12/02/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

Commons Speaker John Bercow is accused of compromising his

impartiality by revealing he voted Remain in last year's EU referendum.

The EU Withdrawal Bill clears its first Parliamentary hurdle.

But will the House of Lords be quite so accommodating?

Labour's Leader in the Lords joins us live.

And we report from Stoke-on-Trent ahead of a crucial by-election

later this month, where Ukip is looking to give

And on Sunday Politics Scotland, Alex Salmond joins me live -

we may mention the word 'referendum'.

And, we speak to two farmers on either side of the Brexit divided

about their hopes and fears for the future.

And with me a political panel who frequently like to compromise

Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Janan Ganesh.

I'll be trying to keep them in order during the course of the programme.

So, Commons Speaker John Bercow has insisted his ability

to act impartially is not damaged by reports that he voted to Remain

The Sunday Telegraph reveals that Speaker Bercow revealed his views

in front of an audience of students at Reading University

This may not be popular with some people in this audience -

I thought it was better to stay in the European Union than not,

partly for economic reason, being part of a big trade bloc,

and partly because I think we're in a world of power blocs,

and I think for all the weaknesses and deficiencies

of the European Union, it is better to be part of that big

Speaker Bercow speaking at Reading University earlier this month. Does

he not care is this I get that impression, he knows perfectly well,

it states he has to be particularly -- Parliamentary neural. Whether

there are going to be enough votes to force him out, the question, the

last speaker wept out with the 20 vote against him. You yes to have

the command of the support across the House. There is a Deputy

Speaker, waiting, who would be superb. I think even the people who

pretend to support Macis have had enough -- Speaker Bercow have had

enough of his ways. The reason I ask whether he care, he didn't just tell

the students that he voted to Remain, he then gave them a running

commentary on all the issues that will be part of the Brexit

commentary on all the issues that negotiations, workers' rights,

immigration, trade policy, everyone maternity leave got a hat tip from

him. He would be a very well prepared Brexit minister if

attendance needs a colleague -- David Davis needs a colleague. I

don't think this story makes his position untenable, what does is the

wired pattern of behaviour of excessive candour on his political

views, going back years, this is a guy who when the Queen visited

Parliament described her as theical lied scope Queen. He had a running

argument with David Cameron. We know his views on Brexit, we know his

views on Donald Trump. . He has given interviews, none of the views

are illegitimate but the candour which they are expressed with is

scrupulous. Given Lyndsay Hoyle is a class accuse. He is the Deputy

Speaker. And a fairly ready replacement, whether there is more

of a movement to say, maybe not force Bercow out but acknowledge he

has had a few years in the job and the question of successor ship comes

into play. Has he concluded he is untouchable? What I can definitely

say, is that he is determined to fight this one out, and not go of

his own volition, so if he goes he will have to be forced out. He wants

to stay. Which will be tough. It will be tough. Likely as things

stand. I would say this, I speak to someone who likes the way he has

brought the House of Commons to life, held ministers to account,

forced them into explain thing, whenever there is a topical issue

you know it will be in the House of Commons. He has changed that. He

has. Time has been courageous, Ied a mire the way he has been a speaker.

I would say this, during the referendum campaign, he asked me

Nick Clegg, and Peter Hitchens to debate Brexit if his constituency.

It was a packed out meeting. He chaired it. I said don't you want to

join in? He didn't. He showed no desire to join in, he was impartial.

He goes out to universities and kind of demyth GCSEs Parliament by

speaking to them in a way, he doesn't gets credit for it and stays

on after and drinks with them. Sometimes he, you know, it is

clearly a mistake to have gone into his views retrospectively on that

referendum campaign, I don't think that, did he try and stop Article 50

from being triggered in the House of Commons? That would be a scandal.

Even that would be beyond him. Briefly, yes or no, could you

imagine Betty Boothroyd behaving like that? Not at all. None of the

recent speakers I could imagine doing that. It is good he is

The bill that will allow the government to trigger Article 50

and begin Brexit negotiations was voted through

Many MPs were in a difficult position - unsure whether to vote

with their conscience, their constituency,

Europe, once such a divisive issue for the Conservatives,

is now causing major divisions inside the Labour Party.

So, let's have a look what happened in a bit more detail:

Thanks to academic research carried out since the referendum,

we now have estimates of how each individual constituency voted.

It's thought that 410 constituencies voted Leave.

On Wednesday night, the EU Notification of Withdrawal Bill

was voted through by the House of Commons.

The bill left the Labour Party divided.

Jeremy Corbyn told his MPs to respect the result

of the referendum and vote for the government's bill -

But 52 Labour MPs defied Mr Corbyn's thee-line whip

That's about a fifth of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Of those 52 Labour MPs who voted against the bill,

the majority, 45 of them, represent seats that voted Remain.

However, seven Labour MPs voted against the Article 50 Bill,

even though their constituents voted Leave in the referendum.

The Conservative Party were much more united.

The vast majority of Tory MPs, 320 of them, voted for the bill.

Just one Conservative MP, Ken Clarke, voted against it.

His constituency, Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire, voted Remain.

The bill will now go to the House of Lords -

peers will start debating it on Monday the 20th of February.

Joining me now is Matthew Goodwin, politics professor at

He's got a book out next month called

Brexit: Why Britain Voted To Leave The European Union.

