of the customs union, we will have to deal

with that. How big a crisis for Jeremy Corbyn will be if Labour

loses both by-elections in February. Jeremy Corbyn will be if Labour

I don't believe we will lose both. But if he did? I am not anticipating

that. Is Labour lost two seats in a midterm of a Tory government, would

that be business as usual? I'm not prepared to see us lose those seats,

so I will not talk about something that will not happen. Thank you.

You're watching the Sunday Politics.

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

Scotland's Brexit Minister, Michael Russell, tells us SNP MPs

will vote against triggering Article 50, no matter how it's amended.

How concerned are Scotland's importers about Brexit?

We have got to trust our negotiators at the end of the day. I'm sure they

are doing their very best for Britain.

And did Theresa May choose politics over economics when she set

This week, the Supreme Court will deliver its verdict over

whether MPs should have a vote over the triggering of Article 50.

But Scotland's Brexit Minister says SNP MPs would vote against any bill.

Before we came on air, I spoke to Michael Russell

We can talk about Brexit in a minute, but Theresa May has just

been on the Andrew Marr programme and she refused to say whether she

knew about this alleged Trident missile misfiring at the time the

renewal of Trident was debated in Parliament last year. Is that

acceptable? It is unacceptable. Trident is a very serious issue, an

issue where there needs to be transparency. If people had knowing

what had happened they would, at the very least, have asked some

questions. This is wrong and using secrecy to overcome democratic

scrutiny. What will the SNP group in Parliament do about this? My

colleagues will want to pursue this very firmly. They will want to find

out when the Government knew, what the new, and why they did not give

that information in the House of Commons. Theresa May does not want

the House of Commons to be involved in any scrutiny, which is wrong and

needs to be overcome. You will see vigorous action by the SNP. There

are reports this morning found New Cross Parliamentary group at

Westminster which, should the Supreme Court decides there will

have to be bought in Article 50, the triggering off it, they plan to

Britain amendments to soften some of the things that Theresa May said in

her speech last week. Is that something be SNP supports? Had he

been involved in these talks? I think the SNP MPs had been involved

in many talks, but it will also be bringing Ford amendments. Whether it

is part of that process are complementary to it remains to be

seen. All bills can be amended. The difference in position is what

happens at the end of the day when the bill is voted on and in the

present circumstances I don't think there is any possibility of the SNP

MPs supporting Article 50. If there is a legislative consent motion in

the Scottish Parliament, as I presumed will be, we will be voting

against that process. It does in Article 50 is not just endorsing the

vote in the United Kingdom, the vote in Scotland was very different, it

is endorsing the position that Theresa May has taken on Brexit and

endorsing the type of country that she wants. She wants an isolationist

country, one that is in Word looking, and one that is rejecting

the benefits of migration. That is not the country any of us want

Scotland to be. That is the strongest reason for rejecting it.

Will the SNP vote against triggering article 15 or matter how it is

amended? Absolutely. I cannot conceive of circumstances where we

would support the triggering conceive of circumstances where we

Article 50. It takes this issue forward in an unacceptable way and

takes the type of Brexit forwarded an unacceptable way and it declares

the type of country that Theresa May once this country to be, and that is

not the country that me or my colleagues or Scotland wants to be.

There was a meeting you were at this week, a group are going to study the

proposals in your paper on Brexit. Have you been given any reason to

believe that the British Government will adopt the proposal you put

forward in that paper? The first of the proposals in the paper has been

rejected by the Prime Minister without consultation or discussion.

Not only did she say so two days before the Committee met, there was

no paper on Thursday saying that this was what the Prime Minister had

decided and five. There was an agreement on Thursday to look at the

other proposals, the proposals to do with Scotland remaining and the

single market and on the customs union and on further devolution.

They can look at those in detail and they are perfectly achievable. They

will be hard, but they are achievable. That is the position we

are now in. There was a feeling of frustration for the devolved

administrations on Thursday because we were faced with decisions made

outside the Committee, no respect for the Committee at the devolved

institutions, and the reasons given. We still have not seen the workings

that Theresa May used to say we should not be in the single market.

