The latest political news, interviews and debate in Scotland.
Browse content similar to 03/12/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Good morning, everyone.
I'm Sarah Smith.
Welcome to the Sunday Politics -
your essential guide to the biggest
political stories of the week.
Coming up on today's show...
Ahead of a crucial EU summit,
is Theresa May on the brink
of a breakthrough on Brexit?
Or, after a slightly torrid week,
is she in danger of being
overtaken by events?
The ex-Labour minister
Alan Milburn quits as chairman
of the Social Mobility Commission,
saying he has "little hope"
the current government can make
the "necessary" progress.
What does this mean
for a Prime Minister who vowed
to fight against the "burning
injustice" of inequality?
And, we speak to the academic who's
carrying out economic "wargaming"
scenarios for the Labour party,
in the event it wins power.
People are going to trust us
with their jobs and their pensions
and their livelihoods.
We've got to show we
know what we're doing.
This seems like common sense to me.
And on Sunday Politics Scotland:
Amid the crisis engulfing
Police Scotland, the body charged
with overseeing them has a new boss.
I'll be speaking to Susan Deacon,
who takes over at the Scottish
Police Authority tomorrow morning.
Yes, all that coming
up in the programme.
And to help guide me
through all the week's
twists and turns, I'm
joined by Tom Newton Dunn,
and Steve Richards.
Now, the breaking news this morning
is the resignation of Alan Milburn -
the ex-Labour minister who,
for the last five years, has chaired
the Social Mobility Commission.
He says the Government is too
preoccupied with Brexit
to focus on social justice.
We'll be assessing the significance
of that in a moment.
But first, if that relationship has
turned sour for the Prime Minister,
it wasn't the only one this week.
Like all relationships, our liaison
with our European neighbours
has had its ups and downs.
Theresa May wants a deep and special
partnership after Brexit.
Thus far, money has been
the main obstacle to
an amicable divorce.
This week, a possible breakthrough.
He once said "the EU
could go whistle if they
asked for too much," now he's
practically dancing with joy.
It's a fantastic opportunity
now to get going.
Others are always harder to please.
It is not worth nearly
50 billion sterling.
No deal is better than a bad deal
and this is a very bad deal indeed.
Brussels may be on board
with the divorce bill but
there's trouble over
the Irish border.
If the UK offer is unacceptable
for Ireland, it will
also be unacceptable for the EU.
Reports suggest Stormont could be
given more power to agree bespoke
with the Republic but that, in turn,
enraged Theresa May's
partners in Parliament.
The DUP could walk out
of their marriage of convenience
with the Tories if the Government
allows Northern Ireland to diverge
from the rest of the UK.
If there is any hint that in order
to placate Dublin and the EU,
they are prepared to have
Northern Ireland treated differently
than the rest of the United Kingdom,
then they can't rely on our vote.
But it was the "special
relationship" that came
under most strain.
As Donald Trump re-tweeted
posted by the far right
group, Britain First.
Denounced by Downing Street,
the President took to Twitter again,
telling Theresa May directly,
"Don't focus on me,
we are doing just fine."
The Prime Minister on a surprise
trip to the Middle East was plunged
into a very public row.
I'm very clear that
re-tweeting from Britain
First was the wrong thing to do.
The May-Trump mini break
in the UK might be off.
I certainly don't think he should be
should be coming next year.
Next year is supposed to be a happy
event for the Royal family.
We certainly don't want Trump
turning up in the middle
of all of that.
Meanwhile, Labour leader and GQ
magazine cover model declared
himself to be an enemy
of greedy bankers.
So, when they say, we're
a threat, they're right.
We are a threat to
a damaging and failed
system that's rigged for the few.
The Prime Minister's
friend stood in for her
at the dispatch box on Wednesday
while she was abroad but fresh
questions emerged later
in the week about
whether he'd used a Parliamentary
computer to view pornography
some nine years ago.
Theresa May will meet be EU
Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow.
They will discuss the revised
offer on the divorce
bill and whether talks
can now move on to trade
It has not been an easy
relationship with leaks from
previous meetings finding their way
into the German press.
Hopefully, they can put
all of that behind them.
So, we will talk through one of the
top stories for the week with our
panel in the studio. We are going to
be looking ahead to what is
happening in Brussels. The Prime
Minister is going over for a working
lunch with Jean-Claude Juncker
tomorrow. We are always saying we
have reached a critical stage in the
Is it a critical
point? It is. It is endgame of
chapter one. There are two chapters,
divorce and then trade. This is the
end of the first half, at the 43rd
minute. It is probably 0-0. We need
to get over the line and into
half-time and into the second half.
Wyatt is so critical is the Prime
Minister, in the next few days, she
cannot wait till the 14th or 15th of
December, have to choose to govern
is to choose. One side is saying
this is what we will act set to move
on to the second phase and the
Eurosceptics will say, we will not
access to any of that. She has to
get off the fence. One is what they
will do about easy JN the other
about the Irish border. To divert or
This is only the end
of the first half of the process. If
the EU agrees we can move onto the
second half. That is not guaranteed,
Tom's analogy, I will not go
too far with it because I'm not a
football expert. Brexiteers feel it
is more like 1-0 to the EU. There is
a circulation today, leave means
leave, which is signed by eminent
business people and academics. Only
a few MPs, about five of them on
now. We were discussing this earlier
and Tom made the point it is quite a
hostile thing for a Tory MP to sign
a letter like this. Many more agree
with the contents of the letter,
which sets out the set of conditions
the PM must not agree to, in their
view, must not capitulate to as the
negotiation goes forward. It is
about when free movement of people
ends and we retain the power to go
to WTO if all else fails.
discussing this further with our
guests and find out what the EU had
think about it. The other big news
of the morning is that Alan Milburn
resigned from the social mobility
commission. He told and remarked
earlier why. -- Andrew Marr.
In various social mobility roles,
I've served a Labour Prime Minister,
a coalition Prime Minister,
and now, a Conservative one.
I've done so because I care deeply
about the issue and I believe
that it matters profoundly
to the country.
I've reached the conclusion, sadly,
that with the current government,
there is little if any hope
of progress being made
towards the fairer Britain
that the Prime Minister
has talked about.