Welcome to the programme. Has Brexit, how you voted in the

referendum and your continuing attitudes toward it, is that now

becoming the new dividing line in British politics? I think it

certainly is contributing to a new dividing line, in western politics

more generally, we know over the last ten years, that the old left

and right division has been making way for a new division, between

essentially social liberals and Conservative, and Brexit was a, an

incident a moment that really reflected that new dividing line, so

it wasn't just the case that Brexit has cut across Labour's base, it is

that dividing line, that deeper division is cutting across social

democracies more generally. Is there a possibility, no higher than that,

that it will reShane our party politics? I think it is too early to

know whether this is a fundamental long-term realignment. If we look at

what is happening in local by-election, what is happening at

by-elections, pictures a bit mixed but if you look at how some of the

Labour vote is responding, I think that potentially reflects the

possibility of a terminal decline for the Labour Party, it is going to

be incredibly difficult for Labour to win these voters back, these are

traditional working class, socially Conservative voters who are leaving

the party, don't forget, since the 1997 general election. It is not

just because of the referendum. If that was the case, Labour would

become more a party of the Metropolitan areas, and less of a

party outside of these area, is that what you are saying? What we are S

seeing across the west can social democracy that retrenchment into the

cosmopolitan, Metropolitan city area, university towns, you can

seeing in many European states populist right parties filling the

traditional socialist area, why are they doing that? Because they are

offering two message, economic and cultural protectionism. Social

Democrats are clinging to that economic protectionism but not

saying much about migration and multiculturalism and that sort of

stuff. Are there deeper forces at work than Jeremy Corbyn? He often

gets the blame for what is happening to the Labour Party now, but if you

look the way the Greek socialist party has been wiped out. The German

Social Democrats are in trouble. The Italian socialist party has lost a

referendum. The French socialist are coming close to being wiped out on

April 23rd, Labour's problems, are part of a much wider problem of

social democracy S Jeremy Corbyn is a surface problem, what I mean by

that is you could replace him tosh with another leader, they would

still have this fundamental tension within the electorate. They are

trying to appeal to two differenter reconcilable groups of voters who

think differently about the key issues of the day. It is very

difficult for any centre left party now to assemble the kinds of

coalitionses we saw in the '90s with Clinton and Blair and Schroeder.

Those days are gone. Does that explain why it is now Labour, rather

than the Conservatives, historically the party divided over the European

Union, does all of that help to explain why its Labour that now

seems, disunited over the EU? I think so, I think also that the

issue of Brexit, and the EU, is so immatly wrapped up with that issue

of immigration, if you look at who has been abandoned Labour since 2015

or the late 90s, the one thing those voters share is a rejection of the

so-called liberal consensus on EU membership and mass immigration. It

is difficult for any Labour lead eer co-bin or Clive Lewis on Dan Jarvis,

to bring those voters back unless they are going to move on that

cultural terrain. If they are not, they may not go to Ukip, they might

go to somewhere more difficult for Labour which is political apathy.

Thank you for that. Attention now shifts to the House

of Lords where peers will begin scrutinising the EU Withdrawal Bill

in just over a week. Brexit Secretary David Davis urged

the Lords "to do its patriotic duty" and resist the urge to tinker

with the legislation. Former minister Oliver Letwin

went one further - mooting the possibility

of the abolition of the Lords if it sought to frustrate

the bill in any way. Here he is posing the question

in the Commons on Thursday. Would he find time, in government

time for a debate, should the other place seek to delay beyond the end

of March the passage of our accession to Article 50, for this

House to discuss the possibility of either the abolition or full-scale

reform of the other place? And Oliver Letwin joins

me now from Dorset. Welcome back to the programme Mr Let

win. Before we come on to the Lord's, can I get your thoughts on a

matter that has been making the news this morning and John Bercow's

remarks about being a remain voter an giving something of a running

commentary on various Brexit issues, has he sqloefr stepped the mark as

speaker? -- overstepped the mark. I think this is slightly a fuss about

nothing. Every person who thinks about politics will have had some

opinion about great matters like Brexit, and I really don't see any

particular reason why his opinion shouldn't be known after the fact.

I, I was there throughout the five days of the Brexit debate, and I

have to say, I thought he was pretty scrupulously fair in the way he

handled the House, so, I, I don't really share the view that there is

some terrible thing that has been revealed this weekend. Let me come

on to what we are here to talk about, which is the Lords. Why have

you raised the threat of the abolition of the Lord for doing its

job of scrutinising what is coming out the Commons? Well, you know,

Andrew, this question of the job of the House of Lords and scrutiny, has

to be looked at carefully. There are all sorts of bills that come out the

House of Commons which are detailed things that relate to, finance, and

expenditure, and the criminal law, and all that sort of thing, and all

of that, I admire the work that the House of Lords does, as you say

scrutinising and we shouldn't use that word loosely, it means looking

carefully at the detail, line by line of complicated legislation,

hundreds of Paps in some cases, and spotting, using the considerable

expertise many, not all be many of the peers have, in any given field,

to identify things where the Commons has got it wrong in the sense that

the legislation wouldn't achieve what the Government of the day is

seeking to make it achieve. That is a serious proper role for an Upper

House and the House of Lords performs it pretty

Now this is a very different case. This is a two clause bill. The first

clause which is the operative clause says the Prime Minister should go

ahead and sign... I understand all that. We haven't got that much time,

this is becoming a monologue. There is nothing to scrutinise, Andrew.

There were plenty of amendments put before the Commons, none of them got

through, it is true. There are eight Labour amendments in the Lords, are

you resigned to this bill coming back to the Commons with amendments?

No, it should not come back with amendments. There were hundreds of

amendments literally put down in the House of Commons, they were all

drunk. They were all trying one way or another to derail the process.

This is a binary issue, should Theresa May sign the withdrawal or

not? What should the Commons do? The Commons has now voted in favour of

it. Node do should tolerate and unelected chamber forcing the

British people... The people voted in a referendum and the Commons

voted. The matter is now signed and sealed and should not be derailed by

the House of Lords. On Labour amendment wants confirmation that

when it is done, the potential Brexit agreement will be put before

parliament before any vote in the European Parliament, that has been

an agreed principle, what is wrong with that amendments? The government

has already agreed there will be a vote, but actually, what the

amendments were seeking was to give the Commons a further vote on

whether we actually leave or not. That is already decided. Neither the

House of Lords nor anybody else has a right in my view, despite the fact

I was a remain, to what the will of the British people. Nobody should

think an unelected chamber should now try to change the course of

British history by asserting amendments in a very effective on

clause bill which says go ahead and trigger Article 50. Are you

concerned that amendments by the Lords which would then have to go

back to the Commons for consideration, are you concerned

that could derail or delay the Prime Minister's timetable for Article 50?

