The latest political news, interviews and debate in Scotland.
Browse content similar to 04/03/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Morning, everyone, and welcome
to the Sunday Politics.
I'm Sarah Smith.
And this is the programme that
will provide your essential briefing
on everything that's moving
and shaking in the
world of politics.
Theresa May's big Brexit speech
appears to have done the impossible
and united both sides
of her party for the time being
but is the devil in the detail?
We'll get the verdicts of former
Tory leader and Brexit supporter
Lord Howard and leading backbencher
and Remain campaigner Nicky Morgan,
and ask if they can
really both be happy.
Away from Brexit, the Government yet
again promises to take on the Nimbys
and build more houses
where we need them most.
through the proposals in detail.
And on Sunday Politics Scotland:
Ruth Davidson on the Tories,
Mike Russell on Brexit,
And on Sunday Politics Scotland -
Ruth Davidson on the Tories,
Mike Russell on Brexit, Lesley Laird
on Labour and the single market
and Humza Yousaf on how we dealt -
or didn't - with the snow.
All that coming up in the programme.
And with me today, I've got three
hardy souls who've struggled
through the harsh conditions
to help me to make sense of all
the big stories - Isabel Oakeshott,
Steve Richards and Anushka Asthana.
Well, it was as week where politics
was often given second billing
to the weather, with people up
and down the country battling
the Beast from the East.
But snow or not, Theresa May had her
crucial Brexit speech to give,
and she had a few big beasts herself
to contend with.
Forget the weather, the UK faced
a Brexit blizzard this week.
On Monday, Jeremy Corbyn offered up
a clear dividing line between Labour
and the Conservatives.
Labour would keep Britain
in a customs union with the EU.
Labour would seek to negotiate
a new, comprehensive UK EU customs
union to ensure there are no
tariffs with Europe.
On Tuesday, international
trade secretary Liam Fox
immediately hit back.
It would be a complete sell-out
of Britain's national interest
and a betrayal of the voters
in the referendum.
But his speech was overshadowed
by a warning shot from the former
boss of his own department -
Sir Martin Donnelly said leaving
the single market and the customs
union would risk the UK
going from feast to famine.
It's like giving up a three course
meal for a packet of crisps.
Also on Tuesday, Foreign Secretary
Boris Johnson took to the radio
waves to try to ease tensions
on Northern Ireland after Brexit.
He wasn't entirely persuasive.
There's no border between
Camden and Westminster.
You can't compare two boroughs
of London with the kind
of difference in the arrangements
that would be in place after Brexit
between the UK and the EU.
I think it's a very
On Wednesday, former
Prime Minister Sir John Major said
MPs should be given a free vote
on the final Brexit deal.
So let Parliament decide or put
the issue back to the people.
And the EU Commission published
the first legal draft
of the UK's exit treaty.
The proposals were controversial.
To avoid a hard border,
Northern Ireland must stay
in the customs union
if all else fails.
Theresa May was having none of it.
No UK Prime Minister
could ever agree to it.
On Thursday, diplomatic niceties
with the European Council
President Donald Tusk,
as he got a preview of the Prime
Minister's big Brexit speech.
But the real test would come later,
when she would need a lot
of grit to keep all members
of her own party onside.
The big day arrived,
and with it some hard truths.
We are leaving the single market.
Life is going to be different.
In certain ways, our access to each
other's markets will be
less than it is now.
Even after we have
left the jurisdiction
of the European Court of Justice,
EU law and the decisions of the ECJ
will continue to affect us.
This was also a pitch
for a pick and mix Brexit.
She said all EU trade deals
are tailor-made and what Britain
wants is no different.
If this is cherry picking,
then every trade arrangement
is cherry picking.
He was happy, and so was he.
Despite being stranded
and left out in the cold.
So, has the Prime Minister managed
to thaw the tensions
between her Cabinet on Brexit?
Time will tell.
There is more than enough to chew
over with our expert panel who will
tell us what's been going on behind
the scenes this week. Anushka, we
asked the question, has she achieved
the impossible and United warring
factions of the Conservative Party
over Brexit? It looks that way, will
it stay that way?
It is impressive
politically that your guests will
both have some praise for the speech
but it doesn't mean they agree with
each other when it comes to Brexit.
I'm sure there's a lot they continue
to disagree about. She managed to do
that by doubling down on the red
lines she already had but saying
beyond that we will try to get as
close as we can to the EU. I don't
think the Brexiteers are totally
happy, they see this as a staging
post and happy that what she said
future parliaments can change it.
She has done a magic trick now but
trouble ahead still.
Isabel, a lot
of it was how in the immediate
future we will stay tangibly similar
to EU rules and regulations, that
won't hold with the Brexiteer crowd,
Only an idiot would predict
peace and harmony within the Tory
party for more than a few days.
party for more than a few days. I
think they recognise the immense
discipline the Prime Minister
injected into the speech, in some
ways that means bits of it don't
please everybody. There was
frustration at the way she handled
some of the questions afterwards.
Some would have liked her, for
example Nigel Farage, outside of the
party of course, would have liked
her to be more explicit that no deal
remains an option. On the other
hand, had she said that, that is
provocative. I think Tory MPs found
she struck a balance and a great
feeling of positivity this weekend,
maybe not next.
Steve, did it tell
us a huge amount about what Brexit
deal might look like? Or is Theresa
May sitting on the fence about what
the future deal will be?
think she is sitting on the fence.
