30/04/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

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.