26/11/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning everyone and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is your essential briefing

on everything that's

happening this Sunday morning

in the world of politics.

Ireland says it will "continue

to play tough until the end"

over the Irish border.

As Dublin threatens

to derail Brexit trade

talks, vice-president

of the European Parliament Mairead

McGuiness tells us why she thinks

a hard border would cause havoc.

Leading Brexiteer and former

Northern Ireland Secretary Owen

Paterson will debate with her live.

It was billed as a make or break

moment for the Chancellor -

Phillip Hammond appears to have

avoided an omni or even

a mini-shambles.

We'll get Budget reaction

from the man who last month tried

to topple Theresa May -

former Tory Chairman, Grant Shapps.

And what did the Chancellor

do for the North?

How affects it was Labour's

response?

And on Sunday Politics Scotland -

resignation,

special leave and senior officers

being being investigated

for crime and misconduct I'll ask

For more information at 1135.

So, no omni-shambles Budget.

But don't worry, if you're a fan

of the shambolic you'll

love our political panel,

Sam Coates, Zoe Williams

and Iain Martin.

Welcome to the programme.

It has been the Budget that's

dominated the political week.

There was no pasty tax

or national insurance U-turn -

but there were sharp downgrades

for growth and productivity,

offset by enough optimism

to cheer the Tory benches.

This week's Budget was billed as

a make or break for Philip Hammond.

His last effort in March contained

a manifesto-mangling national

insurance rise which lasted

barely a week.

Humiliated today, Chancellor?

Will you resign?

This time, his cheery demeanour

was perhaps designed

to confound his critics

who think his outlook on Brexit

is, well, miserable.

What he's doing is very

close to sabotage.

Regrettably, our productivity

performance continues to disappoint.

But the downbeat tone

wasn't down to Hammond,

it was the independent Office

for Budget Responsibility,

the lower productivity projections

lead to growth forecasts

of less than 2%.

Here's the new realistic forecast,

average growth of just 1.4% a year.

A slowdown that won't go away.

The Chancellor may not have

been able to drive up

productivity and growth,

but he has a cunning plan to remove

the need to drive at all.

David Cameron's old mate

Jeremy Clarkson is reported to be

less than impressed.

Jeremy Clarkson doesn't like them.

But there are many other good

reasons to pursue this technology.

So today we step up

our support for it.

Sorry, Jeremy, but definitely not

the first time you've been

snubbed by Hammond and May.

More money for the English health

service, a Brexit fund

and abolishing stamp duty

for first-time buyers

lifted the mood.

I commend this

statement to the house.

But senior figures in the NHS said

the new money was not enough

and less, in this Budget at least,

than the amount pledged for Brexit,

giving some Remainers

plenty of fun on Twitter.

It turned out the stamp duty

changes would mainly help

people selling a house,

not buying them.

Tweaks to the Universal Credit

system soothed Tory concerns,

but they didn't calm

the Labour leader.

Uncaring!

The uncaring, uncooth attitude

of certain members opposite!

Order!

Order!

And his Shadow Chancellor had

some number trouble.

How much do we now spend on paying

the interest of our national debt.

A lot.

How much?

Well, I'll give you the figure.

I'll send you a note on the figure.

You don't know?

I know the figure...

How much?

I'll send it.

Well, you tell me now.

The forecast may be sticky,

but at least the Daily Mail

had a positive outlook.

Phil was no longer

a miserable donkey.

And by the end of the week,

the Chancellor could still smile.

He might even stay in Number 11

long enough to deliver

next year's Budget.

We're joined now by the former

Conservative Party

Chairman, Grant Shapps.

Thank you very much for coming in.

No banana skin in the Budget for

Philip Hammond, but really dismal

growth prospects. What is the

government back to doing wrong?

Well, first of all, he cheered up

the backbenches by giving quite an

upbeat assessment. The economy is

still growing, the jobs factory of

Europe. Not words we are used to

hearing from Philip Hammond.

But

overall, growth prospects are really

bad, they have been significantly

downgraded.

Of course, the really

big story is the Office for Budget

Responsibility say we are going to

grow at 1.5%, not 2%. That is a real

problem. I thought Philip's

presentation of the issue was

interesting. He said this is of the

outside of our control, it is the

office of Budget response ability.

It is to do with productivity, who

knows what that is made up of? That

sort of excuses get mug from having

to do anything. There are things we

can do to attract business to this

country. You have the tax base, the

attitude towards business. We spent

quite a while looking like we were

not interested in business, business

being thought of as bad. I am

pleased to see that is changing.

You

think the few has a pro-business

attitude that wasn't there a year

ago?

We have them locked out of

Downing Street for a while, sector

leaders could not express their

concerns. Some conference speeches

that business as the bad guys rather

than job creators. That seems to

have gone and I welcome it.

Why?

Because it is not realistic to

believe that business is evil and

bad. Business people that create the

jobs for this country, the well for

this country...

But why do you think

the government but robust change the

message on that?

It is hard to know

what created that. Since the

election we have a change in

emphasis. Business leaders are now

welcomed to come and talk to the

Prime Minister and the Chancellor

about what is going on. One thing we

could do now, we are leaving Europe,

we had all of those red tape

challenges in the Coalition

Government but we always got stuck

when it got to the EU. We had to

say, we can't do anything about that

red tape. We can now go back on

that. I would like the cupboard to

go further and not just accept

figures from the Office for Budget

Responsibility. I'm actually

doubtful about that and I think that

Philip Hammond is as well. Growth of

productivity is a difficult thing to

measure. This country trades more

online than any other country in the

world. We are top of that league

table. That has to be a more

efficient way to do business. Yet it

does not seem to be reflected in

productivity.

They are forecasts,

the productivity figures. But the

middle, things could be worse, the

OBR say. The... Seems to say these

are the projections, we hope it

isn't that. Is it the Buttler's job

to do something about productivity?

The government EU has a role to

play. I started a printing business

which still exists to this day.

Uncertainty over Brexit could lead a

business like that to delay

purchasing a new press. One that is

likely to be faster, less setup

time, print stuff faster.

Uncertainty in the economy slows

that down. Of course the Government

has a role. It cannot act the way it

treats taxation, investment, it can

encourage businesses. Actually, I

suspect what the Office for Budget

Responsibility has done is said, oh,

all of this uncertainty has lead to

slower productivity and therefore we

will continue projecting forward,

almost ad infinitum. The projections

went up five years. If we can get

the Brexit uncertainty out of the

way...

