30/04/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/04/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday Morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.


Theresa May says she has no plans to increase tax levels,


but refuses to repeat David Cameron's 2015 manifesto


promise ruling out hikes in VAT, national insurance and income tax.


The leaders of the EU's 27 member states unanimously


agree their negotiating strategy for the upcoming Brexit talks, but


And in the last of our series of interviews ahead of Thursday's


local elections, I'll be talking to the leader of Plaid Cymru Leanne


Wood, and the former leader of the SNP Alex Salmond.


Questions are raised over the SNP's policy on fishing,


after two of its MPs signed a pledge to oppose


They hit an all-time low after coalition government,


but are the Lib Dems poised to bounce back,


And with me to analyse the week's politics,


Isabel Oakeshott, Steve Richards, Tom Newton-Dunn.


They'll be tweeting using the hashtag #bbcsp.


So when Theresa May was interviewed just over an hour ago


We have absolutely no plans to increase the level of tax,


but I'm also very clear that I don't want to make specific proposals


on taxes unless I'm absolutely sure that I can deliver on those.


But it is, would be my intention as a Conservative Government


and a Conservative Prime Minister, to reduce the taxes


The Tories like to have a clear tax message in elections, are they


getting into a bit of a mess? That method wasn't clear, but does it


mean, saying they have no plans to increase the level of tax? We are


clear there will not be a rise in VAT, a lot of commentators will get


overexcited about that, but there was no great expectations there


would be a rise in VAT. Tempting as it is, because even one percentage


point on VAT rate is 4.5 billion for the exchequer so it is tempting but


there has been no speculation that would happen. We can see that she


clearly wants to reiterate the language about hard-working families


but I don't think we are that much the wiser. Even if she does not put


up rates, according to projections the overall tax burden, as a


percentage of GDP, is rising, will rise in the years ahead. That is why


it was an odd phrase, I know she is doing it to be evasive but to say


they have no plans to raise the general level of taxation, they do


have. We also know they have specific plans because it was in the


last budget, they had a tax rise which they had to revise, National


Insurance rises, so very wisely in my view they are keeping options


open, the 2015 tax-and-spend debate was a fantasy world, totally


unrelated to the demands that would follow. They now have the


flexibility, one of the arguments you had heard last time was Philip


Hammond saying to her, we have to break away from the 2015 manifesto


commitment and we can only do it this way, that is one of the better


arguments. The Tories like to talk about tax cuts in elections, whether


they do it is another matter, but they are not being allowed to talk


about tax cuts, they are now on the defensive over whether they will


raise taxes. That is not a healthy position for the campaign to be in.


If you look at the numbers, quite frankly, if you will not do this at


this election with eight 20 point lead over Labour, then when will you


take these tough decisions? Reading between the lines of what Theresa


May has said all over different broadcasters this morning, income


tax will go down for low-income families, such as the threshold rise


that microbes that was already factored in. She has had to commit


to it again. VAT will be fat, national insurance contributions


will go up. Do you think they will go up? I think so, she had plenty of


opportunity to rule it out and she didn't. There was a terrible mess


with the budget, it is a good tax argument but not a good electoral


argument that you are eroding the base so heavily with people moving


into self-employment that as you raise national insurance


contributions for everybody but the self-employed, it is something the


Treasury will have to look at. The other triple lock on pensions, we


don't know if they will keep to that either? If they are sensible they


will find a form of words to give them flexibility in that area as


well. I would say there is no question over that, that has gone.


As Mrs May would say, you will have to wait for the manifesto. That is


what all the party leaders tell me! Labour have spent the weekend


pushing their messages Speaking at a camapign rally


in London yesterday, Jeremy Corbyn promised a Labour


government would fix what he called People are fed up, fed up with not


being able to get somewhere to live, fed up waiting for hospital


appointments, fed up with 0-hours contracts, fed up with low pay, fed


up with debt, fed up with not being able to get on in their lives


because we have a system that is rigged against so many.


I've been joined from Newcastle by Labour's elections


and campaigns co-ordinator, Ian Lavery.


Good morning. To deal with this rigged economy, as Mr Corbyn calls


it, the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has a 20 point plan for


workers out today. When you add up everything he plans to do to help


workers, how much will it cost? The full costings, one thing I need to


say at the very beginning, the costings of any policy which we have


already ruled out and any policy we will be ruling out in the next few


days and weeks will be fully costed in the manifesto and in addition to


the fact that it will be fully costed, we will see it in the


manifesto how indeed it has been funded, so we are very clear,


anything we have seen already, and there are some exciting policy


releases and there will be more in the future, anything we are going to


do will be fully costed and in the manifesto. You announced a 20 point


plan but cannot tell me what the costs will be this morning so at the


moment it is a menu without prices? It is not a menu without prices, it


is a fantastic opportunity. This 20 point plan is something which will


transform the lives of millions of millions of people in the


workplace... But what is the cost? It will be welcomed by many people


across the UK. The fact the costings have not been released, you will


have to be patient, it will be released very clearly, it will


identify that in the manifesto. Let me come down to one of the points,


the end of the public sector pay freeze. Can you give us any idea how


much that will cost? The end of the public sector pay freeze, so


important to the future of the Labour Party, it is an massive


policy decision. Let me say at this stage, Theresa May, the Prime


Minister, this morning, on The Andrew Marr Show, did not have the


common decency, courtesy all respect to condone the fact that nurses, the


heroes of the NHS, have had a reduction of nearly 14% in their


wages since 2010 and are using food banks to feed themselves! Does that


not say everything that is wrong with today's society? So can you


tell me what it will cost, which is what my question was? What I will


say is everything the Labour Party pledges, everything that we come out


with, what we will roll out between now and the 8th of June, will be


fully costed, people will be very much aware of how much the costings


will be, where the funding will come from, when the manifesto is


published. What about doubling paternity leave, nu minimum wage,


four new bank holidays, any idea what it will


cost? These are exciting new proposals and of course today cost


money but we are the sixth richest economy in the world. It is about


redistribution of the wealth we create. We are seeing growth in the


economy, it is how we utilise the finances in the best way we possibly


can for a fairer society for the many and not the few. You just can't


tell me how much it will cost? That is why I will repeat again that you


need to be very patient. Do you know the cost yourself? You are the head


of the campaign, do you know the cost of these things yourself? I am


very much aware of how much the costings are likely to be, they have


been identified, they will be published in the manifesto. You


really do understand I would not be releasing today, live on your show,


any costings or predictions with regards the manifesto. Why not? You


have released the policy, why not the cost? Because there is a fine


detail and we will identify it to the general public in


detail and we will identify it to the general public in the manifesto.


