16/07/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by Liam Fox and Rebecca Long-Bailey. Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards are on the political panel.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.


With Cabinet divisions over Brexit, spending and leadership spilling


onto the front pages, we'll be talking to international


trade secretary Liam Fox about Britain's future


Jeremy Corbyn's been to Brussels to set out


Labour's vision for Brexit - but with the party suffering its own


divisions on Europe, are they being entirely clear


And as Ukip searches for another leader, will taking an even more


hard-line stance on Islam make the party relevant again,


If Ukip goes down the route of being a party that is anti


the religion of Islam, frankly it's finished.


In London - once a year you can visit your local council


The SNP call the Brexit Bill, "a naked power grab."


I'll be asking the Scottish Government


and the British Government if they're in a mood to compromise.


Yes, all of that to come, and I'm joined for all of it


by three journalists whose every word is as closely followed


And much like the Liberal Democrat leadership contest, they've


won their place on the panel because no-one else wanted the job.


It's Steve Richards, Isabel Oakeshott and Tom Newton Dunn.


First today, for a supposedly private gathering, the meeting


of the Cabinet on Tuesday has generated rather a lot of headlines,


most of them featuring Chancellor Philip Hammond.


Yesterday there were disputed claims in the Sun over what he may or may


not have said about women driving trains, and today the Sunday Times


says colleagues picked him up for describing public sector workers


as overpaid, although some dispute that version of events.


Well, Mr Hammond was on the Andrew Marr Show this morning,


and he took the unusual step of suggesting that the source


of the stories may be people unhappy at his position over Brexit.


If you want my opinion, some of the noise is generated by people


who are not happy with the agenda that I have,


tried to advance of ensuring that we achieve a Brexit


which is focused on protecting our economy, protecting


our jobs, and making sure we can have continued rising living


So what do you make of that, Isabel? The Chancellor thinks he's being


undermined by Cabinet colleagues who don't trust him on Brexit. That's


quite remarkable to say that in public. I also think it's completely


true. That's the least controversial true. That's the least controversial


part of it! The briefing is his position on Brexit and also


frustration on his position over public sector pay then it is over


any kind of leadership manoeuvrings. We saw on the Andrew Marr Show that


he was doubling down on the issue of public sector pay rises. He didn't


categorically deny using the words of overpaid, in fact he reiterated


the fact he sees them as whether they are overpaid or not so I


believe he did use that phrase but clearly he's got the tone wrong and


I don't think he's done himself any favours. He's a pretty wealthy man


himself, multimillionaire. He must have some kind of political deafness


if he thinks it's OK for someone in his position to say, in a number of


cases, lowly paid public sector workers are overpaid? I think he is


politically deaf, and not emotionally intelligent. He has a


great head for figures but very poor at expressing himself. It was a


crass remark over women train drivers. He may be in the right


place on some arguments, he's just extremely poor at expressing and


that's what gives his opponents the chance to rip his head off. He


should have worked out by now that it is clear whatever... Because of


the dim munition of Mrs May's authority that whatever you see in


the Cabinet now is likely to become public in some shape or form. I


think this is the profound lesson of the story, that Cabinet discussion


is almost impossible now, and Hammond will go away this summer


thinking I can't engage in a proper debate in Cabinet because they will


leak it. It sounds as if they were having quite a grown-up conversation


about public sector pay with a spending department ministers


putting the case for breaking the cup and Hammond saying from the


Treasury perspective this is what's happening. Which is what normally


happens in Cabinet. He would hope so, not any more. He won't be able


to speak his mind in Cabinet because he knows it will be leaked and that


is another sign of fragility of this Government, when you cannot have a


grown-up discussion about public sector pay even in Cabinet, and that


means Cabinet discussion which is urgently needed on Brexit and the


rest of it cannot happen in an open way because leaking is happening.


Mrs May is not exactly top of the Pops with her own party at the


moment but doesn't help her in the fact that her Chancellor is even


less top of the Pops? The key thing is that backbenchers don't want a


leadership contest at the moment. There are a number of Cabinet


ministers or more senior figures who have been around longer who may feel


this is their last chance of the leadership and they are urgently


wanting it happen now. Backbenchers don't want it, I don't think it will


happen. Will it happen? I don't think it will. There are egos


clashing in the Cabinet and also many who just want things to stay


the way they are, so they will. We will talk more about this leadership


matter later in the programme, but let's move on.


This week the government passed another Brexit milestone


when in introduced the Repeal Bill to the Commons.


It will incorporate all EU law into the UK's domestic


And although a vote on the Bill isn't due until the autumn,


the government still has plenty on its plate when it


Brexit secretary David Davis and the EU's negotiator


Michel Barnier will sit down for another helping


of Brexit negotiations in Brussels this week.


Progress now needs to be made on some big questions.


They include: the rights of EU citizens living here,


How to maintain an open border between Northern Ireland


And the size of the financial settlement or so-called divorce bill


Previous estimates have included a figure of


The British government has put no figure on it, simply saying it


This week, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said the EU


could "go whistle" if it was expecting an extortionate fee


Brussels wants this set of negotiations focusing


on the principles of separation to be done by the end of the year.


They can then turn to the main event, the future trading


relationship between the UK and the EU.


While the UK remains a member of the EU customs union, it cannot


But it can hold advanced discussions with other countries.


This week, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said his country


was very keen for a deal as quickly as possible.


And at the G20 summit, Donald Trump said he wanted to sign a very


powerful UK-US trade deal very quickly.


But as trade deals normally take years to negotiate,


it is unclear when the first ones will be ready for post-Brexit


So there will be plenty for both sides to digest,


as negotiations continue over the summer.


