10/12/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

Morning everyone and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith and I'll be bringing

you your essential briefing

on all the top political

stories this week.

She's done the easy bit,

now comes the hard part.

As we move on to trade

and transition talks with the EU,

just what sort of deal

is the Prime Minister aiming for?

The issue of trade across the Irish

border is likely to dominate

those talks, we'll speak

to the Northern Ireland

Secretary James Brokenshire

about what he thinks a solution

to the problem could look like.

Momentum, the group set up

to support Jeremy Corbyn,

is facing allegations it's trying

to take over the Labour

party, we'll investigate.

And on Sunday Politics

Scotland at 11.35am.

The budget is coming,

the threat of taxes getting fat.

What will we get for all those extra

pennies in the old man's hat?

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today to try to make

sense of is all, three journalists

who are in full alignment with this

week's political developments.

Tim Shipman, Helen

Lewis and Toby Young.

The cliche that a week is a long

time in politics has

never been more apt.

As Theresa May first appeared to be

the brink of collapse,

and then claimed victory with a deal

to allow Brexit talks to move

on to the next phase.

Deal or no deal?

The question that took

Theresa May to Brussels not

once but twice this week.

On Monday it seemed

it was all sorted.

Time to move onto talks about trade.

Then in stepped Arlene Foster.

Northern Ireland must

leave the European

Union on the same terms as the rest

of the United Kingdom.

So lunch was left to go

cold in Brussels as the

PM rushed home to try

and save the deal.

The problem ran along

the Irish border.

Did promises of regulatory

alignment mean Northern

Ireland would operate differently

from the rest of the UK?

Unionist alarm bells

could be heard in

Westminster where Theresa May

relies on their support.

While others saw their

chance to tell their own

bespoke Brexit deal.

So back to the drawing

board and a chance for

Labour to stick the boot in.

What an embarrassment.

Shambles.

The last 24 hours have

given a new meaning to

the phrase coalition of chaos.

There was a tricky

moment for the Brexit

secretary as he was quizzed over his

economic impact studies that don't

actually exist.

So there isn't one,

for example, on the automotive

sector.

On the automotive sector.

Is there one on aerospace?

No.

One on financial services?

I think the answer is

going to be no to all of

them.

Right.

By the Chancellor admitted

the Cabinet has not yet

debated future European

trading relations.

The Cabinet has had general

discussions about how Brexit

negotiations but we haven't had

a specific, er, mandate of the

position.

At Prime Minister's Questions

Brexiteers reminded the PM

they too had lines

they wouldn't cross.

Will she apply a new coat of paint

to her red lines because I

fear on Monday they were beginning

to look a little bit pink.

Talks through the night

on Thursday and

finally, white smoke.

Tweeted by Jean-Claude

Juncker's chief of staff

to signal a deal had been done.

4am Friday.

The red eye back to Brussels,

the Brexit Secretary's

face told the story of a long night.

A tweak of the words

and a deal agreed.

Sufficient progress has now

been made on the strict

terms of the divorce.

Not everyone was happy.

There are still matters

there that we would have liked

to have seen clarified.

The whole thing is a humiliation.

In a letter yesterday

Environment Secretary Michael Gove

said voters could change the deal

if they don't like it.

At the next general election.

Let's unpack a week of remarkable

political developments with our

panel.

Tim, the papers are claiming a

marvellous victory for Theresa May,

but this is a problem of her own

making she managed to dig herself

out of?

The government announced

immediately they had got a deal and

it took them two and a half weeks to

nail it down. It is worth

remembering that when she went off

to Brussels to Jean-Claude Juncker

who said, don't come here unless you

are ready to go. Theresa May kicked

him out of his office for an hour

while she begged Arlene Foster to

get in line and initially, it wasn't

happening because they hadn't nailed

it down. People say, why weren't all

these civil servants and people who

know about how to deal with these

guys, engaged in this process? The

separation between the Northern

Ireland Office and Downing Street,

the whip office was negligent and

they should have been holding hands

with the DUP and Tilly was taken

over the line. Disaster was only

narrowly averted. They were saying

earlier in the week, this is a

catastrophe and Theresa May needs to

go.

But she pulled it out in the

end. We were talking about takeover

plots, Theresa May might lose her

job and now it is a victory.

When

you are talking about this, you have

to divorce the theatre around it and

the last-minute concessions, which

will not end. The question is what

happens when the Forge recedes.

Everyone has something out of this

deal because there is no clarity.

Arlene Foster said they wanted

clarity. Both sides when they get

the clarity will be unhappy, but the

question is what they will do about

it.

Toby, both people on both sides

of the Brexit debate in the Tory

party, who are claiming they are

very, very happy. They can't all be

happy.

I am not surprised the

Brexiteers our content. There are

various things the remain as

predicted couldn't be achieved. They

thought they would be a backbench

rebellion. Now that looks like the

divorce bill will sail through. A

lot of Remainers thought the state

is of EU nationals would remain

uncertain for long time. This makes

no Deal Brexit less likely that was

always the Remainers best of

reversing the result of the

referendum.

Now we're left with the

question, what does full alignment

mean. David Davis asked that that

this morning.

It means outcomes.

It means...

If I arrived in two

cars, they are next

to each other.

Well, Northern Ireland is next

to the Republic of Ireland.

Yes, and it will have next

to regulations, it will be very

similar.

There will be some similarities.

Again, the Prime Minister

laid this out in her

Florence speech.

She said there are areas

where we will want similar

outcomes and we'll have similar

methods to achieve them.

There will be areas

where we have similar

outcomes where there will be

different methods to achieve them.

That's going to be true of a lot

of product areas, a lot of

manufacturing.

There will be areas where we want

different outcomes and

we will use different methods.

That was clear as mud, Toby, what do

you think full alignment means?

I

don't think we should spend as much

time as you seem to want to,

discussing it. As Michael Gove

clarified, it doesn't have any legal

force. It doesn't have any binding,

legal force. It hasn't got to the

stage of the treaty. It might be

difficult to unwind because it is

the basis of an agreement. But

nonetheless, it is not binding and a

lot is left to play for.

It is what

got the DUP on-board, finding a form

of words which could be what you

wanted them to.