She gave a clear idea of what she
envisages it to be. Watching it, and
reading it several times, I have
reached the conclusion that she is
the only person that can lead this
You have Michael Howard on in a
minute, you knows how difficult it
is to do. She can do it and I think
they would be daft to get rid of
her. However, having read the
speech, it is full of unexploded
bombs metaphorically speaking. Like
the budgets that go down well on the
day and then turn out to have hidden
bombs, I think this one does. In her
admission we are giving up things,
we won't have the same market
access, in saying we have given up
passporting for the financial
services already. She did it to show
we weren't having our cake and
eating it, she was honest, but it is
depressing to have that candour
explained so clearly. And in
explaining we will be fully aligned
with the EU in many ways but have
the right to diverged even if it is
against our interest. And the all of
this, to have the right to diverge
at a future date seems fraught with
difficulty. I see problems down
Steve's point about only this
Prime Minister can lead the party is
a very astute one and that's what
I'm picking up this weekend, even
from those who have been her
harshest critics, at her ability not
to say too much which makes her seem
rather boring at times is precisely
the reason she can manage these
delicate factions. I definitely feel
time has run out now for those who
would like to have seen her gone
well before Brexit next year. I feel
that has evaporated milk. We might
be in a different place in a few
months but I would suspect not.
Anushka bitchy answer the question
about the border between the
Republic and Northern Ireland? Simon
Coveney said he's not sure the EU
can support the plan she came up
Both sides can smile and say
they don't want a border, the
question is how you achieve that.
The Government have put forward
these options, a customs partnership
which is a slightly weird system
under which there would be checks on
the UK border that would then be
acceptable for the rest of the EU.
The problem is the rest of the EU
have suggested that won't be
acceptable to them, and even very
senior figures in Government around
the Cabinet table have told me they
think it is a completely unrealistic
option. The second option is to use
technology to make it flow freely,
perhaps not quite as Boris
perhaps not quite as Boris Johnson
was suggesting, it happens in the
congestion charge in London. He was
slightly mocked for those comments,
but can there be a way to make it
softer in that way? Perhaps there
can but there is no evidence you
would end up with no border. Then
there's that tricky situation of the
EU saying the backstop is Northern
Ireland stays in the customs union,
and the Prime Minister says that is
Thank you for that,
stay with us.
Theresa May was on the
Andrew Marr Show this
morning, and she was asked how
the UK's rules and regulations
might move away from
the EU's in the future.
Parliament will be able to take
decisions about the rules that
are set, so in the circumstances
in which the EU
change a particular rule,
there'd be a decision
for us to take.
Did we accept it
in the future or not?
But if we didn't accept it,
there'd be an arbitration mechanism,
an independent arbitration
mechanism, so people
would look at it and say,
actually, you know what,
if the UK doesn't accept that,
does it make any difference
to the trading relationship?
And they might say no, it doesn't,
so there's no consequence.
They might say yes, it does,
and so there would be a consequence.
So you're saying we might
lose market access -
the more we diverge,
the more market access
we might lose in the future.
There'd be a decision to be taken.
Joining me now from
Loughborough is the former
Education Secretary Nicky Morgan,
who put her name down on a Commons
amendment that calls for the UK
to participate in a customs union
with the EU after Brexit.
Good morning. So you heard the Prime
Minister ruling out a customs union
which is what you say you want, and
they will be less access to EU
markets in future, you cannot be
very happy with this speech, can
I thought it was a very
realistic speech that set out the
compromises and hard facts we have
to face, and I think it was a
welcome dose of realism. That's why
I think it has been welcomed from
people on all sides of the debate
because we can get away from
pretending things will stay the
same, that we can have the same
benefits, and be honest with
ourselves and our constituents about
what that means. The reason MPs put
down amendments is to get ministers
to explain their position is more
fully and that's what we began to
see in the Prime Minister's speech
on this issue of the border between
Northern Ireland, the Republic of
Ireland on Friday. The Prime
Minister could not have been more
clear this morning and last week
that she does not want to see a hard
border between them, and that's
where we are as well. I think there
are more discussions to come about
the two options, as Anushka was
setting out, that the Prime Minister
outlined, and we will have to see
what happens when the bill comes
back to the House of Commons.
amendment wasn't just about Northern
Ireland, it said you want the UK to
stay in the customs union with the
EU. Now you say you want to talk to
the Prime Minister about this. Talk
about what? We are either in the
customs union or knots and her
speech made it clear she didn't want
a customs union.
I can speak for
myself and my colleagues, many of
whom put their name down, it was
about the Irish border issue because
many of us got to the stage of
thinking how can this be resolved
without being in a customs union. I
think many of us don't care what it
is called, it's a question of what
it does. Does it avoid a hard border
and small traders having to make
declarations each time they crossed
the border? I was a Treasury duties
minister, I visited the Irish border
and it is 300 miles of incredibly
porous countryside basically. People
are crossing it everyday for work,
for trading, and it's not just about
the economics, it's about the
cultural and political significance
of not a hard border.
government and Irish Foreign
Minister Simon Coveney were saying
this morning he didn't think EU
would accept this. Theresa May said
a long she doesn't want a hard
border, just saying that doesn't
mean it won't happen and the EU
don't seem satisfied with what she
laid out as a possible solution.
first point is, as I said in a tweet
on Friday, the EU cannot say and
Simon Coveney recognise that this
morning, the EU cannot say it
doesn't know what the UK Government
wants. Simon Coveney also agreed, as
the Prime Minister rightly set out,
this is a problem that has been
created by Brexit and it's up to the
UK Government, the EU and Irish
government to work together to find
a solution. I think it is right that
talks will continue in one of those
areas where it is best for the Irish
government and UK Government to be
talking directly because at the
moment what's been remarkable is how
cohesive the 27 have been in
negotiating through the commission
but there may be ways to speed up
discussions, particularly on the
Irish border issue. What we saw on
Friday is the Prime Minister saying
there's difficult things ahead.