When you said after the meeting that the clock is ticking, what did you

mean? The clock is ticking on the process we are engaged in because

that has got to be real, there has to be a work programme that makes

sense. The clock is also taking in terms of an independence referendum

because there is an alternative to the present situation. We really

want to try and get a negotiated solution, we put everything into

that, but it does not appear that is being paid any respect or given any

consideration, because this is a very well worked out series of

proposals. The clock is ticking and this is not a process that will last

forever. Article 50 is meant to be triggered by the end of March, but

we have not seen a scrap of paper to see what will be in this letter, we

have not seen the working that has gone into that, and we have not been

consulted despite reference to joint ministerial Committee. Supporters of

Theresa May and her Government has said saying that the clock is

ticking and continuing to threaten an independence referendum does not

mean anything. We can read the polling figures as well as you can

and we know that is not a majority in Scotland for independence, with

even less support for another independence referendum. All your

talk of clocks ticking and the threat of another referendum does

not put any pressure on us, they would say. How would you reply to

that? There is no threat to be made. We said at the beginning of this

process there were a series of options that needed to be considered

and went through this carefully. We also said there was a democratic

mandate to hold another referendum if we were taken out of Europe

against our well. My point is, given the way that the polling figures

are, it does not look like it is wanted. I don't think there is any

doubt that a campaign focused on the type of country we want to live and

would be a very effective campaign indeed. If you look at where the

polls were at the start of the campaign for the 2014 referendum and

where they ended up, the possibility of significant progress absolutely

exists. We're looking at the options carefully one by one and we are this

in a rational way and unlike the UK Government. It is possible to move

forward on a well worked out compromise position and that is

still on the table. There are no threats being made, we are working

our way through a logical set of options. I wish the people that we

are negotiating with were as logical as we are. You said in the paper you

produced that you seem to accept that should your idea of Scotland

joining the European Union free-trade area and staying in the

single market, that to get anywhere with that you would need the

sponsorship of the British Government. Have you formally as the

British Government to sponsor that? It is in the paper... Have you as

the? Should the UK Government agree that there should be in the

negotiating position for Article 50, they would be expected to do that

and at the appropriate minute we will see that needs to go in the

letter. There is another way to do that which is to give the Scottish

Parliament the powers, the treaty powers, for its devolved areas and

to give a legal personality. That is what happened in Belgium with the

devolved parliaments there. There are options within this paper. As of

now, the British Government has given you no indication that it

would either sponsor Scotland's in doing this, which would mean the

British Government would have to negotiate with the other 27 members

of the European Union over this, nor have they given you any indication

that they would give you the legislative power to do it yourself.

Is that correct? As of now, we are in the joint process of examining

the process in the paper. It is being considered by officials on

both sides with the involvement of ministers. That is the position we

are in and that is the position that we want to lead, but in the Article

50 letter there will be a section that says this is what we want to

see happen with Scotland, we will undergo shapeless, and we will

support the United Kingdom Government in negotiating that

position if they decide to put that in the article 15 letter. But they

have not said they will support this? This paper is being debated

and discussed. We will support the United Kingdom Government of

drafting that section of the Article 50 letter and on the negotiations on

choose a degree that should happen. choose a degree that should happen.

-- if they choose to agree. The other devolved administrations know

how important this servers and Northern Ireland the situation is

more serious. 15% of Scotland's exports go to the European Union,

compared to over 60% to the rest of the United Kingdom. Can we take it

that if you do have another referendum campaign, that you will

propose as single market with the UK? Of course, because we have

proposed that before. We said that we did not expect there to be any

interruption in trade. You can look at this to the other end of the

telescope and say that is what the rest of the United Kingdom is saying

about the EU and its continuing arrangements. We want to continue to

trade. Anyone who says there is an either or is malicious or mistaken.

ICU yacht is waiting to take you away so we better leave it there.

Thank you. I'm afraid not, but thank you.

The Prime Minister this week confirmed what most of us

Britain will leave the European single market.

Theresa May promised to push instead for the "freest possible trade"

with Europe but reaching a deal before we leave seems,

at this stage, well, at the very least debatable.