Yes, exactly. That would be the result of a prolonged bout of

ping-pong between the two houses, or much worse, if the House of Lords

failed to give way and the Parliament act had to be used. It

would really be intolerable. It is not good for our country. Those of

us who voted remain would prefer for that not to happen. The whole

country -- it is important for the whole country that this happens in a

rapid way and allowing the government free rein to negotiate,

that is surely in all our advantages? Deed think any efforts

to abolish the House of Lords, an issue you have raised, does that

make it easier because your friend David Cameron stuffed the upper

chamber with donors, lapdogs and lingerie designers? I was among

those who advocated for many years wholesale reform of the House of

Lords, to turn it into a serious elected second chamber. I think we

should have an upper house which commands legitimacy. This is a

second issue. Here we have not got such a House and it seems to be very

clear that it should not seek to derail on delay the action which has

been mandated by the referendum, agreed by the House of Commons, and

what we want to see now is a smooth orderly effect for this bill, so it

becomes law and Theresa May can go ahead and negotiate on our behalf.

One more question on the process, if the Lords to amend the bill and it

goes back to the Commons and the Commons sends these amendments back

again, take them out, how long could this ping-pong between the two

chambers go on in your experience? It is a very, very interesting and

complicated question with the clerks of the two ends of the Palace of

Westminster not always agreeing about this. But through certain

machinations of slightly changing amendments as they go, in my

experience this could carry on for an awful long time if clever people,

and there are plenty of clever people in the House of Lords, want

to do that and that is precisely why I think we should not tolerate it.

Oliver Letwin, thank you for joining us from Dorset.

Joining me now is Labour's Leader in the House of Lords, Angela Smith.

The Commons passed this bill without any amendments... There were

changes, the government did concede a couple of points. But the

amendments did not go through. Does that put pressure on the Lords to do

the same? I think the Lords always feels under pressure to do the right

thing. When I heard Oliver Letwin, I did not know whether to laugh or

cry. We will not frustrate, we will not wreck, we will not sabotage. We

will do what David Davis said was our patriotic duty. We will

scrutinise the bill. We have at amendments from the Labour Party. We

will look at those. It depends on the government response if we vote

on those. There could be amendments asking the Commons to look again.

That is normally what we do. It is not the wrong thing to do. But if

you do this and make amendments, it then goes back to the Commons. If

the Commons rejects the Lords' amendments, what do you think will

happen? I do not see any extended ping-pong at all. It is perfectly

legitimate. We are not talking about the outcome of negotiations, we are

talking about the process. The process of engaging with Parliament

and reporting to Parliament. It would be totally responsible for

Parliament to say, off you go, Theresa May, have two years of

negotiation and come back and talk to us at the end. The has to be a

process where the government can use the expertise of parliament to get

this right. But if you do put in some amendments, it has to go back

to the Commons, they may well say they don't want those amendments and

it may go back to the Lords, could that at the very least delay the

Prime Minister's Brexit timetable? I don't think so. She said the end of

March. Time has been built in for all the normal processes. I think

Oliver Letwin and others are getting a bit overexcited. This is the

normal process. Unless the government get things right the

first time every time, the has to be this kind of process. These are

reasonable amendments. This is a Labour amendment we are talking

about here, you want a vote in the UK Parliament before any

vote in the European Parliament if and when the Brexit deal is done,

the Commons and the Lords get to vote on it first. But the government

I think have already agreed to that so what is the point? It needs to be

on the face of the bill. It is over well if the government have agreed

it. Lord dubs had an agreement about child and look what happened to

that. Does not sound as if you would go to the wire on that? It is

important it is not just about the vote at the end, you have the

ongoing engagement. If it is going to be a bad deal, we need to know

long before we get to that stage? Is it something you would hold out for?

I don't know yet. It is about how the House of Lords votes, Labour do

not have a majority, we never had a majority in the House of Lords when

we were in government. It is wrong to suggest that we cannot debate

these issues... I don't think anyone is suggesting that. They are. It is

not unfair to ask the government to ask the House of Commons to look

again to look at those issues if again to look at those issues if

that is what the House of Lords decides. Bit of the House of Commons

says we looked, we are sticking with what we voted for, we rejected every

amendment by at least 30 votes on all occasions, the Lords then have

to buckle, is that what you are saying? Some point I think it is

clear the House of Commons have to have its say. I think it is

inconceivable that having had a referendum, which was not

overwhelming, but it was a clear result, the House of Lords has no

intention of sabotaging that but there are things which are not good

about the process that we think could be improved. We have not just

have the result of the referendum which voted to leave, but we have

had the will of the Commons that passed this legislation by a

majority of 372. And I am not contesting that for a second! Could

you cite a precedent for the upper house amending a bill which passed

by 372 votes in the Commons? Quite other things will come to the House

of Lords with big majorities from the Commons and quite often the

amendments we get, with that then forward and the government sees it

could do better. Though not necessarily saying the government

has got things wrong, but they could do things better. That happens time

and time again and it is not unusual. If you were seen to thwart

the referendum result and the vote in the Commons, the elected chamber

of parliament, is the threat of abolition hanging over you? I think

that is really ridiculous and absolute nonsense. We are not tying

to what the decision of the House of Commons, we are trying to do better.

It is a bit rich of the government and Oliver Letwin to complain about

getting things through in time when the House of Commons spent -- the

government spent three months trying to debate this issue. There have

been some strong questions put to the government from the House of

Lords on all sides. I don't know if the amendments have been passed or

not. I think we have a good case for the government to get debate the

point. If a traditional MP like Oliver Letwin is calling for the

abolition of the hereditary and appointed chamber, and the Labour

person like yourself was trying to defend that, that would not be a

sustainable position, I would suggest! We saw this with the

Strathclyde report as well, this is a government like no other. It is

the first Conservative government in history not to have an automatic

majority. They do not like challenge or scrutiny. But you get my point,

Labour cannot go to the wire in defending and an elected second

chamber, can it? Actually, Labour can go to the wire in saying the

government does not get it right every time. House of Lords is going

to normal processes and people like Oliver Letwin are really getting a

little bit over excited, and people who have been anonymously briefing.