People won't remember ultimately the
negotiations, they will remember the
enduring deal that's struck, that
puts livelihoods and economic
One of the hard fact is that she
laid out is we will have less access
to EU markets. That is one of the
things that you as a Remainer have
been worried about. Maybe she is
being pragmatic and you're welcome
that, but is that pragmatism not
admitting were going to be worse off
in future as a result of this?
think it probably is. Actually,
while the speech was well come in
its towns, it did set out some of
these hard truths. Some people have
said, nothing will change, it will
have exactly the same benefits but
that is not the case. I am chair of
the Treasury Select Committee, we
look at financial services. That
industry understands that things are
going to change. The Prime Minister
was clear, no more passporting.
People have reconciled themselves to
this in the city. What next? The
Prime Minister is talking about
mutual recognition of regulations,
that is the way to go, that is
achievable, but this is the start of
negotiations and it is a long way to
go. At least we are now on the
starting blocks. Your right to say
that many of us have been concerned
about the prosperity and livelihoods
of people in our constituencies and
our businesses. We welcome this
speech but we will continue to watch
out for any drifting backwards
towards some kind of idea logically
driven hard Brexit. That does not
benefit anybody. As the Prime
Minister said on Friday, reverting
to WTO is not a good outcome that
will benefit people in this country.
The Prime Minister made clear that
the UK after Brexit can choose to
stay aligned with the rules and
regulations of the EU or future
parliaments to choose to diverged.
In those circumstances you will be
fighting every step of the week to
try to stay aligned with the EU, I
Not necessarily. That was a
really well come statement from the
Prime Minister. It is for the
sovereign parliament to be making
these decisions in future, which is
why we had the debate over the
amendment in December because
ultimately it should be sovereign
Parliament that makes these key
decisions in the future. In terms of
divergences regulation, there may
well be good arguments in the future
by businesses and industry say, we
do not need to be aligned with that
regulation, because there is a
higher international standard that
we can all get around and following
that will benefit our businesses.
The point is, at the moment,
Parliament will take decisions about
things on the basis of listening to
constituents, and that is what will
happen in the future. That is
welcome. Financial services, that is
the message we're getting by, there
are some international standards,
which is what business already
comply with, higher standards than
the EU, and that is what businesses
want to on complying with.
Morgan, thank you for talking to us.
Listening to that is the former
Conservative leader Lord Howard,
who campaigned for Britain
to leave the EU.
You were nodding away in agreement
with Nicky Morgan all the way
through that interview. Not
something we thought we were going
to see happen in the studio.
agree with her? I agree with very
much of what she said and I am
delighted to be able to agree with
her. Can I just say this about the
speech on Friday, I thought it
should the Prime Minister at her
best, cam, patient, disciplined.
That is exactly the kind of approach
we need in these negotiations. I
think Steve Richards was right when
he said she is the only person who
can lead the country through these
negotiations, and she showed her
qualities on Friday, and I think it
was an excellent speech, and it is
something, of course it is a good
thing from my point of view that it
seems to have united the
Conservative Party, but more
importantly, I think it has united
the country. I think everyone in the
country, except perhaps those few
people are neither extreme, can
rally round. People like John Major
and Tony Blair? I fear that on this
issue John Major and Tony Blair are
to make love the people who have
never been able to reconcile
themselves to the results of the
referendum. I think a large majority
of people in the country, even of
those who voted Remain, they now
say, let's get on with it and see
what we can get out of these
negotiations. Nicky Morgan was
absolutely right when she said that
in years to come people will not be
looking back at the negotiations.
They will be looking back at the
The negotiations matter
because they determine the outcome.
You like the tone of the speech.
When you look at the detail, does it
really amounted taking back control
when the Prime Minister says the UK
will need to make a strong
commitment that regulatory standards
will remain as high as the EU and in
practice they will remain similar in
That is not what you
campaign for. In many respects they
will be similar. As the Prime
Minister said this morning, on the
Andrew Marr programme, these
regulations are not EU regulations,
the international regulations. The
crucial thing is that our sovereign
parliament, in future, will be able
to decide whether we remain in a
layman, which in many cases would be
a sensible thing to do, or whether
we diverged, which could also be
sensible. That is what taking back
parliament will decide. Look at
where we do remain in alignment and
a hard fact that Theresa May picked
out there, in order to maintain
access we may have to maintain a
layman. The EU will change their
rules over the next few deals --
over the next few years. We will end
up having to mirror rules that we
had no say at all in making if we
want to maintain access.
That is not
control. We will be able to decide.
In some cases it may be sensible to
change rules to remain in alignment
with the European Union's rules but
in other cases it will not be, and
we will be able to decide. That is
what taking back control means.
You're perfectly happy with
associated membership of some of the
EU agencies, medicine, chemicals,
the aviation safety agency, and with
paying a fee to be -- to be a
member. Very sensible. A year ago
you would not have been telling us
that you wanted to stay a member of
any of these agents is a tall.
never ask me. You would have been
surprised by the answer. These are
sensible, practical arrangements
that we benefit from, and the EU
It is sensible. We were
promised famously by David Davis
that we would have the exact same
benefits of being in the customs
union and the single market after
Brexit. The Prime Minister herself
said something similar. Now she's
telling us we will have less access.