We not only explain how much it will cost but we will explain where the


funding comes from. Be patient. Will some of the costs be met by


increasing taxes? I would think at this point in time there is not any


indication to increase basic taxes and again the taxes and spending of


the Labour Government with the proposals of the 20 point plan, the


issues we have got, housing, the NHS, crime, education will all be


identified with the costings in the publication. Can you tell us this


morning, we'll tax for most people rise or not to finance this? We in


the Labour Party are looking to a fair tax system which will be


clearly identified in the manifesto. Mr McDonnell also wants to ban all


0-hours contracts. Would that include those who actually like


those contracts? There are nearly 1 million, depending on which figured


you'd use, there are nearly 1 million people on zero-hours


contract and the vast proportion of those want to be able to live a


decent life, a secure life, they want to understand whether they will


be at work the next day, they're included hours... I understand a lot


of people don't like zero-hours contract and your proposal will


address that, but there are those, I saw one survey where 65% of people


on zero-hours contract like the flexibility it gives them. Will you


force them off zero-hours contract or if they like them will they


continue with them? We will discuss it with employee is to make sure


individuals in the workplace have the right to negotiate hours in that


workplace. Guaranteed hours is very, very important. Zero-hour contracts


are an instrument in which employers abuse and exploit mainly young


people, mainly female people in the workplace. We would be banning


zero-hour contract. But there are those, students for example, who


like them, would they be forced off zero-hour contracts in your


proposal? Our proposal would be banning zero-hour contract and


introducing contracts which have set hours in the workplace. You also say


no company will be able to bid for a public contract unless the boss


earns no more than 20 times the lowest paid, or the average wage,


I'm not quite sure which. What would happen if British Aerospace bids to


build more joint strike Fighters and the boss is paid more than 20 times?


I understand the point you raise but we have an obscene situation in this


country, Andrew, in which the bosses at the very top make an absolute


fortune... But what would happen then? Who would build joint strike


Fighters... The difference in wages between the top earners in the


country and the people in the factories, in the workshops,


producing the goods, is vast. I understand that is the reason you


want a ratio. What I am saying is, what happens if the ratio is


greater? Who gets the contract if not British Aerospace? Who else


builds the planes? We are going to introduce a wage rate CEO of one to


20. -- wage ratio. We want to close the gap between the people at the


very top and people who produce the goods. Let me try one more Time, who


would build the joint strike fighter? We would look at the issue


as it came along but the policy is clear... Can you name a single


defence contractor weather boss' salary is less than 20 times average


earnings? We are not reducing, we have rolled that out as part of this


fantastic plan to transform society to get rid of discrimination, to try


and bring together our communities. We will introduce a pay ratio of one


to 20. Fair enough, thank you very much.


It's a month after the triggering of Article 50, and EU leaders -


with the exception of Britain - met in Brussels this weekend


to agree their opening negotiating stance, to get the divorce


It is inside this psychedelic chamber where Britain's 'Grexit'


future will be decided over the next two years, but there is a vast gulf


in rhetoric coming from the UK and the EU. With parallel narratives


emerging for both sides. There is broad agreement that an orderly


withdrawal is in the interests of both sides. But Theresa May's


position is that the terms of our future trade deal should be


negotiated alongside the terms of our divorce. Meanwhile the EU says


the terms of the UK's exit must be decided before any discussion on a


future trade deal can begin. But don't forget that divorce


settlement. Don't remind me. In Brussels, many think written should


pay even more, while in the UK ministers said the divorce bill


should be capped at 3 billion. After you. Thank you.


For are you looking forward to it? Isn't that divorce bill a bit high?


Isn't this about punishing Britain? We are very united, you all seem so


surprised but it's a fact. How soon can we get a deal? We have to wait


for the elections. It was the decision of Mrs May. It took over an


hour for the leaders to make their entrances but once inside it's just


a few minutes to agree the negotiating guidelines. They set out


three main areas. The first phase of talks on the divorce settlement will


deal with the existing financial commitments to the EU, the Northern


Ireland border and the rights of EU citizens in the UK. They said a UK


trade agreement can be discussed when the first phase of talks


reaches significant progress. And that there must be unity in the


negotiations, that individual EU members won't negotiate separately


with the UK. They are quite good here at negotiating because they are


used to it. They set a maximum and then they have to recede a little


bit depending on what the other side is prepared to offer. I think there


is room for manoeuvre in some issues, but I don't think some of


the baseline things will change that much. For example I don't think the


European Union will concede on the rights of citizens who are already


in the UK. It will be very difficult for them to accept that they will


not be any exit bill, and the question of Northern Ireland is very


important as well, the hard order question. The baseline things are


not going to move that much, then you have room for manoeuvring


between. On security, defence and the fight against terrorism, the


guidelines said the EU stands ready to work together. And after lunch,


friendly signs from some EU leaders as they gave individual press


conferences. Paul and said the talks should open doors to new


opportunities and even German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had


earlier said some in Britain were deluded about Brexit, softened her


tone saying there was no conspiracy against the UK. Unity was the


buzzword at this summit and for once everybody seemed to be sticking to


the script. That unity is not only amongst the 27 states, it's also


among the institutions so many of the divisions we have seen in the


past at European level do not exist. That is very important and it's not


be unity that is directed somehow against the UK because I think we


all want this to be an orderly process and part of that is that the


EU side is unified. So although there are no surprises here, what


took place in this room was a significant step towards the real


Brexit negotiations which will begin soon after the general election in


June, said to be the most complex the UK has faced in our lifetimes.


Isabel, Steve and Tom are still with me.