The Government, probably
for understandable reasons,
is focused on Brexit,
and seems to lack the bandwidth
to be able to translate the rhetoric
of healing social division
and promoting social justice
into a reality.
That is a pretty damning statement,
the Government does not have the
bandwidth to do with anything other
It is true. Brexit is
sucking up all political energy much
practical energy in Whitehall.
Beyond that, the significance of
this is not huge. I think these
commissions float uneasily in
government. If you make policy on
social justice, you can do that
within a government department if
you are serious about it. I think it
was set up partly with good
intentions in the coalition period,
partly to break off the Blairites
from Labour and get them involved
with these so called modernising
Conservative project, and the fact
that it is ending, I don't think in
itself is significant. But he is
absolutely... By the way they were
never entirely clear on policy
terms. The fact he said I am not a
status quo nor am I with Theresa
May, what are going to be the
mediating agencies? There are some
huge issues to address. Whether this
was the appropriate way to do it in
the first place, I have doubts about
Thank you for that.
Well, to pick up on all of that,
I'm joined by the former
Conservative leader, Michael Howard.
Thank you for coming in. Let's start
with the claim by Alan Milburn that
the Government does not have the
time or capacity to do anything
other than Brexit. That must be a
concern to you as well.
I think he
is wrong. I share his concern about
social mobility. When I was the
leader of the Conservative Party
used to make speeches about the
British dream and the importance of
social mobility. There is always
more to be done but we have actually
made a lot of progress. Can I give
you some examples? We would all
agree that education is key to
social mobility. We have 1.9 million
children now, 1.9 million children
more than in 2010 in good or
was not that nothing has been done
since 2010 but nothing can be done
It is still happening. Income
inequality is at its lowest level
for 30 years. More taxes being paid
than under the Labour years. One of
the worst things that can happen to
a child is to live in a workless
household. The number of workless
households has been shrinking. And
implement is at its lowest level
-- unemployment. Theresa
May, when she became Prime Minister
last year, said this is a country of
It is. There is
last year, said this is a country of
It is. There is
always more to be done. You say it
is in the past. This morning we have
had an announcement that a
considerable amount of extra money
will be devoted in helping children
facing mental health challenges in
our schools. That is important as
well in relation to social mobility.
Of course there is more to be done.
I think quite a lot of progress has
been made on social mobility and
should not forget that.
on to wrecks it. You will have read
reports that she will offer a
divorce bill somewhere between 40
billion and 50 billion euros, maybe
slightly more. You said back in
April that you would be astonished
if the bill was anything like 50
billion euros for the you must be
We all started off
with aspirations. -- you must be
pretty surprised. I do not know what
the sum will be. Whatever it is it
will be a fraction of the amount we
have paid into the European Union
over the last 40 years and would pay
into the European Union for the next
You are now fairly relaxed about
something around this mark?
confidence in the Prime Minister and
David Davis. I want to let them
decide what is the best deal. I'm
confident we'll get a good deal. I'm
confident in the Prime Minister and
You know the more
money we spend on the divorce the
more bashes nevertheless many we
have to spend on other things. Our
guest last week felt it had to be
delivered to keep faith in the
In the budget a few days
ago the Government promised more
than an extra £350 million for the
health service, running into almost
They did not promise
that in the budget?
Over time, more
money will be available when we are
out. These payments, I don't know
what the sum would be, are going to
be spread out over many years. The
annual bill will not be anything
like that. In the end there will be
more money to spend on the health
service and other desirable things
because we will not have to make
this very large, annual contribution
we were making.
You have always been
a committed Eurosceptic. Do not
worry that the European Union seem
to be having it their way? They
wanted to discuss divorce before the
trade deals. We agreed to that. The
divorce bill seems to have gone up
substantially since Theresa May was
speaking in her Florence speech.
They are getting what they want as
we are going through the process and
we seem to be capitulating.
I do not
think that is fair. There is a huge
amount of posturing, which always
goes on in negotiations. The
approach of the European Union is in
breach of Article 50. Article 50
says the arrangements for the
departure of a member state have to
take into account the future
relationship of that state with the
European Union. You cannot take
something into account if you are
not prepared to talk about it. They
are in breach of Article 50. That is
the approach they have chosen. I am
confident. I think we will move
forward to the next phase, to pursue
Tom's analogy, I hope they will not
be injury time at the end of the
first half and I hope we will get an
agreement this month and then we can
start talking turkey.
Do you agree
with the leave means leave letter in
the paper today without demanding
the UK be free to sign employment
trade deals and note end to
restriction is by the European Court
I share the aspirations
contained in the letter.
You did not
Did they ask you to?
No. I am not inclined to make
demands at this stage. I think they
should be allowed to get on with the
negotiations. I have confidence in
their ability to do so. I'm
confident that in the end will get a
good deal in the interests of the UK
and of the European Union because
there is a great commonality of
interest between the two of us to
have a good relationship, a deep and
special relationship the Prime
Minister has spoken of.
trying not to be a back-seat driver.
As a former leader of the Tory Party
you probably understand how annoying
that will be that you are an
interested party entitled to your
view on this. Iain Duncan Smith is
in the papers saying how important
it is to end the authority of the
European Court of Justice. Is that a
red line for you?
I have every confidence in the Prime
Minister and in David Davis and I
think they will end up with a good
They're just going to pick up
with our panel here. Listening to
Michael Howard there, very carefully
trying not to step on the Prime
Minister's toes, but clearly he
shares some sympathy with people who
do want to put some red lines on
I know Michael Howard is a
forensic follower of politics, so
I'm surprised he is completely
confident about Theresa May
delivering this, given that when she
returned from the last summit, when
she made her House of Commons
statement, she was clear, to my
surprise, actually, that during the
transition, I am not surprised in
how it turned out but I am surprised
she was so clear, that the European
court would hold some sway. It has
two, because if the transition is to
be effective, it means one way or
another we will still sort of be in
the single market and Customs union
for a time and therefore the
European court will hold some sway.
And she said it. I saw Jacob
Rees-Mogg's response of horror. But
she did say it. And so that is
already I think part of the
equation. So the response of her
Brexiteers on this will be pivotal.
