29/01/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

Download Subtitles




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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens of seven


mainly Muslim countries sparks protests at several US airports.


The President says "it's working out very nicely"


And Sunday Politics Scotland is on earlier at 11.25,


when Scottish Liberal Democrat leader


Willie Rennie says he'll push it to an election if they don't get


what they want on the Scottish Budget.


what he makes of the travel ban and the Prime Minister's


In London this week, the mayor, Sadiq Khan,


has been coming under pressure to explain his fares freeze


and why it doesn't apply to everybody.


And with me, the best and brightest political


panel in the business - Steve Richards, Julia


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


It was soon after Theresa May left the White House on Friday that


Donald Trump signed the executive order banning citizens from seven


President Trump's 90-day ban covers Iran, Iraq,


Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria, from


where refugees are banned from until further notice.


Donald Trump's executive order also imposes a complete ban


on all refugees coming to the US for the next 120 days.


Mr Trump said that the ban would keep radical Islamic terrorists out


But the ban has sparked protests across the US,


as people affected and already in the air were detained


US laws have begun legal action to challenge the ban, which many


At a press conference in Ankara, Turkey, Theresa May was asked


about the refugee ban three times before giving this response...


Well, the United States is responsible for the United States'


The United Kingdom is responsible for the United Kingdom's policy


on refugees, and our policy on refugees is to have a number


of voluntary schemes to bring Syrian refugees into the country.


Downing Street later issued a statement saying:


This morning, the Treasury Minister, David Gauke, was asked why


Theresa May had refused to condemn the travel ban at yesterday's


The Prime Minister is not a shoot-from-the-hip


She wants to see the evidence, she wants


to understand precisely what the implications are.


She'd been in a series of very lengthy meetings with


President Erdogan, and she's someone who wants to see the briefing and


understand it, and then will respond to that.


I think there are times where, you know, there's always


pressure to respond within a news cycle and so on.


The important thing is, we are saying we disagree with it


We're joined now from North London by the Conservative


Should the Government in general and Theresa May in particular be more


vocal in their criticism of Donald Trump's travel bans? Well, as David


just said, it is obviously right that Theresa has now said this is an


appropriate and not something we agree with in our Government, but I


wish she had said something at the time, not least because it affects


our own citizens. One of our own MPs, Nadhim, for example, because it


is also a global crisis. She had clearly built an excellent with


Donald Trump -- she had built an excellent relationship with him, but


she could have been firmer. Mrs May hasn't said any word of criticism


about the travel bans. She refused to say anything three times in


Ankara, and it is merely an anonymous Downing Street


spokesperson that has issued the subsequent mild criticism. We have


not heard from the Prime Minister at all on this matter in terms of


criticism. No, but the spokesperson will be speaking with her blessing,


so it is clearly something she has acknowledged. As I said before, I


wish she had said something at the time. The global climate at the


moment is delicate and we need our leaders to work together to address


things like the refugee crisis. Potentially, this plays into the


hands of Daesh. It is absolutely not the right message. What would you


like the Prime Minister to say? As with any new relationship, it is


about testing the boundaries. They had clearly got on well, so she


should have felt braver to say something there and then. I would


have preferred her to say, for example, I need to talk to Donald


Trump about this. It is not something I support and I want to


understand why because I believe there is a better way to deal with


the terrorist threat. I would have liked her to suggest that she would


engage with him to do that. The president has instituted a 90 day


temporary ban on people coming from seven mainly Muslim majority


population countries. The seven were on President Obama's list of the


biggest terrorist threats to the United States. Mr Trump wants this


temporary ban until he puts tougher vetting procedures in place. What is


wrong with that? Because it appeared to me that it wasn't thought through


and it was affecting ordinary citizens and some British citizens.


It can't be right that a president in that position of power can


arbitrarily come up with executive powers like that. It has already


been challenged by his own courts. So it is not the considered approach


I want to see in a global leader. Who do you believe will be hurt by


this, given that there can be exceptions on a case-by-case basis?