In the meantime, our imports and exports could be

Graham Stewart's been finding out how that might affect Scotland's

We have here, Graham, wines from Bordeaux on the left-hand side. At a

wine importers of Livingston, free trade with Europe is essential to

their business. And these ones here? You are a man of expensive taste but

quality. This is from 2006, very good vintage. Whether it is a fine

claret or a cheeky Chardonnay, Brexit will not end our love affair

with fine wines, but the future does Brexit will not end our love affair

not look so rosy. The wine trade has survived the Reformation, the union

of Parliament and during the Jacobite area, nationals took to

claret as a portion to report as a sign of their independence. But how

will the wine trade survived Brexit? The immediate impact was on the

foreign exchange, we import all of our products from abroad, both

within the European Community or from out with, Australia, South

America, South Africa... There was a 20% drop in foreign exchange for 20%

increase in our costs. And that this before Brexit has even happened. The

Prime Minister last week was optimistic that Britain can strike a

new free trade deal with Europe, but all the signs so far suggest

European leaders are unwilling to start negotiating a deal until after

we leave. So how long do trade negotiations normally take? The

answer is there is no normal. The US and the EU started to put together a

deal and said they would do it within 18 months. We are still

trying to negotiate that and it may die with Mr Trump coming to power,

but that is still going on for years later. Quite a few negotiations... I

have known negotiations that have been going for ten years and have

not been completed. In the intron, Britain might have to operate under

the rules of the World Trade Organisation and that would mean

tariffs on imports and exports, which would impose costs on our

industries. There are wide range of tariffs, some are zero, a lot of

trade is zero. But others are quite high, from motor cars, for example,

the tariff is 10%, that adds 10% onto the price. There are other

areas where it is even higher, particularly for food. Forlan, for

example, there is a percentage tariff of 12.8% and then on top that

you is a 1700 euros export that has been paid to get the lamb into the

EU offer the EU to get Islam into the UK. That has set off alarm bells

in Scotland's food and rent industries that are worried about

becoming a bargaining chip in any trade negotiations. In Scotland we

represent 19% of all manufacturing jobs and another ?14 million to the

economy. That is enormously important to the economy of Scotland

and our concern is that if food and drink is not privatised in those

negotiations, huge and important jobs will be lost. -- is not

prioritised. And at Scotland's oldest delicatessen, it might in

future cost more to buy your favourite Italian cheese. But as a

company, they are not using the head just yet. We must trust our

negotiators at the end of the day and I am sure they are doing their

very best for Britain. I also guess that we still are in the EEC for the

next two years until we are out. So life must continue. So there does

not worry about it, let us think about it and hopefully influence,

but we have two years to go yet. Still, that does not give the

Britain much time to find experienced negotiators who know

their onions, but if the civil service is looking for

inspiration... There is a man in the White House who is good at making

deals. Now, before her speech this week,

all we really knew about the UK Government's plans for Brexit

were that it means Brexit. Then this week we got a glimpse of

what Theresa May's plans might be... It was a vote to restore as we see

it our parliamentary democracy, national survey termination and to

become even more global and internationalist in action and in

spirit. And that is why we seek a new and equal partnership between an

independent self-governing global Britain and our friends and allies

in the EU. But the Prime Minister's speech has

led some commentators to conclude that Theresa May has favoured

the political argument With me to discuss this,

in Edinburgh, is Christina Boswell, who's Professor of Politics

at the University of Edinburgh, and in our Dundee studio

is Brad MacKay, Professor of Strategic Management

at the University of St Andrews. Christina Boswell, you think that

politics are winning on this, do you? It is always politics, isn't

it? We are used to the idea that the economy is a very salient issue for

voters, so they typically put the economy at the top of the robust

when deciding what position to support. In this case, Theresa May

had all made a calculation that economics is not such a salient

issue in regard to Brexit and you must remember that the economic

prognosis about the effect of Brexit on the UK economy are fairly complex

and abstract. It is not immediately clear to many voters how leaving the

EU will affect them economically and I think also people are quite wary

about different economic forecasts, they are not necessarily trusting,

they do not find incredible because they have been politicised, people

see them as partisan claims supporting different positions and I

think finally, there is another issue around the economy, which is

that the type of national indicators that we typically used to measure

economic performance do not necessarily resonate with people's

experience at the moment. We are told GDP is rising and that

employment figures are strong and rising, but that does not

necessarily correspond to how people feel in their lives. Into the vacuum

then steps these more emotive and perhaps more compelling arguments

about identity, immigration. Brad MacKay, Theresa May would tell you

she is not putting politics ahead of economics, she has an economic plan.

