28/05/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

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.