28/05/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Politics.


New CCTV images are released showing suicide bomber, Salman Abedi,


on the night he attacked Manchester Arena, killing 22 people.


Are the politicians and the security services doing


Theresa May says Britain needs to be "stronger and more resolute"


in confronting extremist views, as she outlines plans


for a new Commission to counter extremism.


We'll be talking to the Security Minister.


Jeremy Corbyn says a Labour government would recruit 1,000


more staff at security and intelligence agencies.


And on Sunday Politics, Scotland I'll be talking to two


political leaders looking to make inroads into the SNP vote.


Scottish Labour's Kezia Dugdale and the Scottish


To help guide me through this morning, I'm joined by


Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Tim Marshall.


They'll be sharing their thoughts on Twitter and you can join


So, with a week and a half to go, the election campaign


And some recent polls suggest the race is just


We'll be taking a closer look at that in just a moment but, first,


here are some of the key events over the next 10 days or so:


Tonight at 6pm will see the third of the party leader interviews.


This time it's the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon facing questions


While many across the UK will be enjoying tomorrow's bank holiday,


there will be no break in campaigning for


And in the evening it will be the turn of Ukip's Paul Nuttall


On Tuesday the SNP publish their manifesto -


the last of the major parties to do so - after last week's


Then on Wednesday, the BBC's Election Debate will see


representatives from the seven main parties debate in front


On Thursday, Lib Dem leader Tim Farron will have his interview...


Before Friday's Question Time special with Theresa May


They won't debate each other, but will take questions


consecutively from members of the audience.


The final week of campaigning is a short one, with politicians


cramming in three days of door-knocking before voters go


We'll have an exit poll once voting has ended at 10pm,


with the result expected early in the morning of June 9th.


Well, it's Sunday, and that always means a spate of new opinion


And they make for fascinating, if a tad confusing, reading.


There are five new opinion polls today, which have


the Conservative lead over Labour anywhere from six


points to 14 points. So, what's going on?


Professor John Curtice is the expert we always turn


to at times like this, and he joins me from Glasgow.


Take us through these polls. They seem to be all over the place? They


may seem to be but there is a very consistent key message. Four of


these five polls, if you compare them with what they were saying


before the Conservative manifesto launch on the 18th, four say the


Conservatives are down by two points. Four of them say the Labour


vote is up by two points. A clear consistent message. The Conservative


lead has narrowed. Why does this matter? It matters because we are


now in a position where the leads are such that the Conservatives can


no longer be sure of getting the landslide majority they want. Some


posters suggesting they may be in trouble and it is going to get


rather close. Others suggested is further apart. There are two major


sources of... The Poles agree that young voters will vote Labour if


they vote. Older voters will vote for the Conservatives. How many of


those younger voters will turn out to vote? The second thing is whether


the evidence in the opinion polls that the Conservatives are advancing


more in the North of England and the Midlands is realised that the ballot


box? If it is not realised, the Tories chances of getting a


landslide look remote. If it is, they could still well indeed get a


majority more than 80%. The Conservatives have lost some ground


depending on which opinion poll you look at. What about the Labour


Party? It is gaining ground. It has been gaining ground ever since week


one. They started on 26, they now average 35. There were a lot of


people out there at the beginning of the campaign who were saying, I


usually vote Labour but the truth is I'm not sure about Jeremy Corbyn.


They seem to have decided the Labour manifesto wasn't so bad. They have


looked at Theresa May and have said, we will stick with Labour. Labour


have managed to draw back into the fold some of their traditional


voters who were disenchanted, together with, crucially, some of


those younger voters who have never voted before, who have always been a


particular target for Jeremy Corbyn. What is your reaction to previous


opinion polls and elections weather has been a feeling that some of the


Labour support has been overstated? This be a worry this time? That is


one of the uncertainties that faces the opinion polls and the rest of


us. We had a conference on Friday at which it was carefully explained


that pollsters have been trying to correct the errors that resulted in


an overestimation of Labour support a couple of years ago, particularly


among younger voters. You shouldn't assume the opinion polls will be


wrong this time because they were wrong the last time. We want in


truth know whether or not the polls have got it right. Even if they are


wrong in terms of the level, they are not wrong in terms of the trend.


The trends have been dramatic so far. A big rise in Tory support


early on at the expense of Ukip. And subsequently, a remarkable rise in


Labour support, albeit from a low initial baseline. This election has


already seen quite a lot of movement. We shouldn't rule out the


possibility there will be yet more in the ten days to come.


That is his analysis. Let's talk to the panel. Julia, how concerned


should Conservative headquarters be at this particular point at what


looks like an apparent surge by Labour? Depends if you want a


massive landslide majority or might not. I assume the Tory party do.


Whether anybody thinks that is a good idea is a different matter.


Undoubtedly the manifesto league was a total disaster. Social care policy


and the U-turn. Lots of stuff in the Labour manifesto was very appealing.


The tactic from Sir Lynton Crosby was clear. It is all about Theresa


May. Don't even mention the candidate or the party. The Labour


Party, the candidates are on the moderate side are saying, don't


mention Jeremy Corbyn. This has been a battle between two big people. The


more we have seen of Theresa May, she has gone down. The more we have


seen of Jeremy Corbyn, he has gone up. If you make it about strong and


stable leadership and then you do something like a massive


unprecedented U-turn on a key policy like social care, the knock is even


greater. Do you think that is the reason for the change in the opinion


greater. Do you think that is the polls or is Labour gaining some


momentum? I think it is part of the reason. You can understand why the


focus was on her at the beginning because her personal ratings were


stratospheric. What is interesting is all successful leaders basically


cast a spell over voters in the media. None of them are titans. All


of them are flawed. It is a question of when the spell is broken. This is


a first for a leader's spell to be broken during an election campaign.


That was a moment of high significance. The fact the Labour


Party campaign is more robust than many thought it would be is the


other factor. I think it is the combination of the two, that the


trend, as Professor John Curtis said, the trend has been this


narrow. There has not been much campaigning. Local campaigning


resumed on Thursday, national campaigning on Friday. Do you think,


Tim Marshall, that the opinion polls are reflecting what happened in


Manchester and people's thoughts about which party will keep them


safe? No, I think that will come next week. I think it is too soon


for that. It was quite understandable from the V -- the


very beginning for Lynton Crosby to frame the campaign in terms of


Theresa May and Brexit. The electorate can have its own view.


