26/02/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

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.