Isabel, doesn't the British media have to be a bit careful here? We


would never take at face value anything a British politician tells


us. We would question it, put it in context and wonder if they are


bluffing, but we seem to take at face value anything a European


politician says about these negotiations. You only have to look


at the front page of the Sunday Times today to see that. They quoted


at length Juncker, who didn't like the food at the reception and this


and that, and I think the mood is very optimistic. The key thing is


the EU trade Commissioner has said we will get a free trade deal and a


lot of people seem to be wilfully ignoring that incredibly big


concession. That is what will happen in their view. Everything that is


said at the moment needs a slight rerun over. They are all in


negotiating positions, plus we seem to be completely unaware that they


all have their own domestic constituencies as well. Angela


Merkel has an important election coming up in September,


Euroscepticism is quite different from Britain of course, but there's


a different kind of euro scepticism in Germany, she has got to deal with


that. Of course she has, which is why you are right, nothing should be


taken too seriously out of the mouths of British politicians or


European politicians until October this year. We have got to wait for


the French elections, then German elections, and if you look through


this you can see a way forward. There's no trade talks until pay up,


but what was actually written was no trade talks until we make


significant progress on the money. You can define significant progress


in a lot of ways but come December, fireworks over the summer, we all


get very excited about it, in these chairs I'm sure, come December


things will look a lot smoother. The German elections are at the end of


September but I've seen reports in German press, depending how it goes


it could take until Christmas before a new coalition government is put


together. The Brussels long-standing negotiating tactic of nothing is


agreed until everything is agreed, then I guess the British could say


we agree a certain sum of money if that's what it takes but that


depends on them, what good trade deal we get. If we don't get that,


the sum of money is off the table. In that sense, the two are going


parallel. However, I wouldn't entirely dismiss what people are


saying in their pre-election periods to their own electorates because


they have to some extent to deliver subsequently. Of course Angela


Merkel is campaigning and electioneering, who wouldn't, she


has a tough election to fight, but she is measured and thoughtful and


when she says things like some of the British are delusional, that is


unusually strong language for her. What was she referring to? I don't


know, it wasn't specific. Have the cake and eat it perhaps the


sequencing the British don't want. When they thought the British


government was going to effectively demand membership of the single


market, that's not going to happen now. Unless you sign up to the four


pillars, that's the cake and eat it proposition, which they are right in


saying Theresa May has made. But everybody has access, even with no


deal you have access. The other side of it is I think there will be a


united position from them. And so, as somebody pointed out in that


report, they are experienced, tough negotiators, so I don't think it


will be quite as easy as some think. I spoke to one of those who drew up


Article 50 and they said to me they deliberately put this two year


timetable in to make it impossible for anybody to think about leaving.


This is really tight, this negotiation. Easy, it isn't.


This coming Thursday, voters up and down the country


will be going to the polls in this year's local elections.


Over the past few weeks I've interviewed representatives


of the Conservative Party, Labour, the Liberal Democrats,


Today it's the turn of Plaid Cymru and the SNP.


A little earlier I spoke Alex Salmond, who until 2014


I started by asking him why Scots should vote SNP in local elections


when the Scottish Government had just cut central Government funding


It's actually a funding increase going into Scottish councils this


year, and if you look at the funding position for example between


Scottish councils and those in England, which are obviously


directly related through the Barnett formula, the funding in Scotland has


been incomparably better than that in England so there's a whole range


of the -- of reasons... What's happening south of the border


indicates the protection the Scottish Parliament has been able to


put in that helps vital services in Scotland. But there hasn't been a


funding increase, the block grant from Westminster to Edinburgh was


increased by 1.5% in real terms but the grant to councils was cut by


2.6%. It was going to be a cut of 330 million, the Greens got you to


reduce it to 170 million but it is still a cut of 2.6%. Your own


Aberdeenshire Council has had a cut to 391 million. You have cut the


money to councils. Yes, but councils have available to them more


resources this year, and as you say the budget increased that further


which is why we put forward an excellent local government budget in


Aberdeenshire and resisted a Tory attempts to knock ?3 million off...