When people were told we could leave
the EU and maintain the same
benefits, were they being lied to?
Not at all. I think it is a
consequence of what the Prime
Minister has said, that in all
important respects, we will have the
access we need. There may be some
areas where that will not be the
case, but she dealt with the most
important aspect in her speech on
Friday and should have in the most
important areas we will be able to
have access. I think that will be
the outcome. It is in the interests
of the European Union as well as
ourselves that that should be so.
They want access to our large
market. We are one of the six
biggest economies in the world. They
want access to our markets. It will
be on both our interest to reach
that sort of agreement.
of the Tory party might be happy
with this. The speech was received
less enthusiastically in Brussels.
The EU will publish their draft
guidelines on how they see a future
deal on Tuesday. If they do not
accept the approach that Theresa May
has laid out, what should she do
Let's concentrate on the
positives. We are in a negotiation.
There will inevitably be posturing
by the European Union in the course
of these negotiations. That is what
negotiations always bring with them.
But I think, as I say, it is in both
our interest that we should have a
good deal. At the end of the day,
they want our money. They will not
get our money unless there is a good
It has been said that a trade
deal cannot be said by putting up a
few extra cherries in the Brexit
cake. This speech did not persuade
him that is a deal to be done.
not in charge of the negotiations.
Michel Barnier did not seem terribly
impressed. Are they going to accept
the Prime Minister's view that you
can accept different access for
Let's wait and
see. Michel Barnier welcome the
speech. There is lots of posturing.
It is invading tress and hours to
arrive at a deal that is very
similar to that which the Prime
Minister set on Friday.
very positive about with the EU is
likely to do. They may well not do
that. Is there a point at which the
Prime Minister may be forced to walk
away because they will not meet
I hope not but if you go
into any negotiations in, I want to
deal at any price, you will be taken
to the cleaners. That is true of
every negotiation. I agree with the
Prime Minister when she says that in
the ultimate circumstance, no deal
is better than a bad deal, but I do
not think we're going to have a bad
deal, I think we're going to have a
deal along the lines the Prime
Minister set out on Friday.
we are going to have to compromise
and we are not
and we are not going to get what we
want. We will have to meet someone
in the middle on this and the
response from the EU has not been to
say, we agree, let's talk about
compromise, it has to -- it has been
to maintain a lot of their hard
lines about cherry picking.
will change. Their approach to the
negotiations on the first stage
changed. All sorts of figures were
bandied about about the money we
would have to pay and they bore no
reality to the ultimate outcome. You
have to take these initial
negotiating positions with a pinch
When the EU was negotiating
with Greece during its financial
crisis, they were absolutely
insistent, they did not soften their
No disrespect to Greece, but
we are not Greece. The European
Union needs access to our markets.
The European Union needs our money.
The situation is very, very
different from that which happened
between the EU and Greece.
Howard, thank you for talking to us
As we've heard, Jeremy Corbyn
made his own big speech on Brexit
earlier in the week and he backed
a customs union.
So how would it work?
With me from Salford
is the Shadow Communities
Secretary, Andrew Gwynne.
Thank you very much for coming in to
speak to us today. We have got to
make a very different approaches.
Jeremy Corbyn at the beginning of
the week saying he wanted to stay in
a customs union, Theresa May on
Friday pretty much ruling it out. Is
it not Theresa May who is being
honest with the voters by laying out
the hard fact, as she puts it, that
we will have to accept we have less
access to the EU market?
not. That we are leaving the
European Union is decided. We had a
referendum, but the Thames by which
we leave the European Union is what
the negotiations are all about and
the Labour Party has always said it
would seek to maintain the benefits
of a customs union. In doing that,
we have set out our proposals for
what we think that new arrangement
should be, I bespoke agreement
between the EU in the UK that would
maintain the benefits of tariff free
trade between the UK and the
European Union going forward. But
one in which we are equal partners,
so we have a say on those new trade
deals that are being made and a half
of the new arrangements between our
two trading blocs.
That has never
happened with any other country that
has entered into a customs union
with the EU. Why do you think they
would give us an equal say, one of
us against 27 of them, when it came
to a negotiating a trade deal with
someone else somewhere else in the
The EU is different trading
arrangements with different
It does and none of them
have a say in outside trade deals.
The difference here, as Lord Howard
said, we are the largest economy the
world. The European Union has
important trading links with the
United Kingdom, it is a two-way
process, and therefore it is in both
of interest that we strike a deal
that benefits both of us.
I do not
know what is happening on this
programme. You are agreeing with
Laura Taarabt, he's agreeing with
Nicky Morgan. It is a very unusual
You're all in the same
side. The difference is the
Conservatives have ruled out a
customs union, and we are saying
that a customs union is vital, not
least that we can give real
assurances that the Good Friday
Agreement and our treaty obligations
in the Good Friday Agreement are not
torn up. We do not want to lose the
advantage is that we have seen of 20
years of peace between Northern
Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
If the EU says, you can remain in a
customs union but you do not get a
large say in future trade deals with
countries outside of the EU and you
just have to accept what is
negotiated by the EU 27, would you
still want to be in that customs
We would have to look at that
carefully. We want to be a rule
maker and not a real taker. It is
hard to do that if you stay in a
customs union. Unless you have a new
arrangement whereby the United
Kingdom sits at the table when those
trade deals are being made. That is
the new arrangement that we seek to
make. We believe we would be in a
better position to make those
arrangements with the European Union
because we have approached the
Brexit negotiations in an entirely
different manner. We have said what
we would like to see in terms of
transitional arrangements, the
government subsequently followed on
a number of those issues, but all
along we have said that we want to
maintain the benefits of tariff free
custom free trade, and that is
absolutely crucial, not least for
the Northern Ireland issue.