That is what I was about to

say. The great uncertainty is under

Brexit. We are not entering a period

where things will be more certain

people can confidently make

investment decisions, nobody knows

what the future trading relationship

will be.

I think Government can help

with that. If you have a Government

that, at its heart, fundamentally,

is singing from the same hymn sheet,

you saw Number 10 and Number 11,

finally, a bit of banter between the

two of them, the Chancellor and the

Prime Minister, they went out on

Thursday and did a visit together.

You have a Cabinet meeting reported

from Tuesday where they are agreeing

how to go forward collectively on

Europe. If you can have the central

government working in unison, it

gives business of evidence, it gives

the economy confidence that maybe

you can get to faster growth by

having better productivity and more

inward investment.

Six weeks ago you

were calling for the Prime Minister

to stand down. You were outed as

leading a coup against her. Have you

changed your mind?

I saw your

lead-in, calling colleagues that

want to go and speak to the Prime

Minister about a perfectly sensible

subject that she herself has asked

for colleagues' opinions on, how

long should I be in this role, to

call it a plot is tabloid. The

reality is, of course colleagues

should be able to have that

conversation. We do not live in

North Korea. We shouldn't be not

allowed to express views, nor do

they disappear if you don't express

them.

You said your colleagues have

buried their heads in the sand,

hoping things would get better. It

never got better for Gordon Brown or

John Major, it will not get that for

Theresa May. Have you changed your

mind

I think that colleagues should

be allowed to have views and express

them. My views have not changed.

However, I also accept the reality

of the situation, that we are in a

very sensitive period with Brexit

negotiations. Six weeks ago is six

weeks ago. Time moves on and Brexit

negotiations wait 101. What we have

to do have is a Government that is

capable of singing from the same

hymn sheet, going to Brussels. If

you have Number 10 and Number 11 at

each other's throats, when you have

people been briefed against the

centre, whips that are more

interested in... We have mutineers

on the front of the Telegraph, 50

people that wanted not to have the

date for Brexit in the bill. I don't

happen to agree with those people.

But to have colleagues accused of

being mutineers because they have a

slightly diverted the view is

ridiculous. -- diverted view. I am

pleased what we are seeing now is an

attitude from the centre saying

let's work together, let's not

briefed against others, let's get on

and stop the country from the even

bigger danger than Brexit, a Jeremy

Corbyn government.

Stay there for a

moment. I am going to bring in the

panel. You were listening to that

interview. A change in mood towards

the Prime Minister?

Haven't seems to

have cheered up a lot. He seemed to

me like a man giving his own leaving

speech. There was a devil may care

attitude aspect, not really backed

up by what you're saying. They

wanted always. There would be OBR

figures to be nothing to do with a

Government. Unfortunately they have

revised down, there is nothing we

can really do. At the same time,

they wanted to show Conservative

policies are capable of driving

growth. They want to say,

unfortunately it is not a generous

Budget because growth figures are

revised downwards, while at the same

time saying that the OBR is often

wrong, who knows if it will be

correct. I don't think you get any

clear analysis from this.

Cake and

eat it?

The significance is not

really economic, it is political. If

you go back a week, it seemed

possible, likely even, that the

Chancellor was going to be replaced

in a reshuffle expected between now

and Christmas. He has saved his job.

His critics in other parties will

say, well, his job should be about

more than his own personal survival.

But it alters the dynamics. It means

that the government but was not

quite Chancellor, it means a

reshuffle could be less substantial

than might have been the case. It

seems the Tories have had a shocking

run over the last few months. They

were rather buoyed up by it. Not

that it was a massive success as a

Budget, it was just OK. That counts

for quite a lot at the moment.

Listening to what Grant Shapps was

telling us, it sounds like Theresa

May's job is safe as well?

I would

if she is sitting in Downing Street

wearing a badge saying Philip

Hammond saved my job? The point is,

just to pull out the camera, the

fundamentals have not changed. The

Conservatives did not win an overall

majority at the election, they still

have to deliver Brexit in an

incredibly complicated process, that

looks intractable with negotiation

difficulties, particularly with

Ireland, but also bringing the

Cabinet together over some of these

incredibly thorny issues about where

Brexit is going to end up. Although

Grant is putting a positive gloss on

it now, the conference after which

he was adjusted people might

consider her going -- after which he

suggested people might consider her

going, things have not really

changed. He says his view has not

really changed, and I think that

many of the people that Grant talks

to, they have not changed their

fundamental view about the talents

and otherwise of Theresa May. I

wonder how many people think what

Grant thinks at the moment?

We will

come back to you and ask you that.

How many people agree with you? Do

you still have the same view about

the Prime Minister?

I have said

exactly what I think. You don't have

to second-guess what I think about

all of this. Nor do I think it is

worth day by day giving a running

commentary on that. I was heartened

to see Number 10 and number 11

working together. We can make some

progress. I think that is a very

good thing. The lesson to be

learned, just because people have

diverse views, it has not been there

should be vilified. I think we were

in danger of doing that through the

whips or Number 10, or what have

you. I'm pleased to see we have a

more mature attitude coming from

Downing Street.

You once said you thought you would

make a good Prime Minister yourself,

do you still think that?

The

question was do you have the

required ability to make these

decisions and the rest of it. To

answer that question would be as if

to say I don't think she should be

doing it but that's not what I think

at all. I think this country

requires leadership which unites

particularly those involved in the

Government and I'm pleased that's

what we are now starting to get.

Grant Shapps, thanks for coming to

talk to us today.

Now, the Northern Powerhouse

was a phrase coined

by Philip Hammond's predecessor,

George Osborne.

But Theresa May has insisted

that she wouldn't be

pulling the plug on it.

So how did it fare in

this month's Budget?

Joining us now from

Salford is the Mayor

of Greater Manchester,

Andy Burnham.

Thanks for coming in. I assume you

must be very pleased with the Budget

and the amount of money delivered

for the Northern Powerhouse?

When I

came into this job I was clear I

would never play politics for the

sake of it. There was good news in

this Budget for Manchester, money

which we need very much, money to

help us tackle rough sleeping.