Who has been anonymously briefing? I don't know, they are anonymous! I

understand people want to make amendments, that is the role of the

House of Lords, but can I just for the avoidance of doubt, is it still

your case that whatever amendments to make, whatever may go back and

forward, it is not your intention to stop Article 50 being triggered by

the end of March? I have been saying that, exactly that for months and

months and months. It is inconceivable that an unelected

House will thwart the will of the House of Commons and a referendum on

this issue. But that does not mean we will be bullied by Oliver Letwin

and others. But the triggering will happen by the end of March? I very

much suspect so unless Theresa May has second thoughts, I suspect that

will happen. Thank you. Now, just because it's

parliamentary recess next week There are two by-elections

round the corner - one in Copeland, and another

in Stoke-on-Trent Central where the former Shadow

Education Secretary, Tristram Hunt, vacated his

seat to take up a role as Director of the Victoria

Albert Museum in London. But Labour are facing a fight

to hold onto the constituency Seconds away, Ukip's new leader has

stepped into the ring as their candidate in

a by-election bout to see At the last election Ukip

came second to Labour here But now they are confident they can

land a knockout blow, because this place is packed with

people that voted to leave the EU. 70% of people voted to leave

the European Union. I'm the only candidate

standing in this election who is a true Brexiteer,

who has always campaigned to leave the EU and therefore I believe

I would be the best person But he has had to fight off

allegations he wasn't living in the constituency

when he entered the contest. Explain to me what is going

on with this issue about your house? Well, we took up the lease

the day before nominations. Everything we've done is perfectly

legal and within the law. The Labour Party are trying to get

off the real issues in this election and focus on something

which is banal nonsense. And there's been trouble as well

for the Labour contender. He's been labelled a Remoaner

after he sent a series of anti-Brexit tweets,

filled with words I can't believe I'm about to ask

this question in a nursery on a Sunday morning TV programme,

but did you really tweet that I tweeted many things about Brexit,

that's tweet is out there. It was done quite after

the referendum result and it was my way of showing my frustration

at the fact that months after the result we hadn't had

anything from the government. Theresa May had failed

to produce any plan, she had failed to give

any meaningful statement about what Brexit meant other

than bland statements about Brexit is Brexit, and it's

a hard Brexit, or a soft Brexit. The context of it was it

was out of frustration. So you didn't mean to insult the 70%

of the people who live here I never mean to insult

anybody and you know, I've made it quite clear,

if I'm elected as the member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent

Central, I will absolutely respect the wishes of the people

of Stoke Central. I will make sure my vote in

parliament is to trigger Article 50. While the Tories' man has done

little bit of rebranding too. I voted Remain and I've been open

about that, but my top priority is about the economy and to ensure

we still have an Theresa May has set out clear

proposal to ensure we develop a trade relationship with Europe

and make that a success. It means the Lib Dems and the Greens

are the ones battling Brexit. Well, when the Lib Dem

candidate is actually here. The candidate is a

consultant cardiologist. He is actually at work today doing

very important heart surgery. He will be back tomorrow, back

on the campaign trail working hard. 30% of people voted

to Remain and nobody else is representing them, so, you know,

it is still a live issue. It is still something

people care about. We are only at the start

of the Article 50 process We are very a clear

that we are standing up for those who want to remain in the single

market, who want to protect jobs Labour have taken people for granted

in this area for a great many years. Ukip, I'm afraid, all Ukip can offer

to politics is division. I've covered a lot of by-elections

where Ukip have come second. We'll find out if they really got

Labour on the ropes this And here is a full list

of all the candidates standing in the Stoke-on-Trent Central

by-election. They do atract lots of candidates.

You can get that on the BBC website as well. I was trying to think back,

here we have the main opposition party defending two seats in

by-elections in the midterm of a government.

All the speculation is where the opposition party can hold on, that

is unprecedented. I can't give of an equivalent. You wouldn't just expect

them to win seats they have held traditionally, you would expect hem

to make inroads into seats held by the other party, I wonder if they

fail to hold on to just one of these, whether it accelerates the

momentum and criticism of the leadership of the moment. I think

they are interesting constituencies. Matthew good win was talking about

the left win coalition over the years, almost being too broad for

its own good, including places like Primrose Hill and Hackney. Big

university towns in Manchester, Bristol. Diverse ethnically and

included places like Stoke which are more Conservative. With a small c.