the things the Labour Party was
looking forward to have to Brexit,
and that Jeremy
and that Jeremy Corbyn has stressed,
was the freedom from state aid
rules, where the EU stops the UK
Government from giving financial
assistance to any particular sector
of industry. Theresa May spoke about
that on Friday and said it would be
necessary to sign up to the
directives on state aid and
procurement rules, to keep those EU
rules. Do you accept that will have
No, and we have a different view
anyway. When it came to our
arguments the Government should step
in to assist the steel industry in
Britain, the Government used these
fallacies about state aid rules to
excuse themselves for not giving
adequate support to that industry.
We didn't believe in the
interpretation the Government made
because other European countries
have got round the so-called state
aid rules. We have said as part of
our negotiations, that is a red line
for us. We would want to make sure
we could facilitate state aid in a
number of areas where Labour Party
policies have been clearer about
supporting our industries.
is a red line, is it more important
staying in the customs union, if you
have to make the choice? The EU
could say no customs union if you
insist on state aid.
We believe we
could get a bespoke arrangement for
a new customs relationship, a new
I think there's a
name for that, isn't it called
No because we
believe this is in the interests of
the UK and in the interests of the
European Union. 44% of our trade is
with the European Union, 53% of the
EU's trade is with the UK so it is
in both our interests that we sort
this out and get the best deal not
for the European Union but for
Britain outside of the European
You seem to be saying the
Tory government are asking for the
impossible in their negotiations and
won't get what they are looking for
but somehow if there was a Labour
government negotiating this deal,
all doors would open and you would
be able to select which bit of the
customs union you did and didn't
like and could have a bespoke deal
that is not available for some
reason to Theresa May.
out a customs union, I think that is
a bad decision because I believe a
customs union, negotiated between
the UK and the European Union 27 is
in the best interests of sorting out
customs free tariff-free trade going
forward but also sorting out the
issue of the border between Ireland,
north and south.
Labour set out six
tests as to whether they would vote
for the Brexit deal in the end and
one of those was that it had to
deliver the same benefits we get
from being in the single market and
customs union. That was a quote from
David Davis, but Theresa May has
been clear we are not going to get
the same benefits. Does this mean
Labour under no circumstances will
be able to vote for any Brexit deal
that's been negotiated?
what Brexit deal comes back before
we have a hypothetical vote on this.
You don't think there's any
circumstances in which it could come
I believe if the Government
wanted to enter into negotiations to
do that, they could do that. The
fact the Prime Minister has conceded
is probably because they have ruled
out a customs union. We believe that
is the wrong decision, we believe
that arrangement is possible, but
let's see what the Government comes
back with and then we will decide
how we vote in parliament.
Parliament has got a meaningful vote
and that was something that had to
be secured through the parliamentary
processes. The Government weren't
going to give us that right and I
think it is right it is ultimately
Parliament that decides.
It's coming up to 11.40,
you're watching the Sunday Politics.
Still to come...
As the government promises to cut
red tape to get more houses built,
Good morning and welcome
to Sunday Politics Scotland.
Coming up on the programme:
No conference for Ruth Davidson
but much to contemplate.
I'll be asking the Scottish
Conservative leader if Scotland
has reached peak Tory.
Holyrood now wants its own Brexit
bill, despite both Nicola Sturgeon
and Theresa May saying
they want to do a deal
over more powers.
And I'll be asking the Brexit
Minister exactly why he can't do
the deal he says he wants.
And blame it on the lorries -
have the HGVs been made a scapegoat
for the motorway chaos?
We have to realise that our industry
delivers everything that is in the
shop. It doesn't matter whether it
comes in a plane or a board, it has
to go into a lorry at some point.
Now, her conference is off this
weekend because of the snow
but there's been plenty to occupy
the Conservative leader
Ruth Davidson's mind -
not least, the Prime Minister's
keynote Brexit speech on Friday.
Beyond that, Labour are now polling
ahead of the Conservatives
in Scotland, at least
for Westminster elections,
putting the Tories' status
as the country's second
party at risk.
And the Tories may have to deal
with what they see as the threat
of another independence referendum
if Nicola Sturgeon decides
later this year there
should another one.
Ruth Davidson joins me now.
Can we start on the independence
referendum. Nicola Sturgeon her
search make up her mind whether to
call another one later this year.
David Mundell was talking about it
in the lead up to your party
conference, which didn't happen
because of the snow. He said on this
programme and July 2016 that if
Nicola Sturgeon does call another
referendum, the British Government
is should not stop. -- you said on
already tried in March last year.
Myself, the Prime Minister and the
Secretary of State were pretty clear
that there was not the time for it.
He got a pretty strong and
resounding response from the
Scottish people. -- you got. It took
away a third of their MPs at the
snap general election if he
regretted. There is no grants for
it, there is no mandate for it. I
don't doubt that Nicola Sturgeon for
the entirety of our political life
-- of political life for a
On this programme, you
said constitutionally the UK
Government couldn't block it, no. --
shouldn't block it. I will continue
to argue my case that there
shouldn't be one because the people
of Scotland were promised...
And to the question I'm asking you.
This is all hypothetical. We know
that Nicola Sturgeon wants one. The
reason she once one is because she
told is back in June of last year.