I think potentially, our global reputation is going to be hurt by


this. I have been to the refugee camps in Europe myself. There are


desperate people trying to free persecution who will be hurt by


this. We are trying to heal the wounds in this country not only


because of Brexit. This is a time of coming together, not about saying it


is located discriminatory against race and religion in this way. Do


you believe that Mr Trump's state visit should go ahead? Well, he is


the leader of America, so it does need to go ahead and we need to work


with him. I believe Theresa has started in a positive manner was


that she just needs to continue in that vein. If he comes to our


country, he needs to respect the way we feel about things. But yes, he is


the president, so he does need to come to the UK. There is some debate


within Westminster as to where it is appropriate for him to speak to MPs,


but it is right that he comes. But if he does come on a state visit,


should he be granted what this country has always thought of as a


great honour, which is a joint address to both Houses of


Parliament? I haven't been an MP long enough to understand the


protocol of where is the right location for him to do that, but I


believe in the past, it has been the greatest leaders, when they have


achieved great things globally, it is Westminster Hall. But there are a


number of MPs saying that is not the most appropriate place and I am


inclined to agree. You don't think he should be accorded the privilege


of speaking to a joint session of Parliament? I think there are places


where he can do that, but Westminster Hall is not yet the


right place. Thank you for joining us.


Steve, within 24 hours, we have seen the difficulty of becoming Donald


Trump's best friend. On the one hand, it could have huge advantages,


particularly for a Brexit Britain. On the other hand, if you are going


to be his best friend, you don't have to give a running commentary on


every major thing he does. Yeah. We have learned a bit about Theresa


May, that when she has to produce a set piece speech which she has time


to prepare, she can get it totally right and sometimes more than right.


When she is faced with a fast-moving story, she is leaden footed and


can't think quickly on her feet. We know, did she regret not saying


more? Evidently she did, because we got a statement from the Downing


Street spokesperson saying more. So she can't think quickly. She's going


to have to think very quickly in response to some of the things he's


going to be doing, because she will be asked about it all the time. It


does highlight the wider danger that the assumption that the special


relationship is always a safe and fertile place to be has been proven


wrong before and I think it will be proven wrong big-time in this case.


You're shaking your head. I don't see why we are responsible for


American domestic policy. I am as appalled as the next person by what


Donald Trump has done. He said he was going to do this, which was why


I did not want Americans to vote for him. In fact, what he has


implemented is much less than what he said he would do when he was


campaigning. I have always felt that the campaigning Trump was the real


Trump. But what he has done is actually constitutional. He has the


executive power to issue this order. It is within the rules in terms of a


class of aliens deemed to be a risk to the United States. It is a 90 day


limited ban. The last president who did this was a Democrat president,


President Carter. He did it in the aftermath of the Iranian crisis.


Well, given the spate of terror attacks on American territory in


recent years, you could argue that he meant well. I don't agree with


Donald Trump. But have people from these countries that he has banned


been involved in terrorist attacks? That is the absurdity. He has not


included Egypt or Pakistan. But I don't remove everyone getting in


such a state about President Carter. The reality is that it is a legal


thing for him to do. I don't like it. But it is not my territory. It


is illegal, because they have been given a right to remain by a judge


in Brooklyn and another judging Alexandra. That is a different issue


for people who have already gone through the vetting. I don't agree


with this. However, I don't think it's reasonable to say that Theresa


May, because she wants to do a deal with Donald Trump, I don't give is


reasonable to say she have to agree with each of his policies. It is


nonsense. But the issue, Janan, is not whether she needs to agree with


him. The question is that she will be questioned about him all the time


now. And although these are matters of domestic policy, the refugee


policy is international. They speak to issues that affect Britain as


well, and I would suggest that she will not get away with this


anonymous statement from Downing Street. People will demand a she


says something on the record. She would get away with it indefinitely.


