26/02/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by Kezia Dugdale, Patrick O'Flynn, Swedish MP Laila Naraghi and Douglas Murray of the Henry Jackson Society.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Theresa May still has plenty on her plate,


not least a battle over Brexit in the Lords.


But after Thursday's by-election win in Copeland,


the Prime Minister looks stronger than ever.


Jeremy Corbyn's Labour saw off Ukip in this week's other by-election,


but losing to the Tories in a heartland seat leaves the party


The leader of Scottish Labour joins me live.


You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden!


And Donald Trump may have been mocked for talking about the impact


of migration on Sweden, but after riots in Stockholm this


week, did the US president have the last laugh?


And coming up on Sunday Politics Scotland:


More from the Scottish Labour conference.


And are whole life prison terms needed in Scotland?


authorities be enough to alleviate the crisis in social care?


And joining me for all of that, three journalists who I'm pleased


to say have so far not been banned from the White House.


I've tried banning them from this show repeatedly,


but somehow they just keep getting past BBC security - it's Sam Coates,


We have had two crucial by-elections, the results last


Thursday night. It's now Sunday morning, where do they believe


British politics? I think it leaves British politics looking as if it


may go ahead without Ukip is a strong and robust force. It is


difficult to see from where we are now how Ukip rebuilds into a


credible vote winning operation. I think it looks unprofessional, the


campaign they fought in Stoke was clearly winnable because the margin


with which Labour held onto that seat was not an impressive one but


they put forward arguably the wrong candidate, it was messy and it's


hard to see where they go from here, particularly with the money problems


they have and even Nigel Farage saying he's fed up of the party. If


Isabel is right, if Ukip is no longer a major factor, you look at


the state of Labour and the Lib Dems coming from a long way behind


despite their local government by-election successes, Tories never


more dominant. I think Theresa May is in a fascinating situation. She's


the most powerful Prime Minister of modern times for now because she


faces no confident, formidable opposition. Unlike Margaret Thatcher


who in the 1980s, although she won landslides in the end, often looked


like she was in trouble. She was inferred quite often in the build-up


to the election. David Owen, Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams. And quite