Again, a big priority for me. But

overall I have to say it is pretty

thin pickings for the north of

England. The headline measure on

stamp duty massively benefits the

South over the north and people here

who are suffering every day on the

rail system, our clapped-out rail

system, they didn't get any good

news in terms of electrification or

improvement of services. All we got

was an -- promise of improvement of

mobile services.

The Government is

giving new £12 million to help cover

the cost relating to the Manchester

Arena attack. You must be welcoming

of that too.

This is difficult

because I'm conscious whenever this

issue comes up, I'm conscious of the

families. We put our bid in some

time ago. The cost we have incurred

so far is 17 million and we have a

further 11 million we will incur

through the inquest process. We have

been raising that privately and I

haven't gone public on this issue

until the Prime Minister said last

week we would have the answer, and

we got that on Friday. It falls some

way short. I cannot see why the

Government is not meeting our cost

in full. As I said at the beginning,

I would never make politics out of

this issue but when we got our

answer and it wasn't good enough I

had to make our position clear. I

will be replying to the Prime

Minister saying let's sort this out

properly. I just hope we can now get

a full agreement for all of our

costs from the Government.

You've

accused the Government before of

being London centric and ignoring

other parts of the UK. Given that

you have welcomed of the spending

measures, do you feel that problem

has been addressed?

Definitely not.

The country is London centric. The

way transport investment is assessed

by the Treasury favours the areas

where there is already greater

economic growth. The system is

biased against the north and that

needs to change. In the Budget we

got a half-hearted commitment to the

rail system of the future for the

north of England but Crossrail 2,

the project in London, got more of a

thumbs up. I'm speaking for people

here who feel this has been very

unfair over decades. We have a

transport system here that is

creaking now and it is completely

congested, it isn't working for

people. The Government needs to grip

that problem much more directly. The

problem I guess with this Budget was

there's an elephant in the room and

that is the Brexit Divorce Bill.

There was a feeling for me they were

not committing money our

infrastructure cause of this thing

looming behind. To have no mention

of social care, no mention of police

funding, these were two gaping holes

at the heart of this Budget.

Surely

you think they should be making a

generous offer for the Brexit

divorce settlement? You are not

advocating that we walk away without

paying our dues?

No, my point was a

different one. It looks like the

Government is holding back on the

investment the north of England

needs until they have settled this

question, but the challenges facing

our public services and the

productivity challenge facing the

north is urgent and it is critical

we get that investment so we can

rise to the challenge of exit. I saw

this as a Budget where the

Chancellor was holding back. This

year of all years, to have no

mention of police security

counterterrorism in the Budget

seemed a monumental mistake. The

police service here has not got much

left to give. It is down to the bare

minimum and we need to see the

Chancellor bringing forward new

funding for the police in the

December settlement that it's about

to get. To have no mention of it

just seemed to me to be a major

mistake.

What did you make of Jeremy

Corbyn's response to the Budget?

I

thought it was passionate. I don't

think they will deal with the issue

of Universal Credit.

It was

passionate but was it effective?

I

think so. People want to see people

speaking with that level of

commitment, genuine concern. The

dangers are still there with

Universal Credit. Tinkering with the

waiting times I don't think will

take away the problem that it could

put more people on our streets,

huddled in doorways. The Government

put more people on our streets,

needs to give a clear commitment

that we won't see people spiralling

into debt and then at the risk of

being homeless as a result of

Universal Credit roll out.

The day

after the Budget John McDonnell got

in a muddle over his figures on debt

repayment. He must -- you must have

been cringing as you watched some of

those interviews.

You always get

these interviews after the Budget. I

have sat in those positions and I

think it is partly what turns people

off politics. I'm not here

necessarily to speak for the front

bench, I thought they mounted a good

critique of the Budget. What I want

is a more wholehearted embrace of

devolution from both political

parties. The challenge the country

is facing right now is that we are

to London centric, Brexit is

looming, we need investment in the

regions and I don't think we can

bring this power back from Brussels

and then keep it all in Westminster.

We are already in overcentralised

country and its crucial the power is

passed down to places like Greater

Manchester and I want to see both

parties embracing that is part of

the response to the referendum.

I'm

not asking you to speak for the

Labour front bench, but how did it

look to you when they were

responding to it, you will know

Labour are trailing in the polls on

economic competence - did they do

enough this week to adjust people's

view as to whether or not Labour

should be put in charge of the

economy?

That is the challenge that

the Labour Party has to convince the

country it can run a stronger

economy. The Shadow Chancellor has

put investment in infrastructure

front and centre of what he's saying

and I think he's absolutely right to

do that. The country is crying out

for that transport system,

particularly here in the north that

will allow us to improve

productivity and they are not

getting that from the current

Chancellor. Looming questions about

the Divorce Bill, so therefore he

won't commit to the investment now.

What you got from the Shadow

Chancellor was a clearer analysis of

what the country needs, and I think

that's what people want to hear.

Andy Burnham, thank you for coming

in to talk to us.

Last week we had a film from Leave

campaigner Gisela Stuart on why

business will continue to prosper

across Europe after Brexit.

This week, London and Dublin have

clashed over what will

happen to the border

between Northern Ireland

and the Irish Republic -

something the EU says needs to be

resolved if Brexit negotiations

are to move onto trade next month.

So today, Irish MEP and vice

president of the European

Parliament, Mairead McGuiness,

takes us to the border to explain

why she thinks Brexit

could cause business -

and the people on the

island of Ireland -

considerable difficulties.

This is Dundalk in County Louth,

a town close to the border

with Northern Ireland,

and close to where I grew up myself.

Today, I represent the constituency

along that 310 mile border.

With the Brexit negotiations

ongoing, people along the border

are troubled by the uncertainty.

From Dundalk, you can take

a straight road to Northern Ireland

and there's no stopping.

At the last count, there are over

300 different road crossings

between the Republic of Ireland

and Northern Ireland.

The big question is,

what will change post-Brexit?

And what do we have to do to keep

the situation as it is today?

For me, there is only one way,

that the United Kingdom stays

in the customs union.

But I know the UK are

determined not to do that.

I think the negotiations

are struggling.

Not too far from the border

crossing, just south,

I caught up with beef farmer Jim

Murray.

That's the actual border

itself, just ahead.

The actual border is about

half a mile past that.

Today it is frictionless

and seamless, and invisible.

Totally.