You asked me about Aberdeenshire, and Aberdeenshire has put forward a


budget for investment expansion and resisted a Tory attempts to knock ?3


million off the education budget, and I'm very grateful you have given


me the opportunity to make that point. The Government in Edinburgh


has cut the money to Aberdeenshire by ?11 million. It is a cut. But


there is an investment budget in Aberdeenshire that has been made


available by the ability to increase the council tax by 2.5% after a


nine-year freeze in Scotland, and that has brought more resources into


local government and that's why the butchered in Aberdeenshire has been


an investment budget including protection of the education budget


in the face of a Tory and liberal attempt to cut bit. You have to


compare what is happening in Scotland and England, and there's no


doubt Scottish local authorities have been much better funded than


those in England over the last few years and that's been the ability of


the Scottish Government to protect the services at local level. A good


reason for voting SNP. If they have been so well funded, why after a


decade of SNP rule do one in five Scottish pupils leave primary school


functionally illiterate? You have got to take these things... Nicola


Sturgeon has made it a top priority to address these challenges but


let's take another statistic. 93% of Scottish kids are now emerging from


school to positive destinations, that means to further education,


apprenticeships or work. Why are one in five functionally illiterate? You


argue one statistic, I'm arguing Scottish education is putting in


some substantially good performances like the 93% going on to positive


destinations. You can't have a failing education system if you have


got that 93%, and incidentally a record low youth unemployment in


Scotland without the second lowest unemployment rate in Europe. These


pupils are being prepared by the Scottish education system. Let's


take the figures in the round on education. It's so important. Under


your watch, under your government, the Scottish schools in the most


important global comparison have fallen from tenth to 19th in


science, and 11 to 24th in maths, that is a record of decline and


failure. That is by the OECD and first questions about that, but the


OECD has also described Scotland is one of the best educated societies


in the world. That was from the school system in previous years gone


by. For those who are currently in Scottish schools, you have fallen


from 11th to 24th in mathematics. The OECD was commenting on


introduction of the new curriculum for excellence in which they have


given a resounding thumbs up to it, and that's the same source as the


rankings which you are comparing. Nicola Sturgeon has said there are


challenges on Scottish education, particularly the access through the


education system and the attainment gap but don't tell me it's failing


when 55% of our pupils have gone on to higher education. That's one of


the most impressive figures in the world. Why have you cut 4000


teachers? The pupil numbers in Scotland have been falling over


recent years as well and now of course we are increasing the number


of people going through teachers training so we can make sure that


number increases, but listen, the Scottish Government and Scottish


Parliament, as you very well know, are subject to real terms spending


cuts over the last few years and all public services have been under


pressure. The main reason in terms of teacher numbers has been an


attempt on the Scottish Government to protect the teacher pupil ratio,


and that will now be enhanced by a further taker -- intake. You


promised you would reduce primary class sizes to 18 and instead they


are now 23.5 and rising. You broke that promise. You didn't mention


where we started from. We have kept the teacher pupil ratio very solid


in Scotland and that's been against a range of public expenditure cuts


but the new intake of teachers into the new teacher training in Scotland


I think will enhance the system. You have spent in the pasty in


Hollywood 43 hours on Government time debating independence. How many


hours have you debated education on Government time? I don't have that


they get a hand... The answer is zero, you have spent zero-hours


debating education on Government time. Isn't it time the SNP got back


to concentrating on the day job? Andrew, as you very well know Nicola


Sturgeon has identified a key priority, closing the attainment gap


in Scottish education. That is exactly what she has done. Let me


answer the question, it is difficult to be in a remote location, if you


talk before I answer the question then the view was will not be able


to listen. I let you answer that without saying a word. Is this


general election about independence, as you say it is, or not about


independence, as Mrs Sturgeon says it is? No, I have said exactly the


same as Nicola Sturgeon on that. The issue what independence will be


decided in a national referendum of the Scottish people. The mandate for


that referendum was gained in last year's Scottish elections. What this


election is about is backing the right of the Scottish parliament to


exercise that mandate and also providing real opposition to this


Tory Government and allowing the Scottish Parliament to reverse


austerity and some of the public expenditure cutbacks you have been


talking about, that is what this is about, backing our Scottish


Parliament. Alex Salmond, speaking


to me earlier. I'm now joined by the leader


of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood. You accuse the Government of wanting


an extreme Brexit, those are your words. What is the difference


between hard Brexit and extreme Brexit? My concern is the way in


which we leave the European Union could be very damaging to Wales if,


for example, there are tariffs introduced then that would have a


real impact in terms of Welsh jobs, and I want to make sure that we have


a Brexit that doesn't cause the damage to Wales that could be


caused. But what is the difference between extreme and hard? Anything


that puts Welsh jobs at risk is either extreme or hard and


unacceptable to Plaid Cymru, and we will do what we can to protect those


jobs. You want Wales to remain a member of the single market even if


the UK isn't, which would mean Wales having to accept the free movement


of people, still being under the jurisdiction of the European Court,


and you also want to stay in the customs union which means you could


not do your own free trade deals. What is the difference between that


and being a member of the European Union? We would be like Norway,


outside the European Union and inside the single market. The key


question is the issue of jobs and the ability to continue to trade.


Wales exports, we are the biggest exporter in the whole of the UK, so


there are many jobs reliant upon those goods being able to be sold to


the single market. Is it central to the UK? Out of the four countries


that make up the UK... Proportionally, yes. If you remain


in the single market, it is hard to see how Wales could stay in the


single market if the UK -- when the rest of the UK was not, you cite


Norway, that has free movement, it has to be said, it effectively have


to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court, it is not in the


customs union so it can do some of its own free trade deals, but the


Welsh people voted to leave. We have to accept the principle of free


movement if there is not going to be a hard border between the north and


south of Ireland. There is going to be free movement within Ireland and


therefore freedom of movement, as we said in the referendum campaign,


would be very, very difficult to rule out. You lost that campaign, as


you know, Wales voted to leave, 17 Council areas voted to leave, only


five voted to remain. Doesn't it explain why your party is going


nowhere? A majority in Wales voted to leave but you effectively want to


support that and de facto remain in the EU? I don't accept that, we


accepted the result but Plaid Cymru now is about defending Wales. There


are so many risks facing our people from the jobs perspective, the


privatisation perspective, the cuts perspective, and from the fact that


the Tories would like to grab power was back from our National Assembly,


so the key point... If you look at the Wales bill that went through


recently, the list of reserved powers there suggests there are some


powers currently within the Welsh Assembly jurisdiction that would be


dragged back. Which power was will Westminster take back? They could


take powers back over the NHS, for example. There is no indication they


want to do that. The Tories have attacked the Welsh NHS. That is my


point! Quite viciously. If they increase their mandate, I wouldn't


put it past them to try to take power was back over the NHS and then


of course we risk our NHS being privatised though this election is


all about defending Wales, protecting Welsh people from further


all about defending Wales, privatisation and cuts and a power


grab from the Tories. Why is there never a breakthrough for your party,


Plaid Cymru? Labour dominated in Wales for years, the Tories do quite


well, Ukip had a surge for a while, it looks like the Tories will have


another surge, never you, always the bridesmaid, never the bride. Wait


until Thursday and I think you will see that in many parts of Wales we


will increase our representation at a local council level. In the


Rhondda, where I am assembly member, we are looking to increase our


representation... You are only 13% in the polls will stop which is half


of even the Tories in Wales! If you don't breakthrough in the selection,


if the real problem is going nowhere, do you think you will pack


it in? Robert Green not, I have a job to do, a vision of Wales which


is about building up our nation and standing on our own two feet and my


job is not done yet. Thank you for being with us as part of your job,


we will see how it goes on Thursday. It's just gone 11.35,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland who leave us now Good morning and welcome