You always have to go back to Clinton's it's the economy stupid


for most of the electorate. It is framed in your electricity bill. It


is framed in your jobs. Both manifestos have got more holes in


them than Swiss cheese. It comes down to which manifesto you believe.


The Labour manifesto makes more promises about things you care about


like your electricity bill. Interesting, but in the end despite


while we thought would be a Brexit election, it has been a lot about


public services. It always comes down to bread-and-butter issues. I


don't think we have quite seen how the terrorist you has played out. We


had the Westminster attack only a couple of months ago. That was


already factored in in terms of who you trust and who you don't trust.


The IRA stuff from Jeremy Corbyn is already factored in. People actually


care about how ordinary government policies affect their lives. Thank


you very much. The election campaign was,


of course, put on hold following the terrorist


attack in Manchester But now that campaigning has


resumed, it's hardly surprising that security


is now a primary concern. The Labour Party has announced it


would recruit 1,000 more Jeremy Corbyn, speaking on ITV at


short while ago, says previous cuts have undermined security.


It seems that the cuts in police numbers have led to some very


dangerous situation is emerging. It is also a question of a community


response as well. So that where, an imam, for example, lets the police


he is concerned about a muddy, I would hope they would act. And I


would hope we have -- and I would hope they would have the resources


to act as well. Joining me now from Leeds


is the Shadow Justice Good morning. You have announced a


thousand more Security and Intelligence agency staff. That is


in line with what the government has already announced and the Shadow


Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, has said you would not be spending any


more money. It doesn't amount to much, does it? That is just one of


the parts of our pledge card on the safer communities. There is also


10,000 extra police, because the Conservatives cut the police by


20,000. That 10,000 extra police would mean in -- and extra police


officer in each neighbourhood. There are 3000 extra put -- prison


officers. Prison staff has been cut by 6000. That is a third. It is not


helping keep communities safer. We are pledging 3000 extra


firefighters. Also, a thousand extra security staff and 500 extra border


guards. There have been 13 areas identified where our borders are not


as secure as they should be. That is the list of numbers you have given.


If we concentrate on the security services, because it was Jeremy


Corbyn he said there will be more police on the streets under Labour.


If the security sources need more resources they should get them. Why


aren't you giving them more? We are committing to a thousand more


police. The Godinet is doing that as well. You are not committing


anything more. The government has not delivered on that promise. We


will deliver on that promise is -- promise. What Jeremy has made very


clear is that you can't do security on the cheap. Austerity has to stop


at the police station door, and at the hospital door. But we will be


giving the resources required to keep our communities safer. So you


will give them the resources and more powers? Well, the police need


to be empowered. But when you listen to what the Police Federation are


saying, they have been speaking out for a long time about the danger


caused by police cuts. And I'm talking not only about terrorism,


not only about acts of extreme violence, but anything from


anti-social behaviour to burglary. Use it more powers. What sort of


powers are you thinking of giving the security services? We need to


listen to them. That is not a power. We need to listen to the


intelligence community and the security service, to the army and


the police, about what they think and how they think our communities


could be made safe. One thing is clear. Cutting the number of police


by 20,000 makes our community is less safe, not more safe. You said


you will listen to the security services. Can voters be reassured


and guaranteed that Jeremy Corbyn will listen to the security services


and the police in terms of more powers if that is what they want?


Until now he has spent his whole political career voting against


measures designed to tackle home-grown and international


terrorism. Jeremy Corbyn's speech on safer communities earlier this week


made clear he is listening to the security services. So he would grant


those new powers. He voted against the terrorism Act in 2000, into


thousands and six. In 2011. And in 2014, the data retention and


investigatory Powers act. Which new powers will he be happy to enact?


Just to say, Jeremy Corbyn along with Theresa May, David Davis and


many Conservative MPs, voted against legislation where they thought it


would be ill-advised, ineffective or actually counter-productive. It is a


very complex situation. What we don't want to do is introduce


hastily prepared laws with one eye to the newspaper headlines, which


can act as recruiting sergeants for terrorism. And actually, when I said


earlier that Jeremy Corbyn made clear in his speech this week that


he has been listening to the security services, what he said


about the international situation has also been said by the former


head of MI5, Stella Rimington, and her predecessor. As well as


president of back -- President Barack Obama.


You say he will give the police and security services the resources and


powers they need. If we look back at some of the legislation Jeremy


Corbyn and others voted against in 2000, it gave the Secretary of State


the -- new powers... Does Jeremy Corbyn still think that is a bad


idea? Jeremy Corbyn along with Theresa May, David Davis and


others... I know you want to bracket it with Conservatives but I'm


interested in what Jeremy Corbyn will do when he says we are going to


be smarter about fighting terrorism. If he's not prepared to vote in


favour of those sorts of measures, or trying to impose restrictions on


suspects, I'm trying to find out what he will do. It is a complex


situation. With this legislation the devil is often in the detail. If it


was a simple and stopping terrorism by voting a piece of legislation


through Parliament, it would have been stopped a long time ago. Sadly


there are no easy answers, and that is recognised by Barack Obama,


Stella Rimington, the head of the MI5, by David Davis and other


Conservative MPs. What is clear, as Jeremy made clear in his speech this


week, is the way things are being done currently is not working. We


have got to be tough on terrorism and the unforgivable acts of murder,


but also tough on the causes of terrorism as well. The sad truth is


there are no easy answers. If there were, the problem would have been


solved a long time ago. If you more security and terrorism officers but


your leader is still uncomfortable with giving them the powers they


need to do their jobs because it is complicated legislation, they will


want to know how you are going to do it. At another stop the War rally in


2014, Jeremy Corbyn said the murder of a charity worker was jingoism. At


the beginning of that speech he mentioned the importance of the


one-minute silence for the memory of Alan Henning who was murdered. What


he has also made clear is responsibility for acts of terrorism


and murder lies with the murder, and something that's really disappointed


me is that the Prime Minister said the other day that in Jeremy


Corbyn's speech on this on Monday, he said... Whether she agrees with


him on his politics, she knows he didn't say that in his speech, but


what troubles me is you have got a Prime Minister who must have sat


down with her advisers earlier that day and said, well I do know he


didn't say that but if we say he did we might win some votes. I think


that is shameful and it shows Theresa May cannot be trusted. These


issues should transcend party politics. We need to pull together


on this issue. Thank you very much. Well, the Conservatives have


promised a new statutory commission The party says it will identify


extremism, including the "non-violent" kind,


and help communities stand up to it. Also this morning,


the Security Minister, Ben Wallace, has attacked internet giants


for failing to tackle terror online, and accused them


of being ruthless money-makers. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Those comments you have made about social media companies failing in