People wanting

immigration cut without the economy

taking a hit. The same thing with

the DUP, they want to stay aligned

to prison, but they don't want their

agriculture, Northern Ireland is one

of the biggest industries, to take a

massive hit from a hard border. So

you are trying to reconcile two

contradictory impulses. That Philip

Hammond clip is extraordinary saying

the Cabinet have a discuss where

they think this ends up in the end.

That is where the row will be.

Number Ten is specifically briefing

full alignment, so we haven't solved

anything.

It is a verb, he converge,

I don't do converge, we have full

alignment. The Conservative Party

managed to get through a general

election where they had half of

their supporters hardline. This may

help them keep the show on the road.

We will be talking to all three of

you throughout the programme.

So it was the arrangements

to avoid a hard border

between Northern Ireland

and the Republic that

threatened to scupper progress

in the Brexit talks.

And there remains confusion

over exactly what it

is that's been agreed.

Hopefully we can clarify some

of that with the Secretary of State

for Northern Ireland

James Brokenshire.

Thanks for coming in. Can we go back

to the beginning of the week and the

discussions with the DUP. Where you

involved in that?

It is worth

stressing this is a fast-moving

situation. When the Prime Minister

was in Brussels at the start of the

week, the text hadn't been agreed.

That is why we've got the conclusion

with the text effectively now being

able to go on to the second phase.

Where you part of the back and

forward between Number Ten and the

DUP?

I don't want to get into the

details, but I have been involved,

supporting the Prime Minister and

making sure we have got sufficient

progress and why we have the benefit

of moving into phase two, which is

worth we can solve the issues with

relation to Northern Ireland.

He was

a significant failure at the

beginning of the week to flight to

Brussels without the DUP agreeing on

the text.

It was a fast-moving

situation.

Why go for lunch with

Jean-Claude Juncker if there wasn't

agreed text?

It was to continue the

discussions.

The Prime Minister

didn't think she had a deal on

Monday, she went to Brussels knowing

there wasn't an agreement with the

DUP.

The text wasn't agreed, as I

have underlined on a few occasions

already in this interview. It is how

we have secured what we needed to

do. We needed to give that assurance

in relation to Northern Ireland's

constitutional status in ensuring

trade between Northern Ireland and

Great Britain could remain

unfettered. That is important and we

can now solve this on phase two.

The

agreement said there would be full

alignment with the EU in the event

of no deal. It doesn't say anything

how you will avoid a hard border if

there is a trade deal with the EU.

You are looking at paragraph 49 of

the agreement. First and foremost,

this is about securing a free trade

agreement. Secondly, if that isn't

sufficient you move onto specific

solutions to deal with the unique

circumstances of Northern Ireland.

Only through an agreed outcome, do

you move on to the issue of

alignment, which I'm sure we will

discuss further.

Your preferred

option is to have the free trade.

Absolutely.

Nothing has been solved

on how you avoid a hard border

between Northern Ireland and the

republic if you have a free-trade

deal.

We were never going to solve

this in the first phase how this

agreement, we want to secure is

firmly in Ireland's interest, given

the nature of trade between Ireland

and the whole of the United Kingdom.

That is why we go into this second

phase with confidence we can secure

the positive outcome, which is the

best way to solve this.

The Irish

Taoiseach says it is clear in which

way it is going. He says we believe

the UK and Northern Ireland will

remain in alignment with the EU. Is

that your understanding?

I think he

underlines we could come to

different arrangements. It wasn't

about the same, somehow we would

stay within the customs union, the

single market. We are not. The text

says clearly, we are leaving and

Northern Ireland will be part of

that. Having shared outcomes may

mean we may achieve that to the same

or substantially the same way, or

very differently.

It cannot be too

different if you have to maintain

this idea you don't have a hard

border between Northern Ireland and

the republic. How does this allow

you to strike free trade deals with

the United States for instance, if

you have got to maintain either

alignment or come to some of the

United States for instance, if you

have got to maintain either

alignment or come to some other

border solution?

Let's take a couple

of examples. In relation to data

daylight, have your prescription

service nor those -- north or south

of the border. How that can converge

between Ireland and the UK. Things

like agriculture.

Let's talk about

agriculture. If we were to strike a

free trade deal with the US, they

have made it clear we will have to

diverged from EU rules on some

agricultural standards, like

chlorine washed chicken, how can we

do the kind of deal the US will

insist on and still maintain these

border arrangements?

We are yet to

get into those discussions.

They

have been to London and they have

said, if we stay too closely aligned

with the EU we will be able to get a

deal with the US.

We're not going to

somehow compromise our food safety

standards to have a race to the

bottom. That is why knowing the

integrated nature of the food sector

on island, is why we said we are

proud to look at alignment with

agricultural standards.

That tie

your hands. Why does the former

Brexit minister himself say it will

handicap our ability to enter into

free-trade arrangements?

We have

difference across the United Kingdom

over some of these devolved issues.

It doesn't create barriers within

the UK market. We are compliant with

the same rules as the EU and it is

positive decisions we might take.

When it comes down to this issue,

there won't be this race to the

bottom in relation to standards.

It

is important to understand. You are

tying the government's hands in its

ability to strike the free trade

deals that was supposed to create

the optimistic post Brexit future

proclaimed by the government.

It is

why we want to yes, secure the

positive free-trade agreement, Abbas

Bogue agreement with our EU

partners, but equally, which we

don't have, the flexibility to

negotiate trade deals around the

world so have the benefit of having

to do that.

The answer to this free trade deals

is how you manage the border between

the Republic of Ireland and Northern

Ireland, that has not been answered.

We've set up the framework, we've

not been able to have these

discussions yet. That's why it was

so important, where it was a really

positive achievement that Theresa

May secured by moving into phase two

where we can do just that. To look

at all these different elements we

been working hard on with the EU

that need to be solved whether

through the free trade agreement,

whether through specific

circumstances to meet these issues,

and protecting the ability from

people to move from Northern

Ireland's, into the Republic, really

importantly underlining the

significance of the Good Friday

Agreement.

The Prime Minister

significantly said no deal was

better than a bad deal. What this

means in Brussels as if there is no

do we have to stay in full alignment

with the rules and regulations, is

that the possible?

Is the document

states, nothing is agreed until

everything is agreed.

In the

situation of no deal, nothing would

be agreed and that is the

circumstance in which this deal

kicks in...?

