03/12/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

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,

Isabel Oakeshott,

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

trading arrangements

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

Islamophobia videos,

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

closest political

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

Commission President

Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow.

They will discuss the revised

offer on the divorce

bill and whether talks

can now move on to trade

post-Brexit.

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

negotiations.

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

not diverged?

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,

is it?

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.

We be

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

than Brexit.

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

it.

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

outstanding schools.

His complaint

was not that nothing has been done

since 2010 but nothing can be done

now.

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

since 1975.

-- unemployment. Theresa

May, when she became Prime Minister

last year, said this is a country of

burning injustice.

It is. There is

last year, said this is a country of

burning injustice.

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.

Let's move

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

producer prize.

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

40.

You are now fairly relaxed about

something around this mark?

I have

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

David Davies.

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

process.

In the budget a few days

ago the Government promised more

than an extra £350 million for the

health service, running into almost

£2 billion.

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

of Justice?

I share the aspirations

contained in the letter.

You did not

sign it.

No.

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.

You are

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

deal.

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

her?

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

Britain?

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

grass.

Will those assurances be

given?

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?

Even though

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

question, Sarah!

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.

Let

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?

I don't

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

International Trade

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

once?

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.

That's very

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

then?

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.

But we're

leaving the EU, let's take that as a

given.

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

referendum?

That precisely says that

it is not, because policy because we

have not made a decision on it!

You

could make a decision Ameobi not to

have a second referendum?

Let's be

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?

I am

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.

Have you

spoken to Diane Abbott, who has

written to two constituents in the

past month saying she would make the

case for a second referendum?

Diane

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.

Right.

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.

No.

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.

OK.

I'm done.

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,

so-called war-gaming.

Considering possible

future scenarios.

Something John McDonnell

talked about at the last

Labour Conference.

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

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

team.

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.

Those are

to mainstream for you to bother

about?

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

that.

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

opposition.

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.

I have

is the Jeremy Corbyn ran.

I have

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

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

for government?

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.

Even if

it has been publicised to working

with games developers.

You kept

with games developers.

You kept

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.

She is

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

to game out what a Labour government

would mean for business, would you

do that?

I would not do it but I

would be very surprised if they are

not already doing that.

Thank you

for coming

Good morning and welcome

to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Coming up on the programme:

Marred with resignations,

suspensions and criticisms over

transparency and leadership -

Scotland's police

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.

Again.

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

their conduct.

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

that...

They seem to be working

chaotically.

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

that area.

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.

The

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

week.

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

to comment...

It's not about...

The

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.

Is not

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...

I

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?

Do

you know, I think one of the things

that has been a legitimate criticism

of

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.

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?

I

will not deal in hypothetical.

I am

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

quite considerable

responsibilities...

Transparency is

one of the things you want to look

at?

Absolutely.

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

disagree...

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.

But forward

members will be able to have their

say?

Of course.

Well, you say of

course, but that was the issue

before.

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.

She

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.

Thank

you much. You are saying this is a

part-time job. Best of luck with

that one is all I can say. Thank you

very much.

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

reconciliation.

It is a standard

night for hours.

A cosy night.

Roasting chicken. You are hereby

pardoned.

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.

I

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.

That

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

think so.

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

limited.

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

significant progress.

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

bill.

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

not?

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

enough.

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

forward?

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.

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

Government wants.

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

addressed.

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

anyway.

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

be positive.

Do you expect to have

an agreement which will satisfy you

enough to recommend a legislative

consent motion?

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?

I

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.

We

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

the moment.

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?

The SNP

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.

There

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?

What has

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

that stage.

that stage.

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

its consent.

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?

We are

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

resolve it.

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

months.

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

happen.

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,

Ramsay Jones.

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.

trashed. Where is the balance?

Those

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.

Brexit,

what do you make of the latest?

what do you make of the latest?

What

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

tool.

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.

I

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.