their responsibility to take down extremist material, what will you do


to compel them? I think we will look at the range of options. The Germans


have proposed a fine, we are not sure whether that will work, but


there are range of pressures we can put onto some of these companies.


Some have complied. In the article in the Sunday Telegraph today I did


say it is not all of them. They are not immune to pressure. We can do


internationally, and the Prime Minister urged at the G7 and


international response. I think there are a range of issues. We


could change the law. You mentioned the G7, and rhetoric and warm words


are fine to an extent but it is action people want. If you have made


these impassioned remarks in the newspapers about them failing to do


the job, people want to know what powers do you have now to say to


social media companies take down this material? We have an act that


was recently passed. In this area we have just finished consulting on one


of the areas we could use but we cannot pre-empt the consultation. We


have right now officials from my department over in the United States


with American officials working with CSPs because what we see is that


they do respond to pressure. The best example is we think they have


the technology and the capability to change the algorithms they use that


maximise profit over safety. But you are relying on these companies


devoting more resources to this line of work that you would like to see


they will do that? They said, only a they will do that? They said, only a


few weeks ago before the election was called the Home Secretary hosted


a Round Table with them. We have evidence they are trying to improve


it. A few are refusing to or being difficult, and that's why the Prime


Minister was right to step up not only the language she was using but


to say we are not going to allow this to progress any more. People


will be worried about who will make the judgment about what is


unacceptable and what should be taken down. Let me show you this,


which was shared widely across social media. If you read that quote


you could argue it is at the same end if you like. The man in the


picture is a terrorist hate preacher, the jihadist who was


killed in Yemen by the Americans. Is this the sort of thing you would be


demanding social media companies take down? You have to look at the


context it was deployed in. I could show you some of the 270,000 pieces


we have had removed since 2010 from internet sites that have been


extreme. The big issue is not often the individual image, it is the way


these companies set up the algorithms to link you. If you were


watching that on Facebook delivered to you, perhaps you would like to


look at this, because that's how they set it up. If you go onto


YouTube, you can get let down the path from looking at Manchester... I


understand your example, but from a practical level are you expecting


media companies to take down that sort of posts if it appeared? Yes...


You are? Who will make the decisions about what will radicalise young


people that could lead someone down the path to let off a bomb? If I


invite your viewers to look at the work the Guardian have done on


Facebook guidance, to say for example it is OK to produce videos


or broadcast videos of seven-year-olds being bullied as


long as it wasn't accompanied by captions, I don't think you need to


be an expert to say that is not acceptable. Something more worrying


for you as a journalist and me as a politician, another set of guidance


that says... I think this is quite menacing... That certain people


don't deserve our protection. That includes journalists and politicians


and people who are controversial. So I think there is more work to be


done but at the end of the day it is the pathway this stuff leads to. It


is more about examining how much progress you can make. The


Government says there are up to 23,000 potential terrorist attackers


in this country, 3000 of those posing a serious threat being


monitored. That is pretty disturbing, these are big numbers.


Yes, and the tragedy of Manchester shows this is not about failure, it


is about the scale of the challenge we face and that is why it is


important that alongside people is powers. Should you double the size


of MI5 for example? We have increased year-on-year in real terms


not only the money but the numbers of people in MI5. It is now 2000 we


have committed to increased to... Before the attack. Before our


manifesto we had recruited, we have increased the whole of government


spending on counterterrorism from ?11.7 billion in 2015 up to 15.7


billion. Would you expand the number of people in MI5? I have asked them


on a regular basis if they have the resource if they are happy with it,


and the answer comes back time and time again, yes we are. You have


quite extensive powers at your disposal, the question is if you are


using them. Measures were introduced in 2012 to replace control orders,


but they have rarely been used. Only seven are currently in operation.


Why? Because there are a whole... It is just one tool in the tool box.


Other powers we use, we take away people's passports if we think they


are about to travel. How many? I cannot comment, it is a sensitive


issue. Plenty of people are finding their passport has been removed and


at the same time we strip people of citizenship to make sure they don't


come back. On top of that, because of the investment made in GCHQ, MI5


and counterterrorism, we have more powers and more ability to monitor


them. But are you using them enough? Only seven TPIMs are in operation.


You won't give me any of the other measures at your disposal, but if


they are only in single figures, that doesn't seem to compare with


the numbers who are being monitored. Also, we have to strike a balance


between... We have to satisfy the court so we have to make sure there


is enough evidence to restrict people's freedoms. TPIMs do all


sorts of good things to keep people safe. It sends people away from


where they live, it tags them... I tell you why they are better. The


control orders were on track to be struck down by the courts because


one of the things we have to satisfy is the courts but we also have to


satisfy, we have to make sure we get the balance between the community is


right and the measures we take. If we alienate our communities, we


won't get the intelligence that allows us to catch it. There is no


point in having more police and intelligence services if you don't


give them the powers to do the job. Jeremy Corbyn were licensed James


Bond to do precisely nothing. And -- thank you.


The revelation that the Manchester suicide bomber, 22-year-old


Salman Abedi, was born in this country has raised fresh concerns


about the effectiveness of the UK's counter-extremism policy.


In a moment we'll be talking to two people who've spent their careers


investigating radicalisation in the UK.


Douglas Murray, of the Henry Jackson Society,


and Sara Khan, author of The Battle for British Islam and CEO


of the counter-extremism organisation Inspire.