These situations will recur every time Donald Trump says or does


something contentious. She will be pressed to this associate her


administration from his. She will probably be in a better logistical


situation to do so. She has spent a big chunk of the past 72 hours in


the air. She flew from Washington to Ankara, than from Ankara to London.


We don't have Air Force One, we don't have those frictionless


communications with the ground. She would have been incommunicado for


large periods of time when this story was breaking. That doesn't


excuse the stiff response when she landed and issued a statement via


Downing Street. But during that delay, she did have a plausible


excuse. She has also got a much more tricky geopolitical situation than


many other world leaders. She has to strike a favourable trade deal with


the new US president. It is all very well people saying Justin Trudeau of


Canada was much more vociferous in his criticism of Donald Trump. He is


already in Nafta, he is not striking a new deal. For how long, we don't


know. Exactly, he's trying to stay in Nafta, but he is in a less tricky


situation than she is. Now, Theresa May's was the first


foreign leader to meet President Trump and the visit


was seen as quite a coup for the Prime Minister,


keen for a new trading relationship with the United States


in the wake of Brexit. The Prime Minister congratulated


the new US President for his "stunning election victory"


but might not have intended to be pictured walking


through the White House with him That picture of Donald Trump helping


Theresa May down the steps through the White House colonnade


will be the enduring image Mrs May said the President


told her he was "100% behind Nato". And for her part, the Prime Minister


said she would work hard to make sure other Nato countries


increased their defence spending It's been announced


that there will be a new trade negotiation agreement,


with high-level talks The hope is that this will lead


to a new trade deal between the two countries as soon as


Britain leaves the EU. Mr Trump said he believed "Brexit's


going to be a wonderful thing". On Russia, Theresa May made clear


to Donald Trump her continued


backing for sanctions. And following the controversy over


the President's support for torture, Mr Trump said he would defer


to his Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, who argues


that the practice doesn't work. And I'm joined now by the former


Ukip leader, Nigel Farage. Do you agree with Mr Trump's


decision to ban Syrian refugees indefinitely from entering the


United States? I agree with the concept of democracy, a point which


appears to be missed by almost all commentators including the BBC. He


was elected to get tough and say he would do everything in his power to


protect America from infiltration by ISIS terrorists. There are seven


countries on that list. He's entitled to do this. I didn't ask if


he was entitled, I asked if agree with it. I do, because if you just


look at what's happening in France and Germany, if you look at Angela


Merkel's policy which was to allow virtually anyone in from anywhere,


look what it led to. You said in 2013 there's a responsibility on all


of us in the free west to help some of those people fleeing Syria


literally in fear of their lives. That's the Christian community in


virtually all of those country, it is almost too late because many have


been wiped out but if you are looking for a genuine definition of


a refugee, going back to 1951, it is someone in direct fear of


persecution of their life because of their race, religion or beliefs. But


you didn't talk about only Christians, and in January 2014 you


said, I seem to recall it was Ukip who started the debate on allowing


Syrian refugees, you seem to be in favour of allowing proper refugees


into this country. If they can be defined. Mr Trump won't let any in.