Do think it's going to stay

that way after Brexit?

Well, I hope it will stay like that,

because were used to this.

Well, I hope it will stay like that,

because we're used to this.

I come from a time when I remember

that you couldn't actually go down

that road to access,

to do some business

in the north, because the road

was actually blocked.

Have you been reassured by any

of the political statements around

the border in particular,

basically saying that things

will stay as they are?

I haven't, really, because seamless

and frictionless borders, you know,

to me it is an oxymoron.

Because it's still a border.

I also visited George McArdle.

He's been running a haulage

company for the last 50

years with experience

of crossing the border.

What are you worried about?

We're worried about

customs and delays.

We'd be delayed a couple of hours.

Would there be costs

involved for you?

We'd be paying drivers,

the trucks lying idle.

People say that, while we have

peace, it is fragile.

It's very fragile.

Any little thing could upset

the whole thing again,

and we wouldn't like to see Brexit

be the cause of it.

We are moving from the Republic

of Ireland, just across the border,

and I'm now in Northern Ireland.

It was very smooth,

seamless and frictionless.

I suppose that's what we want to see

continue in a post-Brexit era.

Just across the border

into Northern Ireland, I caught

up with Des Fraser,

who gave me his view

about why the United Kingdom

decided to leave Europe.

First of all it was the cost.

I also felt, particularly the likes

of the slurry ban, for agriculture,

I don't think there should be

somebody in Brussels

telling us when we can

or can't spread our slurry.

What effect do you think Brexit

would have on the border?

Do you think we're going to be able

to avoid a hard border?

Getting a solution is

the difficulty, there's no doubt.

There's a harmonious

relationship, you know,

with Europe and Switzerland,

Europe and Norway, without a hard

border in existence.

It's very clear that people on both

sides of the border want the special

circumstances on the island

of Ireland to be taken into account

in the Brexit negotiations.

But can it be and will it be done

in time for the December council?

Will we resolve the conundrum

and square the circle

of an invisible border on the island

of Ireland post-Brexit?

And Mairead McGuiness

joins us now from Dublin.

The former Northern Ireland

Secretary and leading Brexiteer,

Owen Paterson, is in Shropshire.

Thank you both for joining us. Owen

Paterson, Mariad laid out her case,

does the Government have an answer

to this?

Yes, there's already an

existing border. I've been going

there since ten years ago. There's a

currency board, now a euro sterling

border, a VAT border, a corporation

tax border, and in all the time I've

been going to Northern Ireland and

the public, not a single person ever

said this presents a problem.

...

Physical border.

Through the

referendum campaign, we made it

clear there are electronic measures

and techniques, existing techniques

such as authorised economic

operators and this can all be made

to work if there is a will on the

border. It has a small amount of

trade. Northern Ireland has 80% of

its trade to the rest of the UK,

only 5% goes over the border. It

would be very easy to license

tankers that take milk over the

border as authorising economic

operators that go over every day,

they would be recognised on a

regular basis, all invoices done

electronically. It is a very small

problem if there is a will.

Let's

bring in Mairead McGuiness. Owen

Paterson sounds like he's saying

you're exaggerating the problem is

here.

I've listened to it several times

and not heard anything new. He is

right that where there is a will

there is a way. This is a serious

matter for my constituency, for the

island of Ireland and Europe. We

have not found the way. To bring up

separate currencies, OK, it is part

of the situation, but we don't have

a border in the visible sense. When

the United Kingdom remains

determined to leave the customs

union and single market, the milk

that he refers to produced in

Northern Ireland and processed in

the Republic of Ireland comes from a

country that is a third country, no

longer a member of the European

Union. There are many issues about

that. I know the fathers in Northern

Ireland are deeply concerned about

the consequences for them as daily

farmers. -- dairy farmers. They are

troubled by his insistence that he

wants to scrap many of the rules

around the food industry and

agriculture. He wants to scrap

support for agriculture. Even

farmers that voted Leave, they are

now quite perplexed about what they

are hearing from the UK side, not

just around the issue of the border,

but on the wider issues of trade.

That is where this problem really

lies, and where we will have great

difficulty. I am more troubled this

morning, because I read a quote from

Arlene Fox the trade Secretary,

saying that the border issue and the

Irish issue will not be solved until

the final stage, until we reach a

decision on trade. I hope the United

Kingdom is not holding the situation

to ransom in these negotiations. It

is far too serious and too critical.

Let's go to Owen Paterson.

May I

finish this point?

We now have a

situation on the island of Ireland

and Northern Ireland where we have

built piece and we are hoping to

maintain that. I believe that we

will and we can. Unfortunately,

there is no assembly, there are

divisions between the communities

but they are now becoming deeper. We

have to work really hard to avoid

that. Part of that is to make sure,

as Theresa May said on Friday, she

wants the situation to remain the

same as it is today, post-Brexit.

The only way to achieve that is to

stay in the customs union and single

market. That is the solution.

A lot

for you to pick up on. Let's start

with the idea that it might be

possible to come up with a final

solution to the Irish border

question after we have seen the

shape of a trade deal. EU made it

clear we cannot talk about trade

until the Irish border has been

settled?

Saw those comments were

completely ridiculous and they have

been repeated when we have done

interviews before. -- some of those

comments. The idea that Northern

Ireland will be taken out of the UK

is absurd. 78 million people voted

to leave the European Union, they

voted to leave the customs union and

the single market, and the

jurisdiction of the ECJ. The idea

that politicians in Dublin can

somehow start to force Northern

Ireland to stay, against the will of

a significant number of citizens,

within an arrangement that will not

serve the economic and you're

politically, it is really very

dangerous. Let's talk about the

peace process, I can't think of

anything more destabilising... This

is a really important point. I want

to make this point. It is really

very irresponsible politicians to

make a statement like that, saying

they are going to force and

blackmail the UK into getting a

special status for Northern Ireland

outside the rest of the UK. That is

a really dangerous thing to do and

they should stop doing it. There are

perfectly sensible, technical

solutions to the problem of the

border. We currently have complete

conformity of standards. Products

going over the border go on a very

regular basis. It is a tiny part of

trade between the Republic of

Ireland and the UK. It is a really

tiny part of trade between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

and it is solvable by modern

methods. The idea we will go back to

old customs, with customs officials

in

in bridges, sticking a ladle into a

couple trickle,

couple trickle, it is out of date.