I'm joined by the International Trade


Your brief is to agree new free trade deals but you cannot sign any


until Brexit is done, can you even begin proper negotiations this side


of Brexit or is that illegal too? We cannot negotiate and conclude a


trade agreement but we can scope them out. We can get our preparatory


work done. We have got ten working groups established across the world


with countries from Korea to the United States to Australia. I know


scoping the out is fine, you can talk about trade but you cannot


begin formal trade negotiations until after Brexit. No, but we have


trade working agreements. Free trade agreements are not the only thing


that are in the mix as it were, they are what people think about but we


also have mutual recognition agreements where we can reduce some


of the barriers to trade, the technical barriers, in that process.


We have a number of other things going on. We have got to get our


trading schedules in Switzerland and Geneva and the World Trade


Organisation organised. We then have 40 EU free trade agreements and we


have to get them ready because if we were not to negotiate those and be


ready on the first day of Brexit, there would be huge market


disruption. Although you can clearly do a lot of technical work and you


can talk till the cows come home, there will be no free trade deals on


the shelf ready to sign come March 2019 when we are leaving the EU,


that's correct isn't it? Technically there will be new ones... There will


be no free trade deals ready to say right, we are out, here is a deal I


have baked earlier. Not right away because we are not permitted to do


that as part of our membership of the European Union and one of the


things I want to get is greater freedom to be able to negotiate on


behalf of the UK. That's not possible when you are inside the


customs union. There's much talk of a transition after 2019. You told


Bloomberg you didn't mind a few months, the Chancellor this morning


said it would be a couple of years. What is it? The key thing is why


would you have a transitional arrangements, how long would it be


and what would the conditions be. For me first we have to leave the


European Union in March 2019 so there can be no case of extending EU


membership. At that point as a third country we can have a transition


agreement which keeps as little disruption as possible but it has to


have an end date. You said a few months, the Chancellor said a few


years, why the difference? As the Chancellor said, it is more a


technical argument, because for example how do we get new border


equipment in place, how do we get the arrangements for immigration put


in place, but for me, you know, I've waited a long time and campaigned


long time to leave the European Union. As long as we leave in March


2019 I'm happy, as long as we have a time-limited transitional period to


make it work for business. The Chancellor doesn't deny the


transition could take up four years. The Brexit Secretary David Davis


says it could be a maximum of three years, you are talking months.


Shouldn't you sort this out around the Cabinet table instead of all


three of you sending mixed messages? We are dependent on for example what


HMRC Tal us, how investment is going. It's also a question of


negotiating with our European partners. We know what's involved,


why are you sending out these mixed messages? I don't have a problem


with the transition period as long as it is time-limited. It is not


just the time, it is the conditions. I want in the transitional period to


be able to negotiate agreements at that point. We cannot have a putting


off over the freedom to negotiate trade agreements. At the moment is


it clear you would be able to sign any free trade deals during a


transition period? No, that's to be negotiated. So if Mr Hammond or Mr


Davies is right, up to three or four years, it could be 2021 before you


get to sign a free trade deal. We don't now how long any would take to


negotiate. They don't happen overnight. Would you even be able to


negotiate during a transition period? I would hope so, that is one


of the conditions we might set. It is certainly something I would want


to see because otherwise it makes it much more difficult to take


advantage of the opportunities that Brexit itself would produce. Your


ink will run dry before you get to sign one of these agreements. We


have a huge amount to do and it's not just at the free trade agreement


level. We have for example what we get at the World Trade Organisation


because the real game for the UK is to get a global liberalisation in


the services sector -- the real gain. And I want to come onto that


in a minute but before do, are you group of the Cabinet ministers that


seems to regularly be briefing against Philip Hammond? No, I


deplore leaks from the Cabinet, I think my colleagues should be quiet,


stick to their duties, and I expect discipline to be effective. The only


people smiling that this will be people in Berlin and Paris. Why are


people doing it? The need to have less prosecco. They don't trust


Philip Hammond, do they? I don't think that is true. I read in the


press we have very different views, in fact our views are very similar


on things like transition. I don't know where it is coming from but I


think it should stop. But it is happening? It is happening


and I think it undermines the position of the government. We do


not need an interim leader or an alternative leader. We have a very


good competent leader in Theresa May. But he thinks it is being done


by fellow Brexiteers? I do not know who is doing it and they should


stop. Let's come back to the tariff free trade. There is much talk about


that. The Chancellor says much of our trade with the world is in


services and free trade deals won't make any particular difference. Do


you agree with him? They can make a difference. It has been estimated


with the OECD that free trade deals with the United States could add ?42


billion to our bilateral trade by 2030. There is a game to be made. In


an economy like the UK which is 80% services, what we would benefit from


is a range of global liberalisation. One example is data. We have an


economy where we talk about freedom of movement of goods and services,


but you also have to have the freedom of movement of data. One


thing I would like the UK to lead on is to look to a global agreement on


that. But the talks have come to an end. There is no great global


movement. That is not true. We have just had a multilateral agreement,


the trade facilitation was signed this year which seeks to diminish


friction at customs around the world and will add 70 billion to the


economy. But it leaves plenty of nontariff barriers in place. The


moment you start to talk about these complicated rules and regulations


that hinder services, it does not make free trade deals impossible, it


makes them much more on placated and prolonged to do. Correct? You need


to look at what is happening in the global economy. According to the


OECD, in 2012, the G7 and G20 countries were operating about 300


nontariff barriers. By the end of 2015, they were operating nearly


three times that number. The silting up of growth and global trade is


being done by the global economy. We need to be looking at how we can


remove some of those barriers, because otherwise our prosperity


becomes limited. Is it still your view that no deal would be better


than a bad deal? Anyone who goes into that negotiation without that


than a bad deal? Anyone who goes is foolish. We will not accept any


deal they will give us. That is the problem David Cameron had before the


referendum. I think our partners believed we would accept a bad deal


rather than none. But Philip Hammond has given the game away. He said no


deal would be a very, very bad outcome. The Europeans know that we


have realised no deal would be a very bad outcome. Is he right? I


think you can argue on what the outcome would be. It is very


important as a negotiating tool, and the Prime Minister is 100% right.