Iain Duncan Smith is not alone in
being absolutely resolute that the
ECJ will have nothing to do with
Absolutely, and I think
that the concern amongst the harder
line Brexiteers is that this
transitional arrangement is a
continuation of the status quo, and
that it might even slip. Now, the
Prime Minister has try to be
reassuring on that, and there have
been indications it might slip a few
weeks but definitely not longer. But
I think that Brexit MPs want more
assurances that this will not end up
just being kicked into the long
Will those assurances be
I don't think they will be.
She is going to have to compromise.
The other choice is to walk away. A
perfectly admirable choice but it is
a choice she needs to make. The
interesting question is, what do
these people plan to do about it?
What does Michael Howard plan to do
if the £45 billion bill, which he is
now accepting, it would appear, the
four MPs and some other quite senior
party figures, what do they plan to
do if the Prime Minister
compromises? Will they vote against
it, will they put their considerable
legislative weight, which Michael
Howard could do in the House of
Lords, against it?
you're being very diplomatic today,
is there a point at which you would
speak out if something you saw as
fundamentally unacceptable occurred?
That is a very hypothetical
The idea that you
might find something out of Brussels
being unacceptable is hypothetical?
Lets wait and see. I have said and I
am in danger of repeating myself, I
have every confidence in the Prime
Minister and in David Davis. I think
we will end up with a good deal. You
would in expect in negotiations like
this an awful lot of posturing.
me into you because I need to ask
you about one other thing before we
go. Damian Green, you will know
there have been more stories
reported this week around the
accusation that he viewed
pornography on a Parliamentary
computer, something he absolutely
resolutely denies. If it is
discovered that he wasn't telling
the truth when he told the Prime
Minister he hadn't done this, would
it be a resigning matter?
know, that is another hypothetical
question. Damian was my
Parliamentary neighbour for many
years, he has denied it and I
believe him and I agree with those
very senior figures yesterday who
condemned the leaking of information
by these retired police officers. I
think that's a very serious matter
indeed. Policing in this country is
based on trust between the police
and the public. And if we have...
Michael Howard, thank you very much
for talking to us.
The EU has warned Theresa May
that she must satisfy Irish demands,
if the Brexit negotiations
are to move forward this week.
But ahead of a crucial
meeting between Theresa May
and Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow,
it seems there is still work to do.
Here's the Irish Foreign
Minister, Simon Coveney,
speaking this morning.
There is no desire in Ireland to
delay this process. But at the same
time we have irresponsibility as a
government to represent the
interests on the island of Ireland,
north and south. Let's not forget
that next year will be the 20th
anniversary of the Good Friday
Agreement, which is the basis for
the peace process, and relations
between Britain and Ireland on the
island of Ireland. And we believe
that as an island, Ireland is
uniquely vulnerable and exposed to a
potential bad outcome from Brexit.
With me now is the Shadow
Secretary, Barry Gardiner.
Obviously, it is absolutely crucial
that a resolution is found to this
problem - what is Labour's position?
I think you have to proceed here on
the basis of principles. The first
principle is, do nothing that
damages the peace process. The
second principle is, do nothing that
averages the economy. And by that I
mean both the economy and Northern
Ireland, in Ireland as a whole and
in the UK and Ireland as a whole.
Now, that means that we have to...
But that's the impossible conundrum,
how to do all of those things at
It can't be impossible,
because we've got to do it. Of
course it is being made much more
difficult by the government's red
lines on this. And the government
has stated very publicly and clearly
that it wants to come out of the
customs union and the single market.
And of course, what actually creates
checks at the border is when you
have regulator we variants and when
you have product standards that are
different. So, that means that you
have to check what's coming in and
out for any tariffs that you wish to
impose. Now, that's why it has been,
I think and my party thinks, foolish
to have removed the structural
possibilities which lie in the
customs union or the single market,
from what the government's
negotiating position is.
interesting, because I can see
clearly, and so can the Irish
government, exactly how staying in
the customs union and the single
market would help resolve the
question for the island of Ireland,
but also it raises questions for the
United Kingdom. It is also
interesting because if we have a
look at what you say back in July,
who didn't sound quite as pleased
about the single market, when you
said we would in effect become a
vassal state, obliged to pay into
the EU budget and having even less
sovereignty than we do now - you
weren't so keen on the single market
I am not so keen on the single
market membership as opposed to
being a member of the EU. Single
market membership without being a
member of the EU means that you do
not have a say in the rules which
you have to abide by.
leaving the EU, let's take that as a
Let's talk about where we are
going forward. I was setting out
very clearly, and I don't think you
would disagree with what I said, I
was setting out very clearly the
applications of leaving the EU in
the way that the government had set
out. And those implications are
clear. I believe I set them out
correctly. Where we are now is, we
have to find a solution to this
problem. Simon Coveney was actually
earlier very clear in saying that
you don't have to have a full
solution in phase one, but there has
to be the real expectation that
we're going to be able to resolve it
in phase two. The first thing that
both sides need to say here is that
we will look at the Common Travel
Area, which has existed since 1922,
and that should be part and parcel
of the deal going forward. The
second element that I think is
really important here is to
understand precisely what the peace
settlement was, when in the Good
Friday Agreement in 1998 we set out
that there should be no security
checks at the border. That was
critically important. But of course,
security checks in those days were
in place because of the situation,
the military, paramilitary
situation. But when those security
checks were taken away, because we
were members of the single market
and because we were members of the
customs union, there were no
additional customs checks. Now, to
say that you order the Good Friday
Agreement and have no security
checks, with all the military
paraphernalia that goes with that,
does not mean that you cannot have
typified customs checks. But those
customs checks will only be put in
place if the government wants to
deregulate. My party doesn't. My
party doesn't want to deregulate, we
don't want to impose these
terrorists. The government is in a
bind here, because most of the key
players around of Brexit want to
deregulate, and that means there
have to be tariffs, and that means
they have to be imposed at a border.
Jeremy Corbyn yesterday refused to
rule out the possibility of a second
referendum on our EU membership - is
it now the Labour Party's policy
that we might vote again on this?
No, it's not.