Less than 2% of goods are

Less than 2% of goods are inspected

physically. This is completely out

of date.

tub of back-to-back.

tub of back-to-back.

I am disturbed

by some of those comments, to

describe that view as ridiculous is

not helpful. To suggest it is

blackmailing is appalling. The UK,

the Irish at the European Union know

we have had a difficult history. We

have worked

have worked hard politically and

financially to make sure we move

forward and we have.

forward and we have. If the United

Kingdom does trade agreements with

other partners and goods are flowing

into Northern Ireland, we have to

watch and know where they are coming

from. That will affect businesses in

Northern Ireland, as it will affect

businesses in the European Union. I

dislike this notion, and it is

happening and happened again in this

studio this morning, that the United

Kingdom and Owen Paterson would say

if borders go up, it is our fault.

Let's be frank, because we should

be, we are neighbours and good

friends.

friends. The European Union, 28

today, we respect the democratic

decision of the United Kingdom to

leave, but I would ask you to

reflect on the reality of Northern

Ireland, where people voted to stay

because they knew the consequences

for them. Regrettably, where the

referendum was taking place, there

was no talk about the consequences

for Northern Ireland or the island

of Ireland. We are left in a

situation where, retrospectively, we

are trying to find solutions. If it

upsets your guest at the studio, I

repeated anyway, we have to be frank

with one another. The way to stay

the same on the island of Ireland,

as it is today, post-Brexit, is for

at least the United Kingdom to take

the red off the table, to stay the

customs union and single market

gives us what we have today, and

gives us what we have today, and

invisible border, seamless trade,

and also building at helping to keep

those relationships.

those relationships. The good

relationship was helped in no small

part because Ireland, the United

Kingdom and 26 other countries can

sit around a table. They sit in the

European Parliament, in the council,

and we do business because we got to

know each other. We have formal and

informal talks and relationships. We

should really strive to continue

that. It is in the interests of the

people we spoke to on the border,

those that wanted the United Kingdom

to stay, and those that might have

had a different view.

Owen Paterson,

can you see that this can be

resolved before we know the

resolved before we know the shape of

a final trade deal? The idea that

the Irish question needs to be

settled before we move on to talking

about future trading or relations?

Is that possible?

As somebody who

spent time a shadow and Secretary of

State, going very regularly to

Dublin, getting the

Dublin, getting the main political

Dublin, getting the main political

parties in on that, I appreciate the

good level of relations between the

UK and the Republic of Ireland, the

enormous benefits to so many people.

Therefore, I am absolutely dismayed

at the talk this morning,

at the talk this morning, which is

completely unrealistic, expecting

Northern Ireland to be given a

separate status, outside,

effectively, the United Kingdom. 87%

of sales, purely on economics, are

within the UK. Henri

-- on economic grounds, it is crazy.

It is very dangerous. There was a

referendum at the time of the

Belfast agreement. There was

overwhelming support for it to stay

in the UK. All of the polls show

that Northern Ireland will stay very

firmly within the UK.

firmly within the UK.

Very quickly,

then, one last point?

then, one last point?

I hate to

then, one last point?

I hate to say,

but Owen may not be listening to

what I said. I said the United

Kingdom would stay in the customs

union and single market, I did not

say Northern Ireland should separate

and

and stay in, although that is a

potential solution, it is not the

one I said this morning. Please

respond to what I have said.

We

don't have time to respond to any of

that. It is an issue we will return

to. Thank you very much.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme, Ellie's

taken the Moodbox to Yorkshire

Good morning

and welcome to the programme.

Coming up, the Justice Secretary

confirms to this programme

that senior armed officers

in Police Scotland are under

investigation for alleged criminal

behaviour or gross misconduct.

As far as I am aware, there are two

of those that have been received

that are being investigated.

And "Bah, humbug!"

- we'll examine what's been

dubbed the worst budget

since the 19th century.

Good morning

and welcome to the programme.

In their 10 years in office

one of the most significant changes

implemented by the SNP Government

has been the creation

of a single national police force.

On April 1st 2013 - yes, really -

the existing eight

regional bodies merged in to one.

It was supposed to create a more

efficient organisation better able

to respond to the demands

of a modern country.

Yet from the outset,

Police Scotland has appeared

anything but modern.

The first chief comes to of police

Scotland was Sir Stephen house who

resigned after a catalogue of

controversies including the routine

arming of patrols, centralised call

centres and even breaching the rock

after police intercepted a private

communication with a journalist. His

successor Phil Gormley went on

special leave earlier this year

after multiple allegations of

misconduct. Now I third senior

officer, Bernard Higgins has been

suspended while criminal allegations

against him are investigated.

against him are investigated.

Meanwhile, the organisation charged

with overseeing police Scotland, the

Scottish police authority appears to

be equally shambolic. After serious

criticisms, Jon Flanagan retired and

John Foley retired early.

Today, there was yet more woe

for Police Scotland because

one paper is reporting that,

as well as Assistant Chief

Constable Bernard Higgins,

another two very senior officers

have been suspended.

Well, the man responsible

for Police Scotland

is Justice Secretary Michael

Matheson.

I spoke to him earlier.

First of all, developments over the

last few days. The Sunday mail

newspaper today names to very

serious police officers who have

been suspended along with Bernard

Williams. Is that correct?

I can't

die for journey details relating to

that because the matter has been

taken forward by the Scottish police

parity and is being

parity and is being investigated by

PERC directed by the Crown Office.

The two that I know have been

suggested are individuals who were

involved in an investigation.

The

two named by the Sunday Mail are

being investigated?

As far as I'm

aware they are two of those that are

being investigated by the PERC.

As I

understand it, they are people who

run what is effectively the firearms

unit.

They are related to those

involved in the firearms unit in

police Scotland and the training

facility.

What are these allegations

about?

I don't want to get drawn

into it too much because it is a

live investigation directed by the

Crown but as far as I'm aware, it

relates to gross misconduct and

misconduct, the precise details of

which are for the Crown to

investigate.

What sort of

misconduct?

It's a matter for the

Scottish police authority.

It's

clearly a matter of immense public

interest to know what several of the

most senior police officers in

Scotland are being accused of.