There is an economic plan, that is the certainly come out of the single

market and possibly come out of the certainly come out of the single

customs union and then to launch on this global strategy of striking

deals across the world. One of the issues and Christina has touched on

it is that there are lot of contradictions that exist and are

being brought about by taking a more political line or putting political

issues at the forefront of the government's strategy.

issues at the forefront of the economists say trade is one area of

economics that is pretty straight forward and if you leave the

European Union, it will harm Britain's trade, not just with the

European Union but the rest of the world. Did you agree with that or do

you think there is a possibility that we could do some of the very

successful deals that Theresa May would like to do? I think that the

government has set out a very ambitious strategy and as a said

before, there are a lot of different contradictions. For example, coming

out of the single market, certainly coming out of the customs union and

then trying to replicate that on either a sectorial basis on in its

entirety but without some of those political issues that will be

important for the European Union, like the movement of free people and

coming under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The

challenge that the UK has, which also present another contradiction,

is that at the moment the UK is trying to embark on a global

strategy when the forces of protectionism are coming to the

fore. So it will be very challenging. And trying to replicate

even some of the, what the UK currently has in terms of access to

the single market in terms of the sectorial basis, that may indeed

come into conflict with some of the world trade organisation rules. So

there are all kinds of different contradictions that exist within the

correct strategy that would have to be reconciled before the UK would be

able to negotiate what would be a set of very complex deals that would

leave it better off and I think most economists would agree that because

the UK is seen very much as a gateway by a lot of foreign

investors into the EU, it is going to be a very tall order indeed to

try and achieve that. The other side of that, Christina Boswell is, of

course, at least we're not really seeing any bad economic effects of

leaving. I take the point that we seeing any bad economic effects of

have not done it yet, but when the governor of the Bank of England is

telling us that the main threat to short-term financial stability in

the UK is no longer Brexit, that must mean something. Yes, but how

this plays out politically for Theresa May in the next months and

years will depend on a number of things and one of those is the

economic indicators and how Brexit is affecting the economy as

decisions are made and as the negotiation outcome becomes clearer.