He is running American policy, not British policy. Since I made those


comments, we have had the Angela Merkel madness and I think Trump's


policy in many ways has been shaped by what Angela Merkel did. He is


fully entitled to do this, and as far as we are concerned in this


country, I would like to see extreme vetting. Since 9/11 can you name any


terrorist event in the United States that has involved refugees that have


been allowed into the country? No, in fact the terrorist events have


been US citizens radicalised. When you have a problem already, why


would you wish to add to it? I would remind you that of the eight people


that committed those atrocities in Paris, five of them had got into


Europe posing as refugees so there is an issue here. But perhaps not


for America because it has the most rigorous and lengthy screening


process in the world, especially for Syrians. You have to register with


the UN agency for refugees, which then recommend certain names to


America, they then go through biometric screening, database


screening, intelligent screenings, including four separate intelligence


agencies screening you. How more rigorous would you want it to be? It


is much more rigorous than we are or the rest of Europe. This is why we


have elections, so voters can make choices and they voted for Donald


Trump to become president and he said he would put bans in place and


then move towards extreme vetting. As far as the Syrians are concerned


he's made that decision but that's what he was voted in fourth. Since


you know him, you have met him, you are confident of his, I'm testing


you on the logic of it. Not that he's democratically elected, I'm not


asking about that, I'm trying to get the case, particularly since if you


take the seven countries of which the ban applies for 19 days, again,


of these seven countries, its citizens have not been involved in


terrorist attacks in the United States. It would be a mistake to say


it is just Muslim countries because the biggest Muslim countries in the


world have not been included in this. The point is they have made


this assessment, they bought themselves 90 days to think about


the policy. This is exactly what Trump's voters would have wanted him


to do. You said the President's rhetoric on immigrants made even you


feel very uncomfortable. Because he started by saying there was a total


ban, then amended it to say there would be vetting. My guess is that


what he will do is try to genuinely help Syrian people and he will be


talking about the creation of some safe zones. Let's see. He hasn't. We


will see. I suspect something like that is coming down the trap. What


advice did you give to the president and his advisers ahead of Theresa


May's visit? That I wanted us to talk about trade and to give the


Prime Minister the impression that actually... When she has been


surrounded by her whole career by civil servants and politicians who


say that everything takes five years or seven years or ten years, to make


it clear to the Prime Minister that if there is will, these things can


be done quickly. Isn't there a danger of a British Prime Minister


who has to deal with the president of the United States, to Ally


herself so closely with such an unpredictable, controversial


president, banning Muslims in certain ways and refugees, building


a war with Mexico, threatening trade was with other countries, thinking


of ending sanctions against Russia? I missing something here, what is


controversial about defending the Mexican border? Bill Clinton spoke


in tough terms, George Bush built six miles of fence, and because it


is Donald Trump there is uproar. So you think there is no risk of the


British by Minister being the best friend of this type of president? I


think there is no risk in putting together a trade deal and no risk in


her being the bridge between America and the rest of Nato to say to Nato


members if you don't pay your 2% he is serious so on those things there


is no risk at all. It was clear from her Lancaster house speech that the


Brexiteers in the Government had won pretty much every argument in terms


of negotiations to come out. What you want from her? She was very good


as Home Secretary, Tory party conferences, the Tory press saying


this was the new Thatcher and she failed. She even failed to control


immigration from outside the European Union so yes, it was a good


speech and for many on the Eurosceptic side of the argument, I


could scarcely believe that a British Prime Minister was saying


things which I had been roundly abused and vilified for. But I have


a feeling we may be in for a very frustrating 2017. The mood as I can


see it in Brussels is that negotiating with Britain is not a


priority, they are far more worried about Dutch elections, French


elections, German elections and possibly even Italian elections. I


worry that by the end of this year we may not have made much progress


and that's why the Trump visit suddenly things brings into focus.


What if by the middle of June, for argument 's sake, the Americans say


OK we reached this position with the British, compromised on the tough


stuff, food standards and things like that, we are ready to sign a


deal now, and Theresa May is to say actually Mr Juncker says I cannot


sign this until we leave. What will they do? They cannot throw us out,


we are living anyway. But everybody agrees you can talk about the deal,


maybe even do the heads of agreement but you cannot sign a treaty until


we have left the EU. Let me predict that at the end of this year we will


find a European Union who frankly don't want to talk to us and


countries around the world that want to get on and do things and that


will be the big tension for Mrs May over the course of this year. If the


Prime Minister is giving you everything you want on Brexit, you


agree that she's trying to get from your point of view the right things.