This document doesn't

commit in that way. We are not

contemplating a notable situation.

The Prime Minister has frequently

contemplated that, saying no deal is

better than a bad deal.

I think it

says this in a good way, to secure

this positive outcome that agreement

with our EU partners. We will only

do that if it is acceptable. Under

the no deal statements that the

Prime Minister has made.

When this

agreement says, in the event of no

deal, we will maintain full

alignment, you say this doesn't mean

no deal?

This document doesn't deal

with no deal. That's what I'm

saying. Paragraph five...

So in the

absence of agreed solutions the UK

will maintain full alignment with

the rules of the customs union?

Paragraph five scissors and

agreement being reached...

So you

need an agreement before you have

absence of agreed solutions.

It is

about the three tiered approach will

take, free-trade agreements, dealing

with unique circumstances and then

moving onto the alignment issues. It

is this three tiered approach that

will inform the negotiations. This

is why I say this provides us with a

positive backdrop to go into phase

two, to get positive outcomes in

ensuring there is no barrier between

the Republic of Ireland and Northern

Ireland. I take the positive

viewpoint, around getting agreement,

securing that bright positive future

for Northern Ireland and the UK as a

whole which is what that does.

James

Brokenshire, thank you. Tim, are you

a clearer? On what has been agreed?

Much less clear. What is the scope

of this alignment issue? If you

listen to government ministers, and

David Davis earlier and James has

said nothing that contradicts that,

you are talking about big areas like

agriculture and energy. David Davis

said it would cover four areas, is

put to someone in the Irish

government has said and covered 142

areas, there's quite a big gap

between them and we haven't yet

bridged that intellectually, it

seems.

And not much clearer on what

if there is no deal.

We would crash

out which would be definitely worse

than a bad deal. An appalling

outcome. I think the whole issue of

these agricultural standards is

fascinating because it reveals the

difference between the average Leave

voter and the average person on the

right, the free trader who is not

worried about safety standards and

is fine with chlorine tipped chicken

but we no one that free-trade Dale

got bounced out of contention one

thing that revolted people with the

idea of lower animal safety

standards, food covered in bacteria

then washed in chlorine. So you have

one wing of the Tory party who are

OK with that and people who voted

Leave who are not.

Is it still on

the table, this idea of no deal?

It

has to be, until we've concluded a

deal, because otherwise our

negotiating position is weaker. In

some ways the way that we've managed

to agree on what the status of EU

National 's would-be and what the

role of the ECJ would be for eight

years after we leave, suggest that

even in the absence of a trade deal

or even a transition deal being

successfully negotiated we could

nonetheless put a minimal deal in

place which could guarantee the

rights of UK National is here and

British nationals in Europe. So in

that way it makes no deal a little

less unpalatable but I think we will

still get a deal.

Thanks for that.

Well, discussions of

what the government wants its final

deal to look like also brings

into focus what Labour's

plans would be.

Speaking this morning Labour's

Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer

argued that Britain should remain

as close to the EU as possible.

How we negotiate that agreement

with the EU is a matter for

negotiation.

It doesn't mean it's cut

and paste, but we do have a

choice, do we want to stay aligned

so we can trade successfully or do

we want to tear apart?

And I say we should stay aligned.

We are talking about

what sort of Britain we are

going to be and what the next 40

or 50 years might look like.

I don't think anybody

voted to make it

harder to trade with Europe.

Emily Thornberry, Labour's shadow

foreign affairs spokesperson, is

with me now. Thank you for coming

in. That was Keir Starmer this

morning. I don't want to put words

into his mouth or yours but I

interpret that as saying, we are not

staying in the single market, that

is not the Labour position but we

want to maintain many of the

arrangements we have with the single

market. Is that right?

We've always

said we have to accept the results

of the referendum, we have some

tests to be abided by to get a good

deal so we need to be able to get

the full advantage of access to the

single market and the customs union.

To achieve that what Keir Starmer

seemed to be saying was that was a

closely aligned to the rules and

regulations of the EU, possibly even

pay for access to the free market

and while free movement of people

wouldn't he said they should be easy

movement of people from the UK to

the EU and vice versa. Is that

really respecting the referendum

result?

We have to leave the

European Union that there's no

reason why we don't need go a long

way. It would not be respecting the

referendum and the sentiment that

has expressed during the referendum

if we did not move, after leaving

the European Union, to a system

where we had fair rules and managed

migration, so people could easily

travel across Europe and those that

we need to have an ox economy - this

we need an our economy can stay and

that will help us.

If we are staying

closely aligned to the rules and

regulations of the EU why we have no

say in the formation of those rules

how is that taking back control?

We're going to leave and it seems to

us that people wanted to leave, they

wanted some form of control over

migration and fair rules and managed

migration is what we want but they

did not vote to lose their jobs

offer their neighbours to lose their

jobs. We need to prioritise the

economy and trade when it came to

negotiations and people should be in

no doubt that our biggest trading

partner is the European Union. It

would be economically ridiculous for

us to march off into the Atlantic

and say, we are turning our backs on

the European Union. To go into deals

with them we'd need the same rules

when it came to our exporting of

carrots or anything else. If you

want to export vacuum cleaners to

Europe they need to have the same

safety standards as the rest of

Europe.

Do you think people who

voted to leave will be happy that we

would follow and mirror the rules

and regulations of EU when we have

no say in their creation now, we

become will takers and not makers?

What we've said is that we need an

interim period when we negotiate

properly and have a long-standing

relationship with EU. When it comes

to exporting goods clearly we need

the same standards and don't want to

undercut European standards, nobody

wants and implement controls, we

need all these things to be less in

Britain than in the rest of Europe,

well, some Tories do but we don't

and we are clear about that.

That

would constrain our ability to sign

free trade deals with other

countries. The more closely aligned

we stay with EU the less movement we

will have to sign a new deal with

the USA for example.

What we need is

a custom-built arrangement between

Britain and the rest of Europe. We'd

need to be in a form of the customs

union and closely aligned to the

single market and that might give us

room to make the that is something

we need to be involved in

negotiation...

That is clearly of

secondary importance to you, the

ability to strike new deals with

third countries.

We've always been

pragmatic, most of our trade has

been with EU. We're just stating a

fact and we shouldn't put the kibosh

on that.

Are you happy with the

agreement Theresa May struck this

week?