She said that you'd already got a
structured the Scottish ministers...
I take your point that it's
hypothetical. It was just as
hypothetical when you said that is
additionally the UK Government
shouldn't block it.
additionally, the weather referendum
Saban is by having an agreement
between the Scottish and UK
Government. -- constitutionally the
way that referendums happen is by
having an agreement. She has to
demonstrate the things I talked
about in March of last year when she
tried, there has to be support for
it among the country, there isn't,
there has to be some form of trigger
for it and a has-been. Also, she has
to extend a country that you
promised she wouldn't do this but
that it would be for a generation
why she is dragging us back there
again and people don't want. -- she
doesn't have a mandate for it. I
don't believe she has a mandate.
answer, you stick by -- the answer
to whether you stick by your
Cause additionally, these
things are decided by the UK and
constitutionally. The UK Government
has been clear it with block of
Nicola Sturgeon has to
show that she has a mandate and the
support for it and I don't think she
got sure any of these things at the
He said you would back a
legal challenge to the continuity
built that the SNP proposes. -- at
I don't want this to go
to court. There is an issue about
the Scottish Government claiming to
stand on a high horse of defending
devolution but running roughshod
over the position of the Presiding
Officer that something is outside of
the parliament's competency and
saying that they have proposed a
through as an emergency bill to as a
something contentious, a finely
balanced point of law, is only going
to be given three days of debate
about it for members. There is an
issue with the way this has been
handled this week.
He said that you
would welcome a legal challenge.
Would you consider initiating? --
you said that you would welcome.
don't see a way that if something is
outside the confidence of the
parliament that it is pushed through
the Government anyway, but it
doesn't end up "
the Government anyway, but it
doesn't end up ". I know from
speaking to my colleagues in
Westminster that they would
agreement on clause 11 of the Brexit
withdrawal bill, too, but I do think
there was a foolish this week of the
SNP deciding to introduce something
against the wishes of the Presiding
Officer of the parliament, who are
taking legal advice from the
parliament, the legal advisers of
the parliament, then CNV will do it
against the advice and also some
through as an emergency bill so that
there is only three days debate
about it. -- then not only did they
do it against the advice but also
they will ram it through as
The S&P worried that Ken
Macintosh could set a precedent for
any attempt to have another
independence referendum. -- the SNP.
Do think it's possible the Presiding
Officer Google similar grounds --
could rule on similar grounds that
the Scottish Parliament having a
independence referendum is
The only president is
being set this week is that --
precedent being said is that the
first time the Scottish Government
has rammed through a bill against
the suggestion and even of a
Presiding Officer. The second
precedent is that this is the first
time that emergency legislation has
been suggested without unanimous
agreement throughout the parliament.
These are the only two precedents
set this week in terms of Holyrood.
Gritters apply to a referendum -- it
is applied to a referendum on
The Presiding Officer
has always taken the best legal
advice available to him or her. I do
think that if we spoke about the
specific instance of independence
referendum, we have what has been
referred to by both sides as the
gold standard of how that happens,
that has been through, it was called
the Edinburgh agreement last time,
it's an agreement between the
Scottish and UK governments because
constitutional issues are reserved
and that is why the presiding
Officer flaw that this withdrawal
bill that has been put forward by
the SNP is ultra vires.
It was said
that Europe is fresh, young...
still in my 30s, so I'm still young!
And clinging on with my fingertips.
The idea was that you were in favour
of being in the single market,
getting rid of freedom of movement.
The priority for you. You seem to
have been backpacking ever since. --
backtracking ever since. Is there
anything you disagree about with
Theresa May on Brexit?
disagree with the result that
happen, we were both Remain. 17
1/2-million people across the
country, including over a million in
Scotland, voted for this. There is a
lot about the Brexit process that I
don't like. It is going to happen,
it was voted on across the UK. If
politicians decide that is so big
that it has to be taken outside of
representative democracy and habit
as direct property to everything of
water, you've got to got to listen
to this. -- and handed to every
single voter, you've got to listen.
I was quite clear. Clearly, I do
support it, physical market, and do,
because I had campaigned for Remain.
-- the single market. I'm very sad
that my cider. Win but it is about
what we can do under the way out of
your -- on the way out of your to
mitigate the risks of Brexit. Also
exporting any opportunities. One of
the things I been arguing for a very
hard, including directly with the
Prime Minister, is that we have to
get fishing rights. I was pleased to
hear on Friday in her speech for the
first time that a fishing was
mentioned by name but the principles
that we would support and what we
take into the room. Even the biggest
Remainers becomes Brexit because of
fishing. This is a particularly
important sector to Scotland and
that is what me and babies have been
doing on this issue, speaking up.
You asked me to give me an example.
-- at me and my MPs. I've spoken to
the secretary of state for
different, sat down with the
Chancellor, to talk about the
importance of fishing and how there
is a predictable to go down to
maximise that. You asked for an
example -- a particular route to go
Here is my Ultra condensed
version of juries May's speech. We
are leaving the single market, free
movement of people come to an end,
the UK is glad to leave the customs
union. You agree with that?
to see free trade, I would be happy
to see other ways of doing it.
That's why I voted and campaign for
Remain. The Prime Minister has said
she was a conference of free trade
agreement that covers all of that.