Like

any investigation, it could be

criminal in nature and it's

important to recognise due process

and for the individuals with

complaints lodged against them, we

allow that process to take its

course. There is a statutory

process. Scottish police have

considered the matter on the basis

of what has been decided to them by

Police Scotland. The Crown Office

are now directing this investigation

and it's important not to speculate

about the nature of the actual

complaint and the details of it

given that it is a matter that has

been directed by the Crown Office.

I

am not asking you to pre-empt any

due process but it is obviously a

matter of public interest to know in

general terms what the nature of

allegations against three of the top

police officers in this country.

They are to do with misconduct and

gross misconduct, that's why it's

being investigated at the moment.

That could be anything from theft of

a few pencils to anything more than

that.

The reason I can't give

details is because it is a matter

taken forward by the Scottish police

authority and it is investigated by

the Crown and the details provided

by the Crown and the PERC and the

Police authority have a level of

detail that Scottish ministers have

in these matters.

The trade union

for police officers are unhappy

about this. A spokesman is quoted as

calling the suspension is warranted.

They have their view given that they

represent some of their members.

Why

are they wrong in your view?

They

would have to explain that

themselves.

They say, our members

rightly ask what allows some members

to be granted leave, a reference to

this police constable while under

investigation, but for that same

opportunity not to be investigated

to them.

The police authority have

considered the details put to them

by the review commission and based

on that the Scottish police

authority who determine disciplinary

matters make a decision on

appropriate action and any decision

to suspend someone is taken by the

deputy chief const are in this

instance.

But the point they are

making is that Phil Gormley is on

special leave and we know the nature

of the allegations against him. You

won't tell is the nature of the

collisions against these other

officers and they have not been

given the opportunity to take

special leave and have just been

suspended. Why?

Sarah differences in

the allegations between firearms

officers and Bernard Higgins. As for

what action is to be taken, for

those below the rank of police

constable it is for the police

authority to determine. It is a

decision that was made by rose

Fitzpatrick the deputy chief

Dunstable -- constable.

A lot of

people will be sitting thinking,

this guy is the Justice Secretary

and is in charge and he is sitting

there saying nothing to do with me.

That's not the case at all. There is

due process to do with these issues.

We put in place a process that would

investigate and deal with these

issues. There is a legal process

because of statutory provision for

these issues and it has been taken

forward. I'm saying that I respect

the due process and will allow the

PERC to take forward the

investigation. I am going to make

sure that the process is allowed to

take its course in order to make

sure that those who have complaint

against them but they are allowed to

process without unnecessary

speculation in relation to the

complaints and with respect to the

fact that they need to allow the

process to be interfered with by

ministers while it's being

completed.

What would you say to

members of the public to say, hang

on a minute, it looks like the

entire top leadership of police

Scotland is now under investigation

for various different alleged

offences and you are the Justice

Secretary and are not allowed to say

what these matters are in relation

to. It's not acceptable.

A key part

of this process is to respect the

way in which that is conducted.

Without undue interference in the

process. You are a inviting me to

interfere in the process.

I'm not. I

ask you to tell others about the

nature of the allegations.

I am not

prepared to do that where there is a

process in place to deal with this

issue.

There is a basic issue on a

broader level of trust here.

Policing, perhaps more than most

public services relies on trust. You

are asking members of the public to

come forward and inform on drug

gangs or whatever and those members

of the public could feel that they

may be in jeopardy. How are people

supposed to trust police Scotland

when so much of the senior

leadership is now under

investigation by the Crown Office

and police investigators?

I accept

this is a challenging time

particularly for the executive team

within police Scotland. There is a

very serious group of individuals

who are dealing with day-to-day

policing matters and the reality is

that even though the charges which

the executive team are facing at the

moment, day-to-day policing will

continue as it is and will continue

to do that going forward. What is

important is to make sure that the

command structure in Scotland has

the necessary support it requires

and that's why debit she chief comes

to a living stone is reviewing the

command structure to see whether he

can add individuals to that to

support the Mac going forward

particularly during a period when

they don't have the chief customer

here and the Deputy Chief Constable

is suspended. He will sink that out

in the coming days.

You say things

will go on as normal. One of the

people involved, if the report is to

be believed, is in charge of

hostages generations should there be

a terrorist attack. How can someone

as senior as that be removed and you

say nothing to see here, go on as

normal.

Normal day-to-day policing

will continue as normal. Ian

Livingstone is presently reviewing

his command structure to see whether

he needs to put in any additional

individuals to make sure he has the

support he requires. These are

operational matters for the deputy

chief customer to consider and he's

now looking about to see whether he

needs to bring in any additional

individuals to provide that support

and that's appropriate. What will be

important now is in carrying out

that review of the process that any

changes he has to implement our that

the Scottish police authority give

him the assistance to make sure that

happens as quickly as possible.

One

inference one could draw from what

is going on given that so many

people are involved at the head of

police Scotland, it is not just a

coincidence and there must be some

basic cultural problem within that

organisation. You think there is? Or

is it just coincidence?

What we do

have now in the process which we

deal with these issues is greater

transparency and accountability in

how these matters are dealt with.

Previous legacy says that they

didn't have the PERC or the Scottish

police authority to lead these type

of issues and take them forward. We

have much greater transparency and

accountability but I understand that

people will be concerned when you

have senior officials under

investigation for various issues.

Do

you think there is a cultural

problem?

I'm not sure that is the

case but what I think is important

is...

Wooden July to find out? --

wouldn't you like to find out?

The

investigations are on a number of

different matters. What is important

is that we have the command

structure that is required and once

the investigations have been carried

out into the officers we will be in

a better place to understand what

the circumstances that related to

those complaints are.

So you will

consider leading some sort of

investigation into the culture of

police Scotland once the due process

is over?

Once we have completed this

process, I will ensure that those

actions are taken if it is

appropriate.

We are running out of

time. The Conservatives have said

that you should at least put on hold

the merger of British Transport

Police with police Scotland given

the mess at the top of police

Scotland. Will you do that? It seems

an obvious thing to do.

The work

that has been taken forward around

the integration of transport police

into police Scotland is led by the

integration board that brings a

range of partners together.

You are

not saying that you couldn't

intervene?

If they raise concerns

with me on that matter I would

consider it.

You can intervene. It

is a political decision to do this.

I will consider any issues that they

raise. The reason that the

Conservatives are asking is not to

do it is because they opposed the

idea in the first place. What I'm

saying to you is if there are issues

that I think are relating to British

Transport Police that need to be

addressed I will consider that.