We asked both for a personal take on how to confront the problem


of Islamist extremism. First up, here's Douglas Murray.


Even after all these dead, all this mourning and defiance,


We remain stuck in the John Lennon response to terrorism -


Our politicians still refuse to accurately identify


the sources of the problem, and polite society


This country gave asylum to the Libyan parents of Salman Abedi.


Their son repaid that generosity by killing 22 British people,


one for each year of life this country had given him.


We need to think far more deeply about all this.


Eastern Europe doesn't have an Islamic terrorism problem


France has the worst problem because it has the most Islam.


Are we ever going to draw any lessons from this?


For the time being, the game is to be as inoffensive as possible.


The rot isn't just within the Muslim communities.


Consider all those retired British officials and others who shill,


and are in the pay of the Saudis and other foreign states,


even while they pump the extreme versions of Islam into our country.


It is high time we became serious too.


Islamist extremism is flourishing in our country.


We're failing to defeat it, so what can we do about it?


Whenever I say we must counter those Muslim organisations


who are promoting hatred, discrimination, and sometimes even


violence, I'm often either ignored by some politicians out


of a misplaced fear of cultural sensitivity, or I find myself


experiencing abuse by some of my fellow Muslims.


These groups and their sympathisers tour Muslim communities,


hold events, and have hundreds of thousands of followers


Yet there is little counter challenge to their toxic


anti-Western narrative, which includes opposition


I've seen politicians and charities partner


with and support some of these voices and groups.


Many anti-racist groups will challenge those on the far


right but not Muslim hate preachers, in the erroneous belief that to do


But it's Islamophobic not to challenge them because it implies


Following the attack on Monday, it cannot be business as usual.


We must counter those who seek to divide us.


Sarah Karen Allen Douglas Murray join me know. You wrote a book,


strange death of Europe. What did you mean in your film when you said,


let's get serious? Several things. Let me give you one example. The


young man who carried out this atrocious attack was a student at


Salford University for two years. He was on a campus which is, from its


leadership to its student leadership, opposes all aspects of


the government's only counter extremism programme. They boast they


are boycotting it. They always did this. The university he was at was


against the only counter extremism policy this state has. This is just


one example of a much bigger problem. What are you suggesting?


Shut down the University? Force them to change their policies? I think in


the case of Salford, which discourages students from reporting


Islamic extremism... When you discover you have produced a suicide


bomber in Manchester, you should be held responsible. What do you say to


that? I think it is quite clear from I am experienced there have been


politicians who have undermined Prevent, community organisations,


Islamist groups who have been at the forefront of undermining and


countering Prevent, but also wider counter extremism measures. Islamist


-- Islamist extremes and has flourished in this country. If


Summer Rae had given us a crystal ball ten years ago and said, look


forward and you will see hundreds of people leave this country to join


Isis, we will have hundreds of people convicted of Islamist


offences, I think we would have been quite shocked that things have got


worse as opposed to getting better. Douglas Murray, the essence of your


argument when you made the comparison between the numbers of


Muslims in other countries is that we have too much Islam in Britain?


The aunt Tilly Muslim Brotherhood give is that the answer to


absolutely everything is Islam. Less Islam is a good thing. Let me


finish. The Islamic world is in the middle of a very serious problem. It


has been going on since the beginning. I think it is not worth


continuing to risk our own security simply in order to be politically


correct. I would disagree with Douglas on that. Nobody is going to


deny that since the end of the 20th century there has been a rise in


Islamist extreme terror organisations. Yes, there is a


crisis within contemporary Islam, but there is a class. There are


competing claims about what the faith stands for. While we are


seeing Islamist terror organisations, leading theologians


are saying that the concept of a caliphate is outdated. Muslims


should be adopting a human rights culture. I entirely agree with that.


There are obviously people trying to counter that. I would urge us to


take the long view. In the history of Islam there have been many


reformers. Most of the time they have ended a up being the ones on


the brunt of the violence. I deeply resent what you and others do in


this country. I want you to win. But they are a Billy good minority. A


poll last year found that two thirds of British Muslims found they would


not report a family member they found to be involved in extremism to


the police. You are proposing more Draconian measures. I wish they


could win. We should do everything we can to support people like that.


What we should recognise the scale of the problem is beyond our current


understanding. You counter radicalisation on a university


campus or online? Discussion we had with Ben Wallace about the material


that is out there. If we pursue in a hard-line way perhaps the sort of


thing Douglas Murray is suggesting, gone is freedom of speech, gone is


freedom of debate and discussion? The best way to counter extremism is


through the prism of human rights. We cannot abandon our human rights


to fight extremism. Where I think we are going wrong, where there is a


gap, is the lack of counter work to challenge Islamist ideals. How many


people are going to say we need to counter that strict narrative? That


is where we are not doing enough work. What about the human rights


point, that you cannot take away people's human rights? I'm not


suggesting that. I'm suggesting we do things that ensure that 22 people


don't get blown up on an average Monday again, OK? Dissent to be


opposed to people want to blow up our


rights. If you're taking government money and you are an institution


like Salford University you should be held responsible for not


cooperating with standard security measures. You can challenge


extremism without abandoning human rights. We have got to actually


counter the Islamist narrative. We're not doing enough. This is not


about closing down free speech. This is encouraging it. This is the most


effective way of countering the Islamist narrative. Why isn't it


doing better? A number of reasons. One is there is a denial taking


place. A lot of apologetics. Part of it is the way we talk about Muslims


in this country. We use the term Muslim community as if they are


homogenous. There is a positive trend but there is a negative trend


among British Muslims. We need to counter those promoting the idea


that Muslims are part of a collective identity. I agree. It is


also the case there is massive push back because a lot of Muslims are


defending the faith in this country. We think we can push them down a


better path but they are defending absolutely everything. We need to


get real about that. Thank you very much.


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.


With 11 days to go and campaigning having resumed by all the parties,


I'll be asking Labour's Kezia Dugdale and Ruth Davidson


of the Conservatives to assess their prospects


Well, we now know the details of all the party's general


election pledges, bar one, the SNP who'll launch


Shortly, I'll be speaking to Kezia Dugdale to see how


she views Scottish Labour's prospects but first our reporter


Andrew Black has been looking at some of Labour's promises.