Les Kiss for the space to negotiate
in the room. -- lit skipper of the
space. That is what this was about,
it was giving the negotiating team
the ability to look at each
On the subject of
negotiations, you argued after the
that the Scottish Government should
have a role in the Brexit the
conscientious. What happened to that
idea? He has been regular beatings
of the GMC, the next one is on
Tuesday. That is about the
devolution of power. You arguing
that the Scottish governor should
have a role in the Brexit ago she
wishes in Europe.
I didn't say, I
was clear about this one Nicola
Sturgeon search wanted a seat at the
negotiating table, my worry was that
what side of the table she would sit
on. She wanted to stay in the EU.
The bottom line is that what started
off as that you would take a
different line, you're pro-European,
actually ends up as a green pretty
much with everything, I take your
point about fishing, that Theresa
May says. -- ends up as agreeing
pretty much. A football club would
say that you are Theresa May in
There are significant
differences between Theresa May and
I. There is an issue but we are in
negotiations. My job as the leader
of the Scottish Conservative Party,
the Leader of the Opposition in
Scotland, is to make sure that
industries and sectors in Scotland
that are particularly important,
recognised opportunities they can
get out of Europe, it's to make sure
they can get access to the UK
Government. That's what I'd be
doing. Free dig in what they've been
so you are making sure they can sit
down with UK ministers themselves.
-- reading in what they've been
Will you still be the next
First Minister, given there's been a
slippage in the polls?
I think we
can be and we can see how we should
be. We already have more SNP is that
the SNP did in the tremor that they
had before -- we already have more
MSP 's than the SNP did in the tour
before they took office. They said
that we couldn't get 13 MPs since
June. We've gone up and up, you say
we fit beak and yet more and more
people are are voting for us across
Scotland. I hope that the Scottish
people can appreciate what the
Scottish Conservatives are doing.
Are you going to be the next Prime
It was a fair bet that the Scottish
Government wouldn't find much
to love about Theresa May's keynote
Brexit speech - and it didn't.
The First Minister summed
it up as offering more
detail but no progress.
Downing Street said this week that
both leaders had agreed
to meet later this month
to discuss their differences.
It would seem that there'll be
plenty to talk about.
Well, joining me now
is the Brexit Minister,
Michael Russell, who this week
introduced the Scottish
to the EU Withdrawal Bill.
Not quite as nice a view today.
is because it is snowing at the
We will keep this brief to
let you get out of it. Can you
explain exactly what the problem is.
The way it has been expertly by the
Conservatives is that the British
Government is proposing that
everything will be devolved, they
would change clause 11, that the
Scottish parliament would agree not
to change certain things and tell a
common UK framework is worked out.
Is that what is being proposed?
not as far as I'm concerned. The
problem that exists is on the single
would agree. If I meet David
Lidington on Thursday, along with my
Welsh Greg Burke, if they are
prepared to put on the table and
amendment to their own bill that
means that the Scottish parliament
will agree to any framework, and
will agree how its governed, we can
do that deal. -- on the table an
The sticking point is
that they've agreed to devolve
everything but on the common
framework you want it written into
the deal that the Scottish
parliament would have to agree to
any specific measure that becomes
part of the common framework?
that is the position of the Welsh.
Rebecca is clear that we are quite
happy with the idea of frameworks.
-- we've made it clear that we are
happy. But it has to be agreed.
Those powers that exist in Scotland.
Without agreeing to it, they could
conceivably oppose frameworks that
would write the code and waters do
work that was already being done to
support farmers. -- they could ride
their coat and horses through work
that was already being done. David
Mundell said that nothing was good
to be imposed yesterday. That's
exactly what we want. -- was good to
say that nothing was going to be
Have they said
they would allow the Scottish
parliament to agree specific
measures that become part of a
common fruit have they proposed some
of mediation body?
The present position is they have
not agreed to the word" agree". The
word they are using is consult. The
consultation has got us nowhere and
there has to be the word agree and
if that exists and we can find a way
in which the Scottish Parliament
agrees to these frameworks, but the
subject and governance, then we can
do a deal. If we cannot, that will
To be clear, as matters
stand, the British Government is
saying, according to you, let's say
there is a disagreement on payment
standards or something, that they
would just do it, that is now a UK
affair and you don't have control
over that whereas you are saying we
will vote on the payment standard in
the Scottish Parliament and if we
agree it is part of a common
framework, it will be.
That is the basis of devolution and
respect the devolved settlement, how
we operate. There are some
differences in certain areas,
otherwise we couldn't do minimum
pricing on alcohol, for example. All
we're asking if the UK Government
observe this and we are willing to
do things on this basis and have
been for months. As long as that can
be agreed, either this week in
London or at the meeting in Downing
Street next week, then we can do a
deal. If we cannot, there will be no
deal. Simple that.
How would it
affect the future? Let's say the
Scottish Parliament must agree on
things that are part of a common
framework and the British Government
decides to change Trading Standards,
said, are you saying they would have
the right to do that or would they
have to come back to the Scottish
If it is covered as a
devolved area, it would be hazard is
now. If there was a requirement
under the framework for it to be
unified, then we would all agree to
make those steps. This is
commonplace. The problem in other
places is that they have never
looked up and seeing what happens in
the rest of the world, they seem to
be terrified in some way this will
affect their ability to sign trade
deals. It happens in Canada and
right across the world. What they
want to do is have a veto on things
that are part of the devolved
settlement for Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland and we're not
prepared to accept that. We have
been saying this very clearly since
the bill was published. It cannot be
a surprise to them, so what they
have to do is accept that is what
they need to do and then we can move
ahead. None of us want Brexit. I
have been listening to Ruth Davidson
with incredulity, she changes her
position daily. But none of us
really want Brexit. Those of us are
looking at this disaster unfolding
but this is about legal cliff edge
and we are trying to resolve it.