to Sunday Politics Scotland. Is fish the SNP's Brexit battle


ground, after two SNP MPs sign a pledge not to rejoin


the commons fishing policy? Will changes to the way


polls are carried out And campaigns for tactical


voting are springing up, but how successful will


they be in Scotland? The SNP's political opponents


are questioning the party's position on Europe after it emerged that two


SNP MPs have signed a pledge to protect Scottish fisherman


by keeping Scotland out But the Scottish Conservatives


claim that's incompatible with the SNP's desire to stay


in the European Union. In a moment i'll be speaking


to the two sides in the argument. Jews Colin's fishing industry says


it is gasping for support. But now the sector's leaders say they have


landed a solution, Brexit. When the UK leaves the EU it will also say


goodbye to the Common Fisheries Policy which regulates how many fish


can be caught and crucially allows a European abode in the Scottish


waters. It is one of the reasons why a part of the north-east, like here


in Peterhead, favoured Alt in the European referendum, but the


Scottish fishing fleet continues to decline. 15 fewer vessels between


2014 and 2015, and since 1970 deployment on those vessels has


fallen by 49%. The industry blames foreign vessels, and cannot wait for


the chance to make Scotland's what is excluded. Scottish Government is


committed to staying in the EU, which means being bound by the


Common Fisheries Policy. Yet this week, to SNP MPs, including Eilidh


Whiteford, appeared to swim against the tide, signing a pledge to pitch


the CFP. You cannot reform that part of the CFP. It gets refund every ten


years, it has just happened, and it is unfair to ours, the common access


of everyone, will not be reformed. The only way is to be out of that,


that is just an absolute fact. 60% of the fish and shellfish leaving


our waters do so any hands of non-UK EU member states. 60%. That is


because of common access. Do we go to France, Spain or Italy and pick


6% of the graves and have a winemaking industry? Absurd. Of


course not. There appears to be little room forming over on this


issue. Membership of the Common Fisheries Policy comes with


membership of the EU, to that extent, if Scotland is ever going to


go back to the EU, then it would have to rejoin the Cartman 's


fishery policy. What they have in mind perhaps is when the UK does get


out of the EU, there's not any possibility that it would sign up to


the Common Fisheries Policy from outside the EU. Getting to grips


with this paradox will take Alves of political strength.


Well, joining me now from Inverness is the SNP MP Drew Hendry,


and from the Scottish Conservatives, Ross Thomson is in


First of all, can you clear this up for us? When Eilidh Whiteford at


side of this pledge saying not to join the Common Fisheries Policy,


are they giving against SNP policy? That the correct you, I did not sign


up to this pledge, but what I would say... I'm saying that when Eilidh


Whiteford and Mike Weir... I would say that the SNP are the only party


that consistently in all three parliaments supported and protected


wherever we can the Scottish fishing industry, and we have always been...


Let me finish. We have all been industry, and we have always been...


consistent about the Common Fisheries Policy does not work for


the efficient immunity of Scotland, and we have said that it should be


scrapped or substantially reformed. That remains our position. So it is


scrapped or substantially reformed. SNP policy not to join the Common


Fisheries Policy even in an independent Scotland? We've just


said it should be scrapped or substantially reformed. Noes but you


cannot join the EU unless you join the Common Fisheries Policy. What is


key is the fact that when negotiations took place to join the


EU, the UK Government on its own record to say that Scottish fishing


was expendable. That is the stance that they took. But Scottish fishing


being about 40% of the allowable EU catch, that is a substantial amount


of the ability to negotiate much better deals, and the Tories have


let down Scotland for all of this time. I don't understand what you're


saying, you seem to agree with the stance that has been taken by Eilidh


Whiteford and Mike Ware, but on this programme last Sunday against


Robertson, who is from one of your MPs from the same area, said it was


SNP policy to rejoin the EU as a full member and to rejoin the Common


Fisheries Policy. It is policy to rejoin the EU,... As I said, the


policy as it stands, the Common Fisheries Policy, it should be


scrapped or substantially reformed. Why did Angus Robertson said was


policy to rejoin the Common Fisheries Policy? It should be


scrapped or substantially reformed in the form that it is in at the


moment. What we need to do is not make the mistakes of the past. The


Tories wrote off the Scottish cities in that I fishing industry. Ghosh


when the Tories claim that the SNP is split on this issue, the IRA.


Noes what you have just said has contradicted what Angus Robertson


says. Rejoining the Common Fisheries Policy is the same thing at


scrapping it? In the position of rejoining the EU, we would be in a


position to renegotiate. This is 40% of the EU's allowable catch, we


would be able to renegotiate a far better deal on fishing for Scottish


fishermen. We should be concerned about Theresa Mayed only utterings


on fishing which was to say that the Spanish fishermen would not want to


lose out. Thatcher sent a chilling message. Ross Thomson, can you give


as a guarantee that any Brexit negotiations, the Conservative


Government in London will not in any way attempt to stay in rejoin the


Common Fisheries Policy? I was with Theresa May just yesterday when I


heard her state unequivocally that we will be coming out of the Common


Fisheries Policy with Brexit. But I find interesting is that neither


Eilidh Whiteford or might we are on your programme to justify their own


position. The SNP have been trying to take the electorate for fools,


try to face both ways. And we don't have them. Drew Hendry said that


there is no contradiction because should an independent Scotland try


to rejoin the EU, it would try to renegotiate the terms of the Common


Fisheries Policy. That isn't really a contradiction, is it? You just


heard in your package, Bertie Armstrong made it clear that from


the perspective of fishermen, renegotiation is impossible. That is


not the point, saying they are contradicting themselves, and I'm


saying that if you take literally what Drew Hendry says, they are not


contradicting themselves. They want to be within the EU, taking us to


the brink of an independent referendum to ensure that we are


within the EU, Michael the Common Fisheries Policy as part of a key


part of the membership, but having time to the fishing community and


saying no, we would be in the CFP, we very fond CFP. They are taking


back control of 200 miles of fishery we very fond CFP. They are taking


waters, our waters, where we can decide things on her own terms. That


is what amenity wants. SNP MPs who signed that led voted not to trigger


Article 50. The fishermen can see right through the SNP. They are not


buying this. You are going to have become up with a unified position.


Mike Weir is your Chief Whip. Interesting listening to Ross


Thomson, what is a contradiction Interesting listening to Ross


standing outside the Scottish Parliament with a banner saying that


if you vote leave, powers will be returned to Scotland overfishing.