We have also got to bear in mind that there are other factors which

could play quite negatively for Theresa May. For example, if it

looks like the negotiation process will be protracted, it will be very

difficult if the EU is very intransigent in its negotiation

position. But also a lot is riding on the government's ability to

restrict immigration and I am not that confident that the government

will be able to do so, it has not managed to restrict non-EU

immigration since 2010. I do not think it will fare much better in

restricting EU immigration, so I think there could be a lot of

disappointed voters out there. What do you think the Scottish Government

should do? Two possible strategies, one is to say, look, this is what we

want, if we do not get it, we will have another independence

referendum. Arguably there is another price which is that a whole

lot of powers are going to be devolved probably because when you

leave the European Union they could see, for example, we want limited

powers over immigration. There was see, for example, we want limited

video that was done with Jack McConnell many years ago, if you

remember, on students. Things like that that could give them a bit more

flexibility. I think that is correct. The Lewis Cook for some

leverage there. In the speech of Theresa May on Tuesday she spoke

about the repatriation of powers, as it is called, and she made in north

to the idea that it might make sense for some of those Paris to come back

to the devolved administrations and others to go back to Westminster. So

she seems to be signalling some flexibility there, however it does

not go anywhere near the type of proposals put forward by Nicola

Sturgeon just before Christmas, which was aiming towards a fully

differentiated approach with Scotland retaining access to the

single market. In terms of the SNP's negotiating position as it were, I

think that the Lions have really hard and through this set of

proposals that were advanced before Christmas and now Theresa May's

speech. It will be very difficult, I think, to pull back from those hard

divisions which have become crystallised now. It is very

difficult to envisage avoiding a second referendum on Scottish

independence, I think. What do you think about that, Brad MacKay? It

might be wrong in this, but I think one of the argument that was put

forward in the past about devolving the EFTA was because it was

earmarked for paying into the European Union, you could not have

different VAT rates around the UK. But as long as we're not in the EU,

the Scottish Government can say they can have control of VAT, thank you

very much. -- VAT. I think there is a lot of scope for devolving a lot

more powers to the Scottish Government. If you look at something

like even immigration and you take the example of Canada and Quebec.

Quebec has a customised deal as a province in Canada with the Canadian

federal government to have a lot more control over that. So I think

there is a lot of scope in being able to do that. I think we're some

of the challenges for the Scottish Government come in are that the

reality is that Scotland's economy is a very highly integrated thing

with the rest of the UK. Somewhere between 60% and 70% of Scottish

exports actually go to the rest of the UK, only about 15% would go to

the European Union. I think there are some areas where powers could be

devolved to the Scottish Government, which would allow the Scottish

Government to tailor various policies to the needs of Scotland

and immigration would potentially be one of them. I think when it comes

to trying to negotiate some sort of halfway house between a single

market in the UK and the single market in Europe, that presents a

whole lot of challenges that will be difficult to overcome. Christina

Boswell, briefly on immigration, you said a minute ago it could be very

difficult for the British government to control immigration to the extent

that they would like, even if they get powers over immigration back,

which they would by beating the EU, is that a potential pitfall with

Brexit if it does not deliver the thing that many people voted for

Brexit if it does not deliver the Brexit in order to achieve? I think

it could be a potential pitfall but a lot depends upon how the

government manages to shape the narrative and every listen to the

language being used by Theresa May at the moment, she does not talk

about ridges, she does not talk about bring down, she talks about

control, controlling emigration... about bring down, she talks about

And again. I am thinking, we are seeing a subtle shift away from the

language around reducing net migration towards controlling and

that is a narrative around selectivity, the brightest and best,

selecting those immigrants that will selectivity, the brightest and best,

be beneficial towards our economy. I suspect you want to shape the

narrative like that, that it is not uncontrolled immigration for anyone

who wants to come here but controlled immigration, possibly

similar numbers, but of those who reselect the benefit our economy.

Christina Boswell and Brad MacKay, thank you both very much indeed.

Time now to look at the stories from the week gone by and those

With me this week are Caron Lindsay, editor of Liberal Democrat Voice,

and the SNP's former head of communications turned

communications consultant, Kevin Pringle.

Kevin, you were there during the last independence referendum. If you

were still there, what would you say to the Scottish Government? Would

you say go for a referendum next year or would you tell them to wait?

I think another referendum is increasingly likely and I think it

is unavoidable. In terms of the result of the European referendum,

it was such a deferential result across the UK, the fact it was

included in the SNP manifesto last year... Would you still go for it?

Yes, for two reasons. They polls are around pretty work in 2014, but to

begin at 45% is different from 2014 when we began... The counter to that

is to say that at the beginning of 2014 a lot of people had not

decided. It is more polarised now. I think it is more polarised but it is

also more fluid than people think. There has been a shift in both

directions, some have gone from no two yes, some have gone from yes to

no. I think it will be much easier to get people who have gone from yes

to no back again, and even if that is all that happens the referendum

result would be yes. The framing of the referendum in a post-Brexit

situation... What Nicola Sturgeon would like to do is say that the

referendum is not about Brexit at about putting Brexit in the wider

context of the Democratic... The point Kenny MacAskill has been

making is that a lot of SNP yes voters, whether they were SNP voters

are not, voted to leave the European Union. He argues that there should

not be another referendum but also that when there is one it should not

be a bit Europe because you have to win over previous yes photos he

voted to leave Europe. I think that will be possible because Brexit is

an extreme example of democratic deficit. Since 2010 there has been a

UK Government supported by only one member of Parliament in Scotland.