Those we are negotiating with, need to believe that we would walk away


rather than accept a bad deal. But if you're going to walk away you did


not say the consequences would be very, very bad. You do not agree


with the key is what is our negotiating position? You simply do


not hand it away. So he is wrong? He says very, very bad. We have to


accept we have a right to walk away and those we are negotiating with


have to understand that. No businessman would go into a deal and


say whatever the outcome, we will accept it. And no business would go


into a major negotiation with six different voices but your government


is. David Davis speaks for the government not the Sunday


newspapers. Not Philip Hammond. Philip Hammond was very clear this


morning on the issue of transition. We are leaving the single the --


market, we are leaving the customs union. Let me just quote to some


other issues. It would be good to get some clarity. Is there a


contingency plan for no deal? Yes, government departments are all


working for their contingency plans for what would happen if we got to


the end of negotiation with no deal. Why did the Foreign Secretary say


there was no plan for no deal. There are contingency plans across


Whitehall. Is he wrong or out of the loop? As dead no. There are


contingency plans and my department and other departments have


specifically been tasked... He said it this week. Well, that is not


correct. We would be foolish not to have such contingency plans. I


understand the argument, you need to bring the Foreign Secretary in. He


is only the Foreign Secretary that you would need to bring him in, I


would have thought. You want is full deal with the EU as possible. Would


you be prepared to pay for that kind of open access? It depends what you


mean by pay. We have to start with where we are with the European Union


at the moment. We already have a tariff free arrangement. I know what


we already have. The only reason why we would not continue with that is


if the politicians on the other side of the channel wanted to put


politics before economics. What they said they want an annual fee? If


they are talking about Britain continuing to pay for those


international arrangements... I am not talking about that and I think


you know I am not. If we get a full access trade deal, that they say you


have to pay an annual fee for this full access, should we pay it? I


would not want to make a public position while our negotiations are


coming on but I think you would find it difficult to square with WTO law.


Has there ever been a free trade deal where you pay the other side


for access? Not that I am aware of. Nor me. It would be unprecedented.


Are you ruling it out? I am not going to say anything. I see say we


should not have a number of different cabinet voices ahead of


our negotiations so I will not do that. We will have a


negotiation. We will try and get as free deal as possible. Let me tell


you why it is important. I know why it is important. I have another


question. You said the EU has trade deals with a number of other


countries at the moment of which we are part of, South Korea and Canada


are two examples. Will they continue to trade with us on the existing


basis, or will we have to do new deals or change these deals after


Brexit? We are negotiating with his third countries so we have something


so that deals are translated into UK law so there is no disruption to


trade. It is not clear. It is break clear. The Canada deal has not yet


been ratified by the European Union. So we do not know if we can carry on


trading with those countries which the EU has a free trade deal with on


the same basis. We have not spoken to a single country and we have


working groups with Switzerland and career which make up 82% by value.


Not a single one of those has indicated they did not want to carry


out this transitional adoption. In the case of Canada, in the case of


Singapore, where that agreement has not yet been reached by the EU, we


will have to think then about a Plan B and how we go into a bilateral


agreement. The EU now regards as may as a lame duck leader. It is true in


Brussels, Berlin and Paris -- the EU now regards Mrs May as a lame duck


leader. There is a hung parliament. Labour will not save your bacon on


Brexit. They want a quick election and they will vote to bring that


about. This election result has severely undermined Britain's


negotiating position. If you are looking at European governments,


they are looking at dealing with minority governments all the time.


They are dealing with coalitions formal and informal. The key is we


have something stronger than that. We have the will of the British


people behind us clearly expressed in the referendum that we are going


to leave the European Union, whatever Tony Blair or anyone else


says. We will leave in March 20 19. Now the job of the government is to


get the best deal and that is best done by my colleagues getting on


with their departmental work, not involving themselves in things they


do not need to be involved in, giving our backbenchers the


reassurance that we have a united Cabinet. Liam Fox, thank you.


Jeremy Corbyn went to Brussels this week to meet with the EU's


chief Brexit negotiator, Michael Barnier.


We're told Mr Corbyn wanted to set out Labour's


But on some of the big questions - like Britain's relationship


with the single market and the customs union -


Here's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell speaking earlier.


I believe we have to try and maintain the benefits


of the customs union, and that's one of the issues


Does it mean staying inside or leaving?


Keep all the options open, keep all the options...


Under Labour we could stay inside the customs union?


We are concentrating on the objectives rather


than the structures and that seems to have a resonance


I'm joined now by the Shadow Business Secretary


Rebecca Long-Bailey, she's in our Salford studio.


Good morning to you. Good morning. If there is a snap general election


it could well be Labour negotiating Brexit, so let's try and get some


answers to some fundamental questions. Is Labour in favour of


Britain remaining a member of the single market? What we have said it


want to retain the benefits of the single market and the customs union.


We have to be flexible in our approach, we appreciate that. The


end goal is maintaining the current benefits we have because we are


standing on the edge of a cliff, quite frankly, on


that matter. But you would concentrate on remaining a member of


the single market? The machinery we use to maintain those benefits is


open to negotiation. We have got to respect the result of the referendum


and the will of the people, in terms of having greater control over our


laws and the border. If we could negotiate staying in the single


market would be fantastic but whether it is likely have to be


seen. We are looking at all the options on the table and getting


access to the single market is one of those. Everybody wants access, I


am talking about membership. It is still not clear whether you would


negotiate to remain as a member of the single market, with all the


consequences of free movement and the European Court that would follow


from that. What is your position? We want to retain the current benefits


we have is a member of the single market, but we appreciate there will


be free movement and we will lose control over our laws. That was one


of the key positions that were set out in the referendum and people


were extremely concerned about that. That has to be negotiated. If we


could negotiate membership of the single market while dealing with the


other issues, that would be great. I think that would be unlikely. We


have to look at a more flexible approach while not being a member.