often she was worried. At the moment Theresa May faces no formidable UK


opposition. However, she is both strong and fragile because her


agenda is Brexit, which I still think many have not got to grips


with in terms of how complex and training and difficult it will be


for her. Thatcher faced no equivalent to Brexit so she is both


strong, formidably strong because of the wider UK political context, and


very fragile. It is just when you think you have never been more


dominant you are actually at the most dangerous, what can possibly go


wrong? I think that the money of her MPs they haven't begun to think


through the practicalities of Brexit and she does have a working majority


of about 17 in the House of Commons so at any point she could be put


under pressure from really opposition these days is done by the


two wins inside the Conservative Party, either the 15 Europhiles or


the bigger group of about 60 Brexiteers who have continued to


operate as a united and disciplined force within the Conservative Party


to get their agenda on the table. Either of those wings could be


disappointed at any point in the next three and a half years and that


would put her under pressure. I wouldn't completely rule out Ukip


coming back. The reason Ukip lost in Stoke I think it's because at the


moment Theresa May is delivering pretty much everything Ukip figures


might want to see. We might find the phrase Brexit means Brexit quite


anodyne but I think she is convincing people she will press


ahead with their agenda and deliver the leave vote that people buy a


slim majority voted for. Should that change, should there be talk of


transition periods, shut the migration settlement not make people


happy, then I think Ukip risks charging back up the centre ground


and causing more problems in future. That could be a two year gap in


which Ukip would have to survive. As I said, Ukip is on our agenda for


today. Thursday was a big night


for political obsessives like us, with not one but two


significant by-elections, Ellie braved the wind and rain


to bring you this report. The clouds had gathered,


the winds blew at gale force. Was a change in the air, or just


a weather system called Doris? Voters in Stoke-on-Trent


were about to find out. It's here, a sports hall


on a Thursday night that the country's media reckon


is the true eye of the storm. Would Labour suffer a lightning


strike to its very heart, or would the Ukip threat proved


to be a damp squib? Everybody seems to think the result


in Stoke-on-Trent would be close, just as they did 150-odd miles away


in Copeland, where the Tories are counting on stealing another


Labour heartland seat. Areas of high pressure in both


places, and some strange sights. We knew this wasn't a normal


by-election, and to prove it there is the rapper,


Professor Green. Chart-toppers aside,


winner of Stoke-on-Trent hit parade was announced first,


where everyone was so excited the candidates didn't even make it


onto the stage for the result. And I do hereby declare


that the said Gareth Snell Nigel Farage has said that victory


here in Stoke-on-Trent But Ukip's newish leader


played down the defeat, insisting his party's


time would come. Are you going to stand again


as an MP or has this No doubt I will stand again,


don't worry about that. The politics of hope beat


the politics of fear. I think Ukip are the ones this


weekend who have got But a few minutes later,


it turned out Labour had Harrison, Trudy Lynn,


the Conservative Party That was more than 2,000


votes ahead of Labour. What has happened here tonight


is a truly historic event. Labour were disappointed,


but determined to be optimistic At a point when we're 15 to 18


points behind in the polls... The Conservatives within 2000 votes


I think is an incredible The morning after the night


before, the losing parties were licking their wounds


and their lips over breakfast. For years and years,


Ukip was Nigel Farage, That has now changed,


that era has gone. It's a new era, it is


a second age for us. So that needs to be


more fully embedded, it needs to be more defined,


you know, and that will We have to continue to improve


in seats where we have stood. As we have done here,


we've improved on our 2015 result, that's what important,


is that we are taking steps Can I be the first to come


here today to congratulate you on being elected the new MP


for Stoke on Trent Central. Jeremy Corbyn has just arrived


in Stoke to welcome his newest MP. Not sure he's going to


Copeland later though. Earlier in the day, the Labour


leader had made clear he'd considered and discounted some


theories about the party's Since you found out that you'd lost


a seat to a governing party for the first time


since the Falklands War, have you at any point this morning


looked in the mirror and asked yourself this question -


could the problem actually be me? In the end it was the Conservatives


who came out on top. No governing party has made


a gain at a by-election With the self-styled people's army


of Ukip halted in Stoke, and Labour's wash-out


here in Copeland... There's little chance of rain


on Theresa May's parade. In the wake of that loss in


Copeland, the Scottish Labour Party has been meeting for its spring


conference in the Yesterday, deputy leader Tom Watson


warned delegates that unless Labour took the by-election defeat


seriously, the party's devastation in Scotland could be repeated


south of the border. Well, I'm joined now


by the leader of Scottish Labour, Even after your party had lost


Copeland to the Tories and with Labour now trailing 16 points in the


UK polls, you claim to have every faith that Jeremy Corbyn would


absolutely win the general election. What evidence can you bring to


support that? There is no doubt the result in Copeland was disappointing


for the Labour Party and I think it's a collective feeling for


everyone within the Labour Party and I want to do what I can to turn


around the fortunes of our party. That's what I've committed to do


while I have been the Scottish Labour leader. This two years ago we


were down the mines so to speak in terms of losing the faith of working


class communities across the country, but we listened very hard


to the message voters are sending and responded to it. That's what I'm


committed to doing in Scotland and that's what Jeremy Corbyn is


committed to doing UK wide. The latest polls put Labour at 14% in


Scotland, the Tories at ten points ahead of you in Scotland, even


Theresa May is more popular than Jeremy Corbyn in Scotland. So I will


try again - why are you so sure Jeremy Corbyn could win a general


election? What I said when you are talking about Scotland is that I'm


the leader of the Scottish Labour Party and I take responsibility for


our policies here. Voters said very clearly after the Scottish


Parliament election that they didn't have a clear enough sense of what we


stood for so I have been advocating a very strong anti-austerity


platform, coming up with ideas of how we can oppose the cuts and


invest in our future. That is something Jeremy Corbyn also


supports but I've also made it clear this weekend that we are opposed to


a second independence referendum. I want to bring Scotland back together


by focusing on the future and that's why I have been speaking about the


federal solution for the UK. I know that Jeremy Corbyn shares that


ambition because he is backing the plans for a people's Constitutional


Convention. Yes, these are difficult times for the Scottish Labour Party


and UK family, but I have a plan in place to turn things around. It will


take time though. I'm still not sure why you are so sure the Labour party


can win but let me come onto your plan. You want a UK wide


Constitutional Convention and that lead to a new Federalist settlement.


Is it the policy of the Labour Shadow Cabinet in Westminster to


carve England into federal regions? What we support at a UK wide level


is the people's constitutional convention. I have been careful to


prescribe what I think is in the best interests of Scotland but not


to dictate to other parts of the UK what is good for them, that's the


point of the people's constitutional convention. You heard Tom Watson say


there has to be a UK wide conversation about power, who has it


and how it is exercised across England. England hasn't been part of


this devolution story over the last 20 years, it is something that


happened between Scotland and London or Wales and London. No wonder


people in England feel disenfranchised from that. What


evidence can you bring to show there is any appetite in England for an


English federal solution to England, to carve England into federal


regions? Have you spoken to John Prescott about this? He might tell


you some of the difficulties. There's not even a debate about that


here, Kezia Dugdale, it is fantasy. I speak to John Prescott regularly.


What there is a debate about is the idea the world is changing so fast


that globalisation is taking jobs away from communities in the


north-east, that many working class communities feel left behind, that


Westminster feels very far away and the politicians within it feel


remote in part of the establishment. People are fed up with power being


exercised somewhere else, that's where I think federalism comes in


because it's about bringing power closer to people and in many ways


it's forced on us because of Brexit. We know the United Kingdom is


leaving the European Union so we have to talk about the repatriation


of those powers from Brussels to Britain. I want many of those powers


to go to the Scottish parliament but where should they go in the English


context? It is not as things currently stand the policy of the


English Labour Party to carve England into federal regions,


correct? It is absolutely the policy of the


UK Labour Party to support the people's Constitutional convention


to examining these questions. I think it is really important. You're


promising the Scottish people a federal solution, and you have not


even squared your own party for a federal solution in England. That is


not true. The UK Labour Party is united on this. I am going to


Cardiff next month to meet with Carwyn Jones and various leaders.


United on a federal solution? You know as well as I know it is not


united on a federal solution. We will have a conversation about power


in this country. It is not united on that


issue? This is the direction of travel. It is what you heard


yesterday from Sadiq Khan, from Tom Watson, when you hear from people


like Nick Forbes who lead Newcastle City Council and Labour's Local


Government Association. There is an appetite for talking about power.


Talking is one thing. We need to have this conversation across the


whole of the United Kingdom, to have a reformed United Kingdom. It is a


conversation you're offering Scotland, not the policy. Let's come


onto the labour made of London. He was in power for your conference. He


wrote in the record yesterday, there is no difference between Scottish


nationalism and racism. Would you like this opportunity to distance


yourself from that absurd claim? I think that Sadiq Khan was very clear


yesterday that he was not accusing the SNP of racism. What he was


saying clearly is that nationalism by its very nature divides people


and communities. That is what I said in my speech yesterday. I am fed up


living in a divided and fractured country and society. Our politics is


forcing is constantly to pick sides, whether you're a no, leave a remain,


it brings out the worst in our politicians and politics. All the


consensus we find in the grey areas is lost. That is why am standing


under a banner that together we are stronger. We have to come up with


ideas and focus on the future. That is why I agree with Sadiq Khan. He


said quite clearly in the Daily Record yesterday, and that the last


minute he adapted his speech to your conference yesterday, to try and


reduce the impact, that there was no difference between Scottish


nationalism and racism. Your colleague, and Sarwar, said that


even after he had tried to introduce the caveats, all forms of


nationalism rely on creating eyes and them. Let's call it for what it


is. So you are implying that the Scottish Nationalists are racist.


