22/01/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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 -


Download Subtitles