UK Government supported by only one The equivalent would be for Scotland

to be governed by a country that only had nine MPs. That is the

result of an election system you do not support. It is only because of

first past the post their SNP has got so many. It is the reality that

Scotland finds itself in. It is fertile territory to deliver a yes

vote. These reports this morning that Liberal Democrats among others

by looking at putting amendment should the Supreme Court decide

there will have to be legislation on Article 50. That is something you

think may show some promise or a do you think the Conservatives will

just dismantle the? I don't think the ad server to Tory nationalism is

SNP national of them. I think the SNP and the Liberal Democrats and

other people in Parliament should be working together to secure a

referendum on the Brexit deal, because I think that is the best way

of making sure the whole UK stays in the single market. What do you think

of Michael Russell's tactic that we will put forward lots of amendments

to the bill but we will vote against it anyway? We need to see how it

shapes up. That is an odd way to proceed. We can see what happens in

the House of Commons but I think the reality is that these amendment is

unlikely to be successful. That is a strong Democratic position for the

SNP MPs to base their caisson. Can they completely rejected? It is not

impossible that enough Conservatives might vote for these amendments. The

majority of Conservative MPs were first staying in the European Union.

The problem is you have to see what the Labour Party do. They are not

providing any opposition whatsoever. They are just saying they will vote

for Article 50 whatever, which is wrong. If people were working

together we could really make some changes. Labour are not here to

defend themselves, but I think they would say calling for another

referendum on the outcome of negotiations is ignoring the

referendum result. You criticise the SNP for ignoring the result of the

independence referendum, but you're doing the same of the Brexit

referendum. We had no idea what Brexit would look like. How is that

different from the SNP saying that they had no idea Scotland would vote

different from the SNP saying that to stay in the EU and the rest of

the UK wouldn't. You respect the result or you do not stop you

respect the vote for a departure but people did not vote for the

destination. But Scotland voted... That is the same as the SNP saying

that Scotland voted to stay in the UK but we did not know that would be

a European referendum in Scotland. Therefore that invalidates the

outcome of the referendum. You cannot accuse the SNP for not

telling us what independence would look like. We did not have that in

the league campaign. Theresa May has chosen the most extreme version of

Brexit on a very slim majority. I think people need to have a vote on

what Brexit looks like. The SNP are saying that we might have another

independence referendum, that is one thing, but it is another thing to

say there should be a referendum across the UK on the results of the

negotiation. I don't know what view the SNP would take on that, but the

difference between the independence referendum, where the definition of

what an independent Scotland would look like in that 600 page document

that everyone had available, that was provided before the referendum.

that everyone had available, that All the definition of what Brexit is

good to look like him and after the vote, so there is a case to consider

the issue of another referendum on the grounds that none of the

definition was there. Many leading leave campaigners said explicitly

that voting to leave was not about leaving the single European market.

One who had pursued Brexit for decades made a point of saying the

UK would stay in the single European market, the opposite of what is

happening. When the opposite of what was said would happen is actually

about to come about there is a case to consider that. With no additional

spectre Dan, just because he said... Many people said that. Leaving the

European Union is not about leaving the single market. If you look at

the Tory manifesto for 2015, they said they were in terms -- they were

in favour of remaining in the single market. We have heard from Theresa

May that this is not the case. Then you come into the issue that that is

the ground upon which the SNP have chosen to rest the bulk of their

case, that Scotland should remain in the single market and the same is

true for Northern Ireland. That should be taken into account. We

cannot end this programme about giving you a chance to tell us how

much admired Donald Trump. There is a cause for optimism. The marchers

we saw yesterday, I think that will bring people who've never been

involved in politics into trying to get a stake in the future, to try

and fight against what he is doing. We have seen how he has torn up all

the stuff on Obama care, health care, climate change... A quick

comment on Donald Trump. What do you think of what he is done? It has all

been about Donald Trump. I think it might be a mistake for a Theresa May

to go there because it is still very raw and controversial. We need to

leave it there. I'll be back at the

same time next week. There's live Scottish Cup action

next Sunday, as Hearts travel to Stark's Park

to take on Raith Rovers. Can the Championship side

cause a Cup upset -