16/07/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

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