Why did he say we have
not made any decision on a second
That precisely says that
it is not, because policy because we
have not made a decision on it!
could make a decision Ameobi not to
have a second referendum?
absolutely upfront about this. The
idea that you would have a second
referendum, I think you would say
you were going to have a second
referendum. Like the Liberal
Democrats have done. That would be
to encourage the EU to give you the
worst possible deal that there was,
so that when you're then voted on
it, everybody would say, we can't
possibly go there. The key thing, in
my view, is that it was always
foolish, always foolish, to have a
50% class one referendum. Because if
you are trying to...
That's what we
had, we are now looking at the
future. I'm talking about the
future. It sounds like Jeremy Corbyn
is saying it is a possibility that
Labour might call for one?
trying to answer your question. I am
not trying to avoid it. When we go
forward, if we were to have another
referendum on the same lines as we
have had, and it were to be 52-48
the other way, what would that
achieve hammered absolutely nothing.
It would then be game on for a third
or fourth referendum. The only way
in which in my view you could
possibly contemplate a second
referendum would be if you had a
threshold which I believe should
have been there in the first place
of a two thirds majority. But that I
stress is not Labour Party policy,
it is not something that we've
decided, and Jeremy Corbyn
articulated that yesterday.
spoken to Diane Abbott, who has
written to two constituents in the
past month saying she would make the
case for a second referendum?
has already said that letter was
poorly worded Pozzo, as she called
it. I will not make any further
comment on it.
The Shadow Chancellor,
John McDonnell, came in for a bit
of flak recently when he admitted
that Labour was preparing
for possible negative scenarios,
such as a run on the pound,
if it wins power.
Speaking on the fringes
of his party's conference, he said
he was carrying out "war game-type
scenario planning" in the event
of an election victory.
John McDonnell, the man
helping Mr McDonald.
Well, the man helping
Mr McDonnell do that is
the academic Richard Barbrook.
He's also the man behind
'Games for the Many' -
the political gaming studio
that produced CorbynRun.
Ellie Price went along to meet him.
You may have seen some of these
during the election.
In May Bot, the gamer helps the PM
shoot, run and slide
her way to dystopia.
And then downloaded 150,000 times
in the first week of
the campaign alone, Corbyn Run,
which sees Jeremy Corbyn shaking
down bankers to pay
for policy pledges.
And it's one of the things
the Labour leadership think can win
them the next election.
It put an idea out there
that you can actually
engage in politics in a way
which is both a good laugh,
enjoy the game.
But actually it is quite
stimulating as well.
What happened was, that
prompted ideas about a
fair taxation system
and the policies that
were being launched.
It's new creative way into ideas.
Are you worried that
the Tories will catch on?
They most probably will catch on.
But it's not just about the medium,
it is about the message as well.
Richard, what is happening here?
It's a games jam.
People are coming together
to make app games,
laptop games, board games, getting
ready for the local elections in May
to propagate Labour's message.
And is it really working?
You have 50-odd people here, that's
hardly going to change the world.
I'm from the punk generation.
The first time I saw
the Sex Pistols, there were 40 or 50
people in the room.
Then, in the late-80s,
I went to the very early raves
and again there were very
small groups of people.
Yet, in both cases, these
cultures, you start off
with small groups of people
and they can suddenly
become a mass phenomenom.
And, I'm reliably informed,
it isn't just for computer geeks.
Yes, we've got people
here who are activists and have
never coded in their lives
and they're using tools,
with which you can make games
with no coding skills.
I'm not sure I believe
you but here is a challenge.
Can you make me a game?
Yes, I can.
The challenge begins.
That took less than half an hour.
Can I see it?
Yeah, of course.
You go up to John and he says,
"We're making games to change the
face of politics."
Then you go up to Jeremy
and he says, "for the many,
not the few."
OK, so it's not exactly Super Mario
but Labour are looking
at another kind of gaming,
Something John McDonnell
talked about at the last
What if there is a run
on the pound, what happens if
there is this concept
of capital flight?
I don't think there
will but you never know
so we've got a scenario
planned for that.
Richard is also part
of the Shadow Treasury
war-gaming team, who are expected
to meet again in the next few weeks.
If people are going to trust us
with their jobs and their pensions
and their livelihoods,
we've got to show
we know what we are doing.
This seems like common sense to me.
From games jams like these,
Labour hoped to create a campaign
tool that will take them to the next
level - Downing Street.
If politics is a game,
there are novel ways to play.
And Richard Barbrook joins me now.
Thanks for coming in. John McDonnell
said the conference he was working
with you are looking at different
scenarios I possibly around on the
pound. It caused huge amount of
controversy. Can you understand why?
I was actually. Surprised that
people are surprised that political
parties are not doing this. The
military, the civil service,
Corporation Banks, they all do this.
The surprise was one would imagine
that a Labour government neither
hoped nor predicted there would be a
run on the pound and capital flight.
Given the fanaticism of the present
government, probably when we get
elected, the pound would likely go
up. You need to think about these
problems beforehand. There are
potential difficulties to foresee.
You can scenario plan for those. You
can read about problems coming up
ahead and you can talk about them
but actually to experience in a game
like atmosphere, the pressures of
making decisions... You can identify
problems and think about solutions,
try out ideas. If it does not work
you can reiterate again and again
When the Treasury does
something like this, with very
complex statistical models and huge
amounts of data, can you feed it
into a scenario?
You can on that
basis. What you can do more is test
the team coming together and seeing
how it responds under pressure. A
good example, if you think about the
National Health Service. If it were
a flu pandemic they would have to
think about how to reallocate
resources. There would be sickness
amongst staff, more people going to
hospitals and you get together a
group of people responsible for
running the NHS. You put them
together and put them through a
three-hour simulation of it and that
is the same sort of thing we are
doing. We are looking at what
happens when Labour gets in, the
first 100 days in power, for the
first budget, what would you do?
Whether it is a run on the pound or
something, you create pressures and
problems for them to create the idea
of how they have to operate as a
Does that give you the
opportunity to stress test some of
the more radical policies that
Labour came up with in the last
manifesto like nationalising the
water companies or electricity firms
or something like that?