Really don't understand it.

I've looked at it, I don't

understand. I think probably what

she is doing is she's rubbed at some

of her red lines, and that's good

because you shouldn't go into

negotiations with hard red lines

like she has. I don't understand how

on one hand she is saying she's

going to align and on the other hand

will be out of the single market on

the customs union. It doesn't really

make any sense to me.

I thought that

was the position you said Labour

win, leaving the single market on

the customs union but wanting to

stay aligned to Europe and is

regulations...

They say they've

swept any form of customs union of

the table. That's what I understand.

She is swept away any suggestion

that the European Court of Justice

would have anything to do with any

rules. She seems to be busily

putting them back on the table

again. That's probably a good thing.

What a waste of time. Because

wouldn't it have been good to have

began on a pragmatic, realistic

basis and we might have got further

than we have now. We are running out

of time.

What is Labour's answer to

the question of the border between

the northern Ireland and the

Republic of Ireland, how do you

avoid hardboard?

The further we go

from the EU, the harder it is to

have a soft border. What we have

said without that a form of customs

union is a viable option. Melbourne

has come up with any other

suggestion.

This idea, it says in

the agreement that was struck with

EU in the absence of any other

agreement, this idea that we would

maintain the full alignment with the

rules and regulations come you are

satisfied that it works well for the

UK and EU and solves the border

question?

Of course there has to be

a form of alignment, of course the

European Court of Justice need staff

an ongoing relationship with British

justice in the way we put forward

rules when we are working with the

rest of the EU. Why have we denied

at all this time, it is self-evident

and continues to be so.

It is

proposed that an amendment be put

forward that would give MPs a

meaningful vote on this while there

is still time for more negotiation

rather than at the end of

negotiations, will Labour support

that?

We have always said this. From

the outset we have said, why should

parliaments across the rest of

Europe have a vote on this, and the

European Parliament have a vote, the

people of Walloons will have a lot

in it, why not the British people?

That has to be a meaningful vote. --

one at the British Parliament. They

will have to factor in what the

British Parliament thinks. And many

people in the British Parliament

will not accept no deal, for

example. If they think they are

going to come to the British

Parliament with no deal is an option

they have another think coming.

There's another amendment to the Lib

Dems want, to put forward the option

of remaining in the single market.

Vince Cable has said it is

specifically designed to flush out

the Labour Party by asking straight

out will you support this amendment

or not with the option of staying in

the single market. How would Labour

vote on that?

We are leaving the EU,

we need a custom made deal with the

EU. We need to be able to respect

the views of the British people as

expressed in the referendum and one

debate was about ensuring that we

have more control of migration.

We've been told that the four

freedoms mean we can't stay in the

single market as it currently is so

we need a different deal. Those

other things we should have focused

on rack from the outset.

Emily

Thornberry, thank you very much for

coming in this morning.

There have been a number of reports

in the press recently accusing

the Labour pressure group Momentum

of forcing serving Labour

councillors off the ballot paper

for re-election in favour

of their own candidates.

Sources close to Momentum argue

they are simply helping to reflect

the new make-up of the Labour Party.

So is there any truth

in the allegations?

Elizabeth Glinka has been

to Brighton to find out.

They say to keep your

friends close and your

enemies closer, and in

the

Labour Party in Brighton they are

very close indeed. Here, as in many

other parts of the country,

there are suggestions that Momentum

is attempting to seize control and

ultimately replace sitting

councillors with candidates of their

own choosing.

Two weeks ago Momentum won

all nine positions on the

committee which will organise

the selection of candidates

for the next City Council

elections in 2019.

Local activists have spoken

about installing the first Socialist

council in the city, the implication

being that the current Labour

council is not quite

socialist enough.

If you talk to people from Momentum,

they will say to you, we

have brought in all these

new members, they're

full of enthusiasm,

why shouldn't we have our people

moving in to take over the party,

we are the future of the party.

Is there bullying

going on in Brighton?

I think there has been.

And I think that has

predominantly been from people

outside the Labour Party

and it is not acceptable.

Wouldn't be accurate to say that

Momentum members and

some of the new Labour Party members

are mobilising against the existing

councillors?

I think there has been some chatter

about that and a lot of

that has been from those who are not

in the party at the present time.

Once people are not members

of the Labour Party,

they can't share our values

and therefore they should be

excluded from Momentum.

And that would be a way

to unify the party in

Brighton and Hove and

around the country.

As a former minister in the Blair

government you might expect of

a captain to take that view.

I spoke to a number of Labour Party

members who said they had

experienced intimidation and that

Momentum was authoritarian

and brutal to existing councillors.

None would agree

to appear on camera.

While I was in Brighton a Momentum

activist posted this video and

social media.

The faces of three Labour

councillors including the

council leader had

been superimposed.

Something I put to a local

Momentum organiser Greg

Hadfield, who is currently suspended

from the Labour Party.

I haven't seen it so I'm not

going to comment on it.

And you think that is?

I'm happy to get

back to you and have

considered view but

I haven't seen it.

I have spoken to a number of people

across the party in Brighton

and Hove, some of them tell me that

Momentum are using bullying tactics,

that the party is very divided

and they feel not able to speak up

and air their views.

They are saying that on the record?

Because I think that's

shocking smears.

What we have seen in

Brighton and Hove in the

last 18 months is a massive upsurge

in democratic, decent democratic

engagement with party members.

Anyone who says that,

first of all they are lying,

but also they don't have the best

interests of the party.

Would you like to get

rid of the current

cohort of councillors

in Brighton and Hove,

the Labour councillors.

I would love it for

members to elect the best

representatives of this

Labour Party that they can.

If that is bullying,

if that is not democratic, if that

is deselecting, then people

saying that have a very

strange view of democracy.

Overnight Labour suspended

the member who posted the video.

He denied was anti-Semitic

and issued an apology.

Away from Brighton

the deselection of Labour

councillors in Haringey

and in other London boroughs has

made the national press.

There have been deselection

is in other places as

well including Hastings

and by just aware the

former mayor is among

the casualties.

I think we need a cultural

message from the top.

Momentum clearly have a place

in the Labour movement now

although they are not affiliated

with the party

formally they have brought energy

and ideas to the party.

That is no bad thing.