Would you care to distance yourself from that absurd claim? I utterly


refute that that is what Sadiq Khan said. I would never suggest that the


SNP are an inherently racist party. That does is a disservice. He did


not see it. What he did say, however, is that nationalism is


divisive. You know that better than anyone. I see your Twitter account.


Regularly your attack for the job you do as a journalist. Politics in


Scotland is divided on. I do not want to revisit that independence


question again for that reason. As leader of the Labour Party, I want


to bring our country back together, appeal to people who voted yes and


no. That banner, together we are stronger, that is where the answers


lie in defaulters can be found. If in response to the Mayor of London,


your colleague says, let's call it out for what it is, what is he


referring to if he is not implying that national symbol is racist? --


and that nationalism is racist? He is saying that it leads to divisive


politics. The Labour Party has always advocated that together we


are stronger. Saying something is divisive is very different from


saying something is racist. That is what the Mayor of London said. That


is what your colleague was referring to. He did not. You would really


struggle to quote that from the Mayor of London. He talked about


being divided by race. What does that mean? I think he was very clear


that he was talking about divided politics. There is an appetite the


length and breadth of the country to end that divisive politics. That is


what I stand for, focusing on the future, bringing people back


together, concentrating on what the economy might look like in 20 years'


time in coming up with ideas to tackle it today. Thank you for


joining us. Thursday's win for Labour


in Stoke-on-Trent Central gave some relief to Jeremy Corbyn,


but for Ukip leader and defeated Stoke candidate Paul Nuttall


there were no consolation prizes. I'm joined now by Mr Nuttall's


principal political Welcome to the programme. Good


morning. How long will Paul Nuttall survivors Ukip leader, days, weeks,


months? You are in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. Ukip


was formed in 1993 with the express purpose, much mocked, of getting


Britain out of the European Union. Under the brilliant leadership of


Nigel Farage, we were crucial in forcing a vacuous Prime Minister to


make a referendum promise he did not want to give. With our friends in


Fort leave and other organisations. Mac we know that. Get to the answer.


We helped to win that referendum. The iteration of Ukip at the moment


that we're in, the primary purpose, we are the guard dog of Brexit.


Viewed through that prism, the Stoke by-election was a brilliant success.


A brilliant success? We had the Tory candidate that had pumped out


publicity for Remain, for Cameron Bradley, preaching the gospel of


Brexit. We had a Labour candidate and we know what he really felt


about Brexit, preaching the Gospel according to Brexit. You lost. Well


the by-election was going on, we had the Labour Party in the House of


Commons pass the idea of trickling Article 50 by a landslide. Are


passionate thing, the thing that 35,000 Ukip members care about the


most, it is an extraordinary achievement. I am very proud. What


would you have described as victory as? If we could have got Paul


Nuttall into the House of Commons, that would have been a fantastic


cherry on the top. Losing was an extraordinary achievement? Many Ukip


supporters the Stoke was winnable, but Paul Nuttall's campaign was


marred by controversy, Tory voters refuse to vote tactically for Ukip


to beat Labour, his campaign, Mr Nuttall is to blame for not winning


what was a winnable seat? I do not see that at all. This is


counterintuitive, but Jeremy Corbyn did do one thing that made it more


difficult for us to win. Fantasy. That was to take Labour into a


Brexit position formerly. Just over 50 Labour MPs had voted against


triggering Article 50. In political terms, we have intimidated the


Labour Party into backing Brexit. How much good is it doing you? It


comes to the heart of the problem your party faces.


You're struggling to win Tory Eurosceptic voters. For the moment,


they seem happy with Theresa May. Stoke shows you're not winning


Labour Brexit voters either. If you cannot get the solution Tolisso


labour, where does your Broad come from? In terms of the by-election,


it came very early for Paul. I'm talking about the future. We have a


future agenda, and ideological argument with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour


Party, which is wedded to the notion of global citizenship and does not


recognise the nation state. We know he spent Christmas sitting around


campfires with Mexican Marxist dreaming of global government. We


believe in the nation state. We believe that the patriotic working


class vote will be receptive to that. Your Broad went down by 9% in


Cortland. In Copeland we were squeezed. In Stoke, we were unable


to squeeze the Tories, who are on a high. Our agenda is that social


solidarity is important but we arrange it in this country by nation


and community. We want an immigration system that is not only


reducing... We know what you want. I do not think people do. You had a


whole by-election to tell people and they did not vote for you and. When


Nigel Farage said it was fundamental that you were winner in Stoke, he


was wrong? Nigel chooses his own words. I would not rewrite them. It


would be a massive advantage to Ukip to have a leader in the House of


Commons in time to reply to the budget, Prime Minister's questions


and all of that. But we have taken the strategic view that we will


fight the Labour Party for the working class vote. It is also true


that the Conservatives will make a pitch for the working class vote


might as well. All three parties have certain advantages and


disadvantages. As part of that page, Nigel Farage said that your leader,


Paul Nuttall, should have taken a clear, by which I assume he meant


tough, line on immigration. Do you agree? He took a tough line on


immigration. He developed that idea at our party conference in the


spring. Nigel Farage did not think so? Nigel Farage made his speech


before Paul Nuttall made his speech. He said this in the aftermath of the


result. Once we have freedom to control and Borders, Paul wants to


set up an immigration system that includes an aptitude test, do you


have skills that the British economy needs, but also, and attitudes test,


do you subscribe to core British values such as gender equality and


freedom of expression? We will be making these arguments. It is


certainly true that Paul's campaign was thrown off course by,


particularly something that we knew the Labour Party had been preparing


to run, the smear on the untruths, the implications about Hillsborough.