Is Labour in favour of remaining a member of the customs union? Again,


the position is similar. We want to retain the benefits we have in the


customs union. We want to have our cake and eat it, as do most parties


in Westminster. So you and Boris Johnson or on the same wavelength?


We need to be flexible, not cut our nose off despite our face. I am


asking for your position. Would you be clear to be prepared to sacrifice


not being able to do free trade deals, as the price for remaining in


the customs union? We have to be extremely flexible. We should be


able to carry out and negotiate our free trade deals. You cannot do that


in the customs union? So are you in or out? That is why it is a point


for negotiation, Andrew. We want to retain the benefits of the customs


union will negotiating trade deals as we see fit. That will form part


of the negotiations themselves. We cannot cut our nose despite our face


without coming out of the customs union without any transitional


arrangements whatsoever and send businesses over the cliff. Since you


do want to keep your cake and eat it. You want to stay in the single


market but not have the obligations that go with it, stay the single


union but not do -- stay in the single market but do your own trade


deals. The opposition is untenable. That is the point of the


negotiations... To be untenable? Not to be untenable. We have


negotiations. The machinery we have whether it is through outside


agreements or whether it is about a negotiated form of an amended


settlement, that is a moot point frankly. We need to make sure we


have the same benefits. John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor,


says people would interpret remaining in the single market is


not respecting the referendum but you say it is an option to keep


open, who is right? I think he is right in what he said. It is


automatically assumed that once you leave the EU you leave the single


market and that is generally the case. I would be surprised that we


would be able to negotiate any of the concessions that we want to make


as remaining part of the single market as a member. I am not saying


it is completely off the table because stranger things have


happened, but what we need to focus on is less on the machinery and more


on the outcome. We need to make sure we retain the benefits and we


negotiate some form of agreement to deal with that.


But why would you keep an option open that would not respect the


result of the referendum? People assume that once you leave the EU


you leave the single market. That could be negotiated, but it's


extremely unlikely. I wouldn't rule anything out at this stage because


stranger things have happened and this process so far has been


extremely chaotic. But you would have to decide your negotiating


position. Saying we don't rule anything out is not a negotiating


position. We are clear on our negotiating position, we want to


retain the benefits we currently have as part of the customs union


and the single market, whether that is inside or outside is a moot


point. Rex it means Brexit, we are clear on that. -- Brexit means


Brexit. How can it, if you want to stay inside the single market and


Customs union, and you said access would entail accepting some element


of free movement. That's what you said but your manifesto was


categorical - free movement would end after Brexit, which is currently


Labour policy? The manifesto was clear free movement would end. The


point I was making at the time is there are some areas which are


extremely complex, for example the free movement of scientists. There


is an extreme state of concern regarding that, so the Government


has to look at things like that. There might have to be concession is


made in certain areas like that in order to get an associative


membership for example but the clear position overall is that free


movement would end and we are in favour of reasonable and managed


migration. We are also not in favour of the current undercutting of wages


for example through the Swedish denigration and we want to see that


end immediately because we don't think it is right company cancels


labour overseas and undercut British employees. Let me finish on another


topic. John McDonnell again, the Shadow Chancellor, said this morning


the victims of Grenfell Tower were victims of social murder. What is


social murder? I haven't spoken to John about that but what happened in


Grenfell was absolutely horrific. But were they victims of social


murder? I haven't spoken to John to understand the term but in my


constituency we have a large number of tower blocks that have the same


cladding on and people are living in fear. Following the Lakanal House


fire, the coroner made recommendations the Government


should be installing sprinklers in all housing over 30 metres high and


they haven't done that. I call on than to do that immediately whilst


also making sure the funding is available to carry out necessary


remedial works. One other issue has come light... My question is


important... When John McDonnell says that the people in Grenfell


Tower were murdered, murdered by political decisions, is he right? I


go back to the point I made earlier. I haven't discussed it with John...


Two weeks ago. The Government should have acted on recommendations. Were


they murdered? They should have acted on recommendations to retrofit


sprinklers and they didn't. There was incompetence is no question,


dereliction of duty, some terrible decisions made that resulted in that


appalling event that we saw but does that amount to murder? It is a


simple question. You could look at it case of manslaughter but the fact


is people lost their lives through a failure to conduct adequately a duty


of care. People would assume that is murder if you like, if it was taken


through the courts, and could be classified as corporate


manslaughter. It's not murder? We are going round in circles here. The


point is the Government should have acted on recommendations to retrofit


sprinklers years ago and should have looked at amending building


regulations instead of kicking the issue into the long grass time and


time again. People where I live are living in extreme fear, and we want


the Government to take action immediately. Rebecca Long-Bailey


from Salford, thank you for joining us.