Labour's fight in this election with a key pledge to end austerity. It


also says it is going to oppose a second referendum on Scottish


independence at the same time as arguing for a more federalised


country. On the economy, Labour wants to cut loopholes and increase


business tax to end austerity and public services. It is time to


accept the result of the referendum and strike a deal in the national


interest, Labour says. That includes guaranteeing the rights of EU


nationals living in Scotland as well as the rights of Scots living


elsewhere in the EU. On energy, Labour wants to ban onshore fracking


and cap energy prices to keep average bills under ?1000 a year.


When it comes to transport, the party wants private rail companies


brought back into public ownership, that would include the likes of


ScotRail, and it wants the HS2 high-speed rail line to move beyond


the North of England into Glasgow and Edinburgh. On the issue of


welfare, Labour would scrap the benefits sanctions system, end the


so-called bedroom tax, and bring back housing benefit for under 21s.


On defence, Labour says it will continue to support the renewal of


Trident nuclear weapons even though the party leader Jeremy Corbyn is a


long-standing opponent. Well, joining me now


is the Scottish Labour Let's start on Manchester and the


speech on foreign policy Jeremy Corbyn made after it. You've been


saying this morning it is reasonable to ask for an open debate and to


have no issues, but what gave offence was when Mr Corbyn said many


experts, including professionals in our security services have pointed


to the connections between wars our government has fought in other


countries, such as Libya, and terrorism at home. It is that


implication that somehow we are to blame for what happened in


Manchester that gave offence. Would you distance from that? That any one


person to blame for the event in Manchester, and that is the


terrorist, the man who strapped a suicide bomb at a pop concert,


surrounded by young teenage girls, enjoying a music concert. There is


no excuse for that, there is no explaining it away, he is 100%


responsible for those actions. Jeremy Corbyn use the first day of


the general election campaign resuming to make a serious speech


about foreign policy... That particular statement, would you


distance yourself from that? Could you read it to me again? Many


experts have pointed to the connections between wars our


governments have supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya,


and terrorism at home. The implication that has been drawn from


that is that Mr Corbyn is suggesting we are responsible for what has


happened. He hasn't said that at all. I just read it to you. It is


very clear Jeremy Corbyn and I and everyone across this country


recognises the only person responsible for what happened in


Manchester was that terrorist. What Jeremy said on Friday was that


previous decisions around foreign policy have had an impact on the


growth of terrorist organisations around the world and most people


would recognise it has had an impact. Nobody is suggesting that as


an excuse for the type of event we witnessed. When you asked why people


should vote Labour in Scotland, the first reason you gave was to oppose


another independence referendum. It seems to me the Tories are


benefiting from that sentiment. Why do you think people are not turning


to Labour when they want independence? That is what people


tell me as I travel the length and breadth of this country. I'm the


only leader who has travelled from Stornoway to Lockerbie, and I meet


people everywhere that are distressed and worried about the


instability that a second independence referendum would cause


and the damage it would do, in the form of ?15 billion worth of cuts. I


say we stand firmly against independence... The Tories are


benefiting from that. I'm making an argument on how to invest in public


services. You've been ambiguous on this. I don't accept that. You said


in September 2015 that Labour MSPs should be free to campaign for


independence and you said you might consider voting on independence


should Scotland being forced out of the EU. I've been absolutely


clear... So, would you like to say now you rather regret some of those


statements he made earlier? I want to say the same thing I've said


every single interview is I am opposed to independence and a second


independence referendum as is the Labour party in the UK and Scotland.


The cause of the damage it would do... So when you said Labour SNP 's


should campaign for independence, did you miss beat? We are opposed to


independence and a second independence referendum. You


suggested there should be a new active union. It doesn't seem to be


in the manifesto. What we have in the UK wide manifesto... It isn't in


your Scottish manifesto. We are talking about a federal solution...


Why doesn't it mention an active union cuisine you keep interrupting


me. We can prevent a hard breaks it. You can oppose independence and you


don't have to accept the status quo which is why want to see the vast


majority of powers come to the Scottish Parliament. The phrase you


see is a presumption of devolution. The direction of travel towards a


federalised UK. I don't understand why your own Scottish manifesto


doesn't mention the policy you've been promoting of a new active


union. We've been promoting a Scottish Convention, Scotland's


creation ship with the UK changing, having more powers in the Scottish


Parliament. What we haven't had in the UK is a similar debate about


devolution in England or Wales. Those words are not even in the


Scottish manifesto. There is a presumption of devolution, all those


powers coming back to the Scottish Parliament and that we need further


powers from Westminster to Holyrood. Let me give you an example. Leaving


the EU means an end to the social chapter, workers' rights, maternity


leave, paternity leave, they are going to be coming back from


Brussels and I'd like those pals to come to the Scottish Parliament so


we can make different choices from the Tories which will require more


devolution. These are complex issues that are not aided by is that


general election. What there is is a clear commitment to the presumption


of devolution and a radical reform in the UK so you can reject the


extremes of the SNP and hard right Tory Brexit. The SNP say they want


another referendum of independence, it was in the manifesto in 2016...


People don't want another referendum. Are you saying the SNP


have no mandate? I'm saying very clearly wherever I go, people... Are


using the SNP have no mandate to call another referendum? The SNP


told us the last referendum a once-in-a-lifetime opportunities.


The particular culmination of circumstances that has arisen that


was mentioned in the SNP manifesto last year, they say they have a


mandate for another referendum. If it is in the manifesto, you'd


normally agree they'd have a mandate. Are using they don't have a


mandate for another referendum? It is clear that after the EU


referendum Nicola Sturgeon used Brexit to fight for another


referendum. I'm asking whether you accept they have a mandate. Once


again you've not allowed me to provide a substantive answer. She's


a Brexit was the excuse for another independence referendum but the


problem the SNP have is they can't tellers whether Scotland stays,


whether we have to reapply for the EU, or whether we will have a noise


style arrangement. Her manifesto commitment for a referendum has


fallen apart because she can't be clear on Europe. More importantly,


the people of Scotland don't want to be dragged back to the arguments of


the past. We have to leave it behind us. We were told it was


once-in-a-lifetime and it should be respected. That's why I am opposed


to a second referendum and why I'm also trying to get this debate to be


about investment in public services. You've given a substantive answer.