If you knew you should have anticipated it. Alan Banks, he helps


to bankroll your party, he said that Mr Nuttall needs to toss out the


Tory cabal in Europe, by which he means Douglas Carswell, Neil


Hamilton. Should they be stripped of their membership? Of course not. As


far as I knew, Alan Banks was a member of the Conservative Party


formally. I do not know who this Tory cabal is supposed to be. He


says that your party is more like a jumble sale than a political party.


He says that the party should make him chairman or they will work. What


do you see to that? He has made that statement several times over many


months, including if you do not throw out your only MP. Douglas


Carswell has managed to win twice under Ukip colours. Should Tibi


chairman? I think we have an excellent young chairman at the


moment. He is doing a good job. The idea that Leave.EU was as smooth


running brilliant machine, that does not sit with the facts as I


understand them. Suzanne Evans says it would be no great loss for Ukip


if Mr Banks walked out, severed his ties and took his money elsewhere.


Is she right. I am always happy people who want to give money and


support your party want to stay in the party. The best donors donate


and do not seek to dictate. If they are experts in certain fields,


people should listen to their views but to have a daughter telling the


party leader who should be party chairman, that is a nonstarter. You


have described your existing party chairman is excellent. He said it


could be 20 years before Ukip wins by-election. Is he being too


optimistic? There is a general election coming up in the years'


time. We will be aiming to win seats in that. Before that, we will be the


guard dog for Brexit, to make sure this extraordinary achievement of a


little party... You are guard dog without a kennel, you cannot get


seat? We're keeping the big establishment parties to do the will


of the people. If we achieve nothing else at all, that will be a


magnificent achievement. Thank you very much.


Sweden isn't somewhere we talk about often


should because this week it was pulled into


the global spotlight, thanks


Last weekend, Mr Trump was mocked for referring to an incident that


had occurred last night in Sweden as a result of the country's open


Critics were quick to point out that no such incident had occurred


and Mr Trump later clarified on Twitter and he was talking


about a report he had watched on Fox News.


But as if to prove he was onto something,


next day a riot broke out in a Stockholm suburb


with a large migrant population, following unrest in such areas


So what has been Sweden's experience of migration?


In 2015, a record 162,000 people claimed asylum there, the second


That number dropped to 29,000 in 2016 after the country introduced


border restrictions and stopped offering permanent


Tensions have risen, along with claims of links to crime,


although official statistics do not provide evidence of a refugee driven


Nigel Farage defended Mr Trump, claiming this week that migrants


have led to a dramatic rise in sexual offences.


Although the country does have the highest reported


rate of rape in Europe, Swedish authorities say recent rises


were due to changes to how rape and sex crimes are recorded.


Aside from the issue of crime, Sweden has struggled


Levels of inequality between natives and migrants when it comes


Unemployment rates are three times higher for foreign-born workers


We're joined now by Laila Naraghi, she's a Swedish MP from the


governing Social Democratic Party, and by the author and


The Swedish political establishment was outraged by Mr Trump's remarks,


pointing to a riot that hadn't taken place, then a few nights later


serious riots did break out in a largely migrant suburb of Stockholm


so he wasn't far out, was he? I think he was far out because he is


misleading the public with how he uses these statistics. I think it is


important to remember that the violence has decreased in Sweden for


the past 20 years and research shows there is no evidence that indicate


that immigration leads to crime and so I think it is far out. The social


unrest in these different areas is not because of their ethical


backgrounds of these people living there but more about social economic


reasons. OK, no evidence migrants are responsible for any kind of


crime? This story reminds me after what happened to the Charlie Hebdo


attacks in Paris when also a Fox News commentator said something that


was outlandish about Paris and the Mayor of Paris threatened to sue Fox


News, saying you are making our city look bad. It's a bit like that


because the truth on this lies between Donald Trump on the Swedish


authorities on this. Sweden and Swedish government is very reluctant


to admit any downsides of its own migration policy and particularly


the migration it hard in 2015 but there are very obvious downsides


because Sweden is not a country that needs a non-skilled labour force


which doesn't speak Swedish. What was raised as the matter of


evidence, what is the evidence? First of all if I can say so the


rape statistics in Sweden that have been cited are familiar with the


rape statistics across other countries that have seen similar


forms of migration. Danish authorities and the Norwegian


authorities have recorded a similar thing. It is not done by ethnicity


so we don't know. And this is part of the problem. It is again a lot of


lies and rumours going about. When it is about for example rape, it is


difficult to compare the statistics because in Sweden for example many


crimes that in other countries are labelled as bodily harm or assault


are in Sweden labelled as rape. Also how it is counted because if a woman


goes to the police and reports that her husband or boyfriend has raped


her, and done it every night for one year, in Sweden that is counted as


365 offences. Something is going wrong, I look at the recent news


from Sweden. Six Afghan child refugees committed suicide in the


last six months, unemployment among recent migrants now five times


higher than among non-migrants. We have seen gang violence in Malmo


where a British child was killed by a grenade, rioting in Stockholm.


Police in Sweden say there are 53 areas of the country where it is now


dangerous to patrol. Something has gone wrong. Let me get back to what


I think is the core of this debate if I may and that is the right for


people fleeing war and political persecution to seek asylum, that is


a human right. In Sweden we don't think we can do everything, but we


want to live up to our obligation, every country has an obligation to


receive asylum seekers. But you have changed your policy on that because


having taken 163,001 year alone, you have then closed your borders, I


think very wisely, closed the border which means 10,000 people per day at


one point were walking from Denmark in to Malmo, you rightly changed


that so he realised whatever ones aspirations in terms of asylum, it


sometimes meets reality and Sweden is meeting the reality of this.


Let's respond to that. We are not naive, we know we cannot do


everything but we want to try to do our share as we think other


countries also need to do their share. But let me say that, if you


look at what the World Economic Forum is saying about our country


they show we are in the top of many rankings, the best country to live


in, to age in, to have children in, to start into -- to start


enterprise. Why have you not been good at integrating migrants? The


unemployment rate is five times higher among migrants than


non-migrants and that's the highest ratio of any country in the EU and


the OECD, why have you not been able to integrate the people you have


brought in for humanitarian reasons? I'm sure there are things we can do


much better of course but if you look for example at the immigration


that came in the 90s from the Balkans, they are well integrated


and contributing to our society. They are starting enterprises and


working in different fields of society, and they help our country.