You may not have noticed but Ukip - the party that once promised


and arguably delivered a political earthquake - is having


The last leader, Paul Nuttall, stood down after the party saw its vote


is one anti-Islam candidate threatening to split what's


Forget the warm prosecco, if there is any plotting going on in Ukip


about who should be in charge, it would be going on over a pint. And


there is plotting. understands Ukip's ruling body could


ban one of the candidates from standing, and that is not going to


go down terribly well. Anne Marie Waters, a former Labour activist,


wants to be the next leader. She believes Ukip needs to talk more


about Islam, a religion she has called evil. She says there is


growing support for her views including among the hundreds of new


members who have joined Ukip in recent weeks. Are you anti-Islam? I


don't like the religion, no, and a lot of people get confused on Islam


and all Muslims. The religion, the Scriptures and how it is practised


in most of the world I find quite frankly abhorrent. There are


millions of people in this country who think as I do. They don't


want... And the real extreme right could rise if people are not allowed


to talk about this. Nigel Farage has already said he doesn't want to be


the leader again, but he still has a clear view of what Ukip 's macro


future should and should not hold. Ukip goes down the route of being a


party that is anti the religion of Islam, frankly it's finished. I


don't think there is any public appetite for that but it is timing


and the party would be finished. If there are some within Ukip who say


the party had already moved to the right at the last election with its


integration agenda. Banning


the burka and physically checking children for female


genital mutilation. If we don't really do something


about FGM now, we never will. Anne Marie Waters wants to go


further but also suspects The party chairman says


there will be due process according to Ukip's constitution,


including the screening But like the old boss,


he doesn't think Ukip should become What we're going through now


is a process where people can I'm talking about the process


we have, which I think is robust enough to protect the party,


its history, and protect its future. We have always been


about being for something, we are not against something,


and hopefully that will come through in this leadership election


so I'm excited about it. I'm not focusing on one


particular candidate. But it has got senior


party figures worried. Several MEPs have told me


the majority of their colleagues in Brussels would walk away


if Anne Marie Waters Another Ukip senior source


said there would be mass The deadline for leadership


nominations is the 28th of July. So far, around seven people have


said they intend to stand. Of course the bigger the field,


the fewer the votes required to win. One senior MEP told me it would be


the most rancorous contest the party had ever had,


amongst the least stellar cast. The man who led Ukip at its most


successful says direction is one thing but the party must also become


more professional on their current


trajectory, then they will on their current


trajectory, then they will And as I say, if Ukip withers


and Brexit is not delivered, something else will replace it


so I'm saying to what is still my party, unless you change radically,


get your act together, Whatever the direction


the new leader takes Ukip, there are already plenty who think


the party is over. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland who leave us now Good morning and welcome


to Sunday Politics Scotland. A power grab or a


bonanza for Scotland? Holyrood and Westminster


clash over Brexit. I'll be asking senior figures


from both Governments whether there's any


room for compromise. And as MSPS set off for a little


summer rest and relaxation, we'll be looking ahead to some


of the challenges for the SNP To Nicola Sturgeon it's "a naked


power grab," while David Mundell says it'll turn out to be "a power


bonanza" for Scotland. It'll be interesting to see over


the next few weeks and months whether the Great Repeal Bill


will continue to polarise views. Currently the First Minister,


who took the unusual step of issuing a joint statement of condemnation


with the Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones,


says she couldn't recommend the Bill so setting up a potentially


explosive clash between the UK Well, joining me now is


the Scottish Government's Minister for Brexit Negotiations,


Mike Russell. First of all, you have written to


MSPs asking for their support for the Scottish Government to be, I


quote, at the table in the UK's Brexit negotiating strategy. What


does that mean? It means taking part in the discussions that are ongoing


month by month with the EU when matters of devolved confidence are


being considered and matters that would affect Scotland. Such as


freedom of movement. You are asking for a seat at the table in Brussels?


The formulation that we and the Welsh have used is exactly the same,


the seat at the table when devolved matters are being discussed and in


the room when wider issues are being discussed. It's important that


happens, because it is not happening and we are going into again and


again substantial difficulties because the UK Government don't


understand much of regulation or the devolved administrations. A lot of


MSPs might say that the kind of agree with you that we need to know


what is going to be devolved and what isn't, but we don't agree that


the Scottish Government should be in the actual Brexit negotiations.


Think there has been a majority in Parliament for that consistency. But


you want everyone. That is the $64,000 question. Either


Conservatives in Scotland going to stand up for Scotland? Milk like the


Conservatives could see perfectly reasonably we could see the argument


why the devolution of powers from Europe needs to be discussed and


sorted out, but sorry, we're not going to let the Scottish Government


PND Brexit negotiations. You already have to be a Scottish National at


before you would think that. The Welsh are at Labour and they believe


they should be part of it. Much academic opinion believes that there


has to be in due process the involvement of devolved


administrations. We cannot sit on the sidelines. The joint ministerial


committee says that it should have oversight of these negotiations. In


actual fact, it hasn't met since their breed. There have been reports


that there are bilateral discussions going on between yourself and the


Government in London. Is that true? DS, I've spoken to David Davis twice


and met with him. Of course we are trying to have discussions. It is


very hard to do when things like the Great Repeal Bill appear without any


consultation and which are not only the wrong things, but also things


that are not workable. Just to get the facts clear on this? Where you


consulted before the European withdrawal Bill was discussed.


Recites two weeks ago. It has been in existence since debris. The


normal thing for a Bill of this nature would be that officials would


work together over a long period of time to get it right, because it


affects Scotland so much. We size century the final draft and


virtually nothing changed between that and the publication. Although


we asked them to take out clause 11, which is the clause that will cause


the most difficulty and the Welsh asked them that too. They refused to


change it. There has also been talk that there may be bilateral


discussions between Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon. The door is always


open for discussion. I'm asking you what the British have and have said


the about what they want to do. There has been no indication that


the Prime Minister 's will Tok. The Welsh administration asked for talks


between the Prime Minister and the Welsh primary. That has not been


arranged. The suggestion was that the British Government wanted to


have bilateral negotiations between Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon


because the problems in Northern Ireland were making it impossible.


That is not true. This is an excuse. It's quite possible for the GMC to


meet the diverse and Scottish governments. To make this point


firmly, you cannot abolish the GMC unilaterally which is what the UK


Government wants to do. There has to be a discussion between the parties


if it's to be changed in any way. We have formally asked for a meeting


with the GMC and the European Committee and is not been provided.


Theorising that they will have these bilateral negotiations. The always


welcome, but they are not a substitute for a formal negotiation.