But you haven't answered the question. Are you saying the SNP


have no mandate to call another referendum, yes or no? I don't want


one... I know but do they have a mandate? The mandate I have is to


oppose a second referendum. People will say that it might be reasonable


to leave another independence referendum until that Brexit


solution is worked out. I am not anti democratic but it was a


once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. You then suggest Brexit gives us another


referendum. The SNP have three different positions but they


continue to bang on about independence when they can't be


clear to the electorate which is why 70 people are angry at the SNP and


it is going in a bad direction for them. Ie ruling it out? Yes, we are


against a second independence referendum. It is annoying when


people interrupt you, isn't it? Will Labour MPs voted against it? We have


been very clear we are opposed to independence and a second


referendum. In hypothetical scenario you are doing, we would be well into


processes, the UK Government would have had to have gone into the


detail, the franchise and the rest of it. The Tories would have to


expect there will be a referendum. We are a far cry away from that.


It's Ruth Davidson that accepted in that scenario that she would rocket.


Our job to do now is to block a referendum the people of Scotland


don't want it, nor do they want independence. In the UK Labour


manifesto, they say they want to guarantee there will be no tax hikes


to middle and low earners. Why are they wrong? I'm not suggesting there


are wrong. Yes, you are. That's not true. Income tax is devolved


Scottish parliament. That's why we have a different position in the


Scottish Parliament, in the Scottish Labour Party. The tax proposals I


put forward to the electorate last year released ?690 million. That's


the amount of money we needed to be able to credibly say we could oppose


any further cuts to local services, we could fulfil the commitment we


made to increase child benefit, ?20 a month by 2020, raising 30,000


children out of poverty, and to address things like the nurses'


pick-up. If you apply the policies to Scotland, it would generate


around ?330 million, so we'll be able to fulfil those commitments to


be opposed to Tory austerities and pay for child benefit increases. The


wealth in England and Wales resides in London in the south-east. We just


don't have as many people in Scotland and whether a year. So I


have to use the powers of the Scottish Parliament differently.


What would you reply differently to people in middle incomes in


Scotland. Hang on a minute, we spend 60% roughly per person more on


public spending in Scotland. -- 16%. Some public services, particularly


education, are doing better in England. Why should we have to pay


more basic tax to pay for public services which we're already


spending 16% more per person on? We have seen ?1.5 billion cut out of


our local services. There has been much more cut in England. We are


stealing that in the starting reality in the children of our


schools, being failed by the SNP -- we are seeing that. Were already


paying more, why should be taxed more? The median income is around


?7,000 a year. In our proposals, someone earning that salary would


pay around ?2.80 per week -- 20 ?7,000 a year. I'm not suggesting


that that is insignificant. The price of doing that is increased


cuts to public services, fewer teachers, support staff, the


education record collapsing before our eyes and a failed generation. Is


holding back our economy to not invest in public services. The


Scottish parliament is immensely powerful, it has the power to make


different decisions than Tories. If you want to invest in public


services, grow the economy,... If you generated the same amount. Would


you do that, what Jeremy Corbyn is suggesting? I would go for a


progressive solution like that. Income tax is devolved to the


Scottish parliament. I would introduce a 50p top rate and use the


basic rate to generate the money we need to scrap the cats. We need to


do that to raise the money we need to stop the cuts -- stop the cuts.


When I produce proposals, assuming you were in power and Labour in


power in the UK, they would pay an extra 1p in income tax, plus have a


lower threshold for the 40p rate, now in force in Scotland. Plus


whatever tax rises Jeremy Corbyn decides for people earning over


?80,000. Plus a 50p rate for over 150,000? I pay less tax... I earn


?60,000 a year, I pay less than I did in 2010 because of the tax cuts


the Tories put in place. The price of that is community centres,


libraries closing, teachers not having the resources they need. You


can reject the programme from the Tories and choose Labour's instead,


which is about investing in public services and helping grow the


economy. Labour is committed to abolishing the so-called rape clause


in the welfare system. Is Labour committed to abolishing the


limitation of tax credits to two children? Yes. It's not clear in the


UK manifesto whether you are committed to that. Is abundantly


clear that Labour is going for additional investment in the


security system. We would also reform it. We would introduce a real


living wage of ?10 per hour, that would reduce the benefits bill. We


are committed to ending that cap. We would have to leave it there.


Well, in a moment, I'll be speaking to the leader


of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson but first Andrew Black


takes a brief look at some of the key Tory election pledges.


The Conservative manifesto points to what it calls the giant challenges


facing the country. These include, says the party, strengthening the


economy and adjusting to life in a post-Brexit Britain. On the economy,


the Tories want to increase the amount of money you earn before


paying income tax to ?12,500 by 2020. The party also wants to cut


net migration to below 100,000 across the UK. On energy, the


Scottish Conservatives want to boost support for Scotland's shale gas


industry, that is essentially fracking. As well as support


offshore wind projects. There would be fewer large-scale offshore wind


farms. When it comes to welfare benefits, the Conservatives say they


will ditch the pensions triple lock under which pension rises are


calculated, opting instead for a double lock. The Scottish


Conservatives want to protect universal winter fuel payments for


all pensioners in Scotland with no means testing, unlike party policy


south of the border. On the fishing industry, a pledge to support


workers after Britain need the EU. And the Conservatives say the second


Scottish independence referendum will not be held unless there is


public consent for it to happen. And that there won't be a vote on the


issue until the Brexit process has played out. Well, I'm joined by the


leader of the Scottish Conservatives. Can we start with


Manchester. Jeremy Corbyn 's speech was described by Boris Johnson as


absolutely monstrous. He said it was absolutely extraordinary and


inexplicable in this week of all weeks, that there should be any


attempt to justify or register make the actions of terrorism in this


way. Would you distance yourself from that? You know, having a


sensible level-headed debate without that kind of language is arguably


what we need at the moment. I think Isis said themselves what was behind


this attack, they set themselves that Britain's foreign policy was


secondary, they said it was attacked because this is not a Muslim


country, not a country of believers. In terms of who perpetrated this,


whose fault it is, this is the coward -- this is not a country of


believers. Streams of teenage girls were leaving, and detonated a bomb.