If she delivers on that and get Brexit on the terms of which you


approve, what's the point of Ukip? You could argue that about any


political party. If we have achieved the goal that we set out to achieve,


there are right now out there 4 million people who are Ukip


loyalists. They are delighted that by voting Ukip we got a referendum,


they will be even happier if they seek us leave the European Union and


I think there is still a gap in British politics for a party that


says it as it sees it, is not afraid by political correctness and is seen


to be on the side of the little people, and that's why, with the


Labour Party is fundamentally split, and it really is totally split over


this European question, I think Ukip is in good shape. That proposition


will be put to test at the Stoke Central by-election, one of Ukip's


best prospects in the country. Some people call it the capital of


Brexit. Labour is in chaos over Article 50, is picked a candidate to


fight Stoke Central who has described Brexit is a pile of notes.


If your successor, Paul Nuttall, cannot win the Stoke by-election,


there's not much hope for you, is there? I think he will. I've always


been told don't make predictions but I think he will win. If you doesn't


it will be tough, we will still have our 4 million loyalists, but if it


does we can actually see Labour are beatable in their heartlands and


Ukip will be off to the second big stage. Nigel Farage, thank you for


being with us. It's just gone 11.25,


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


to Sunday Politics Scotland. The smallest party in


the Scottish Parliament could offer the Scottish Government the only


chance to pass its Budget. If they can't reach a deal,


there could be a snap election. If I do not get what our voters


want, then there will be no deal. Also, after the collapse


of the Airdrie Savings Bank, we'll ask what next for local


banking in Scotland? And we look back at the career


of Tam Dalyell, one of Scotland's most respected MPs,


who died on Thursday. Well, more talks will be held


on the Scottish Budget next week. For now, there are few signs


of a compromise deal. Two parties are seen


as likely to do a deal, are insisting on tax rises the SNP


are not prepared to contemplate. Let me get your reaction to the


story of this woman, the passport holding vet from a scroll and, who


is stuck in Costa Rica because of dull troubles-macro executive orders


on immigration. I think for those who wish hopes that Trump may not be


governing in the way he campaigned for Abbey face in the harsh reality


this morning. This is an individual who is now a threat to anybody and


is in fact a compassionate and caring individual who has been


prevented from returning home through the United States. She's not


alone. There are thousands across the world similar to her and I think


it shows what a harsh, cruel leader Donald Trump has become. The


Scottish Budget. The SNP need the support of someone, most


realistically, you or the Greens to get that Budget through. You close


to agreement? We've had some constructive talks recently, but I


have to say, the gap is growing wider and it's not looking good for


this week. Why'd you say that? Let me explain why. Since last May's


elections with a Brexit and it shows Scottish education is slipping


further down the international rankings. Without stagnating growth


and unemployment has gone up. The child health report came last week


and showed that Government action is required, more Government action, to


deal with the problems facing our country, so the case we put forward


last May which was a modest 1p on income tax to invest in education to


get back up to being the best in the world again, actually, I think it is


now needed rather than less and that is why I think the gap has grown


since the election last year. Butcher would not insist on a rising


taxation before you'd agreed to the Budget, would you? What we've put


forward as a package, a compromise package, which is less the more we


asked for in our manifesto or ?400 million. That was Foyle Cup big


ticket items. One for mental health services, roughly ?200 million for


that, then another ?160 million for colleges and for schools to get


Scottish education back up. Both of those would help the economy,


because it would invest in the talents and skills and health of


people. That would help as worthy challengers that we face. It is much


less than what we'd asked for, but certainly something that we believe


the Scottish Government should implement. I want to know about this


issue of tax rises. Explain to viewers, there will be two separate


votes on tax rises or falls and one on the spending proposals, weren't


they? The Greens seem to be digging in their heels and wants tax rises


and weren't back the Budget unless they get that. You're not saying


that, are you? We are saying that we do believe we need to increase the


size of the cake, not just cut up the cake. Began making as a


conditional support on a Budget? We've set out what our spending


priorities should be and how we believe we should pay for it. If the


SNP do not want to increase taxation will have to find a money from


somewhere else that we believe would not impact on our priorities, which


is to invest in young people and in the economy. Burglar Bill sign up


money? If taxes aren't going to go up, then rationally, if you want


money spent elsewhere, but can they could to provide that? That's a good


question. That is why we set out we should invest a modest penny on


income tax. That is why we set out our priority. But if the SNP believe


they can get it elsewhere, let them explain it. So far they haven't.