It is only
maybe in this media bubble in
Britain that we think neoliberalism
is the only alternative.
to mainstream for you to bother
I said the initial simulation
as any of the first 100 days we are
looking at how we would put together
a budget. That is not really what
the focus is. It is making it
happen, the decision-making process.
That is what you are trying to train
people for. The military does this,
the civil service does this put up
if you do not do this you are in a
very bad position. The election, the
Liberal Democrats did no contingency
planning as to what would happen if
there were a hung parliament but the
civil service did. They ripped
people into becoming a junior
appendage of the Tory Party with the
disastrous results that came from
Is this the kind of
discussions that a Shadow Cabinet
would be having in the run-up to the
general election anyway? That is
that fundamental job of an
This is a fundamental
method of doing it. You are just
surprised that a political parties
doing this. If you are the military
or the civil service you use this
tool. You are just surprised... I am
surprised that you are surprised.
The other thing you are doing
separate from the war game scenario,
the apps and the games go further --
which you say can further political
engagement, are they really
spreading a message?
A good example
is the Jeremy Corbyn ran.
is the Jeremy Corbyn ran.
played that. It is about mugging
bankers in the streets.
bankers in the streets.
Why we have
austerities is about the tax cuts.
You reverse that and you campaign
fuel social programme. In doing so,
it shows that you are more
successful in raising revenue can
unlock certain pledges and people
join your campaign.
join your campaign.
Stay there if
you will. I will come to the panel.
Do you think this sounds like a
useful, political tool, to sit there
in a game like atmosphere and work
hard to intimate radical programme
Yes. It sounds
sensible and not the only thing they
are doing. I can see them Maya city
of John McDonnell was to speak aloud
in any context about a potential run
on the pound. -- naivete. To prepare
for eventualities, prepare for the
first 100 days by using all kinds of
devices, is highly sensible.
it has been publicised to working
with games developers.
with games developers.
going on about military, war-gaming
exercises. I am co-authoring a book
on defence at the moment. In one of
the most important
the most important recent war-gaming
exercises we did with the Americans,
we were wiped out within a day
because our targeting policy was so
outdated. I think the fear in the
city is exactly that would happen
economically because your economic
policy is so outdated.
policy is so outdated.
I will let
you respond to that and ask you
another question as well.
just the Tory Troll.
just the Tory Troll.
I'm not a
member of the Tory Party. No reason
to be impolite to people.
to be impolite to people. If Morgan
Stanley came here and said we want
to game out what a Labour government
would mean for business, would you
I would not do it but I
would be very surprised if they are
not already doing that.
Good morning and welcome
to Sunday Politics Scotland.
Coming up on the programme:
Marred with resignations,
suspensions and criticisms over
transparency and leadership -
force is in crisis.
I'll be speaking to Susan Deacon,
the new chairwoman of
the Scottish Police Authority.
Can she clean up the mess?
And the latest talks
over the transfer of EU
powers to Scotland
ended without a deal.
I'll be asking
the Scottish Secretary
and Scotland's Brexit Minister.
What's the hold up?
A number of officers had been
suspended from Police Scotland and
there investigation is underway into
The Justice Secretary Michael
Matheson says there's nothing
to worry about and concerns raised
over confidence in police
officers are unfounded.
But how does the media coverage
of such a scandal affect
the public's perception
of the force?
Well, joining me this morning,
is the new chairwoman
of the Scottish Police
Authority, Susan Deacon.
We should make clear, you join
tomorrow morning. Clear Baker of the
Labour Party said, "Confidence in
the ability of the Scottish Police
Authority to do its job is that an
all-time low." That was before the
latest round of thing started. Do
you accept there is a serious issue
about public confidence in both the
Scottish Police Authority and the
police at the moment?
The SBA has
had a fairly bumpy ride over the
last few years. It will be important
that they are seen to work
effectively so it can play its part
in driving forward, provide some of
They seem to be working
Well, a lot has been
achieved in a short period of time
and I have to take issue with the
idea that our police service is in
crisis. Policing is improving. I do
not doubt Freeman at the challenges
that lie ahead both in terms of
taking forward and developing our
services and that the public,
politicians and others can have
confidence in. Come tomorrow, that
is my job to make improvements in
What is the first thing
you do to get it back?
Has been so
much attention on the inner workings
of the authority itself, and
isolated place to be. People have
been working hard, I recognise that.
Without question, there are
improvements only be made.
Parliament, Majesty's inspector has
produced a report on this, work is
underway, but I want to make we
accelerate the pace of that
improvement so we get the authority
any place with the focus is not on
what it does in terms of how it
operates, but rather what it does in
terms of helping the public,
Parliament and others to scrutinise
Police Scotland as it goes forward.
Critically, what the authority does
to help drive improvement and change
in our police service.
investigations haven't been
completed yet, but there is going to
have to be a new chief.
As you know,
this has been discussed on this
programme and an immediate, there
are a number of different processors
currently in place and I for 1am not
going to comment on those. What I
would say is that the Scottish
Police Authority is one of a number
of organisations that has a
responsibility in this area,
alongside the police investigations
and review commission. It's really
important going forward that we
should at all the bodies involved in
dealing with conduct issues and
dealing with complaints only arise
operate a system that the public can
have trust in, but also I think is
sensitive to the individuals
involved in it. Issues of
confidentiality are important, too.
That was touched on in Holyrood this
Let's take the officers who
have recently been suspended. The
Scottish Police Federation says it's
not fair that they have been
suspended, whereas the chief, is to
is on special leave. There are
reports this morning that Bernard
Higgins, the assistant chief, the
asked for a similar deal and was
refused. I know Michael Matheson was
on this programme last week
explaining the processors.
explaining the processors. As a
matter of maths.
explaining the processors. As a
matter of Natural justice, it
doesn't seem fair that these people
have been suspended whereas the
chief comes to a zombie.
I am not
going to comment on individual
cases, least of all when I have not
started in the post or been privy to
the details of them. The commitment
I will give going forward... In
terms of the filling is well and
functions both in life cases and in
terms of developing beef system in
the future. -- developing the system
in the future.