But Jeremy Corbyn is not just

the party leader but the

figurehead of momentum,

he has to send a message

to all his troops,

if you like around the country,

saying perhaps, not in my name.

Having spoken to people

from across the

Labour Party in Brighton,

there are those that

will tell you that the party is more

united than ever before

and they are incredibly positive

about the future.

But on the other

side even people who

describe themselves as being

on the left say they feel despondent

and that the atmosphere can only be

described as toxic.

Well we asked Momentum if someone

could come on to discuss the issues

raised in that film but no

one was available.

Never mind, we have our panel of

experts. Helen, is it perfectly

legitimate for momentum to get their

own candidate selected. They are in

the ascendancy now, so why shouldn't

they have more candidates?

They have

a legitimate position and they are

entitled to push it forward. But it

is controlled by two Private limited

companies and the data is in the

hands of one man. They talk about

progress and the Fabians, it is

around Jeremy Corbyn as a person.

The third thing, they are very

successful in terms of making viral

videos and they are an effective,

organising force and that is why

people are so worried.

Momentum do

show the way politics is going, they

are fantastic at mobilising people,

reaching their supporters and doing

it in different ways, are centrists

in the Labour Party frightened by

their success?

Definitely and that

is why they haven't been able to put

up a better fight. To claim this is

an undemocratic, because

an undemocratic, because votes have

been taken before Momentum takes

been taken before Momentum takes

control like the Brighton & Hove

Albion are to, is absurd. It isn't

democratic because a small neo-Nazis

calls will be holding the Labour

Party to ransom. It doesn't matter

Party to ransom. It doesn't matter

whether they can sit out at these

meetings until

meetings until 2am until moderates

have to go home. It doesn't make it

a takeover, it is

a takeover, it is definitely not

democratic as it would be if

democratic as it would be if Britain

First took over the Labour Party.

Is

that fair?

The

that fair?

The problem is calling it

tiny. It isn't tiny any more.

tiny. It isn't tiny any more. The

last lot of people campaigning on

the streets for Labour were involved

in Momentum. If you look at their

social media, 60% of voters saw a

Momentum

Momentum video on their Facebook

feeds during the general election

and Momentum spent £2000 on it.

Everything else spread virally.

There is a popularity and yes they

are a bunch of old leftie Marxists,

but on the other side there is

people

people cheering the Jeremy Corbyn,

they have come together and it is a

powerful force and no wonder the

Blairites and motorists are worried.

Blairites and motorists are worried.

It is a form of bullying?

It is a form of bullying?

You have

these optimistic people who want to

change the world, tied up with a

group of people who are effective

organisers and behave in a

substandard way a lot of the time.

substandard way a lot of the time.

To compare them with Britain First

is over the top. To compare it with

an organisation whose explicit

purpose is to advance racist

propaganda is unfair.

We will leave

that therefore now.

Good morning and welcome

to Sunday Politics Scotland.

Coming up on the programme.

Will Scotland's Chancellor really

hike taxes just before Christmas?

I'll be speaking to two

politicians who hope he does.

And with support growing

across business and politics,

is it time for Scotland to start

running its own immigration system?

It's that time of year again

when peace, love and understanding

plans through Parliament

and continue to govern.

In a moment we'll hear

from Scottish Lib Dem

leader Willie Rennie,

but first, with me now, is Scottish

Green Co-convener Patrick Harvie.

Have you already done a deal?

No, we

have set out very clearly what we

think the priorities are for the

Scottish Government, we took accept

the party conference and our members

indoor our key priorities around

fair taxation, to revenue for public

services and close the inequality

gap, investing in carbon

infrastructure and protecting local

government.

Have you had talks with

the Scottish Government about the

budget?

Yes, I think the last time I

spoke to Derek, he mentioned he had

spoken to all the political parties.

This is normal, political parties

should talk all the time. Especially

in a minority government.

So what is

your one red line, your thickest red

Line?

We have said clearly that we

want to seek an innovation based as

minimum pay increase in the -- and

inflation -based pay increase in the

public sector, protect public

services which we managed to hold

last year and we need to reverse

cuts, we can do that with fairer

taxation. On tax we have an

interesting position where in 2016,

we were the only party saying we

don't just need to tweak the income

tax system, you can restructure it

by protecting the low earners and

making people like me pay a bit

more. We have won that argument

already, labour and the Liberal --

and the Conservatives have already

agreed, I don't know what Willie

will see but we think they are going

in that direction.

Your idea of a

pay increase of at least inflation

for public sector workers would be

paid for by your proposal in tax but

have you worked out how much of 3%

pay rise would cost?

We have said

all along it is for the Scottish

Government to produce the figures...

You must have a guess.

So what the

Scottish Government has put in the

public domain has said you are

talking about 100 million per

percent.

£300 million?

Over that.

Which is more than any of the model

tax increases that the Scottish

Government produced in its

government.

That depends on when you

are taking the most pessimistic idea

of tax avoidance, and the evidence

for that is shaky. Also in 2016, the

tax proposals we put forward were

about raising revenue party from

income tax and partly from a form of

local tax. The SNP have stalled on

reforming local taxation, that is

really regrettable. They have made

the choice to stall on local tax

reform, they need to come forward

with tax policies that though they

have two centre the fiscal

commission. I am not allowed to do

that, Derek is the owner person who

can do that and run the system and

decide what they will put the

parliament.

If you're going to have

a negotiation, by definition, you

have to be prepared to concede. And

they must be prepared to concede as

well. Have you had any indication

from the Scottish Government that

they have any indication of putting

any taxes up?

Your first question

was, have we done a deal, we have

not. The Scottish Government have

not told me what the budget is that

they're going to oppose this week in

the budget. We will find out on

Thursday but their budget plan is on

spending but also what their tax

plans are, their proposals for tax

rates and bands on income tax, as

well as a public sector pay policy.

We will have to look at all of that

detail together and not react

immediately.

But no tax rises would

not be accidental to you?

Identity

how we -- acceptable to you? I do

not see how we could fund the

Scottish Government's own parties on

four example the health service

being funded by an extra £500

million over the course of the

Parliament, I do not know how you

could find that if the UK Government

is imposing a cut on the revenue

side of the budget, and you don't

raise tax.

So there would have to

be, even if it is not your

proposals, there would have to be

some tax rises?