Why have they not got jobs, the migrants that have come in? It takes


time. In the 90s we managed it and I'm sure we can do it again. Can I


put this into some context, it is clear Sweden has got problems as a


result of the number of migrants that come in, whether it is as bad


as Mr Trump and others make out is another matter, but perhaps I can


put it into context. Malmo, which has been at the centre of many of


these migrant problems, its homicide rate is three per hundred thousand.


Chicago, 28 per 100,000. It may have problems but they are not huge. No,


they are pretty huge and I think they will grow. The Balkan refugees


into Sweden in the 90s did bring a lot of problems and Sweden did for


the first time see serious ethnic gang rivalries. There was an upsurge


in gang-related violence that has gone on since. The situation in


Malmo in particular is exaggerated by some people, there's no doubt


about that, I have been there many times and it is undoubtedly


exaggerated by some, it is also vastly unpersuaded by the Swedish


authorities. -- understated. In 2010, one in ten Jews in Malmo


registered some form of attack on them. It got so bad that in 2010


people offered to escort Jews... You have had a good say and I have got


to be fair here, what do you say to that, Laila Naraghi? There are


people trying to frame our country in a certain way to push their own


agenda. I regret that President Trump is trying to slander our


country. But what about the specific point on Malmo? If you speak to


people in Malmo and also to different congregations, they say


they are working together with the authorities to improve this. I say


again, there are a lot of people trying to spread rumours and lies.


Your situation is very like the situation we had in Britain when we


have these situations in Rotherham and elsewhere. 1400 girls were raped


in Rotherham before police even admitted it was going on. That


happened in Britain in the last decade, a similar phenomenon. An


upsurge in particularly sexual and other forms of violence and then


total denial by an entire political class is now something that is


happening in Sweden. I see it in Swedish authorities and the denial


that comes up and the desire to laugh and dismiss Trump but he's not


answer nothing and that's a painful thing for any society to want to


admit to. There are number of Swedes who think the establishment is


covering up the true statistics, that you don't break crime down by


ethnic crimes, people are suspicious of the centre-left and centre-right


parties now in Sweden. There is no denial and no cover-up. This is what


I'm speaking about when I say people are trying to frame it in a certain


way. The social unrest is not because of the ethnical background


of the people living there but rather because of different


socioeconomics conditions. There is no research that shows


immigration... But you don't do the research into it. Swedish


authorities deliberately ensure you cannot carry out such research and


after the attacks in Cologne in 2015 it was the first time then that the


Swedish authorities and press admitted that similar sexual


molestation have been going on for years in Sweden. Is it right to


think, given the problem is maybe not as bad as many people make out


but clearly problems, given these problems, is the age of mass asylum


seeking for Sweden over? You have cut the numbers by 80% coming in


last year compared with 2015, is it over while you concentrate on


getting right the people that you have there already? We want to do


our share, we have done a lot and now we are concentrating of course


on integration and making sure people get a job, and also


on big welfare investments because it's important to remember that for


eight years Sweden were governed by a government that prioritised big


tax cuts instead of investment in welfare. It may just not work. I am


grateful to you both, we have to leave it there.


It's coming up to 11:40am, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland.


Scottish Labour promise to work to save the union,


And they were here before. In the last government, everything they


said was just lies. I think Jeremy Corbyn is a big problem for them and


it's very sad that we haven't got a decent opposition.


We take a look at whether whole life prison sentences really work.


This weekend, delegates from Scottish Labour


Its leader Kezia Dugdale's speech was full of promises to work


tirelessly in support of the Union if there's a second


But it was comments from the London Mayor Sadiq Khan


And there is no difference between those who try to divide us on the


basis of whether we are English or Scottish and those who try to divide


us on the basis of our background, race or religion. Of course, I'm not


saying that nationalists are somehow racist or bigoted, but no more than


ever, what we don't need is more more division and separation.


what we don't need is more more division and separation.


The conference also voted to in favour of a


People's Constitutional Convention to look


at establishing a federal power plan for the UK.


In a moment, we'll be speaking to the former


leader of Scottish Labour, Ian Gray.


But first, Huw Williams has been gauging the mood.


A celebration of the nations of world on Perth pot high street this


weekend, but the question for Scottish Labour, can he keep the red


flag flying here? Especially when things seem to be going so badly for


them. In the conference this morning, I think you would have


realised that there is a lots of support for policies that are being


brought forward and a general expectation that we will fight for


these and starred the elections back again. Bigoted very, very difficult


period for the Labour Party throughout the United Kingdom. I'm


we will come back, we have in the past and I'm sure we will do again.


No scientific survey, but a snapshot of opinion from the people we


canvassed. I think they are in disarray. I don't know, the left


hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing half the time, I


think. Is the last government, everything they said was just lies.


I think Jeremy Corbyn is a big problem for them and it's very sad


that we haven't got a decent opposition. It's much more


orientated from England. Their policies are much more orientated


around with that of there. The Labour Party... I think those


fleeing... I'm not sure what they stand for any more. So what does the


Labour Party have to say and do to rebuild trust and win back voters?


Connected with the Labour Party if everything went right. Clearly


connected with grassroots, the working class of this country and


people do the work for our duties, but the NHS, for our teachers. The


seven strong and putting our policies which contained a letter to


the VIP party of the people want more. Libyans to close the gap


between 30 again. SNP have not lived up to their promises, Labour will. -


fantastic record for what they have done the last five years, is about


the constant austerity. I have to call it that the tide and Tories,


from the Scottish national Government. We have held our heads


up, kept spending much as we can, particularly for education and


social care. Those have been our priorities, but we have also been


building Council houses and have just about reached our target for


the last five years. People argue that the Labour Party is dying. When


I first joined the Labour Party back in 1959, people were saying it then.