Have been formally approach to? -- have a formally approached you. No,


it would have to be a meeting of the GMC to see we are going to move


forward. Nicola Sturgeon said that as matters stand with this Bill, the


Scottish Parliament, she would not recommend that the past a


legislative consent motion. What would have to and freed to say you


would do that. Would have to be recognition that in all areas of


devolved competence, the powers that presently exist in Europe will come


back to the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern


Ireland. Then there can be a discussion about frameworks moving


forward. Without that, not only is it unacceptable and goes against


evolution, it is unworkable. You're going to enter into a complete mess


were up until now, this isn't an arcane point, up until now there is


a list of things that were devolved and reserved. The reserved ones are


listed, now there will be areas which are neither are bold and


decisions will be made by UK ministers without consulting the


Scottish Parliament and Government on matters which are devolved. That


is unacceptable and would lead to chaos. Using you would not support


the legislative consent motion unless there is a deal done on this?


Or are using that you want perhaps even on the face of the Bill a


statement that this will be done? There has to be recognition that we


are the people to whom these powers are devolved. The Welsh Government.


Then we can discuss what common framework could take place. This is


crucially important. Let me give you a specific example in agriculture.


If we have a UK framework decided on by the Government without any


opportunity for us to make decisions within there, then we'll have a


framework that doesn't work for us. That's the whole purpose of


devolution. That's why return to get this right. It is generally thought


that even if you don't pass a legislative consent motion on the


withdrawal Bill, it doesn't have much effect on the Supreme Court


decision in the Jena Miller case in force that. Other than shedding a


lot, is anything you can do about this? I think we are in a


constitutional crisis and that becomes worse of this takes place.


It's a very interesting piece in the Sunday papers by a political


academic about this comparing it to previous constitutional crisis is.


This would be a constitutional crisis, because the Scottish


moment... What does that mean? We have a situation where Scotland has


said and Scotland has said one thing and the UK Parliament has overruled


it. Becoming that leads to good and effective governance and it doesn't


lead to the type of relationship... There is nothing much you can do


about it apart from complaint. Think that you want to avoid that in every


possible way. You cannot wander into this crisis. It is the wrong thing


to do. There will be outcomes that will be very serious. There will be


areas that are inoperable. There are areas in Scottish civil law that if


they perceive this, will be inoperable. In civil law, it is


entirely devolved. The decisions are made in Scotland. There are areas


within that were decisions will be made in England about things which


they have no knowledge or information of. They had not been


responsible for it for the last 20 years. We will have circumstances in


which decisions are being made without any knowledge of the


circumstances or without even consulting the appropriate Scottish


love. Are you saying that decisions about England will be applicable...


No, there is an administration of civil law which is undertaken with


others. Decisions on aspects of serving papers for example


internationally could be made and the Bill allows them to be made by


UK ministers without consulting anybody in Scotland at all.


David say, we are just trying to get something through which means we can


bring something in European law into UK law. This is the wrong way to


handle it. Both ourselves and the Welsh and part of the previous


Northern Irish government have said so from the beginning. You have


devolution, that is what happened during the referendum, bring the


power is back. Then you say, how can we make this work? We have said, we


will sit down and help you make this work. But we cannot do it this way.


The bill is badly drafted. We have told them this. We have told them


this repeatedly over a long period of time and unfortunately the


negotiating style, this is the problem I think, very evident with


27, there are negotiating style is not to listen, but to keep putting


stuff out that will not work. Do you take it in good faith that they will


negotiate more powers to Scotland or are you concerned they will use some


of these Henry VIII powers to decide themselves? I cannot take it in good


faith. I cannot take the promises being made by David Mundell and


others because they have been made since January. We have not had an


example of these additional powers we will get. We have not had a


single example of we the will not be involved in these issues. There is


nothing in this bill, not a word in the smell, that justifies the


arguments of UK ministers. It does the opposite. Are you concerned that


they can use these Henry VIII powers to decide what is devolved and what


isn't? Yes, and that is what the intent to do. Thank you very much


indeed. I'm joined now by the Undersecretary


of State for Scotland, and Wales, the MEP,


and soon to be Lord, Dr Ian Duncan - one


man with many jobs. Ian Duncan, can we clarify what your


current Kim -- position is. Are you still an MVP? No. You are now a


minister. You are not in the House of Lords? I have not been introduced


in the House of Lords yet, but I am a member of the House of Lords. Now


we have got that cleared up, you heard Mike Russell there, they are


saying they cannot possibly pass the legislative consent motion approving


the so-called European withdrawal bill because nothing has been laid


out about which mirrors will go to Scotland and which powers will be


retained by London. He has got a point? No, what we have to do on D1


is make sure we can function as a country. We have to make sure that


all the rules and regulations are able to enter into UK law. UK,


Scottish, English and Welsh law. Thereafter we will determine how we


will make sure they will work within each of the devolved nations. What


the Scottish Government and Welsh government are saying there is no


reason you could not have sat down with them and discussed which powers


would be, even if you were to do this momentarily if you like because


of the reasons you have explained, you should have sat down and


discussed with them which wires would go to Scotland and Wales and


that nothing has been done. -- which powers. The key thing to remember


here is we need to establish what is going to be a common framework. When


the devolved administrations were set up, across a whole range of


areas, agriculture and fisheries, there was a common framework. We


need to establish what the common framework will look like when the


eggs at the EU. There have been problems with this joint ministerial


committee because of the situation in Northern Ireland. There have been


these reports which we were talking about with Mike Russell, the British


government was bilateral talks with the Scottish Government, perhaps


talks between Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon, is that true? There were


troubles with the joint ministerial committees, that is going back


nearly ten years. There will be meetings of this formulation, we


need both. Including between Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon? We are