Let

me quote to you the chairman of the

British Transport Police Federation,

Nigel good band. He says, we are

shocked by the lack of transparency

and accountability and financial

prudence shown throughout this

process.

In relation to the way

we've taken forward integration?

There was legislation through

Parliament and the majority of MSPs

supported integration into BT P.

So

he is wrong?

They have guaranteed

pay levels and jobs and we will have

a dedicated railway policing unit

within police Scotland so I

understand their concerns but we

engage with them on a regular basis

and there is a joint programme on

board bringing together a whole

range of expertise. I

range of expertise. I will consider

that but at this point they haven't

raised those concerns.

Thank you

very much indeed.

This week we had one of the most

pessimistic budgets in generations.

For the past decade there's been

an unprecedented squeeze

on our living standards.

But what's remarkable is that

we've got another five years to go

at least before earnings return

to anything like the levels we saw

before the financial crisis.

In a moment we'll discuss

what it all means -

and whether the Scottish Government

will now put up taxes

in its own forthcoming budget?

First, here's Graham Stewart.

Today they revised down the

projection for GP. Unprecedented,

worst since 19th century.

Here is

the loan of £70. You expect me to be

grateful for this feeble triple

coins?

Have you no heart mist a

script at the bleak midwinter all

right.

Wages stagnant, living

standards squeezed and no

improvement for decades and at the

very least, happy Christmas bastion

mark --? Not much cheer on the high

Street this Black Friday we can

Scottish retailers reported slow

starts to the Steyl sales on pinch

living standards. If you are

underpaid, nurses are underpaid...

Minimum wages £70 50 will stop -- £7

50.

Pensioners haven't gone up to

compensate with wages and prices.

People are feeling the pinch. That

is why I am here on Black Friday

looking for bargains.

Packed your

real income to grow 2%, you're a

city grow would be improving all the

time but we have had a decade

basically where that hasn't happened

and it looks like we will have

possibly as much as a another decade

where living standards are fine, so

the key is the lack of growth and

productivity, how much we produce

power has increased. British workers

are at as European counterparts,

it's a key challenge.

For I had to take the pharmacy.

Scrooge has no time for slackers.

Rigid workers are lazy. Predict that

it would be low due to poor advice

on higher education sector but it is

really about what skilled ultraquiet

for the workforce going forward

which is why I have stressed

different skills or levers and

people coming at the University but

also those in more Whiteleys areas

they are adequately trained the

economy and those highly paid jobs

going forward will require higher

skills across the board. Just as

Ebenezer Scrooge flicked to wake

them at the top and has barred more

money and spend. That means an extra

£2 billion for Scotland but slightly

more than half has strings attached.

Projects for which money has to be

paid back. That is helped by bigger

than a quarter for day-to-day

than a quarter for day-to-day

spending but all people the

chocolate bite the impression that

it was somehow a educational, and

breadth of the country. Ruth

Davidson knows that it's far from

the truth.

the truth.

The, SNP say that is the

wrong kind of money. Money to tackle

pot

pot with the... Only business that

could be handed to billions at the

like someone had stolen has got her

skank.

The invitations for the economy no

one can know. Philip Hammond might

not be the only Mize this Christmas.

not be the only Mize this Christmas.

-- miser.

You old skinflint!

Twopence is tuppence.

I'm joined now by Labour's

Paul Sweeney,

in Edinburgh is the Conservative's

John Lamont and in Dundee

is the SNP's Stewart Hosie.

If we are to see no rise in real

wages for at least a second decade

and certainly to be somewhere like

2022 before we even see real living

standards getting back to the levels

before the financial crisis, that's

a disastrous record for government,

isn't it?

I would dispute that

strongly. Current Conservative

governments and the coalition

previously worked very hard to sort

out our country is net you dreadful

legacy that we inherited. The

government has done a lots to reform

the economy and put it on a stronger

footing. It would have otherwise

been on a stronger footing and will

be if Mr Corbyn gets elected.

Just

to be clear there is no combination

of policies that could have stopped

real living standards stagnating

until the mid 20 20s, is that really

what you are saying?

The way to

ensure economic prosperity of our

country and strong growth is to put

our economy on a strong footing and

the reforms which the Conservative

government have put in place to

reduce the deficit and control

borrowing lovers will enjoy being

economy is in a surer bidding than

otherwise would be. Creating an

economy that creates well-paid jobs

is the best way to ensure people's

living standards are improved.

Paul

Sweeney, is the whale to deal with

this way to raise taxes? In

Scotland, I'm asking you this

question because what Richard's

position is? Ray Burke were in

favour of -- labour were in favour

of raving taxes.

Fundamentally the

issue in the UK as a whole is the

evisceration of the public services.

We are seeing the Tory sleight of

hand in the last few years has been

turning a bank crisis into a

spending crisis. The Tories

inherited a growing economy on the

Labour government. That point about

tax, Scotland's register revenue

budget will decline a little bit

because of capital spending is the

challenge for Scottish treatment,

but that gap using the new fiscal

powers they have. That is what we

are advocating.

We want to see this

improving.

Our world is putting

taxes up address the underlying

issue, terrible productivity in the

economy?

What we need is investment

economy?

What we need is investment

-- reinvestment in the economy. We

need to increase public spending an

services, and we can invest more in

the economy as a result. We need

higher growth and that is what we

will see. Cutting at every turn we

will is not see a better picture.

You have officially not decided but

you want to put taxes up as well?

The government Minister for Finance

will be looking at the entire

budget. We will be putting forward a

budget in a few weeks' time. In the

context of the UK Government budget

we have just had, let us remember

which has seen growth cut in every

year of the forecast, we have seen

GDP per head halved almost for the

entire forecast period. Even when

the Chancellor and added some

sensible spending in investment and

innovation that big £7 billion pack.

Until 2022 or 2023, six time. He

should have spent that money now.

Because we need it, and to mitigate

potential damage from Brexit.

Because the bad thing is we have

seen here, they are before the

impact of the Brexit is felt.

I

thought SNP policy was to basically

balance the budget for current

spending but spend money on capital

projects which could benefit future

generations as well as current

generations. In order to do that,

you will obviously have do have some

cuts to public funding to get things

back in balance. So is it not in

fact the Conservative government

doing exactly what you say you are

for?