I don't see how

Derek Mackay could present a budget

which even meets SNP policies if

it's a standstill on tax and seeing

a reduction of the revenue side, it

doesn't add up.

In the documents

they produced, your right to say

there was a range of suggestions

depending on how people reacted to

tax rises, but the figures they

produced and the analysis they

produced suggested that if you put

an additional 5p on the additional

rate, people earning over 150,000

pounds, only 20,000 of them, if you

put 5p on, you a chilly lose money.

But you're proposing to put 15p on

which seems entirely self-defeating.

The focus on the additional rate is

something that keeps coming back in

this tax discussion. A very small

proportion of the population pay

that top rate of tax. There is a

question about whether those people

are going to find ways to dodge

taxes if you increase the rates. The

evidence for that is mixed. The only

way to find out if the evidence is

correct is to attempt a change. You

can make a bigger change by reducing

the threshold. Some people in Labour

have suggested going through further

in reducing that tax threshold than

we have.

What would you like to

reduce it to?

Pick on anyone of

these measures, and say what's your

order before then, -- what is your

number for that, it doesn't make

sense.

It does if you are going to

implement a tax system.

You have to

think across the piece, you have to

think about the tax rate across the

higher rate and the basic rate, you

split that up. We are likely to see

what rates and bands of income tax

being proposed by the Scottish

Government because we seem to have

one but argued.

The air passenger

duty, is that a Red Line?

You cannot

-- we cannot support a cut to air

passenger duty. We already know

that's not going to happen, if you

are cynical, you could say that they

have found a way to blame

Westminster for the fact that they

can't change it this year. If you

are more generous, you could say

that they got a technical problem

they did not anticipate. Whichever

view you take, that's not going to

happen this week and it's clear that

the SNP should drop the policy

overall, not just a ferret down road

a year, they should drop the policy

and if there's any tax giveaway, it

should be cutting public transport

fares on buses and trains.

How would

you reply to people saying, of

course but Greens are going to give

in and vote for the budget, they are

just puppets of the SNP.

I think

they have been looking at bad Tory

memes on the Twitter.

The fact that

you voted for it last year is a bad

Tory meme?

We have voted for some

budget and against, the Tories voted

for every single SNP budget.

Your

not a puppet, that's the gist of it.

Every party should drive as hard

bargain we can for their voters.

Thank you very much.

Shortly before we came on air

I spoke with Willie Rennie.

Have you already done a deal to

support the Scottish budget?

We have

certainly have not. We will wait to

see what the budget comes up with on

Thursday and we will be prepared to

talk to Derek Mackay and his

colleagues about whether an

agreement can be reached. The top

priority for us is to have a

transformation of investment for

education which will help of the

economy which has been stuttering

over recent months and years. We

need to invest in people skills to

make things change.

Have you not had

any talks with them?

We have had

discussions with him but we have not

reached any agreement.

You say your

Red Line is how you much you want

spent in education.

We want to

invest £500 million in education. We

think there should be an investment

in colleges, schools and nurseries

and we would do that by putting a

penny on the basic rate of income

tax.

That would not raise £500

million, though, would it?

That

would.

It would, if you put a penny

on the rate from how much, from

12,000 right way up?

Yes, because of

the personal allowance changes at

Westminster, it would be that you

wouldn't pay any more tax unless you

work earning over £80,800 so it

would be attracting those on the

lowest incomes.

-- £18,800. Does

that go along with the Scottish

Government's economists cultivation?

I thought the maximum they came up

with with all the various

calculations they had was £290

million.

They have come up with a

limited number of options which

involves creating different bands

and taking those on low incomes out

of the tax increases. We are

proposing a different system, so

there four options, I think the

maximum is about to 90.

But have you

had any indication from Derek Mackay

or anyone else in the Scottish

Government that they would be

prepared to contemplate a raise in

of the basic rate?

We haven't got

down to that kind of detail yet, we

have got to see what they come up

with.

It's a pretty obvious come up

with.

We've covered a lot of issues,

one is whether we can make the

necessary education we think is

needed. We are unnecessary nursery

education, they are clearly trying

to expand the number of hours for

three and four years old, we have

gone to that detail. In mental

health, we want to make sure we get

investment in the front line by

recruiting and training more

personnel for mental health

officers. In GP surgeries, also with

the police and accident and

emergencies. Those of things that we

have set out what we have not got

down to the specific details in tax.

Your big issue is Europe, the

Liberal Democrats are campaigning

for a second referendum on the

European Union. You seem to think

that's more important almost, that

anything else, the economic impact

of leaving the European Union is the

biggest issue. Why not say to this

Scottish Government, we will support

your budget if you support a second

referendum on the European Union?

There are a number of different

priorities that the Liberal

Democrats have, yes, we want to

avoid the dangerous impact of

Brexit. But this is about the

budget. This is about trying to get

a package of finances for Scotland

that will boost the economy, because

we have been sluggish over recent

months. That's the focus we've got

and that's why we believe investing

in mental health, also education,

should be the priority.

You could

also say, the impact of Brexit will

overwhelm any of these detailed

discussions on education or

whatever, we need to not leave the

European Union, back our son having

a -- back second referendum and we

will back your budget.

It'll take

more than that for us to back the

budget, we want to have a

transformational on education but

tackling also problems mental

health. It is interesting idea and

it's something I will raise the

Derek Mackay perhaps but that on its

own is not sufficient. We need to

have a transformational education to

make real change.

A while back on

this programme, you said you would

like the SNP to back your second

referendum on Europe, and make

Russell, the Brexit secretary, was

interested in that, and said he

would like to meet you and discuss

at.

Where are there any meetings?

Yes, Tavish Scott and make Russell

have had a discussion, we have been

encouraging them to

encouraging them to move from

considering to supporting our

proposal. We think it is the best

way of avoiding dangerous Brexit and

the impact on the economy. We have

to get the SNP over the line to

fully supported.

What is your

problem with the idea? It would seem

an obvious thing for them to support

it on one level.

Yes, it would. We

do not understand why they are not

fully supporting at.

One reason is

presumably because a lot of yes

voters in the independence

referendum voted leave, so might not

be pleased if they backed the second

European referendum.

It could well

be, I cannot read the minds of the

SNP very well these days, but

hopefully they will come on board

and support the move.

Are those

discussions still going on?