looking at a functional level. I do not think there will be talks


between the devolved nations and the Prime Minister. But to make things


work, we need to build a different approach. There will have to be


bilateral. There will be talks particular to Wales, Scotland and


Northern Ireland. And there will have to be other talks were weak


discussed common issues. Are you surprised about the way the Scottish


Government am approaching this patchwork no, I am not surprised. I


spent years working in fisheries. When we leave the EU, we need to


find a common framework. If we were to take powers to the Scottish


Government, with its approach to fisheries, we would create an


unlevel playing field for Scottish fishermen. We need to find a common


approach that works with a common framework. When you talk about those


bilateral discussions, as a about which powers should be devolved to


Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland patchwork the Scottish


Government's document which suggested either that the UK stay in


the single market where there should be some special deal whereby


Scotland can stay in the single market, that is being ruled out,


has? When I was an MEP, I sat down with a secretariat who said it is


not working and it is not possible. To spend energy on that


impossibility would be a futile gesture. We need to find a man and


means -- manner and means which is going to work for all the devolved


governments. The clock is ticking. What Nicola Sturgeon are saying, she


will not recommend that the Scottish parliament recommend or pass a


legislative consent motion. You heard Mike Russell say that that


would cause a constitutional crisis. With that much work it would cause


fear and concern of every aspect of the industrial sector, farmers,


fishermen, producers of energy. That is where the real concern will like.


She will have to explain what she will do instead of that. It is not


good enough to bolster. You need to be to say to people who will be


affected after the date of breadth that that there is certainty, we


will move forward and how we will do that. -- day of Brexit. Do you


reject the idea there would be a constitutional crisis? The term is


overused. But right now we would have significant difficulties in the


Bali -- body politic in Scotland if there was no certainty of what laws


would apply to Scotland after a particular Brexit foot. I think that


would be bad. I think at that point there would be a series of


negotiations. What does that mean? If you are saying, unless a


legislative consent motion is passed, the laws that are currently


part of European law and which will be passed on to the UK, with their


not be more in Scotland? The lawyers north and south of the border have


agreed that we need a legislative consent motion. They are putting in


jeopardy all the people who depend upon... I ask you again the question


I asked you a moment ago, what does this mean? This gets technical and


people are having difficulty in understanding precisely what this


means. If there is no legislative consent motion and if at the time of


Brexit water at the, why do you say there will be great uncertainty,


what precisely will happen? Some rules were right now are dependent


upon the European Union. Many of those have implications whether they


be across farming and fishing or small businesses. If those rules


themselves are not enshrined into British law, then the framework for


those to move forward lost. We need to have a legal framework that


allows transactions to continue. Do you think there will be problems for


Scottish businesses to do contracts in a way that would not apply in


England because Westminster would have adopted this? They would be


problems because these would need to be done in a common base. At that


point the implication from Scotland is there. My concern is that while


we enter into... The dialogue needs to be had. We need to be discussing


to get the salt and find a way through. On day one we need to make


sure that there is certain to across Scotland. You have heard Mike


Russell say that he is concerned, in fact he believes that the British


government will use these Henry VIII powers to determine what is devolved


and what is not. Is that the case? No. Why not? Where there are any


elements that are within a common framework they will need to have


primary legislation is. They will have to go through Parliament. We


are talking about a transition period in which we determined at


that point how we will collectively want to ensure a common framework.


Let's end on this. You are guaranteeing to make Russell that


his worries are unfounded and there is no way that the special measures,


these Henry VIII powers will be used to determine what is and what is not


within their powers of the Scottish Government? These powers will be


determined to find out what will be part of the common framework of the


EU, that will be done with an agreement with all the elements.


They will be parts that will go back into Scotland, England and Wales


because they do not form part of a component of a common framework.


Thank you very much indeed. Last week in a report on the Corbyn


factor in Scotland, we said that the MSP and Campaign


for Socialism Convenor, Neil Finlay, had stood against Kezia Dugdale


for the Scottish Labour leadership. Mr Finlay had in fact stood


during the 2014 leadership campaign Now, it's the last Sunday Politics


before our summer break. And for the politicians,


the holidays aren't just a respite from being interviewed by the likes


of me, they also allow ample time not least the fallout


from the general election. For the SNP, which lost 21


seats at Westminster, there's much debate about how to win


back support and what it In a moment, I'll be asking


Alex Salmond's former Chief But first, Graham Stewart's been


measuring the political temperature. So the holidays and upon as giving


politicians plenty of time to reflect on the election and ponder


the next moves. In the midst of your wave, you have not seen the last of


my bonnet signed me. Alex Almond will host is on show at the


Edinburgh Festival fringe. -- Alex Almond. Devastated enough to shed a


tear? Yes, a little tear. At that moment? At that moment, yeah. Here


years, Jeremy Corbyn! You have brought the spirit of music, you


have brought the spirit of love, you have brought the spirit of ideas and


you have brought the spirit of a great messages. So to politicians


who might have a future career on the stage and one who might well be


exiting the stage before long. But the SNP, the summer will be spent on


reflecting how they managed to lose 21 seats in the general election.


The party may look back for some inspiration in 2005 when they went


from being the second biggest Scottish party to third behind the


Lib Dems. In a plush hotel on the banks of the spray, that summer, a


new strategy was hatched. Involving a creed -- clear message and a


desire to win. And according to one who was there, it was a winning


strategy. Back in 2005, the SNP were anti-everything and for nothing.


Look back on it and I wince as some of the things that we said and be


voted at that point. But right now we have a real positive vote to go


on. They have been defensive on the record. They should be singing on


the rooftops of what we are doing and where we want to go. You're not


voting for the status quo, you're voting for a progression. I think


that is what Jeremy Corbyn was all about. For one figure on the left of


the independence movement, a bit of jazz is stale passion from the SNP


would be welcome. I am proud to say I voted for Jeremy Corbyn. I voted


for him and his manifesto because it was a UK election for the UK


Government. But for voting for a Jeremy Corbyn, I not undermining the


independence cause? Absolutely not. There is a clear constitutional


crisis in the UK that carbon does not have the answers to. I would


like the SNP to be more radical. I would also like to see a plurality


for independence where the SNP are not the sole voice for independence.