I know you don't want
It's not about...
former Justice Secretary says the
very least the FPA could have done
is waited for you to take up your
job tomorrow morning. -- the very
least SPA could have done.
about not wanting to talk about
individual cases, it's completely
improper to do so when I am not even
privy to the facts. I give
commitment to look very carefully at
the cases live and more generally,
these are new systems and
procedures. The body I am about to
take over as chair of relatively new
organisation and I believe we should
always work to improve...
understand you don't want to involve
yourself in individual cases, but
will you have a look at this?
Because the allegation from the
Police Federation is that natural
justice has been broken. If you
determine that is the case, will you
consider at least lifting the
suspensions on these officers?
you know, I think one of the things
that has been a legitimate criticism
of the SPA is that they have not
communicated effectively or it might
not have been as open and
transparent as it can be. Let me
make a wider point. Going forward, I
want that to change. I want the
authority to be much more engaged
and engaging so that people can see
via the Prez of that authority what
is going on in policing in Scotland.
That is not the same as opening up
heat and every individual case to
day by day commentary to discussion
in the press.
I am not saying that.
I have said already that of course
when I go into that job tomorrow, of
course I will look and be briefed on
and will want to satisfy myself that
I understand where things are at
with each of these cases and
particularly what the role of the
Scottish Police Authority is going
forward. You are right, there are a
number of different agencies and
investigating bodies if you have to
do the job. I will not comment on
life cases. I cannot comment on what
has been done prior to my arrival in
that poorest. -- post.
If he did
look at these cases and decided
those officers should not be
suspended, is it in your power in
the case of them or any other
officers to lift the suspension?
will not deal in hypothetical.
just acting if it's in your power?
Anyone watching this programme in
any organisation of any sort,
private or public, will know that
each individual in any matter of
conduct is different. The idea that
we can sit here and speculate or
generalise about what could, should
or might happen...
I was just asking
whether you had the power. In June,
the high majesty's inspector two
inspector of Constabulary said there
was a fundamental weakness and what
they were getting out was they
didn't believe managers in SPA where
properly equipped to give advice to
the board. Do you accept that and
what do you intend to do about it?
That has been one of a number of
reports that have voiced various
criticisms about how the Scottish
Police Authority could and should
develop in the future. I think there
are some very important observations
made there. Change has happened
during that time, I know that
because I have been looking at it
SPA from the outside in in
considerable detail. As you know,
alongside my appointment, there is a
new chief officer. I think there are
one of the things you want to look
In the future, this
was the issue in the case of my
alley, if the board member of filthy
disagree with the decision, they
will be able to speak about it in
public without those problems caused
by -- if a board members feels the
I want to see in all its
business that it... There is a
clarity for those looking into the
organisation about were discussions
and decisions are taking place and
where things necessarily need to be
considered in private. Any public
body knows that you need to do both.
Then it's understood and
communicated well why things are
being done in private.
members will be able to have their
Well, you say of
course, but that was the issue
I can only talk about how I
will conduct myself.
Will you invite
her to rejoin the board?
We have a
round of appointments coming up for
it the SPA board in the natural
random things and that is an open
public appointments process.
would be welcome to apply?
I hope we
would have a wide range of
applications and it's an opportunity
to drive change but I want to see
happen in the months ahead.
you much. You are saying this is a
part-time job. Best of luck with
that one is all I can say. Thank you
Now it's another tumultuous Sunday
morning for politicians
fighting the Brexit battle.
Four board members on the UK
Government's Social Mobility
Commission have resigned.
And leading Brexit supporters have
written to the Prime Minister
urging her to walk away
from negotiations with EU
leaders unless they meet
a series of demands.
It is that time of year, a season
filled with love, goodwill and
It is a standard
night for hours.
A cosy night.
Roasting chicken. You are hereby
Remarkable things happen
around this time of year, the
arrival of the baby Jesus. The
Christmas truce of the First World
War, and the outbreak of harmony
between the SNP and Tories. How
different it was back in the summer,
when Theresa May was accused of not
listening to Scottish concerns about
macro one. -- Brexit. Believe it or
not, Christmas turkeys are good
illustration of the issues at play.
At the moment Brussels controls farm
subsidies, under the terms of the EU
withdrawal bill from the government,
all powers will return to
Westminster after Brexit rather than
Holyrood. The Scottish Government
complains that amounted to a
Westminster power grab. As forward
to last week and there was goodwill
to all men as UK and Scottish
ministers met in Edinburgh. Talks
broke up without a deal although
both sides progress had been made.
think we are closer to deal than we
have been in the past few months
because the mood music since
September has changed significantly
on the part of the Scottish
Government. A few months ago,
Theresa May wasn't even a human
being, they found it difficult to
discuss anything weather, the UK
Government was being reckless.
or no is much more constructive.
Scottish Government is not demanding
all powers return to Holyrood.
This is now about shared frameworks.
It looks like the moving forward,
talking about common UK frameworks,
how those would be decided, although
it is not clear to me that Wales and
Scotland would have a lot of
influence at the end of the date on
how it will be decided, will they be
given a veto, will we set up by EU
style system within the UK, I do not
Whatever the arrangements,
the Scottish and Welsh governments
wanted tabled in two the
negotiations. There is a role to
further Scottish parliament. NCB
MSPs can refuse Westminster
permission to pass a law that
impacts on devolved matters. What is
known as a legislative consent
motion isn't legally binding. As we
know from the Supreme Court decision
sometime back, there is no legal
basis to veto that.
Therefore it is
political symbolism. I think the
Scottish Government is realising the
political capital book to be arrived
from refusing to consent to one is
Theresa May's government is
facing a Brexit battle on many
fronts, not least the status of the
Irish border. That will be one less
headache to worry about.
Graham Stewart with that report.
As he mentioned, that meeting
on Thursday was attended by
Deputy First Minister John Swinney
and Scotland's Brexit
Minister Mike Russell.
A little earlier I spoke
to him from Portavadie.