Then they contradicted that when they said fishermen were wrong about


that. Question after question, the UK Government minister said no


powers would be returned to Scotland overfishing, they had been buffeted


away, because they don't want to overfishing, they had been buffeted


make that commitment. They want to trade away fishing rights. In a last


attempt to get clarity, your position seems to be not quite Angus


Robertson's position. Not Mike Weir and Eilidh Whiteford's position, you


say that an independent Scotland would rejoin the EU but you would


try to need renegotiate the Common Fisheries Policy. If you didn't


manage that coming to rejoin anyway. And I understand it rightly? It


makes complete sense that if Scotland had it in a position to


renegotiate for membership of the EU, when you're looking at the fact


we have 40% of the allowable catch in EU waters, that means that


Scotland could get a much better deal than the horrendous situation


that has been faced by Scottish fishing since the Tories sold out on


this to the EU when they signed up saying that Scottish fishing was


expendable. You will hear nothing from the Tories to say that they


still believe Scottish fishing is important, and what we are saying is


there is an indication they are preparing to use it as none other


bargaining chip. Ross Thomson, you were scoffing, why? It is


extraordinary to hear an SNP politician who are taking us to the


brink of an independence referendum to ensure we out within the U,


trying to say it is the Tories want a sell-out fishermen, when it is


trying to say it is the Tories want SNP who are trying to drag them back


into the EU against their expressed the will. They do not trust the SNP.


They have expressed their will on the 23rd of June to leave the EU, to


have powers back of their own fishing waters, that is something


they are excited about. We have to leave it there. To be continued.


The opinion polls didn't quite predict the outcome


of the 2015 general election, to put it mildly.


Since then, polling companies have been working on ways


The polling company YouGov says it tried new methods at last year's


Scottish Parliament election, and it's now using these


Joe Twyman is from YouGov and joins me now.


These new methods, as I understand it, they involve who you select to


clock to. It is a combination of two things, selecting who it is we get


to take part in our survey is drawn from our panel of respondents, and


previously we have always lived at age and gender and region, but we


also now incorporated elements of interest in politics and also


education, which was such an important social cleavage in a way


that society divides around the EU referendum, plus we have general


election vote and also in the case in Scotland, in the independent


vote. We incorporate all of that into the wee bee select people, but


the other element is a matter of recruitment. We spent a matter that


back hundreds of thousands of pounds going out across Britain to find


people to sign up to take part in our surveys, they sign up to our


panel and be pay them to take part. It is a combination of those things


that we hope will deliver more accuracy.


So what was the problem before? The people you were recruiting to your


panel, that you test ideas on, were too politically committed, was that


it, or too biased one way or the other? It is slightly more


complicated. We recruit people to our panel and then from the panel to


take part in specific surveys, and the people we were recruiting were


not entirely representative of the nation when it came to things like


political interests, so we did have, for instance, younger people who


were not engaged. They were in the samples but not in sufficient


numbers. What that meant was that, yes, Bay was a miss in 2015, and


while it wasn't substantial, in fact the average error in polls in 2015


was only 3.3%. But it was large enough to make a big difference. All


polls, no matter how perfect, are subject to the margin of error, that


is probability and we can do nothing about that. Plus there are only a


snapshot of public opinion at the time. But we hope by incorporating


these things we will do better this time round. The problem last time


was overestimated Labour, wasn't it? Are you confident that you have


corrected that and how have you gone about doing it? In the case of, for


instance, younger politically disengaged people, because they were


not sufficiently represented, they were replaced by younger politically


engaged people who generally favoured labour, so by evening out


those numbers we think we are in a better place. We test these things


internally consistently. Not just nationally but with things like


Jeremy Corbyn's leadership election. More generally we have things like


the London mayoral elections where More generally we have things like


we correctly predicted not just Labour but the Conservative sharers


well, so we think we are in a good place this time round, but June


eight will obviously be the public test the pollsters look forward to.


What is the danger from your point of view this time, what are you


worried about? The danger is that as I say, all polls are subject to


margin of error, so at any given point the true result may fall plus


or minus two or 3% depending on the size of the sample, around a certain


figure. In most recent polls we have the SNP on 41, which means they may


be on 43 or 39. It doesn't mean they are on 20. So firstly there is


movement within their and nothing we can do about it, and secondly, as


time moves on, as the campaign passes, things may change


significantly, and we will reflect that in our polls, but that doesn't


mean that we are doing at the moment is wrong. Last point, a phenomenon


which has been remarked on for some time now, shy Conservatives, people


which has been remarked on for some who intend to vote conservative but


are reluctant to say so to opinion pollsters. When you did this


examination, is that a myth or not? It doesn't appear to be a strong


case particularly in the case of online research, because of course


there you are speaking to a computer and there is much evidence to


suggest people are more honest and upfront when talking to a computer.


But of course the ultimate problem about how this relates to


difficulties is that even once we get the percentage of the vote


correct, then how that translates to the 59 seats in Scotland and who


wins and loses in each individual constituency, that is extremely


difficult to model and makes our job very difficult. Joe Twyman, thanks


very much. This week, Parliament is dissolved


ahead of the general election. There's much talk of the contrasting


fortunes of two parties, Well, I'm joined in Glasgow


by Lord Campbell from the Lib Dems, and from Edinburgh by


Lord Foulkes from Labour. George Twyman, given the polls I


imagine you are going to tell us Jeremy Corbyn is going to win. As


you just heard from Mr Twyman, polls are a snapshot and they don't make


predictions. He is wise to say that because many of your colleagues are


writing off Labour and saying a Conservative government is


inevitable, which is a very unwise Conservative government is


thing to do. I don't know a few wide to -- old enough to remember the


1970 election. The last poll showed Labour, Harold Wilson, ahead by 12%,


and they were going to win the election and even west Edinburgh. Do


you remember the result? Yes. The Conservatives had a majority of 30.