But will shift to the left make it more difficult to win back voters


from the Tories who claim some major scalps in the SNP's former


heartlands. The deputy leader reckons the north-east voters a lost


cause. If we are going to hold the majority of votes in Westminster and


the majority of seats Holyrood, then we better have a much more radical


policy than we have at the present time. A leading pollster urges


caution though but urges a party not to be spooked by the much vaunted


leader bouts. Scottish Labour put on about 1.5 points between the two


elections. I do not think that means that the SNP should be moving to the


left. What they need to be doing and need to understand is why the


majority of its last fought actually stayed at home this time rather than


voted for one of the two other parties. So that 70% of the lost SNP


voters, the people who voted for the SNP in 2015 who did not vote for


them in 2017, about 70% of that fought actually stayed at home. The


focus now is on getting the best Brexit deal for Scotland. But as the


party rethinks its strategy, the hopes and aspirations of


independence supporters hang in the balance. I will now take the steps


necessary to make sure that Scotland will have a choice. We will not seek


to introduce the legislation for an independence referendum immediately.


I said that I'm going to reflect carefully on the result and I'm


going to take time to do that. Well, to discuss Graham's film


and other matters I'm joined now by political commentator


and formerly Alex Salmond's chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein


and the political consultant and former Labour MP for


West Dumbartonshire, Gemma Doyle. Reboot SNP, what would you do about


the independence referendum? It seems to have been kicked into the


long grass, but the critics would say they haven't formally cancelled


the idea. We have to be more positive about their own record. The


difficulty we saw in the general election with the Labour and the


Conservatives have had some traction since then, they have had successful


results, the need to be more positive, be bolder and on the front


foot. They need to read events rather than react to them. That will


be what we see from Nicola Sturgeon to wear the end of the summer. In


terms of independence, that is intrinsically linked to Brexit. It


is hard Brexit, Nicola Sturgeon can return to the electorate and...


Using she should keep options open? Water back from my perspective, the


SNP exists to achieve independence. I don't mean independence, I mean


the second one, there was a perception that that lost them both


in the general election and of course the Conservatives will keep


banging on about this. They will keep saying, you have not taken it


off the table. One option would be to say realistically this isn't


going to happen before the next Scottish election, so let's shelve


it and talk about it then. I think the way the body has began to


describe it as an insurance policy is quite right and they should keep


their induced Brexit goes in the wrong direction and it is a hard


Brexit. Having that option to save their is a life jacket. Before that,


what is most important for the party is that they promote and defend


their record. That has been lacking for some months now. Despite


interesting that Kat Boyd said in actual machine voted for Jeremy


Corbyn. There is a perception that a lot of young people, a lot of people


who might be considered on the left politics voted even if they


supported independence actually ended up boarding for Jeremy Corbyn


and there is the way in for Labour there, but it didn't have very much


to do with Scottish Labour leadership. Idling the way back for


Labour is anything to do with independence. At the Labour Party


were successful this year because they did a very clear line on


independence and against any... That's not what I'm suggesting. What


I'm suggesting is that a lot of people who might have voted for


independence were attracted by Jeremy Corbyn baulk version of


Labour politics not Kezia Dugdale. Idling that is right. I think the


vote at the election this year was no much about her being very clear


about what the Scottish Labour Party were standing for. Kat Boyd is in a


different party from one weeks to do next. She is not the best of


political... But what she is saying... There is a perception that


a lot of young people in Scotland did vote free Jeremy Corbyn and a


lot of young people might have voted yes in the independence referendum.


That is an issue for the SNP, because the danger is that it is


kind of two years ago was news. Independence is from 2014, forget


about that, there is something much more exciting. If the election had


been even a week later... I think the young aspirational vote might


move to the Labour Party. I think that's absolutely right. For the


Labour Party, what interesting is that the relationship between UK


Labour and Scottish Labour. Jeremy Corbyn was deemed as a liability


going into the election and then was deemed as an asset towards the end


of the election. They have a decision to make about whether or


not the tap into that aspirational vote and wholeheartedly back him.


The Labour Party don't have a coherent position quite yet on


Brexit. We need to see where they are on that before they adopt the


approach of Jeremy Corbyn. Lisa Mike Russell and Ian Duncan on opposite


sides. -- we start. Mike Russell is worried that what is devolved will


be accepted unilaterally by the UK Government. Ian Duncan says that


will not happen. I did Scottish Government grandstanding in the view


of this? Or I'd be making a perfectly reasonable point? Think


they are right to say that they want to be more involved in the


negotiations. But at the table in Brussels? Or just at the


negotiations? I think there are ways of doing that, bringing in civil


servants from the juries administrations in the UK. Dumbing


that's impossible. I think it would be sensible. The UK Government to


need as much support across the parties on this and if they do


involve more parties and the Scottish rent and the Welsh


tournament, there is more chance of it being a success. Should the SMB


blade this typically? Rather than immediately saying they wouldn't


pass the consent motion? -- shoot at the SMP have played this


differently. If they had been more cautious and said this is what we


want, we are not getting it would call for immediate meetings and


negotiations. Would people have said that as more reasonable? Going by


the side of this process, this wasn't perhaps more obvious.


Normally summer is a quiet time for politics, but it will not be this


year. Let's see how the SNP do with this. They might be able to get


positive results in terms of people's reactions to their


proposals when and if, we will wait and see, the Conservative Government


say they will not be the sparrows. That is a big F. -- powers. By the


British into finger trying to do to get Brexit to work? Simek pedalled


think they have been deliberately excluded, I think the UK Government


just have to get this right. We have to leave this here. This week, we


are off for the summer. We'll be back in September.


Until then, goodbye. Yeah. And it wasn't,


it was done by hand


Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer are joined by international trade secretary Liam Fox and shadow business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey for a look at Ukip's future direction. Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards are on the political panel.

Download Subtitles