Less economically well-off, more diverse, can the left hang on to

both bits of country. Recent evidence suggests it cannot and the

opportunity for Ukip is to pick up the second of those two types of

community, the Stokes and the cope lands. That what makes the

by-elections interest I would suggest. It is not just about Mr

Corbyn's future about which we hear too much, it is about this

traditional Labour coalition, can it still survive, particularly in

places like Stoke? Europe clearly is a test. I think it's a myth by the

way that Labour are only split now, over Europe and it has always been a

Tory problem, last time I was on I mentioned it. That is why we had a

referendum in 75. That is why they had a round then. But they were in

chaos behind the scenes over what they thought about the euro,

skillful leadership can paper over the cracks, and to address the wider

issue of whether we are now in an era where left right issues have

disappeared, and there is more of a era where left right issues have

regional divide, if you take Europe out of the equation which you can't,

but if you were able to, issues about health, transport housing do

split more left-right than a regional divide, so I think there is

still fundamental left-right issues, but Europe isn't one of them and

Europe has to be managed by a Labour leader skill fully and evidently

that hasn't happened now. How would you see the by-elections in the

current political context? Labour should be walking them, it should be

a sign of the March of the Labour Party taking on the current

Conservative Government. I don't think they raise any questions about

Corbyn's leadership because the people who put him in don't think

that winning elections matter, you have to remember this will be the

mainstream media, it will be our fault why any of those Labour

candidates don't win, the thing that is interesting is whether there is

is a role for Ukip. The argument after the referendum was Ukip has

done its job, it got the referendum, nothing to see here, I remember

speaking to put a Nuttall before he was Ukip leader, on the day after

the battle and he said this is Year Zero, where Ukip starts now, and

this, and this is the interesting thing, does, do we see this one

particular party having a role in the future? And I think it is all to

play for, they could not not have stood in this seat. They have to win

it to be an electoral force. The Labour candidate in Copeland has

made the NHS the issue for her in this, that goes into the left-right,

are we spending enough, are we That will be a test of what you were

saying to see if traditional left-right issue, which at the

moment would play Labour's way I would suggest, are big enough to

overcome all the things you have been talking about and Matthew has

been talking about. Maybe at this particular junction they are not,

but I don't think any of those issues will go away, and that is why

I question whether we are see the end of a historic left-right divide.

At the moment with Europe so prominent, clearly these

by-elections are unusual. And they will be a test of leadership for

Theresa May in the coming months if not at the moment, as they have been

in a way that he hasn't risen to, for the Labour leader.

We will be leave on BBC One on the night, February 23rd off back of

this week, we will bring you the result of both these crucial

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

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.

The former First Minister Alex Salmond will be

We hear from farmers about their hopes and fears for Brexit.

For every reason to stay I could find another to leave.

In the NFL, what is affecting me, right now?

says it'll mean opportunities for his members

Well, just about everyone now seems to think there will be another

We were going to speak to Alex Salmond, but we have a few technical

problems will stop and talk about farming.

We'll talk to Andrew McCorninck in a few minutes.

But first Huw Williams has been to meet a hipster who sells his milk

direct to his customers, and a hill farmer who breeds prize

They both work hard and love the ground. They are both found a niche

market and made the most of it. But there are big differences between

them. That is in German is. Does he live up to his name? Heated over the

family farm on his father died just over two years ago, the

third-generation to farm the land in Ayrshire. But he walked into a

perfect storm. The sickly I was so sickened by the fact I was attracted

to the family legacy going, the milk price collapsed so badly to

generations' work, I said to myself, there is no way I will let anyone

dictate the price to me again. I wanted a sustainable future for the

farm. I wanted people drinking the milk to know where it came from,

basically reinvent the food chain. Reinvent your people and their food

comes from and re-engage with farming. That said, good girls. She

is first generation farmer working on a rented hill farm in the

Galloway hills. With her husband she has built up a prize-winning herd of

heritage cattle. These are belted Galloway. They are native here,

there are tremendous for hill farming. They are good for

conservation land as well. They are also a tourist attraction although

this area does not have so many tourists yet. We are a hidden

corner. But tremendous meat. In the referendum, Brice voted to leave the

European Union, although it was not an easy decision. Every reason I

could find to stay I could find another to leave. I took it upon

myself to think, what is affecting me now? At the time I was only

getting 9.7 p per litre for milk, were losing money and just could not

stay farming. I looked at why that was happening. Basically worldwide

there was too much milk. In the UK we actually don't produce enough

milk in the UK to supply the UK. And I found out that the larger dairy

items are sold in supermarkets are not British anymore. But, for

example. -- batter for example. Jane voted to remain in the EU. Although

there are a lot of rules, we know where we are. My biggest worry is

that hill farmers with Brexit will be forgotten about, and there are

not many ways you can diversified. We cannot change any more than what

we already have. We have to work with what we have got and I'm

frightened we will be forgotten about. What about the future? Rice

thinks we may have to re-engineer the whole structure of agriculture.

In Scotland we are unique. We have crafts, small herds and agriculture

systems. Whether we have to change the way subsidies are paid or change

the way we farm to become more profitable, and not speaking for

every farmer, but I'm pretty sure a large proportion of them would

rather have a profitable business that did not depend on subsidies

rather than having to rely on it. The latest figure was something like

45 present of all European farmers' income a subsidy. I'm sure farmers

would rather have a profitable and sustainable business that works with

the community and customers rather than depending on hand-outs to keep

the business alive. Jane is worried and wants politicians to take

farming seriously. Nothing seems to be thought out. Most people were

leaving because of immigration, and that took over. For me there was not

enough plans put in place to assure us that it was worth leaving, but as

it happens we are. I would say they need to listen to the agriculture,

because food is a main thing in this country, and if we don't look after

it, then we don't know what our market is for buying him. And the

strength of the pound and everything. I think we need to

seriously realise that agriculture is a big thing for Britain. Whatever

we do, we need to get this right. 65,000 jobs, and ?615 million in the

Scottish economy depend on agriculture.

Shortly before we came on air I spoke to the new President of NFU

I'm sure many would agree with the sentiment expressed their that it

would be nice to have a farming industry that did not rely on

subsidies, but realistically for lots of hill farmers, crofters in

the Highlands and Islands, there will have to be subsidies are simply

would not be possible to keep them going. The support payment will have

to be a big part of it. They are the sectors most endangered with Brexit.