We have

not had discussions this week.

I

mean about the Europe issue.

That is

what I mean, yes.

Is the reality

that you will not back the budget?

There is nothing in it for you. At

times you have been the most

critical party of the whole idea of

independence for Scotland, and the

wall idea at the second referendum,

what possible motive would you have

in propping up an SNP Government?

We

are reasonable and pragmatic people,

we always try to hunt for agreement

when we can, and if we can find

common ground we will do that. We

want the transformation investment

in education, we want a change in

mental health services for the

better, and we want to make sure

that we get a fairer funding package

for ferries in Orkney and Shetland,

which the finance secretary is being

underhand on.

Were not going to go

into that, last point, you said a

minute ago you had not had

discussions on Europe this week with

the SNP. Are you implying these are

regular discussions that are

ongoing?

I think there has been one

meeting, but I visit frequently with

Scottish Government ministers, and I

am open to having further

discussions.

You still hope to wind

them over?

Yes, I do, I am ever

optimistic.

Willie Rennie, we have

to leave it there, thank you very

much indeed.

So, at last, a deal in Brussels this

week means that Britain will be able

to move to stage two

of the Brexit negotiations.

Theresa May remains adamant

that Britain will leave

the European single market

and control its own immigration,

with a view to bringing

the numbers down.

But the debate is very

different here in Scotland.

Faced with an ageing population,

there've been growing calls

to maintain, or even boost,

the numbers of EU

migrants coming here.

And now that the real negotiations

over Brexit are about to start,

the think tank, the Institute

for Public Policy Research,

has said that devolving

control over immigration

to the Scottish Parliament

is an "idea whose time has come".

We'll debate the merits

of that in a moment,

but first here's Graham Stewart.

Hello, everybody, it is great to see

you all here as we are about to turn

on the Christmas tree lights in

Downing Street once again.

MUSIC

To help us do this...

MUSIC

Five, four, three, two, one.

Five, four, three, two, one.

So,

Theresa May got what she wanted this

Christmas, or key, maybe Europe did

anyway. There was a deal on the

so-called divorce bill, no hard

order in Ireland. And to the reef of

many European citizens living here,

they will get to stay here and work

as they do now. That is good news

for Simon, originally from Poland,

who has run his own landscaping

business across Fife in the Lothian

is for the past ten years, employing

a mix of European and Scottish

workers. But the UK Government is

still intent on reducing immigration

once we're out of the EU, and he

believes that would make hiring

workers a lot more difficult in the

future.

It would definitely restrict

the amount of skill and experience

we have access to. I think the ideal

scenario is that there is still a

free flow of workers and skill.

Here

it is in black and white. A plan for

a tighter system of control for

after we leave the EU. The

government document, which was

leaked in August, says freedom of

movement with an unlimited number of

EU citizens can come here, we'll

end. New arrivals after 2019 would

have to register to remain

long-term. There would be tighter

rules for lower skilled workers to

prioritise British employees,

perhaps even a cap on numbers. For

EU citizens who do come to the UK,

it would be harder to bring family

along. But could Scotland take a

different path? The Institute for

Public Policy Research in Scotland

says it is time to rethink the UK's

one size fits all immigration policy

and post Brexit is the ideal time to

do it.

Immigration has not been

working across the UK for a long

time, but devolving immigration to

us could be one of the answers to

this an offence, places in Scotland

we are immigration is lower, the

need for immigration is greater, in

terms of economic son demographics,

to go ahead and get the levels that

are right, and allow other parts of

the UK we are immigration is

greater, to restrict immigration,

which would bring coherence to the

UK wide immigration matters not they

are right now.

Similar to concerns

in Ireland this week over the

prospect of a hard border, there are

questions about how Scotland did

have a separate immigration system

while maintaining an open border

with England. Questions Lord Smith

of Kelvin doubtless considered three

years ago when he proposed evolving

further powers to Holyrood in the

wake of the independence referendum.

He stopped well short of

recommending power should be

devolved, but he suggested

politicians explore the possibility

of post-study work visas for

students. Something Scotland's

universities are even more keen to

explore in the week Brexit.

We

benefit hugely from being able to

attract students from across the

from over 100 countries. At the

moment we're rather unmapped by UK

immigration policy. We would for

instance like to be able to offer a

competitive ability for students to

stay on and work a period after they

have graduated so that they can

contribute something to our economy

and call back to their own countries

with work experience as well as a

fantastic Scottish degree.

Are you

going to be celebrating? No. Still

more work to do.

As the EU's chief

Brexit negotiator made clear, any

celebrations over this week's

agreements are premature. Britain's

future with Europe let alone the

Immigration bills have not even --

immigration rules have not even been

discussed yet.

Shortly before we came on air

I spoke to the SNP's Deidre Brock

and the Conservative's Paul

Masterton.

First of all, tell us the story of

the problem is one of your

constituents has been having?

Yes,

she has been 24 years in Britain,

she married a Marine who served in

Bosnia and Northern Ireland, and

went on to become a member of what I

could term Queens bodyguard, and is

now Regius keeper at the botanic.

She replied for a residency card and

was refused, despite the fact she

has lived here all that time, and

stayed at home bringing up their

three children while Simon was

serving, and she could not prove her

income levels so she was refused and

keen to see me in some distress, --

came to see me in some distress, and

it has caused a lot of attention in

the media.

Has it been sorted out?

The negotiations announced, the

first phase of the EU negotiations,

the document on Thursday, suggested

that marriage to a UK national will

be taken into account when assessing

whether or not people can remain in

the UK after Brexit. But it says it

has taken into account, it is not a

guarantee. The criteria is still not

clear enough as to what will be

applied when people apply for a

residential status after Brexit.

The

way you have described the case,

whatever the rights and wrongs, it

does not seem that her case had much

to do with Brexit in the first

place, did it?

No, residency was

refused, but it is a ridiculous

situation, she has lived here for 24

years, bringing up three citizens of

the UK, her husband is highly

respected, and even she was refused

residency, so this causes a lot of

doubt in people's minds about what

will be applied after Brexit went EU

nationals have to apply.

Again,

you're presumably encouraged by the

wording in the document?

I am

encouraged, but the 3 million

organisation which represents the

views of many EU nationals, the 3

million who live in the UK, have

said they are not satisfied with the

fact there is not sufficient detail

as to what that criteria might be

for those wanting resident status

after Brexit?