First of all, Mike Russell, the lock
behind you is looking lovely
tomorrow -- painter. The latest
round of talks between the Scottish
Government and the UK Government
were held earlier this week. The
Scottish Secretary said there was
Is that you're
reading of it? We are making
progress, but a great deal now
depends on changing the withdrawal
bill. The UK Government knows that,
the bill is in the House of Commons
tomorrow and it is vital that that
bill changes. Neither ourselves or
the Welsh government can do except
the bill as it stands, because it
undermines devolution, it will cause
damage to Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland. We are making
progress on the framework. We hope
we can come to a conclusion on it.
But it will require a change to the
On that there was talk of, in
fact you seem to agree with the
Scottish Conservatives were
proposing that the Scottish
Government and them and the British
government could collectively draw
up amendments to the bill, that you
could all support. Are there any
such amendments yet and if not why
No, there are no such
amendments and you would have to ask
the Scottish Conservatives why they
have not bought those forward. There
are some amendments being discussed
tomorrow, those are amendments we
have drawn up with the Welsh bill.
The point I made during the week
when I appeared before the relative
committee in Holyrood, if there are
alternative amendments that achieve
the same thing and they are brought
forward by anybody, we will sit down
and discuss them. But we have to see
them, talking about them is not
The suggestion is, you were
sympathetic to this, was that you
are in the Scottish Conservatives
would agree an amendment. Are you
saying there are never were any
tops, that you could not agree or
that they never write anything
No, no. We are continuing
to talk. Are amendments tabled and
are sitting there waiting to be
voted on, hopefully tomorrow. The
reality of the situation if there is
to be progress, the bill will have
to be changed. If our amendments are
not good enough with the
Conservatives, then what I have said
and I said it again during the week,
is we will discuss alternatives of
people have them. We would have to
do that with the Welsh government,
this has to be a multilateral
process. We are not precious about
the wording of amendments. What we
have to do is achieve the results.
We have to make sure that devolution
is established and not undermine.
Those discussions are going on, they
are going with the UK Government and
other parties, but we do not want to
leave anyone in any doubt, if the
bill is not amendment, there cannot
be the progress that the UK
If you got
amendments agree that you could
support that changes the bill in the
way that you want, with SNP MPs vote
for the Brexit bill?
That is a
different matter. What we are
talking about is getting the bill
into a form which does not undermine
devolution. This bill has a lot of
distance to go. It is only in the
Commons committee stage, it has
still got the House of Lords to go
to, there might be a difference
between the Lords and the House of
Commons. There are things in the
bill that many of us thoroughly
dislike. What we have focused on is
primarily to do with devolution.
That is proper because that is our
concern on these matters. Whether or
not the SNP vote for the bill is up
to the SNP group. The issue of human
rights which has not been addressed
in the bill, the issue of
protections for the environment has
not been addressed, the issue of the
Charter of rights has not been
But what the UK
Government would say... So we can
give legislative consent. What they
UK Government would say, what is the
point of agreeing a few amendments
to the bill if having agreed those
amendments, you vote against it
The question and issue here
is, the two questions at issue here,
can we give legislative consent? The
constitutional crisis will deepen.
Secondly, as a practical business,
is the UK is leaving the EU and many
of us think it is a daft idea, if
the UK is living the EU, can we get
frameworks in place that will it
allow us to continue to work in
areas without a cliff edge. It is
about that cliff edge and making
sure we have those frameworks in
place, establish not through just
this bill but future bills. It will
be an accurate cultural bill in the
comments. -- agricultural. Those
other things we are trying to get
plays. It is difficult to negotiate
with the UK Government. We are doing
our very best to be practical and to
Do you expect to have
an agreement which will satisfy you
enough to recommend a legislative
At some stage? I
hope that will be the case and we're
working hard on that. I go back to
my first answer to you, there has to
be changes to the bill. That is
non-negotiable. What those changes
are and how they operate is still
under discussion. I am hopeful we
will get to the end of this process.
We are spending many hours on it.
But we will have to see those
changes to the bill.
Well we have
got you here, can I ask you about
something else, the children's
Commissioner has reported today to
be suggesting he might take legal
action against Universal Credit. The
argument is it infringes the human
rights of children. Would you back
any such action?
I think we would be
sympathetic to that action. The
approach of the UK Government on
Social Security and the wealthier is
appalling. -- welfare. I know that
as a constituency MP from my
caseload. In all those circumstances
anybody who are standing up against
that and arguing for a practical
resolution to an awful I a logical
problem brought by the Tories
deserves all the support he can get.
Presumably of the children's
Commissioner were to take legal
action, the cost would have to be
met by the Scottish Government?
think that is a discussion the
children's Commissioner has to have
with other ministers, it is not
within my portfolio. You asked me
what I thought of that, and I think
the UK Government's approach is
appalling. And I think this
children's Commissioner is saying
something that should be said. What
he has said is there has to be
changes. We have all been saying
that for a long time. That is what
the Chancellor announced in the
budget. They do not seem to be as
effective as they need to be.
will leave you there. Michael
Russell, thank you for joining us.
Now, also at that meeting
was the Scottish Secretary
David Mundell who joins me now.
Can you hear me? I can hear you. I
am hearing you loud and clear that
We should remain people,
you are supporting Paisley's bid to
beat city of culture.
I am. This is
a big week for a Paisley, the final
presentation is made and on the BBC
show on Thursday night, we will hear
whether Paisley has been successful.
I do not know how much of what Mike
Russell said that, even if you
should agree amendments with the
Scottish Government to the Brexit
bill, which would take care of their
concerns, the SNP might vote against
the Brexit bill anyway?
might vote against the bill, their
position as I understand it is to
remain in the EU. And if Scotland
left the EU it is to take Scotland
back into the EU. That is their
political position. What we are
engaged in in the discussions with
the Scottish Government is about
getting the devolution aspects of
the bill right. We have put in a
great deal of work on both sides
over the last few months and I think
that we are very close to getting
agreement on exactly what should
happen at each of the issues, the
111 issues on the list that was
published, how they should be dealt
with after we leave the EU. Where
some of those powers and
responsibilities will come to the
Scottish Government. Some will be
dealt with with informal
arrangements across the UK and there
will be a small number for which a
legislative mechanism will be
required. We are very close to
reaching agreement on exactly how
that distribution will take place.
And that will give context to the
bill. I think one of the
difficulties with the bill at the
moment is there is no context.