This is our issue, we have to be out there and fight for that corner and

ensure this does not happen. It is not only the sentiment, there are

whole communities that rely on agricultural and crofting activity

in these areas. Are you satisfied that you have guarantees are hard

commitments from either the British are Scottish Government that an

equivalent level of subsidy will stay in place when we are outside

the Common Agricultural Policy? This is why these two years, when article

50 is triggered, we have to ensure our case is carried forward. And we

have a very, very strong case to take forward. We employ 63,000

people directly in farming and crofting, but there are 60,000 jobs

down the line depending on us. We have to get a strong message. One in

eight people in the UK are depending on the food and farming and drinks

industry. We have a good message to take, and we will deliver that. But

as of now, I want to be clear, you do not know what kind of regime will

be in place after Brexit? Nothing definitive. We have been given

guarantees of what they call the pillar to payments, one of the five

years... Explain what they are. Pillar to other payments you apply

for the likes of environmental programmes. They will continue after

Brexit? Anyone that are signed up on a long-term agreement will continue

payment, but that is only a small part of him, comes to farmers to

support payments. On the more positive side, there are

opportunities for Scottish farmers positive side, there are

in particular, because we don't tend to have the kind of dog crop

production -- the bulk production that you have done in England. What

are the opportunities? If you look at the Scottish brand, this is

something we can sell all over the world. I think we can promote and

even more. We are recognised for the quality beef and Lamb. The whole of

the sector depends on high-quality cereal industry. You think you could

market Scottish beef and make it a niche thing, and Scottish lamb, and

the fish farms could market Scottish salmon. Whisky, I'm not so sure.

Because whisky production was up does not necessarily mean that helps

farmers. It does. Is it mainly coming from Scotland, the Bali? This

is one of the opportunities we have to take forward. -- the Bali.

Preferably what you would like would be some commitment from the whisky

industry to advertise their product as not just Koch whisky but Scotch

whisky made from Scottish barley. It would be nice to see... We don't

want to hamper or destroy the Scottish whisky industry and anyway,

but we certainly believe it should be Scottish product first. If those

are opportunities, there are risks. Presumably you would worry about

cheap beef imports from countries like the United States. Again, this

Scottish brand, we are producing at a far higher standard. Andrea

Leadsom did say at this Conservative Party conference that we should not

be allowed to be undermined and cheap imports that are not near our

standard. This is an opportunity. That's fine, so you sit down with

Donald Trump and try to negotiate a trade agreement, and he says, sorry,

of course we will sell our beef in Britain. That's one of the

challenges we have going forward. If we are selling a product as a far

higher standard and quality, reducing it to the standard. But

sticking with the issue of beef, and America has hormone treatments for

cattle which are not allowed by the European Union, but that is not to

say they would not be used by' -- would not be allowed in post-Brexit

Britain. I believe we will be doing the majority of trade beyond this

with Europe. And part the agreement with Europe will be the vital

sanitary controls were talking about, if production is coming in at

those standards and is not acceptable in our market. Your beef

Bridger and they will have to be not genetically modified or treated if

you want to sell it in Europe, but that is not mean that American beef

coming in here could not be. I think it should be. We have to make sure

we're bringing in an equivalent standard of what we are producing. I

would not accept any of my membership to want the competition

to come from, that would be an unfair trading practice, and should

be things in place to prevent that. We should point out to viewers, they

should look very closely, and they can notice that your tyres covered

in tractors. Thank you! Well, just about everyone now seems

to think there will be another independence referendum,

possibly next year, but what exactly would independence

campaigners argue for this time? Alex Salmond, the former

First Minister, tweeted "Game on" last week when a poll suggested

support for independence We will talk about independence in

the moment, but first there is another row about John Bercow

because of remarks he has made about Brexit. Do you think his position is

tenable? Yes, I do. John Bercow has always

had a handful of people gunning for him, not just because of remarks he

made about Brexit. It is about his modernisation agenda, the fact he

lets women and babies into the House of Commons and is taking weeks out.

John Bercow, I think, is this significant in the most access in

terms of a speaker in history. Certainly the most opportunity the

backbenchers. That might be embarrassing for the government but

it gives them a commanding support across all parties in the House of

Commons. I am right behind John Bercow. I presume from your

treating, game on, you would like another referendum. -- tweeting.

What would be the most advantageous time to have it? I was in

conversation with a Tory minister who asked me who the... There has

been less comfortable assumption amongst the government despite the

fact that there were 16 out of 17 opinion polls since Brexit which

have shown support for independence higher than it was in September 20

14th. There was this assumption that the support was under decline. When

they saw the poll in the Herald early this week, it had a dramatic

effect on matte government minister I was speaking to. He thought

everything was in the bag and under control. When do you think there

everything was in the bag and under should be one? It is significant

because the government is still to respond to Nicola Sturgeon's

compromised proposal. That will come over the next few weeks. Once that

is done, if they reject it, then we will know there is no interest in

the voice of Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon has said there would be

another independence referendum very likely. If there is, the likely

timescale will be the automatic next year. What would you say to people

and there seems to be quite a lot of them, who set even if we are

sympathetic to independence, we would rather wait and see what the

British government comes up with as a result of the Brexit negotiations.

We know what it is we are voting to leave, should we vote, yes. I am

guessing there is quite a few people like that where you are speaking to

us from now, who were sympathetic to independence but Vote Leave. That is

not compatible with what I have been trying to say. There polls that say

do you want a referendum right now? Or do you want one after the Brexit

negotiations? Some unscrupulous newspapers and on the second

percentage. If you are talking about a referendum in 18 months' time, the

negotiations will then be crystallised. You will be able to

tell what the deal or no Deal will be and certainly that is after the

timescale the government was talking about with bringing the deal back to

the House of Commons for a vote. I don't see that as incompatible

whatsoever. Nicola Sturgeon has been correct in putting forward a

compromised proposal and we have to see if the UK Government will pay

attention to the interests of Scotland and whether Theresa May

will on her commitment of the 15th of July last year. She said she was

looking for an agreed UK position back by Scotland on the other

devolved administrations. If there is another referendum, what should

the SNP argue for? There is some discussion with the party about

whether to go for Scotland in Europe or whether to argue for what Nicola

Sturgeon is arguing should happen even if we stay in the UK, an

independent Scotland should not immediately join the European Union

but should be part of the European free trade area. It would be in the

single market but not be part of the customs union. You could say there

is no question of the border between Scotland and England. Do you think

that is what the SNP should argue or should you stick to the leaving the

UK and immediately tried to join the European Union? The SNP will

continue to argue that Scotland is a member of the European Union. Why

shouldn't we? The mainstream media have made fools of themselves by

deliberately missing ten -- misinterpreting the European

Commission's representative of the UK. As we know from an interview

yesterday, it was the opposite of what the mainstream media Andrew

Neill was claiming. That will be a strong position that the SNP will

argue. In terms of timescale, the key matter, as was enunciated in a

compromised proposal, in terms of protecting the Scottish economy and

saving Scottish jobs and saving investment, it is for uninterrupted

member show of -- membership of the economic area. That can be secured

by membership of the European Union but there are other ways to secure

it. The SNP's position would be to be a member of the European Union.

