29/01/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

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.