Half orgy push this? -- how far should you push this? If the Greens


fall, then they have to be another snap election. Would you even


countenance that? What would Craig think? Is not looking good. If


anything, reaction I'm getting from people on the doorsteps and people


contacting me through e-mail and other means, they are saying, yes,


we should an election, because we like to get it through the SNP


Government. -- get bored of the SNP Government. There may be people out


there saying that, I'm not fearful of an election but I don't want one


because I do not think he would be in the interest of the country was


trying to deal with Brexit and also many other issues around the economy


and education. I don't want war. But people do not seem to feel honoured.


If you don't get what you want and there is room for negotiation, if


you don't get a substantial amount of what she wants, would you,


despite what you said, be prepared to push this so that there was


another election? If we don't get what our voters backed us for in


May, then I'm afraid we just have to walk away. We have learned and I'm


sure you've criticised me before and commented us on having agreed to


something we didn't say was a priority in our manifesto, I'm not


going to give up too easily on this, I want to make sure our voters get


what they wanted last May. I have a duty just as the SNP have a duty to


represent their voters. If they don't have a majority and they need


our support, they will have to move. How would you reply to people who


say, oh, this is brinkmanship. Capitulation is the Lib Dems middle


name. Of course he will cave in, he's just saying this for the


effect. Just wait and see. We've had constructive and reasonable and


measured talks and we've not made enough progress. If I do not get


what our voters want, then I'm afraid there will be no deal. I'm


not quite sure why you are so against an election. There's an


imbalance. Let's say there was an honour and the SNP swept all before


it. In terms of another referendum, the situation would be as now,


because the Greens have made clear they were by the SNP in the


referendum whenever they want one. On the other hand, if the SNP lost


seats, the referendum will be off the agenda until at least the 20s. I


would offer you might be keen the idea of another election? Don't get


me wrong, I love elections. Even as a Lib Dem?! Oh, I absolutely love


them! I don't know if you could tell from last May's elections, but I


love the campaign that we were running. That was a Freudian slip.