In the key negotiating, it is the staying within the economic area.

That suggests that the key battle ground in terms of economics or any

future independence referendum is not going to be as it was the last

time like the currency but there will be trade and access to trade

and access to markets. That is what the UK Government is jeopardising

and what an independent Scotland should secure. To answer a question

that you asked at the beginning of that and set, the answer to why

perhaps change the position in Europe. We know a lot of yes voters

voted to leave the European Union. It is a difficult sell for you to

say that you won the Brexit vote even though you were sympathetic to

independence. We want you to vote to break up the UK and join the

European Union you've just voted to leave. Independent membership of the

European Union and Scotland has was been the most popular of the range

of constitutional options available to the country. I don't think it is

a difficult sell at all. Nicola Sturgeon emphasised as a priority,

continuing membership of the European economic area. I saw one of

your programmes a few weeks ago when Kevin Pringle made them -- made a

point in terms of company of independent Scotland and people who

independent -- believe in independence, believe that the

highest priority. Therefore should be much more amenable to being

galvanised for an independence campaign and people who bought other

priorities first. I would be confident that the progress we are

seeing in support of independents can continue if the campaign is

pitched in the right way. Should there be another yes campaign nor

should it run itself? There should be another campaign. There should be

cross-party and open to people of no party. There will be some lessons to

learn from a first campaign. I don't share the view and you will

understand why. We didn't win the vote that we put on 15% that the yes

vote Gerry McCann pain. If we put on another 15%, the result will be

overwhelming. I don't think we should beat ourselves up about the

structure of the campaign. There are some key lessons to learn and no

doubt let Nicola Sturgeon will learn them and deploy them if we get into

the situation of the second independence referendum. One lesson

is you will not argue that keeping the pound no matter how the British

government says you are not going to.

If you call the second debate, the BBC debate with Alistair Darling,

the position I outlined in that was rather more successful than the

earlier position. Nicola Sturgeon knows her own mind and should be

able to outline the range of currency options open to Scotland.

The key argument I see coming in this referendum, in terms of

economics, will be what secures Scotland's trains -- trade, our

access to markets. Independence has a winning argument, framework. I

expect to see it deployed by Nicola a winning argument, framework. I

Sturgeon. It looks like you have cut the grass already but maybe do some

streaming at the back there. Scottish Labour found itself at odds

with the national party this week. In Westminster, in defiance

of Jeremy Corbyn's three line whip, the party's only Scottish MP

Ian Murray voted against In a symbolic vote at Holyrood

the party's MSPs did likewise. Well, I'm joined now

by former Labour special Labour's problems. Where do you

start? Used with Jeremy Corbyn who was biggest problem. -- you start.

Showing the difficulty, you want to be in touch with what public opinion

is that you don't need to follow it. They look quite cowardly in what

they have done. There should have been more amendments and they should

have pushed for a second vote if not a second referendum. They didn't do

that. That is a big problem for people like Ian Murray. Jeremy

Corbyn causes them huge problems. Do you think Ian Murray is justified in

staying outside Jeremy Corbyn's team? If you want to get Labour to

get his act together, the fact that they can't have the Secretary of

State for Scotland or a shadow Secretary of State was a Scottish

MP, looks ridiculous. It would be difficult for it Ian Murray to stick

to his principles and join Jeremy Corbyn. It would be a ridiculous

position. Jeremy Corbyn is a disaster for the Labour Party. You

look at whether polls are. The difficulty you have... A lot of

people who support Corbyn would say it is all very well sitting there

saying the polls are disastrous for Corbyn but the reason they are

disastrous is his own Labour MPs take every opportunity they can to

appear in television studios and on the radio saying how rubbish years.

Because they are telling the truth. Members voted that Owen Smith and

not Jeremy Corbyn to be the leader. He doesn't have any purchase with

the Scottish Labour Party membership. It was suggested in this

mythical world in which we live in where Scotland is a left-wing

country and people respond to Jeremy Corbyn and vote for him. In the last

poll I saw in Scotland, we were down to 12%. There is a point where we

have to ask the question, is the Labour Party passed the point of no

return? On mat, there was a professor of politics talking to

Andrew Neil earlier and he was making the point that there is a

real problem for the Labour Party now. There is two different

constituencies. They are socially conservative and is economic li

conservative. It has a metropolitan constituency and university towns.