Are you happy with the

wording?

Yes, I take her point that

it is wording and a lot comes into

how that works for people who are

here achieving that settled status,

but in terms of the high-level clear

commitment made to these people, as

we come to be phase one, it is very

strong.

Are you happy that the

European Court will, it seems, have

a role in this for almost a decade?

I am personally comfortable with

that. I know some of my colleagues

may feel less comfortable, but for

me it is more important that we talk

about these individuals as people

and giving them that the assurance

they have built in the lights in the

UK.

On a more general point, the SNP

would like after Brexit for the to

be some Scottish immigration policy

which could be different from that

in England or Wales.

Are you getting

anywhere? Well, we're looking into

immigration at this moment. We have

had a couple of sessions already,

but it is not simply the SNP, they

are a number of organisations,

increasing numbers of organisations

concerned about what will happen

after Brexit to migration from

Scotland. It is very important for

the economy, not to mention the

social and cultural importance they

bring.

bring. But we have people like the

Scottish Chambers of commerce, FSB

Scotland, we have universities

Scotland, we have the College of

Scotland, different organisations

who feel that some sort of

differential approach to immigration

is required in the future.

Given

that list of organisations, it seems

obvious for the Scottish

Conservatives to support it.

On the

committee with Deidre, I said I'm

not convinced with any of the issues

outlined being unique to Scotland,

so some differentiated deal is

necessary or would have any economic

benefit for Scotland. It seems that

a lot of these issues are UK wide,

and they need a pan UK resolution.

Why, because for example the

Scottish Government says Scottish

industry and business needs more

immigrants. Without prejudice to the

idea that could be special

agreements -- there could be special

agreements to England and Wales

Cricket Board same thing. What is

wrong with the same idea that the

Scottish Government should be able

to determine these things? The

Conservatives have been saying for

weeks you can have an electronic

border between Ireland, Northern

Ireland and the Republic which would

mean you do not need to have a

tariff or customs barrier. Surely it

is possible to have an immigration

system where the Scottish Government

can have some separate policy and it

would work electronically?

I think

it is possible, but it is whether it

is necessary or beneficial. A lot of

issues are sectoral, so issues

facing soft fruit farmers in Angus

are the same as those Down South. It

is about putting together an

immigration policy that works for

Britain and its new place.

If you

take an issue like farming, a lot of

people who come and work in the soft

fruit industry in Scotland are from

Eastern Europe, exactly the same

issues that arise in East Anglia or

Lincolnshire, so doesn't Paul

Masterton have a point that it is

going -- if there is going to be

immigration rules, they should apply

to areas of Britain, rather than

something Scotland should have

separately?

I refer you to the Ernst

separately?

I refer you to the Ernst

& Young report talking about a

demographic time bomb to Scotland,

Scotland has a particular problem

with an ageing population, and

dependence on population growth on

migration. -- inward migration. I do

not hold that there is not a

specific need for Scotland to

address this. People are becoming

increasingly alarmed at the prospect

of losing those important migrant

workers after Brexit.

But businesses

in England are alarmed as well.

But if we have a number of

organisations making a case for

flexible migration in Scotland, I

don't see why that should not be the

case. Even the head of the Tories

acknowledge there are differing

needs in Scotland, but they're just

not prepared to do anything about

it.

If we can have an electronic

border, why not have it? I take your

point about some of the issues being

the same, but what the Scottish

Government would say is, where the

best people to decide that, not the

government in London.

My view is

that we need to have an immigration

system that works for the UK as a

whole. There are some specific

issues facing Scotland that they can

be met better than the UK where aid

framework.

Is this something we

discussed within the Scottish

Conservatives? There have been

suggestions in the papers over the

weekend of the Scottish

Conservatives might come round to

the kind of view that Deirdre is

having.

I don't think so. We accept

that there are sectoral issues which

are more prolific in Scotland by way

of the workforce and the ageing

demographic but the Scottish

Government has a soft and hard

powers which you can use to attract

more inward migration to Scotland

and we need to focus on the overall

UK wide immigration policy.

Is Paul

Wright, are you getting signals that

the Scottish Conservatives might

come round your point of view?

I

can't see that I've seen any

evidence of it yet. I would hope

that the evidence that the Scottish

Government submitted containing a

lot of data to the importance of

migration to Scotland to the

migration advisory Council recently

would be taken into the account when

the UK Government forms interviews.

But I would still argue that the

Home Office immigration service is

not fit for purpose and needs

review, and I would like to see

things altered for Scotland's

purposes.

We will have to leave it

there, thank you very much.

Time now to take a look back

over events and a look

forwards to the week ahead.

With me this week are the former

Labour advisor Paul Sinclair.

And the Common Space

editor Angela Haggerty.

I just wonder, is this idea of a

separate immigration policy, an idea

that time has come? I don't know

what Labour's views are on this, I

guess we don't know what Labour's

views are on anything at the moment

because it has not been made clear.

It's an obvious thing that Labour

could support.

I think the idea will

be about practicalities. If the rest

of the country has voted to leave

the EU because we have got a problem

with freedom of movement, is

Scotland has a separate immigration

policy, the question is, can we

still have freedom of movement

within the United Kingdom? There is

a question of practicalities rather

than the principle.

It didn't occur

to me when I was doing the

discussions there, but in a way,

Paul Masterson conceded the

principle, because if you have what

he called sectoral deals, that

conceived the idea that you can have

a differential immigration policy.

Yes, the advice seems to be coming

from a range of different places now

that Scotland's needs are different

when it comes to immigration and I

think Scotland's attitude are

different when it comes to

immigration as well when it comes to

the rest of the country. The issues

affecting us with Brexit are quite

different to the issues that have

been brought up elsewhere. I don't

think that having a more open

immigration policy would go down so

badly in Scotland, I think people

recognise that it's necessary for

certain sectors in the economy. We

have other things devolved, why

can't we have this devolved as well

if it makes sense to do so, if the

advice is to do that? I take the

point about the practicalities could

be difficult, but we are in a

situation where the practicalities

of everything to do with Brexit

going to be difficult. They have to

be worked out, we had to find a way

around these things but I think it

can be done. There will be a way to

do that. I don't think that it

should be on stuck because of the