People will keep claiming that they are dead or dying, but we ourselves


here. Labour in power examining external and 15 in beginning, but


Jeremy Corbyn will be addressing the conference later today.


In the meantime, at the conference in Perth this morning is the former


and morning. First of all, Sadiq Khan has dominated a lot of the


attention given to a conference. I don't really want to get into a


discussion about what exactly is meant by what he said, but who the


benefit of hindsight think that the way particularly in the article but


the daily record, could have been put in the article but the daily


record, could- but it bit more sensibly? Paving the way record,


could put a little bit more sensibly? Eventuate have been


construed haven't necessarily in that very helpful. He is clear about


what he said. But he said was that the politics of nationalism is


divisive and they think anybody who has lived through Scottish politics


in recent years would have taken that that is the case. And I asked


the question is that almost all people pursuing the conference has


been working set and the SNP and the response. It made as well have been


an SNP conference the publicity it has got and not a Labour conference.


Do not agree with that. I have looked through the papers today" a


lot of the coverage look at Kezia Dugdale's opinion on a second


referendum and the very important announcement that we are seeing an


increase on child benefit, which could lose as many as 30,000


children out of poverty. That is really important method. And noted


that if there is a second referendum that Labour in Scotland will be


followed through, 100% in favour of the United Kingdom? Yes. I think


Kezia Dugdale mood that as clear as she possibly could yesterday. She


said that in Labour Party that she said would never support


independence, because it is a fundamental principle that together


we are a stronger. The whole campaign to win independent kingdom.


There is a second independence referendum, we don't want to see it.


What it is doing is costing a great deal of difficulty. Michael


Rasztovits and should put that question to rest. She does not have


a mandate for a second referendum, so let's stop that and get on with


things like improving our schools, health service and losing children


out of poverty. Does that mean that if you are thinking of joining a


political party and you're in favour of independence, you should not join


the Labour Party? People join the Labour Party because they believe


and our slogan sums it up that together we are stronger, we can


make Scotland but about moving out of poverty, but even on the


constitution, who now have a verse on offer moving towards a federal


foolish and the United Kingdom as a whole. -- a federal solution.


Neither a complete commitment to the state is closed nor the obsession


with independence that scene from the SNP. Perhaps the key word used


in that answer is no, because until very recently that wasn't your


position. Kezia Dugdale was worth and review earlier. In case people


are missing her, I thought we would play one of her greatest hits. Here


is what she had to say on the actor who gave a year ago. If there is


another independence referendum, should Labour independence and PSP


fans can pay for it? -- MPs. If they believe that, I'm not going to down


debate. So Kezia Dugdale believed they should be free to campaign for


it. Kezia Dugdale was answering a question in your go about discipline


in the party and whether she was going to expel people are talking


about the possibility of independence... I'm not sure that is


what I asked her. I asked if you could be a member of the Labour


Party and campaign for independence and she said absolutely, yes. I


didn't say anything about expelling people buy that. Her position was


absolutely crystal clear yesterday that she opposes independence, that


the Labour Party opposes independence. They should not be


such a referendum. The problem you have got is that given the Scottish


Conservatives have got being in favour of the UK pretty much sewn


up, why should people who are thinking of supporting Labour


believe that what you have just said that Kezia Dugdale's position is


absolutely crystal clear? We have that Kezia Dugdale's position is


just heard her say year ago that her position was absolutely crystal


clear. The only problem is, they are opposite positions.


I don't think that is true at all. Across this weekend, she has made


the position crystal clear, we have now a unique position between the


three major parties on the constitution, which is we are in


favour of People's Convention to develop a federal solution for the


United Kingdom. I think that is in line with the thinking of a


significant majority of Scots who are maybe fed up with this debate


being so polarised between the Tory position and the SNP's of session...


If there is another referendum and you say to people vote to stick with


the United Kingdom, because we are proposing a federal UK, it would be


helpful if that was the position of the Labour Party in England and if


there was any remote chance of labour actually winning the next


general election. It is the position of the UK Labour Party, we saw Tom


Watson the deputy leader talking about this. To have a federal


England? To look at how it is distributed throughout United


Kingdom. Sadiq Khan, talked about distributed throughout United


this as well. What is a federal England going to look like? Just a


minute, Gordon. In recent months, Kezia Dugdale and Gerry McCann and


have worked together to agree to work towards a federal - might


people's convention. It it is the business of that people's


convention. Part of the problem of this debate is that for 20 years we


have carried out this debate solely in Scotland and I do think that


there are many people in England who feel that they have been left behind


by that devolution debate and that they should have a debate -- C N


Howe C and how power is set out in England. Do you think generally


Corbyn will win the next general election? I think he can. I am not


going to pretend we are not in a difficult position right now and in


the polls and in the by-election we saw earlier this week. But a general


election is some distance away and I do believe these things can be


turned around. . You almost got there at one point. Thank you very


much indeed. When should a life


sentence mean life? It's a long running debate,


but should whole life orders be The issue was raised this week


during First Minister's Questions, after the killer of teenager


Paige Docherty had One that we have heard several times


before from this government, as it stands our judges do not have the


tool of a whole life tariff at their disposal and we see that they


should. We can sit in this Parliament and we can express


outrage every time something like this happens we can do something


about it. And I want to do something about it. If the Scottish Government


will not act, I can say today that the Scottish Conservatives will push


through with the members Bill pushing for a case of whole life


sentences in Scotland. We need to stand up for families who see


sentences for murder cut after a year they have been handed down and


we should change the law so families like page Doherty's feel that the


law is going back in their favour. We have waited too long. Isn't it


time we all acted? First Minister. I do think it is important that we


continue to look at these issues rationally. We have introduced over


the course of the period that we have been in government a whole


range of reforms to our justice system. I said earlier on that the


fall in crime is partly in large part due to the good work over


police officers, we are seeing in the increases in rates of conviction


in some crimes. Much of that is down to the reforms that have been


introduced to our justice system over the period of the last decade.