London is quite heavily Labour. Those two constituencies which used

to coexist quite happily and vote Labour are now at odds with each

other. His point was getting rid of Jeremy Corbyn isn't going to solve

the fundamental problem. It won't. There needs to be thinking about how

you build that coalition. Every political party if it winds is a

coalition. If you look at the SNP, they have a coalition of people. The

SNP coalition has a fractured in the way that Labour has. How you don't

respond to that is by doing what Jeremy Corbyn has done and pander to

one side, the people who voted leave. The difficulty that the

Labour Party has come I found this during the referendum, like wind --

I find this astonishing that there were Labour voters in traditional

Labour heartlands who didn't know where Scotland, where the Labour

Party stored on the question of Scottish independence. I think the

difficulty is what the Labour Party doesn't do, either in the UK in

Scotland, is argue its position. For too long just accepted the support

without actually making an argument about why they believed in things

like being in the European Union. Will get there. Thank you very much

indeed. Scottish education used

to be regarded as one Well, it came to terms with no

longer being in the top tier some years ago, but is it now

going to have to come to terms This week, at First Minister's

Questions, opposition parties seized on the latest nail in the Scottish

education quality coffin, The Sutton Report -

accusing the Scottish Government And Scottish and being left behind

in the race for qualifications in future jobs. Scotland used to lead

the world in education. Why under this Government are we always

playing catch-up? Time and time again I have come here and argued

that the SNP are leaving behind the poorest children. This report shows

they are also holding back the brightest children. In our education

system today we have record high exam passes. We have record numbers

of young people going into positive destinations after they leave

school, and we also do see signs of positive destinations, for example

as is, or access to university, signs of the narrowing attainment

gap. I'm joined now by three members

of Holyrood's Education Committee. They include, here with me,

its convenor the SNP's James Dornan. And in Edinburgh the

Conservative's Elizabeth Smith Liz Smith, this Sutton Report was

just the latest in a series of statistics reports saying that

Scotland is sliding down international tables and is not

doing well compared to schools in England. Everyone always says, it is

nothing to do with the Curriculum for Excellence. Is that wearing a

bit thin? Yes, I think it is wearing very thin. All of us in the

education committee have listened carefully to a lot of evidence that

has been presented to us in recent years the' -- weeks and months, and

I think there is problem with the delivery of the curriculum, but

let's be in no doubt, this is a decline that is taking place over a

10-year period, and I have to say that the SNP is responsible for some

of the problems within that 10-year period, not least of which is

turning a blind eye to some of the very strong criticism that has been

made by teachers and parents in the system. It is something we have

listened to at the education committee, and to be fair to James

Dornan, he has been blunt in a way that some of his colleagues in the

SNP have not. Are you been blunt? I'm being honest. We are trying to

get to the bottom of any issues we have and how we can move forward.

The Cabinet Secretary has already said, we have accepted that things

have to change. We have taken evidence from teachers. You have

been in power for ten years and we have been going backwards. You focus

on the attainment gap, but of the whole system is going down about

other countries, that is not good. You had the First Minister talking

about her results have improved over the last couple of years, but the

important thing is we look back and decide we want to criticise

everything or say, at least we now know the Government is taking this

seriously and is moving forward with this review and will change things.

But after ten things, can you point to one thing your Government plans

to do that will make any difference? We have just seen that results have

improved. We have serious action being taken on the attainment gap.

We are devolving education down to the point where it should be, and

that is in the schools, so that headteachers can make sure... Very

few people would disagree with the idea of giving money to

headteachers, maybe some would disagree, giving money to

headteachers and saying, but it is not clear how giving them more money

and not telling them what to do with it actually helps. By the time that

money gets to the teachers there will be a framework within which it

can be spent to help to improve attainment. By doing what? There are

lots of things that are not just classroom learning can help

children, but if it means you can bring in a classroom assistant if

you think it is required, or whatever else the school requires,

the beauty of it is Igls to the school, and the school then decides

for their needs if that works. I see the beauty of that, the problem is

that Nicola Sturgeon has staked her first ministership on dosing the

attainment gap. While this might be a good idea, there is not

necessarily any correlation between handing headteachers money and

lowering the attainment gap. It might work, but equally it might

not. That is the point of the review. We look to see what is

working, we are looking to get feedback on the idea of clusters and

making sure schools can work together and share best practice

over a small geographic area. Daniel Johnson, what is your answer to this

problem? Handing money to headteachers, Mayor may not be a

good thing, but does not in itself mean that will reduce the attainment

gap. No, and I think James is dancing around the elephant in the

room. That is a new one! Years. It is funding. This Sutton Report is

interesting, because it shows a clear change in performance around

2006, exactly the point where the SNP started cutting funding to local

authorities. Let's just take as read that things are not great but I want

to focus on what can be done. Labour don't seem to have any proposals of

doing anything different. You just keep saying give more money to

schools or teachers or local authorities. It is clear that money

is not the problem. We spend much more per capita on screwing the

media in England, and England have caught up with us and are

overtaking. I disagree with you. The reality is we have seen 4000

teachers fewer teachers, 1000 fewer support staff, and these are

critical resources that make all the difference to attainment and

providing good education. We do spend much more than they do in

England. I'm not saying what you are mentioning is not the problem, but

what is England doing that means their education system appears on

all the statistics to be overtaking hours with less money? The key thing

is the direction of travel, and when you have declined and stuff like

that it is pretty clear that will make it harder and harder for

schools to deliver what they need to. But also the education committee

has seen some pretty serious and worrying evidence that in terms of

the introduction of a number of changes in terms of curriculum and

qualifications, there has not been clear decision-making. There has not

been an analysis and assessment of impact, and that is worrying. We

have a combination of lack of resources and institutional failure.

James Dornan was far too polite to point out that Curriculum for

Excellence was an invention of the Labour Party. Liz Smith, would it be

sensible to scrap the whole thing with that cause yet more disruption?

I don't think anybody believes there is anything that is a problem with

the principles of the Curriculum for Excellence. The argument is about

the delivery, and that has been an utter mess. That is the strong

message we have been getting from numerous presentations that have

been made to us in the Holyrood committee. It is also a lot of the

information that is coming through submissions to the governance

review. And I think education agencies in Scotland obviously

responsible for the implementation of the curriculum, there is

something really wrong with the way this delivery has taken place. The

very fact that John Swinney has had to scrap 20,000 pages of guidance,

and the very people, may I finish this point? The very people who

initiated these were the education agencies. There is something wrong

if that system is going to break down. Is that right, James Dornan?

There is a problem with the way... There is clearly something wrong

when we have had to remove all the paperwork, remove all these

different rules, because what seems to have happened is that things have

improved on top of existing things instead of an ongoing process to

make sure regulation was not needed any more. Can I go back briefly to

appoint. Daniel said it is local authorities that are responsible for

hiring or firing teachers. We have to leave it there.

We're taking a break next Sunday because Parliament's in recess

so I'll be back in two Sundays' time.