He is at fault for this. We can talk about foreign policy all we like,


but to suggest that when such terror attacks have happened in countries


like Belgium, like Sweden, who haven't shared the foreign policy


Britain. Are you suggesting what Jeremy Corbyn is suggesting? You


would say he didn't mean that at all. If you read the text and look


at the very quote that you read out to Kezia Dugdale just a few moments


ago, he is saying that it is part of the issue of why people are


attacking us. We were not involved in Afghanistan or Iraq before the


911 bombing. Sweden wasn't involved in these sorts of conflict either.


Yet they have still been subject to the same attack. This is about a


death cult that hate our freedoms, our democracy and the fact that we


tell our young girls, it's all right to go to a pop concert, it's all


right to dream that you can be the woman on the stage. The way we beat


them is to continue to tell our young women that that's exactly what


they can do. There's nothing to stop them. Independence, your number one


issue this election. In your manifesto, you introduced new


criteria for whether or not there could be another referendum. You


said it would need public consent. What does that mean? It's not new.


Nicola Sturgeon said she was forcing through in March this year this idea


that she was going to Apennines Brexit to try and drag us back to


another referendum on independence. another referendum on independence.


-- going to use Brexit. There are two principles here. Scotland can be


dragged back to another independence referendum when we don't know what


the options look like, because we do not Brexit looks like, we don't know


what independence looks like because she won't even tell as it should be


in the art of the EU. Nor should we be dragged back there when the


people of Scotland -- in or out of the EU. I have an ally on that,


Nicola Sturgeon. Before the 2016 election, I was standing next to her


on a platform during one of the TV debates and she said time and time


again that if the people of Scotland didn't want a referendum, there


would not be won. If they hadn't changed their mind, she wouldn't


have a right to call one, and they haven't changed their minds. The S


said they have it in their manifesto, they won the Scottish


elections last year, -- the SNP. What are you saying? Are using the


opinion polls have to go different way? They had conditional statement


in the manifesto, they lost their majority. They also told the public


that if there wasn't a change in public will for this, then they


wouldn't drag us now. Also, we saw in 2011 what public consent looked


like, we saw that there was broad agreement across all parties, even


people like Kezia Dugdale and myself, recognise there was a


mandate for a referendum and voted for it. You're not suggesting that


the SNP don't have legitimacy in arguing for another referendum


unless you agree with it? They will argue for another referendum until


the cows come home. You as them any question at all, and their answers


are always independence. They have a mandate for it. I don't accept when


they do. When you lose your majority, when you have a


conditional statement in your manifesto... They won the election.


Not only did they sign an agreement that said, you know, we won't come


back here, we will respect the result, there are clearly not


respecting it. They also said, Nicola Sturgeon of the people of


Scotland in the eye and said if there wasn't a change in public


opinion, she wouldn't drag us back there. And she is dragging us back


there, and I will stop out. People out there will help me stop by


voting for my party. Let's say you achieved your dream, and you are in


a position to become First Minister. Let's say the Scottish Conservatives


got the number of seats and MSPs that the SNP got last year. And you


had something in your manifesto that you wanted to implement, and


everyone else turned round and said, "Even though you've won, almost an


absolute but not quite majority, you've got no mandate for that." You


before US, the first person saying that is attack Dhaka you would be


furious. So attacks on democracy are OK? You have to have a variety of


opinion, there has to be political and public consent. You said last


year that if the Scottish parliament voted for another referendum, the UK


Government should not stand on its way. I have never said it should be


denied. That's a direct quote. I did and said the last time either in


2014. Why have you changed your mind? The Prime Minister and myself


and the Secretary of State have said exactly the same thing. This is the


criteria... Had never said the UK Parliament should deny the Scottish


parliament the right. You decide there's never going to be another


referendum ever again. There cannot be one when the people of Scotland


do not what the options look like. Nor should there be one when the


people of Scotland don't want one. It is very clear that the people of


Scotland don't want one, that's why you're seeing some of the panic


reactions is become the SNP, because they are realising they started the


campaign putting independence at the heart of it, but now they're talking


about it less because they know the people of Scotland are telling them


to fix our schools and hospitals, and stop dragging it appears we


don't want to go. I accept this is not you, there cannot be another


referendum until the Brexit prices have played out. What does that


mean? Until we know how it works on the ground. There will be a primary


transfer of powers as we leave the EU from Brussels to Westminster. But


there's also then going to be secondary transfer of powers to the


devolved administrations, and even to local authorities in England, to.


It has played out. Does that mean to note the final Brexit deal is, or a


period after that? And we know how it's working out in practice? This


is in response to Nicola Sturgeon, who is promoting this. The day after


the Brexit Road, she stood up and said she had already instructed


civil servants to draw up the legislation for a referendum. She


wants her initial ask, was to have it within 16 months' time. We will


know that by 2019. We will know what the focus of the deal is, we won't


know the secondary transfer of powers. I have to say, a lot of


people out there agree with me that we need to make sure we get this


right. One way about getting it right is having different nations


within the United Kingdom pulling apart just at the point the country


needs to pull together to get a good deal on Brexit. Can you see the


conditions that the Conservative Party bows UK wide and in the


Scottish manifesto had laid down for another Scottish referendum being


met before the next Scottish elections in 2021? I'm not going to


absolutely, I'm not going to advocate for this to be held, not


within the next generation, which is what the people of this country were


promised. You have accepted that the SNP have some sort of mandate,


you're not just saying no. It's a weak mandate. Can you see the


conditions you have laid down in your manifesto being met before


2021? With the current trajectory of support in this country going down


for an under per -- for another referendum, I don't see it. The


people don't want it, I'm going to stand up for them. At the moment,


with the trajectory have seen over the last two years, there is no


support for another independence referendum, it doesn't look like


there will be support for it. As we see from Nicola Sturgeon trying


quietly this week to did independence, as a campaigning


tool... And your critics, not just the SNP will say again, you are


tampering with democracy. What you're trying to do is put things


off until after the next Scottish election in the hope that the SNP


mandate runs out and they don't have a majority from their position.