We will continue to look with a novel mind up proposals brought


forward for further As you heard there,


the Scottish Conservatives say they'll bring a private


members Bill, calling for whole-life sentences


in the coming weeks. But how do these sentences


work and how successful Andrew Coyle is Emeritus Professor


of Prison Studies at University First of all, just explain how these


orders work. A judge can say at sentencing, can he or she, you will


spend the rest of your natural life in prison? Can I answer that by


explaining the current situation in Scotland is that anyone who is


convicted of murder will receive a life sentence. In addition the judge


must define a minimum punishment tariff. That minimum punishment


tariff is the minimum time that the person will spend in prison. After


that period, however along, the case can be referred to the parole board


to decide whether what the next step should be. That process, after the


minimum period, can take a very long time and the parole board is very


cautious about releasing anyone. There are instances where the parole


board regularly refuses conditional release. There are a number of


prisoners in Scotland at the moment to have tariffs of over 30 years.


There is one case of a prisoner who was sentenced to life in 1987 with a


tariff of 15 years. He is still in prison today 30 years later. And the


final point to be made is that there is no in law, there is no limit to


the tariff which the judge can apply. Several prisoners, as I say,


are serving over 30 years of the tariff. The longest tariff imposed


in Scotland was on anger thing clear in 2014. A tariff of 37 years. That


means that he will be 106 if you live is before his case is even


considered. -- Angus Sinclair. In England, what is the difference? The


judge can see it as an till the end of your natural life? What happens


in David Blunkett's time as Home Secretary was that he introduced a


provision where the judge could specifically say, imposed a whole


life tariff. Previous to that, the Home Secretary himself, not the


judge, the Home Secretary had imposed a number of home tariffs. --


live tariffs. Scotland, Peter Tobin, who have whole life sentences. There


is no legal prohibition on a judge imposing such a tariff. Other than


proportionality, president and consideration of the individual


case. There is no question in this particular case that the man


concerned will has a 23 year sentence. He has a life sentence and


will serve at least 23 years before he is considered and that


consideration will run for many, many years. You seem to be saying


there is no difference between the system in Scotland and the system in


England because judges can impose minimum sentences before parole,


that are so long, that they equate to whole life sentences in England?


Yes. Arguably there was no need for that change in the law to be


introduced in England because it hasn't really changed the situation.


And at the moment people, the parole board is cautious about reducing,


releasing anyone. I will give you the examples of Angus Sinclair who


will be considered for release when he is 106. That in effect as a life


tariff. Whole live tariffs are not necessarily whole life, are they?


There have been some instances, one of the Kray brothers was one, he was


let out that he had cancer and he died a few weeks after. But there is


a procedure whereby someone can be released. There has always been and


continues to be provision. What has been said in exceptional


circumstances. The minister in England, the Justice Secretary, can


order the release of someone in exceptional circumstances and are


very obvious example, you gave the example of Ronnie Kray, he was


released because he was approaching the point of death. So that


provision remains there. And also when a person is released, that


person remains on close supervision on the rest of his or her life. That


is what the life sentence means. Andrew Coyle, thank you very much


indeed for joining us. Well, let's discuss this


with two members of In our Inverness studio


is the Scottish Conservatives Justice Spokesperson Douglas Ross


and Stewart Stevenson from the SNP Douglas Ross, many people would


understand you wanting to advocate whole life tariffs. But you heard


Andrew Coyle there's saying that in Scotland despite the technical


differences, that amounts to the same thing as the system in England.


In that sense there is no need to change. I would disagree with that.


I know he gave the example of Angus Sinclair. But there are other


examples where people are given life sentences for despicable murders who


go on to be released. And he also mentioned in his remarks, it is up


to the parole board. What we want to do to the worst criminals in


Scotland is to give the judges the opportunity to set sentencing and


see you will not be released and that will give convert to the


victims of crime. For those of us who are not lawyers,


is the point you are making that in England if you get a whole life


tariff, no one apart from the Home Secretary and an exceptional


circumflex sizes can come along and say, we will reconsider that. Is


that your point? Yes. In England and Wales, section 31 of the 1990


sentencing bill allows the Justice Secretary under six action 's


circumstances and compassionate grounds to believe someone who has


been given a whole life tariff. There are 59 across England and


Wales. It is important that element is in there. But it does also allow


judges in England and Wales to pass down a sentence that they couldn't


have the virgin unity to do. It is giving judges the tools if they wish


to use them for the very worst criminals in Scotland. Stewart


Stevenson, I do not know what your position is on this. Nicola Sturgeon


seemed in part sympathetic to what Douglas Ross was saying when she was


speaking at First Minister's Questions. I think we need to be


very clear that the real sentence is borne by the relatives and friends


of the person who has been murdered. Further in the sentences are matter


of considerable importance. The case that Professor Coyle referred to


other Angus Sinclair who Lord Matthews sentenced to 37 years of


punishment. That will far exceed his life. I think that is a clear


message that the Criminal Justice System system is taking seriously.


The offences he committed. And that is the message to the family. Judges


have the opportunity when they wish to impose a sentence that means


someone will never ever be released. What I hear from


Russell -- Douglas Ross, he wants to play politicians into sacking guess


what judges say. That is a dangerous place to go. With the option of


judges passing exemplary sentences that will exceed the span of


someone's wife, we have a system that actually works. Judges could


have the option that people should stay in jail for the natural life.


In what way is that bringing politicians into it? It is giving


judges an option, which in Scotland, which they have in England, which in


Scotland they do not have. Douglas Ross appeared to make quite clear


that he says the role of politicians and reviewing that in the fullness


of time. I am not sure that that is where the public would want us to


go. I am not sure the system in England is one that we would wish to


copy. I have spoken to people on whole life sentences in visits to


prisons in France and Wales. The prospect of a for those people was


nil. They are following. In Scotland, the Sheriff, the pencil --


then sentencing has the option of passing exemplary sentences beyond


lie. That sends a strong signal to the people who have suffered a loss


through the murder. If it is only a notch and for the judges, the judges


are already passing sentences that are more draconian than simple whole


life. Why would that be used as a system -- such as Angus Sinclair.