So be very careful making predictions from snapshot polls. I


am not making predictions and sadly I do remember the 1970 general


election! This is a Westminster general election, that's important,


the choice will be between Labour government, caring compassionate


Labour government or an increasingly harsh Tory government, and that is


the choice facing the people of Scotland. One of the issues Labour


has, one of many issues, is that the election in the UK as a whole could


well be about Brexit, and up here it could be about another independence


referendum. These are two areas Labour would much prefer the


election was not about. I think that's what the SNP and the Tories


wanted to be about, they want a contest in Scotland between the SNP


and the Tories and it will not be that. I don't know if you saw the


interview on the Andrew Marr programme this morning but Theresa


May, in spite of trying to get onto Brexit and the health service and


could not deal with questions about nurses in England and Scotland as


well, having to go to food banks because of the low pay. We are going


to have concentrations on low pay, zero hours contracts, which have


just been the subject today, these will emerge as the issues


irrespective of the mantra that Mrs may have been given by Lynton


Crosby, that American strategist. Menzies Campbell, you would like it


to be about Brexit, wouldn't you? Be in no doubt whatsoever it will be


about Brexit. The last part of that interview was taken up with


discussing what attitude the 27 members of the EU struck yesterday


when they had their meeting to approve the terms of negotiations.


But doesn't George Foulkes have a point, when it comes down to brass


tacks, all the polls before the EU referendum showed the priority of


Europe was way down, and will that not reassert itself in this campaign


and what people care about is their standard of living, the NHS and


schools? Of course, and that is true North and south of Scotland, but


remember we have had a referendum, we have had a government which has


made it very clear that its purpose is to come out whatever the


circumstances and we know from the speech Mrs may made outside number


ten, about the country coming together and politics being


divisive, the truth is, the country is very divisive in relation to that


result, and the consequence is that it will be about... It may well be


about health and education as well... What's your response to the


question I ask you, why is it vital that we have another referendum on


Europe but forbidden we have another referendum on independence? The


referendum on Europe simply said in or out, we don't know the terms. So


did the independence referendum. We had a good idea because the SNP


produced a 600 page document they said was their manifesto. Which


people like you during the referendum campaign said lacked


detail about issues like currency so you can hardly say that is the


reason we cannot have another independence referendum. It had some


detail, it said the price of oil would be $110 a barrel, that was not


the case as it turned out. But we are in different circumstances. Some


of the national papers speculate that people may go to law on the


ground that the final decision requires being ratified by


parliament. The point I am making is that, OK, health and education, but


the SNP are saying, give us independence and we will resolve


these. What the Conservatives say is, if we have a strong mandate,


strong government, we will have a good deal in Europe and be more


powerful and develop and be able to deal with all these things. It is


inextricably tied up in Scotland and the rest of the UK. George Foulkes,


would you like Labour to have a much clearer position on Brexit? Not


necessarily the Lib Dem position that there should be another


referendum, but something that, if you like, could be summed up in a


sentence and told to the voters? We are making it clear, we have said EU


citizens currently in the UK will be guaranteed that they can stay. The


Labour government will do that on day one, give them that guarantee.


We have also said that whatever deal is eventually agreed between


ourselves and the other countries in Europe, will be for consideration by


parliament and if necessary by a referendum but certainly by


parliament, before it is approved. So you would like another


referendum? No, that is a possibility. How a possibility?


Preferably parliament would decide either whether it is appropriate...


What happens parliament rejected? That is exactly the position, we


revert to where we are at the moment. You have me really confused


now, does that mean we just stay in the EU or have another referendum?


It depends what the dealers anticipate what will happen. What I


am saying is, if Parliament rejects the deal as you have said...


Parliament doesn't need to either accept or reject, it can deliberate


on it and consider it and asked the government to negotiate further. I


think this becomes far too simplistic and far too compensated.


You said a minute ago simplistic and far too compensated.


should have the final day on the final deal, so I am asking what


happens if Parliament says, do you know what, we don't like that? Then


I think we revert to the status quo, we continue to be a member of the...


We just stay in the EU, what's wrong with that, you would like that.


Nothing wrong with that, it is a logical outcome. Why are you


demanding another referendum? To determine whether the people of the


UK are ready to come out and accepting the terms on which they


come out. Let's be clear on this, your position relative to George


Foulkes's, are you saying there would only be a referendum if


Foulkes's, are you saying there Parliament rejects final deal? No,


they would be a referendum to put it to the people of the UK whether or


not they want to accept this deal. to the people of the UK whether or


So even if Parliament accepted it there should be a referendum?


Absolutely. And it would be on the final deal? Yes, and if you don't


like the final deal, what's left? Remain. The way this campaign was


conducted, it was all about... Boris Johnson, we can have our cake and


eat it. It is obvious we can't do that. It was done on the basis that


we could retain access to the single market, we can't do that, that is


clear from what Mrs May now says is her position. One definite


referendum in Europe and one possible. We will have to leave it


there for the moment, thank you both very much.


Is tactical voting making the most of your ballot,


A lot of campaigns have been launched,


trying to convince people to vote for this candidate to keep that


crowd out or vote for another candidate to keep that crowd in.


Peter Barnes is the BBC's senior elections and politlcal analyst


Peter, some suffragists say yes, there might be tactical voting but


they are dismissive of the likely importance. Is that your view? It is


difficult to know what the impact will be. It is possible to overstate


it. It is unlikely that tactical voting will affect the overall


outcome of the election across the whole country, but in certain


constituencies it is possible that if people chose choose to vote


tactically, not for the first choice candidate but perhaps their second


because they think they have a chance, in some places that might


have an impact on the result. Where is this cross dressing going to be


happening most, do you think? is this cross dressing going to be


Presumably in areas where people who are Remainers might think, if they


normally vote Conservative, if they vote Lib Dem they might get another


referendum, is that it? I think Brexit is likely to be possibly the


most important new factor influencing tactical voting across


Britain, and in Scotland there is also the issue of independence were


there could be tactical voting between Green and SNP voters, but in


England and Wales in particular you might see tactical voting way you


could voters decide to vote for a Conservative MP or even in some


cases may be a Labour MP they think will deliver a strong Brexit,


whereas on the other side the debate, some Green or Lib Dem voters


or even Labour voters might choose to vote for a candidate that is not


their first choice. Does this not just cancel itself out, or does it


their first choice. Does this not depend on the constituency? It will


depend on the constituency, really. There are some places where we know


the Brexit vote was very strong, and others where it was not. In some


remain constituencies for example, tactical voting is more likely to


help the Liberal Democrats, perhaps, whereas in the Leave constituencies


it is more likely to help the Conservatives, especially with a


strongly pro-Brexit MP. George folks, I don't know if you could


hear him, he was telling us he thought in the course of the


campaign -- George Foulkes, it would be bred -- bread-and-butter issues


that would dominate and Brexit would not be the main factor. I am curious


as to whether that is your sense. There is this assumption even in


what we were talking about a minute ago in tactical voting, that it is


because Brexit is overwhelmingly important. What if it turns out it


is important but actually it is not that important that it changes the


way people vote? Can't be sure quite a lot of polls conducted asking


people not just how they are intended to think their most


important issues are, and they uniformly suggest that people think


that Europe Brexit is the most important issue. The other issues


are going to be imported also, and in some parts of the country it will


be other bread and butter issues that dominate the campaign, but it


is clear that Brexit is going to be a new dividing line that has not


been such a big deal happier these elections. This time round it will.