People do not understand what is
going to happen with the specific
powers and responsibilities and I
think if we can get that agreed and
have a context, then I think that is
the basis for moving forward.
was a suggestion, Jackson Carlaw and
the Scottish Conservatives would be
agreed with the Scottish Government
with amendments to the Brexit bill
which the Conservatives could then
support. Mike Russell says that has
not happened. Why has not happen
from your point of view?
happened is ongoing discussions
about these issues, but part of it
is to do with the Commons process. I
know some people feel that that
process is the best suited to every
situation. But basically the bill
will be in the Commons this week for
a committee stage. What the
government does at that stage in
relation to a bill is listened to
all the arguments that are made in
relation to amendments, not
necessarily accepting amendments at
this stage, but then coming back in
the New Year at what is cold the
report stage of the bill, with
amendments that the government can
accept. And I would expect... I
absolutely anticipate that that will
be the process in relation to this
Bill. So the meaningful amendments
in relation to will move forward on
The other issue is
whether the Scottish Parliament will
pass a legislative consent motion.
Is it your hope that they will? Is
it your view that it matters one way
or the other?
Of course it matters.
I have absolutely committed from the
start of this process is that we
should have a legislative consent
motion from the Scottish Parliament,
that's why we have engaged fully
with them and before the committee.
The committee will produce an
interim report and a further report
on the Bill. What that committee
does in Parliament matters and it's
very important that we achieve the
consent. We understand the issues
and concerns that have already been
raised, but of course the point at
which the Bill will come before
Parliament for this consent is
likely to be around Easter when it's
completed its House of Commons
passage, when it completed almost
the House of Lords passage. That may
well be a Bill in a different format
than it is today. That the Bill in
which the Parliament will be giving
If you've been having
all these meetings, not just the
Conservatives, Nicola Sturgeon and
John Swinney were in London, why
haven't you agreed anything?
actually making a lot of progress
behind the scenes in terms of the
individual issues. I don't want this
to sound as a flimsy excuse, but it
is excluding the combo dated. -- it
is extremely complicated. We went
into the evolution to the Iraq
evolution without having tangled up
these issues. -- to the EU
devolution. The Scottish Parliament
are proceeding now in a constructive
fashion. Nicola Sturgeon did indeed
have a productive meeting with the
Prime Minister, so we are making
substantial progress. It is a
difficult issue, but I am confident
that together we are going to
We are running out of
time. Let me change the subject if I
can. We were interviewing Susan
Deacon earlier who is about to
become chair of the Scottish Police
Authority. I'm interested in what
you made of issues of confidence in
the Scottish police of the last few
I welcome Susan Deacon. She
is well respected across the
political divide and can hopefully
bring a sense of direction to the
SPA. For constituents like mine in
Dumfries and Galloway who lost their
own individual police force, they
have not had confidence in the
accountability of Police Scotland
and they want their views and
reviews of people across Scotland to
be listened to in terms of how the
police force is run, but they also
want an effective police force that
is dealing with issues as the arise
in any place around Scotland. I hope
she can contribute to making that
We will have to leave it
there. Thank you very much.
Now it's time for a look back,
as well as forwards,
to the week ahead.
With me this week are the journalist
Isobel Lindsay and former
advisor to David Cameron,
Let's start with the police. There
is an issue of public confidence. We
can choose what words we use,
whether we caught a crisis or not,
there is an issue.
I am not sure
sure there is an issue of public
confidence, there is an ethnic issue
of media and political confidence.
Many of the B haters... Many of the
behaviours that appear to have
triggered this have probably been
going on in the individual police
forces before and didn't have the
same focus. I haven't heard much
discussion about the fact that it
takes so long in the police, not
just at the top, but down at the
bottom to deal with disciplinary
issues and it is hanging over
people, obviously very stressful,
but it's also a terrible waste of
resources and one of the things I
would like to see Susan Deacon take
on is why they haven't been doing
the things more quickly.
There is an
issue about what has been made
public. It is difficult to resolve.
These men and women who had been
suspended, we don't know... We do if
we read the newspapers, because it
has all been leaked, but officially
we are not being told what they are
being suspended for which leaves
them with their reputations being
left open to speculation. The other
side of things is what happened with
Ted Heath and Liam Britain, the
allegations are not made public and
then their reputations have been
trashed. Where is the balance?
individuals, whatever they have
done, they do have rights and their
employer has responsibility towards
them as well. As individuals, those
rights have to be protected. I am
sure most of the public watching
this will have very little idea of
what has been going on. I think you
are right here, there is an issue of
trust in policing in Scotland, but
that is largely within political
circles and within the bubble of
Scotland as opposed to within the
general public of Scotland. The
danger is that it breaks out beyond
that and that trust in confidence in
our police which is crucial to its
function starts to road. I think in
Susan Deacon now we have somebody
with the tenacity and intellect that
she will not be bounced into easy
answers to simple questions, but
will knuckle down and get on with
the job and do what's right.
what do you make of the latest?
what do you make of the latest?
are the latest developments? We can
choose! Well, this is... This is the
problem of Theresa May. It is our
problems to win the impact comes
through. I think from the Scottish
point of view in terms of which
Paris will get divorced, it's
important indeed that these key
powers get devolved back to Holyrood
and then there is a negotiation
about Corporation. If it's the other
way round, then all the bargaining
tools are at Westminster or
Whitehall. If Holyrood get
Whitehall. If Holyrood get the
powers, then there is a bargaining
I notice, located, but the
basic issue here that the assumption
is that powers stay with London and
then are devolved to Edinburgh,
whereas the hall assumption in
setting up the Scottish Parliament
is the opposite, that powers would
stay in Scotland unless they work
specifically reserved for London.
think both these extremes need to be
avoided. That is him yell at you.
Surely the Government, the British
Government, should have got it
right? -- that is the realities.
What is going on I think the degree
of consensus in the interviews today
showed that behind the scenes
progress is being made.
Accommodations will be reached.
There may remain a few, but I think
that clause of the Brexit divorced
Bill will remain redundant.
have to leave it there.
That's all from the us this week.
I'll be back at the
same time next week.
Until then, goodbye.