Again, what exactly is the advantage of what you're proposing? I think it


is interesting that we can only use one example in Scotland Angus


Sinclair who took decades to be brought to serve justice. If he was


convicted of the crimes when he did the crowds, he would have been given


37 years and not a whole life sentence. You have to question, had


not been the delay to bring him to justice, should he used as an


example? But even at Kuyt change in judges


rather than changing the law, surely? Even if they had the option


to give Hall life character comedy wouldn't necessarily choose that


option any more than they would use the option of giving 37 years to


someone. That is an opportunity for the judges to use the powers and


they can we do that if they are given to them. That is what I will


be doing in my Private member's bill, give judges the opportunity to


give Hall life tariffs. It means that Angus Robertson would be 136


before he would ever be considered for release. There are a very small


number of atrocious calories in this country, who I believe, if judges


had the opportunity, they may wish to use a whole life tariff. Judges


need to be given the opportunity to do their job. Presumably you would


be against such a change in the law, but would you be in favour of some


measures being taken to encourage judges to give some more of these


exemplary tariffs than is happening at the moment? Just a mind people,


the controversy this week was because someone who was a murderer


has his sentence reduced from 27 to 22 years. Think we have to bear in


mind that the Appeal Court could always set aside a whole life


sentence in any event. It is a false thing to consider the role of the


Appeal Court in looking at a particular sentence imposed. The


bottom line is, families are entitled to see exemplary sentences


passed. I do hope that in the criminal justice of eight feet entry


justice spokesperson was right careful to say that we must leave


this issue of sentencing to judges. They are the masters of the issues


that surround a particular case. It is our peril that we make


politicians decide. Are going to have to leave it there. Thank you


both very much indeed. Now, a look back at the week gone


by and the next seven days This week, the week ahead is from


the Scottish Labour conference. Let's go back to the Scottish Labour


Conference and joining me from Perth is the Scottish Political Editor


of the Herald, Tom Gordon, and the former Labour MP Dame Anne


McGuire. We're not just talking about


politics this morning, we are talking about formal logic. We have


just heard that Kezia Dugdale said that Labour MPs could campaign for


independence and saying that Labour is now a solidly against that


happening is not a contradiction. Well, there is a of opinion within


the broader labour movement. We saw that during the referendum and


during a lot of the trade unions referring from taking positions


during the referendum, because they didn't want their membership to


split of the constitution. It is a broad church. Those who want to


prosper in the Labour Party in Scotland will probably have to sign


up to the idea that an independence referendum will be opposed whilst


Kezia Dugdale is the leader. And McGuire, do you think that Kezia


Dugdale in her latest iteration of horror opinion of independence has


got it right, that Labour should go back to being solidly


anti-Independent? I think she had the right note yesterday announced


in her previous comments. Not only did she emphasise our position


against a second referendum, but she also highlighted, I think, the next


against a second referendum, but she big issue in terms of the


Constitution, but in Scotland and the UK. How we manage our


constitutional arrangements post revolution. We have what used to be


called asymmetrical demolition and the idea of a constitutional


convention is actually a way forward to open up a conversation. What do


you think from the conference, Tom, if Labour getting anywhere? I think


they may be getting somewhere slowly. They have adopted a third


way on the Constitution. They need a way out of this bind where they are


caught between the SNP and nationalism on one side and the


Conservatives and dealers on the other. They have dusted down the old


Liberal Democrat idea of federalism. It has not got very fast so far. I


think it will be a tough sell to voters. It is a pointed argument to


make on the doorstep, especially during the forthcoming election


campaign when things will be heated. I think it requires huge by yen from


regions of England and so far, we have not seen much appetite for


that. It was overwhelmingly rejected when John Prescott put it forward in


the north-east. That was 20 years when John Prescott put it forward in


ago and we have moved forward since then. To compare it with the


Liberals 100 years ago is actually less misrepresenting the current


environment in which we are working. There might be an independence


referendum next year, I've Labour is going to say to people don't vote in


the United Kingdom, because we have this fantastic plan for a federal


UK, the obvious reply that people will be, Jeremy Corbyn isn't going


to win the next general election, so therefore this is just fantasy


politics. No, the arguments against separating Scotland from the vet of


the United Kingdom are as valid today as they were two years ago,


which is very much plainer subset of our major market, disrupting a


single might get in the UK, which has been there for 300 years. There


is an integration in terms of all sorts of industries and services, so


I actually think the idea and still valid. Tom, it is a problem, isn't


it? If you're going to make a runner, you little blue that this


just gives Labour a way of talking about constitutional things that


they haven't had the last ten years. If was massively popular in England,


Labour in Scotland could say, just hang on until 2020, Labour will win


the election and we will have a federal UK. Very few people even in


the Labour Party seem to think that Labour will open in 2020 and in


addition to that, it is far from clear that Labour in England have


bought into the idea of federalism. Exactly. There are a big long-term


problems with this idea. Kezia Dugdale has a valid point on one


level that there will be repatriated of powers after Brexit. We had to


decide how those powers of the distributed around the United


Kingdom. People looking at John Cobb and not the future Prime Minister in


waiting. If this plan is to be executed, it requires a more


successful Labour opposition. A conflict getting a lot of traction


until they become a credible electoral prospects. Hadn't been


convicted of the idea that John Cobb and could win next election? I think


we're in an interesting position. But me put it no stronger than that


and I do think, like many other Labour Party spokespeople... I think


we get the gist of that from the hesitation.


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale, Ukip's Patrick O'Flynn, Swedish MP Laila Naraghi and Douglas Murray of the Henry Jackson Society. Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards are on the political panel.

Download Subtitles