Go on anyway. No, we enjoy campaigns. And if you look at what


we managed to do... But the point I was making was the prize for you and


Labour and the Conservatives of another Scottish election way to


balance is any advantage of not having one. Because you could be


potentially the idea of another independence referendum off the


agenda indefinitely. That's possible. But the real challenge


we've got is an audience with the education challenges and Brexit and


it wouldn't be right unless we can avoid it to have an election. I


think it is important to do with the big challenges the country faces and


that's why we want the SNP to be more reasonable than they've been so


far. Message to them is we were pushing toward an election unless


you give us a substantial amount of what we want? Yes. Willie Rennie,


thank you. We've learned in the past couple


of weeks that Scotland's last independant bank,


the Airdrie Savings Bank Its headquarters and two


remaining branches in Bellshill and


Coatbridge are to shut. That's despite the bank insisting


it is financially strong. It's thought pressure from customers


for more complex services, and the demands of regulators used


to dealing with much bigger But the news has lead


to renewed calls for new, So, what do you think


of the prospect of council banks? The Reverend Henry Duncan plays


important, if unexpected part in our story. It was dramatised last year


in the parish where he served. 1810, I opened the bank. The first savings


bank in the world. It was a local bank, for local people. I've got one


shilling and 3/2 pennies. Is that enough to open an account? Of


course, but you'll have deposit regular. His motivation was to help


people to help themselves. Banking is only something for the rich. You


had to have a certain amount to be able to make your initial deposit


and it was really out with means of ordinary working folk. That was back


in 1810 and it started here in this building. It's a tradition that


lasted in Scotland until this month. When the final survivor, the Airdrie


Savings Bank announced it would be closing and that prompted a renewed


call for new alternatives to high street banks. But why? On both sides


in terms of providing to the economy and the funds and loans that small


businesses need and meeting the needs of customers, the big banks


are not doing what they should. In Scotland, it is becoming


increasingly the case that it is a duopoly, whereby RBS and the Bank of


Scotland dominate 70% of the Scottish market and there's a lot --


not the competition for loans that puts pressure on banks to bring down


rates that you need for a healthy, thriving unsustainable financial


sector. After the global financial crutch, there was much talk of the


need for new, simple, boring banks. But frankly, nothing much has


happened. Westminster has really failed in that sense to diversify


banking. It said after the crisis of 2008, this was an important part of


moving the sector forward and making it more resilient in future crises


and it has failed to do that. It means if there another crisis,


especially in Scotland, we are very vulnerable to the fact that two


banks dominate the majority of the vulnerable to the fact that two


sector. But for the past 50 years, there has been an alternative in


Scotland. Credit unions. But how can it survive and thrive when the


Airdrie Savings Bank was forced to close? We have slightly different


regulation from a banking credit unions. That has been part of the


advocacy we have made on behalf of credit unions. The Financial Conduct


Authority recognise that we are different, structure different, the


business model is different, the risks are different. The risk they


would pose to the economy if they failed is different from the large


banks we've seen in trouble over the last decade. Credit unions have a


regulatory framework which is important for consumer protection,


but vitally, it is proportionate and we must keep it that way. But a new


call for a new network of local banks across Scotland. Set up and


run by councils. Though perhaps don't have the skills now to do it,


that's where you bring in people. I mean, the Scottish universities are


training people in the skills, so we need to bring in an diversify. A lot


of people don't trust the council to empty bins. We measured with a watch


list them with our mortgages? That's a good point. What should we be


looking at is re-engaging people with what local Government could be


and how it could change and adapt and be much more useful for people


in the local community. Your savings are safe, secure and guaranteed!


Council banking. I wonder what the Reverend Henry Duncan would have


made of that. Now it's time to look back


at the past week and what's coming With me this week are


the Investigations editor at the Sunday Herald,


Paul Hutcheon, and Lynsey Bews, who's Scottish Political reporter


for the Press Association. Just before we talk, a vet living in


Glasgow says President Ron's ban has left stranded in Costa Rica.


Hamaseh Tayari, who holds an Iranian passport,


was due to fly back to the UK, via New York, yesterday,


but she said her transit visa had now been revoked.


She told us how she was feeling last night.