It will have some impact. We should be clear, as I understand that, the


issue of Brexit or Europe in general has gone from nowhere in the opinion


polls, when you ask people what is important, write to the top. It has,


not the first time that has happened. Any run-up to the


referendum last year, people also saying that Brexit or Europe where


the most important issues, and that some previous years near European


Parliament elections it has also been high up. Except at those


moments, we have tended to see other issues at the top of opinion polls.


We cannot say that those opinion polls are definitely right, while


above may say that Brexit is the most important issue facing the


country, it is not necessarily that which will affect how they vote.


Google will vote on a range of different issues. Their perception


of party leaders, their wider perception of the little parties.


Thank you very much. This week i'm joined


by the columnist Ruth Wishart and the political commentator David


Torrance. Let's start with that issue of how


important Europe is going to be, because the Liberal Democrat are


staking a lot on the idea that this will dominate everything, and the


SNP are staking a lot with their talk of a second independence


referendum. Is it possible that people who wear Remainders, thought


they wanted to remain, but it is not that important. It depends which


part of the UK you are looking at. In England and Wales, there is a


clear excellent dynamic, those who voted leave wanted to be delivered,


and you see that manifesting itself in former Labour voters thinking


about voting Conservative and of course they are helped in that by


Jeremy Corbyn's leadership which is perceived as weak. In Scotland there


is a different dynamic, it is much more around the prospect of a second


independence referendum, which of course is bundled up with Brexit,


although we continue to have a rather mixed messages from the SNP


on precisely what the plan is. Or indeed whether this is the issue in


the election. Nicola Sturgeon are saying it isn't,... When a snap


election was first called, Nicola Sturgeon appeared to frame it in


terms of a mandate and a second referendum, and after that they were


a couple of polls showing the Conservatives doing better than they


had in the past. She shifted and said it was more about a strong


opposition and combating the Tories. What you make of this, Ruth, do you


think this will be dominated up here by whether or not they should be


another independence referendum? The Tories will certainly make it about


that. I got a flyer from the Tories through the door the other day, not


sure whether it was directed at the local general election. It basically


said, no indyref, it over and over again. If you don't want one, vote


for the Tories. And those of the electoral literature, both of them


are dominated by no independence referendum, and I found that design


terms of the local election, because whatever the general election will


be about, the local elections are not about an independence


referendum. I don't want to freak David Hart here, but curiously I


agree with him about things being different on either side of the


border. If you say the word referendum in England, it means


Brexit, if you saved in Scotland, it means second indyref. Referenda


don't have the same weight on either side of the border. Are you going to


freak out? I like to think I'm a reasonable person, as is Ruth. What


the Tories have done is effectively roll the local and general elections


into one and it is encapsulated by a quite clever catchphrase.


into one and it is encapsulated by a Curtis was telling us the other week


into one and it is encapsulated by a at the local elections would be a


good guide for the general election because... Polygamy any


circumstances, people were probably just vote on party affiliation


rather than anything else. They are being encouraged to do that by


Conservatives. They have a slogan, we said no, be mentored. Because


they are already campaigning and this goes for all parties, the


general election actually started long before it was called by trees


are made. It is difficult for the SNP, Ruth, because should they lose


a view seats, the opposition parties will say, ha-ha, you don't have a


mandate for another referendum. You can understand why Nicola Sturgeon


partly, was to say I got that mandate, this is not about that. But


it kind of is. The difficulty they have is that there is anything about


election fatigue. You will have a lot of people who will fight the


local elections then the general election, would be in any hurry to


rush into a second referendum. Whatever Nicola Sturgeon timetable


is. I says that both the Tories and Labour have run into the same


difficulty which is, unless they decouple themselves from London,


there was going to run into difficulties. We have Kezia Dugdale


at odds with Jeremy Corbyn on various issues, Trident not least of


them, and we have Ruth Davidson who was in desperate trouble last week


over the rape laws. She cannot say that it is a bad clause, which it


is, because she would embarrass her leader. Is that the case? The polls,


is, because she would embarrass her some of which has been taken since,


the troubled Ruth Davidson got into, have actually shown the Tories vote


in Scotland rising. I think there is considerable gap between a bubble


analysis which has the rate clause, that is not a comment on a policy,


Trident, issues like that which I that is not a comment on a policy,


hugely important to the chattering media classes and in debates in


Parliament, and what real voters are archly thinking, and as you say,


polls conducted since a considerable ongoing row about the rate clause


and other issues show the Conservatives on between 20 -- 20


and 33% of the vote. I'm not convinced that in electoral terms


they are a huge trouble. Within political discourse, and the


Scottish Parliament. These are not mutually screws of analyses. The


Tory vote could be going up because of other factors, but the discussed


at voter level over the rate clause is real. Talking about the SNP and


Tories, if you were Labour, Ruth, what would you try to focus on in


the selection? They are in danger of not being part of the debate. I BBC


Jimmy Power of prayer. Budget cannot see any way for them? They are doing


nationally in the polls. They have a big problem come out of the local


elections, is this if they want to lose Glasgow. Guys like any hope for


Labour in Scotland? No, they are now when the Scottish Tories were 20


years ago. They don't have a voice in the debate. Noes


I'll be back at the same time next week.


Download Subtitles