If you recall from the election

we may be point that the UK

Government should be spending the

money now. Partly to mitigate Brexit

and partly to grow the economy, and

at the end of this parliament when

we saw the deficit continued to

fall, debt begins to fall as a share

of GDP and at that point, in balance

of a surplus, the money should be

for capital projects but we are at

that point yet is precisely because

we have seen the growth forecasts

mocked down. We have been denuded of

cash.

Paul Sweeney, that is a Labour

policy, as well, is it not? To

balance the current budget and then

only on capital spending. I put it

to you that the Conservatives are

doing what you say you want to do

but what impact this you complain

bitterly about?

Actually the measure

of success for the Conservatives has

been cutting the deficit when I have

failed at every turn. They are

planning to balance it in 2030. And

his 16 years, a generational

betrayal.

What you are saying is

putting balancing the budget off

even further. What we are saying is

not doing it through a primary

measure of cutting public spending

but balancing the budget by growing

tax revenues and we do that by

investing in the country. The great

use a veggie cycle. The Tories have

cut and slang will be public

services as a result of their fiscal

cuts will stop we need to Ashley

invest in the economy to get that

benefit. Jonathan, throughout the

chancellorship of George Osborne we

were told to balance the budget and

that was the main thing to care

about. And that we had to worry

about. Philip Hammond says it won't

now be balance until 2031. It was

supposed to have been balanced by

2015. It wasn't even mentioned in

the budget, does that not make you

feel bad? That the thing that we

were told that was the most

important thing we had to worry

about, it now seems even the

Conservatives don't care!

It is

important to recognise that our

political opponents have bought two

den nail to stop the very top

decisions that the Conservative

government have had to make to the

reduce both the deficit and...

Apparently that is still not

important then.

It is the economic

situation of the country remaining

challenging, still dealing with the

legacy of the last Labour

government. Wow. It is effective to

use a balanced budget.

We are

running out of time. Very quickly

committee would, John Stuart, you

are looking more sceptical by the

moment.

I'm extremely sceptical indeed. The

deficit hasn't fallen. The budget

won't be balanced for goodness knows

how many years. The government fail

on every car that they set for

themselves and it is the poorest in

this country and our productivity

that pays the price.

Thank you very

much indeed.

Now it's time for a look back

- as well as forwards -

to the week ahead.

With me this week are

the journalists Rebecca McQuillan

and Paul Hutcheon who work

for The Herald and Sunday Herald.

First, Paul, interesting, isn't it

that the Justice Secretary con

firmed that these two policeman Curt

Coronel and Bob Glass as the people

involved. It's a mess, isn't it?

It

is a dysfunctional failing

organisation with the Chief

Constable on leave amid allegations

and seven other cops facing

misconduct investigations over a spy

probe and now Assistant Chief

Constable Bernie Higgins and

colleagues in the firearms unit

suspended. It's not good.

Do you

think there is any merit. One of the

things that Michael Matheson

suggested, perhaps we have these

people under investigation because

in the olden days they wouldn't have

been investigated. More

investigations may be a product of

more investigators?

In the legacy

forces, there was a culture of

cover-up and secrecy. The one

benefit of the single force is there

is much more scrutiny. I know from

experience that police Scotland is a

very leaky

very leaky organisation. In pre-2013

days, I don't think people felt they

could come forward. There is a glare

of publicity which is a good thing.

What have you made of this, Rebecca?

I can't remember a time when a

Scottish institution had so many

problems on so many different

fronts. Paul mentioned all those

investigations, which are separate,

they are not linked together.

We

didn't get around to the fact that

there is a new leader of the

Scottish police Association coming

in.

This is the body that oversees

police Scotland and there is

financial mismanagement, controversy

over stop and search and armed

police and one thing and another. An

awful lot of things going wrong at

once. As you were driving up with

some of your questions, it does make

you ask if there is some underlying

cause for this malaise. Actually, it

doesn't look like there is just one

course. A number of things are going

wrong at once.

I know there have

been some suggestions of what these

allegations are about but I don't

want to repeat them because Michael

Matheson said that we shouldn't. But

will that wash? We do know roughly

what Phil Gormley is being

investigated for but the others, is

it going to wash to say that you are

not allowed to know? There is an

issue of confidence.

It's inevitable

that the detail of these complaints

will seep out. I have a degree of

sympathy with Michael Matheson in

that it shows the real problem of

policing where he is expected to

answer questions on disciplinary and

conduct issues with the police. The

organisation set up to oversee this

organisation would do that if it was

doing its job properly. He wouldn't

have to answer those questions.

So,

in effect, it's not a functioning

organisation?

It is completely

dysfunctional. I don't think anyone

in Scottish policing has any

confidence in the S P a at all.

There was a suggestion that after

due process, he may start some

investigation into what has gone

wrong. Something is going to have to

be done to restore public

confidence.

confidence.

Opposing politicians

like nothing more than to call for a

root and branch review and that has

not happened. You wonder if it is

the right moment to do this because

a number of things have to happen

that are in process at the moment.

One of the first is, the force needs

a Chief Constable. He is on

gardening leave at the moment and

there is an investigation that we

hope will be concluded quickly.

There has been a lot of controversy

about call handling, recommendations

have been made, there are things

going on at the moment, one would

hope, would within six months or a

year all of this would have settled

down. If it hasn't, then, yes, you

are going to need a fairly serious

review of how this organisation is

working just four or five years

after it is set up.

And cultural

problems. They are very difficult to

change.

Many of the problems that

Police Scotland suffered were there

under the legacy forces, like stop

and search, it is only through

scrutiny that we have actually seen

Strathclyde policies rolled out

nationally and people don't like

them. Many of the things that have

been dominating the news coverage

have been there for years.

They are

going to merge even more, including

the British Transport Police. Might

it be sensible to put that on hold?

I do. Bernard Higgins, currently

suspended, was, as I understand it,

going to oversee this merger. He

said that there would be massive

transitional issues merging the two

forces. It's not the right time to

be doing this.

What do you think,

Paul?

Many stories have said that

there is no business case for this

and it was done for political

reasons rather than policing

reasons. I would ask whether Police

Scotland has done enough to deserve

becoming bigger?

That's all from the us this week.

I'll be back at the

same time next week.

Until then, goodbye.