People know where the parties stand. Jeremy Corbyn says he is fine with


another independence referendum. We've spoken to the Labour party


leader in Scotland who is blocking deals in local government with a


tourist or she can prop up and put the SNP in power. She says it is


fine for her MSPs to campaign for independence. If you want to stop


this, help me. I'm telling people at home help me stop this. Kezia


Dugdale did go back on that. Should Nicola Sturgeon be given a seat at


the Brexit talks? I want there to be work putting from Scotland which is


why I've been helping facilitate people... She wants to be in the


talks. Nicola Sturgeon wants Scotland to be out of the UK but in


Europe so if she wants to sit at the table, which side of the table does


she want to sit out? If you does not the UK to exist and Scotland back


in? You say you are open to a review of the week clause. And you faced


criticism for not calling for such a review to take place would you like


to take the opportunity to rectify that call for a review of how it


operates in practice? We've got to see how it in practice. You'd call


on Theresa May to institute such a review? We haven't seen it work


because it's just been brought in but this is a system and we've got


to make clear... So, how are you open to a review? People have made


criticisms of this and let me address them because this is a


sensitive issue. This is about making sure people who have had


children in the worst of circumstances get extra help so that


there is a policy that has been brought in that says for the first


to make children you don't. So people within the benefit system,


they face the same questions. They are right to be exceptions of that,


people who have had children born out of rape, this is getting them


extra help. The criticism has been about how that is done. The system


adopted by the DWP is the same system of having a third-party


professional fill out the form in the same way that has cross-party


support for domestic violence victims. If that can be improved and


people have suggested before it was ruled out but it could let's have a


look at that. That is what I have said. So if we see there are


problems and complications once it is rolled out, we can review that I


am open to that. Why not just oppose the underlying policy of restricting


benefits to two children? You've defied Theresa May on winter fuel


payments. There are many pensioners who are getting the winter fuel


payment who can afford it. There are strong arguments to giving benefits


to people with extra children, especially when we have a declining


population. It seems an anti-Tory policies. To be fair this isn't


about child benefit. You get child benefit how many children you have.


You get the same benefit for your tenth as for your first, this is


about child tax credit services about the same decisions for


people... Why not say it is wrong? It is about making a fair system...


Why is it right to restrict tax credits to children but wrong to


means test winter fuel benefits? Well, Gordon, there are questions


you have to ask when you start a family and your income doesn't go up


automatically if you have another child and some of the questions that


are being asked are the same for people not in that situation. In


terms of the choice I made on devolution of winter fuel payments,


if you want to speak about that, this is about the envelope.


Millionaires get winter fuel benefits but poor people with more


than two children don't get tax credits with yellow no, the decision


my colleagues down south have made is all people over a certain age


have help with their heating and fuel. They're going to means test


that the money saved will be reinvested into social care. I'm


choosing to say that within that envelope, and there is no extra


investment either side of the border, to keep that with people who


are over certain age to have that what they always wanted and what


I've had before. Income tax. You want the rates to be seen in


Scotland as an England rather than messing about with them, don't you?


Yes. Given there is no commitment to not raising income tax in the Tory


manifesto, if they raise it, will you support a rise in income tax in


Scotland? There are no plans to raise that in the Conservative


manifesto. It is not ruled out. Saying we've designated the skies


green is not ruled out, either. So, Tories pledging no new taxes is


normal and it is not there. We have raised the threshold for the lowest


earners, we have a situation where Scotland is a contracting economy


one quarter of a from recession. We shouldn't have higher taxes here


because it is bad for the Scottish economy is. Thank you very much,


Ruth Davidson. Well, listening to those interviews


with Kezia Dugdale and Ruth Davidson was our Political


Editor Brian Taylor. What you make of the dynamic? The


two elements coming from your interviews there, the Constitution,


both independence and Brexit, and always the economy. You have a


situation where you have the Labour Party and SNP competing as to who is


the best to counter what they characterise as austerity policies


and competing with the page they are putting forward to the electorate. I


was struck by Ruth Davidson's remarks she didn't expect a


referendum along any time soon, given that is at least partly in the


hands of the UK Conservative leadership. She also said, didn't


she, not before 2021, which is when the mandate the Scottish government


have got runs out. Should try to avoid saying there's precise dates.


She was saying allow Brexit to happen and then allow the roll-out


of Brexit to happen. That is the return of domestic powers to


Westminster in the first place and ultimately to Holyrood as well. That


will take some time, that will really take quite some time. I cast


my mind back to the period when this policy was launched by the Prime


Minister, just a short time before that there was a short news


conference with David Mundell and Ruth Davidson. David Mundell was


keen to say we're not saying no, we're not saying never, we might get


to this. He was stressing not now but he was not now, not never. Ruth


Davidson was saying, I don't see this coming any time soon. Remember,


also, in her introduction to the Scottish Labour manifesto, Kezia


Dugdale use the phrase Labour would never be in favour of getting that


way. What she was doing there was attempting to use a degree of


certainty, whereas you rightly pointed out they had a fair degree


of vacillation before that. The SNP are the only party to produce a


manifesto. Everything has been dominated by security, because of


Manchester. It has become Corbyn versus May and the SNP need to punch


through that, breakthrough and get a hearing. I mean, we have in the


coming week the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Liberal Democrats


publishing their manifesto. The Scottish Greens standing in three


constituencies, the Liberal Democrats are taking account of the


devolved powers. The SNP due to publish their manifesto on Tuesday.


They are fighting on a series of fronts, the primary one on the


anti-austerity, anti-Tory pitch, they are the ones to stop...


Presuming there is a Tory victory, they are the ones to defend


Scotland's interests in those circumstances. Labour are seeking to


remove that from their stance. Thank you very much indeed for that.


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


As voters prepare to go to the polls to choose who represents them


the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon joins me for the Andrew Neil Interviews.


Download Subtitles