We arrived at 5am I wanted to check in for flights to New York which


would take us to Glasgow when I realised the people at the check-in


told me it was not allowed. I was not allowed to take the blame


because of the new rules. I never expected it to happen to me just


coming home. I was really upset. I'm angry and upset. And a little bit


afraid. Quite a good example of an expected consequence of that


policies can have? Yes. She is clearly very disturbed and very


distressed by the circumstances she is facing, as I am sure are a lot of


people who are trying to transit through America all who are living


there are unsure if they can get back in again. One can Donald


Trump's trying to do, but some woman who lives in Scotland who is on


holiday in Costa Rica can't come who lives in Scotland who is on


home by the boot... Just to bring things up today, she is now


apparently travelling back on Tuesday via Madrid. I think money


has been raised overnight to pay for the expenses. You could say this is


what Trump is trying to achieve. But when you look at what he is doing


and the countries he's decided to impose this blanket ban on, what he


is trying to achieve is eradicate extreme terrorism in America and


abroad doesn't actually make any sense. There was another classic


example of unforeseen consequences. On Andrew Marr's show, a


Conservative MP said he could not now travel to the United States. He


says he hasn't discriminated against now travel to the United States. He


in this way since he was a child. One imagines they were not sitting


in the White House saying what could we do to ban Tory MPs from coming to


the US? That's right. I think you now seen human face behind Donald


Trump's policy. By with those who been caught up in this legal


nightmare. We don't want to be too despondent, there have been signs of


hope in the last few hours, particularly legal judgment handed


down by US judge us. I would say that while we've seen the dark side


of Donald Trump's character in the last 24 hours, one of the beauties


of the US system is that checks and balances are that help individuals


against the weight of the state. Baton the week? -- but are they not


week? The President can't just do whatever he wants. There is a


constitution there. I wonder if this is also him trying to say, look, I


was elected to do this and I'm going to do it. With Mexico, OK, they


cancelled the president of Mexico's to do it. With Mexico, OK, they


visit. The behind-the-scenes, either in the Americans are Mexicans might


be prepared to talk. We've seen the series of executive orders being


signed off by Trump as it tries to assert his authority as president


and make his mark. There are checks within that system, however, I think


Willie Rennie in your interview earlier made the point that if


people for that was just campaign Trump and it wasn't going to be


president Trump, they were wrong. Tam Dalyell died this week. The


question is that -- that is always asked is will we see his like again?


Is relevant, because he was a thorn in the side of the Establishment,


even though he came from the establishment. Most politicians are


unremarkable people, faceless drones who take the work and don't really


say anything that upsets their own political party. Tam Dalyell, like


Margaret Macdonald, was a rare breed. He doggedly pursued his own


causes without really taking... Who is left? Dennis Skinner? Outcome is


still quite partisan label. Not an independent figure. Tam Dalyell


really annoyed successive Labour prime ministers. He pursued his


causes and similar issues. I don't see anyone in that mould. Either in


the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster to be honest. It is rare


to come across like that. Would you agree the loss of Tam Dalyell is the


loss of something that he stood for? Yes, he really didn't care and said


loss of something that he stood for? Tony Blair was the worst Prime


Minister he'd ever see that that was somewhat from his own party. There


was never like that at Holyrood and Westminster that springs to mind.


You would struggle on the backbenchers to find anyone willing


to speak out against the party at Holyrood. Can you imagine is an


Nicola Sturgeon was the worst leader? Frankly, no. As in the whip


would be withdrawn and he would be out the door. I think political


parties low politicians who show up, read out the preprepared lines


they've been given. But there was a tolerance of Tam Dalyell, and


perhaps that is changing. To be fair to politicians, if there were like


that, it would be total chaos. There was a willingness to have a few


figures like that. Yes, he became almost untouchable. There would been


an outcry, locally, in his party if Labour had tried to him. In that


sense, I think he earned his reputation and he will be sadly


missed. Scottish Budget? There doesn't seem to be a deal. It is


brinkmanship? Yes, I it is. I think it will be signed off. Will be


Willie Rennie or Patrick Harvie? Willie Rennie, because he is asking


for concessions on spending and not tax. The Greens have said they


wanted concessions on tykes and the SNP are not prepared to go there.


If you are Willie Rennie, do you want to be seen as the... Is that


what you want to be? I have a different view. Speaking to Lib


greens today, on face value this is about pounds and pence, there's the


Constitution salary lurking in the background. From a Lib Dem


perspective, they are worried about being seen as the party that rose to


the rescue of a party who second independence referendum. Similarly,


with the Greens, they will feel pressure not to bring down a


Government that wants a second independence referendum, a view they


share. On balance, the Greens are probably more likely to do a deal


with the Lib Dems. Bedelia thing they would have to give up the


demands on tax? That's where they are seen as less likely at the


moment. The current talks between the Greens and the SNP are


difficult, but the deal is doable. The sticking point is a income tax.


I've heard there's a compromise on the table. Not entirely sure about


the details. I think the Greens have moved a little. Yes, no, possible?


Anything is possible. That is all from us.


I'll be back at the usual time of 11.35 next week.