Don't turn round to quickly but the
Beast from the East is right at your
back. We had better let you go!
Well, weather permitting,
Scottish Labour gathers
for its conference later this week
in the knowledge that
Jeremy Corbyn's support of a customs
union post-Brexit has established
a clear dividing line
between Labour and the Tories.
They also know that the Prime
Minister's Brexit speech last week
was better received by the two wings
of her party than many Labour
supporters had anticipated.
Well, on the line from London now
is the Shadow Secretary
of State for Scotland, Lesley Laird.
Are you happy with the idea that
Labour backs a customs union?
morning, Gordon. Yes, I think the
party is happy that Labour is
backing a customs union. I think
since Jeremy made the announcement
earlier this week, I think the party
has very much got behind this and is
unified in the approach and I am
market, as we have consistently
said, is that when we leave the EU,
the current single market and the
current customs union agreement
falls away and the recognition is
that we would need to negotiate new
We will discuss the
difference between the
difference between the word a and
the in a moment but would you want
to remain in a single market with
The current single market
agreement requires us to be a member
of the EU.
When a motion is Boutier
conference and it is proposed by her
predecessor, as Iain Murray
proposed, to stay in the customs
union and the single market, you
would oppose this?
Well, we would
have to wait and see what comes to
conference. That will be for the
conference arrangements committee. I
believe there are a number of
motions being put and I will wait to
Whether it is put or not, you
would oppose it?
We need to wait and
see the wording.
see the wording. We have agreed from
the outset that as a party we
recognise the benefits of the single
market. We have put a job is first
and economy first Brexit at the
heart of our decision-making and
will continue to do that.
Soubry, the Conservative MP, back, I
believe, by Chuka Umunna, has put
forward an amendment to the trade
bill which would require the UK to
remain in a customs union with the
EU. The Labour vote for that
Well, I think, as we have
consistently said, and I know that
Barry Gardiner has said this, we
will wait to see what comes forward,
we have amendment is over in that we
will consider and we will look at
all of that in the round when the
So, you cannot say you
will vote for this?
I cannot see it
until we see the full picture of
what everyone is going to present.
We will no doubt have our own
amendments. I think there will be
some consensus across the house that
we shall have to wait and see. All
through this process...
very tepid. You have an opportunity
to get together with the SNP and
perhaps sections of the Conservative
Party and tell the British
Government that it has to stay in
the customs union and you don't seem
to be prepared to commit to doing
We have been the party that
has consistently been playing
grown-up politics. We have
consistently brought for word...
Quite like it hasn't achieved
anything. We have achieved a lot of
practical things. Around the
transition period. The Conservatives
had taken that off the table. We
also have been pushing the Scottish
Conservatives around clause 11 and
you have just been debating clause
11 and the contingency bill that is
now required. And that is because of
the shambolic way around which the
Tory Government are handling this.
So, Labour are doing what they
should be doing, which is acting as
irresponsible opposition and playing
You could simply
say, I should make clear we're not
talking about the Brexit bill, this
is a trade bill which provides for
continuity after they leave the EU.
You could quite easily say, if there
is an amendment saying we should
stay in a customs union, we will
back that. But other than saying,
let's wait and see, you could say,
the Labour Party will put forward an
amendment demanding that Britain
stay in a customs union and will try
to get cross-party support to get
that through Parliament so we will
stay in a customs union.
iterated at the start, Gordon, we
will bring forward our own
amendments and clearly if there is
opportunity to work in partnership
with other parties, we have done
this previously, we worked with
Dominic Grieve when he brought
forward his amendment, which allowed
for Parliament to have the final say
on the deal. So, we will continue to
play those grown-up politics and to
work as we have done in a consensual
way with all parties across the
Thank you, Lesley Laird. I
hope the House of Commons is all
right behind you, it is looking a
It is not as cold down here
as it is in Scotland so I hope you
are all wrapped up safe and warm.
Now, even if you've been out
of the country, you're unlikely
to have missed the impact
of the so-called
beast from the east.
Despite warnings, many people
either chose or had no
choice but to ignore them.
It was particularly bad for drivers
on the M80 near Stirling -
some of whom were stuck for 15
hours and more.
Local residents took action
themselves to keep these unfortunate
souls fed and watered.
Drivers questioned the lack
of official response, whilst
the First Minister suggested
non-essential HGV lorries
were to blame for the delay.
One of those motorists stuck on the
M80, he is trying to get home to
Plymouth and stuck just outside
Stirling. Thank you very much for
talking to us. How long have you
Since eight o'clock last
night, about 15 hours now.
Fortunately, the local people here
have come down to the motorway to
help us out, they were asking if
everyone was all right and handing
Have you been given
any indication about when you might
be able to get moving?
None at all,
really. No, we have had very little
information. I have seen police cars
driving around New Year. But no one
has stopped to talk to us.
red weather warning, and HTV should
not be on one of our trunk roads
unless it is absolutely unavoidable
and I saw some branded HGV tracks in
pictures yesterday and given the
branding on them, I would struggle
to say they were unavoidable, so
that the message that should go out
strongly from this chamber to Xhosa
use HGV lorries in weather
If we didn't have
hauliers out there, we wouldn't have
milk and bread and food and
supermarkets and shops. So, to just
generalise and say there were many
hauliers not doing essential
journeys is really not very helpful.
We all know that every single
morning the M80 is horrendous
between 8am, so even I knew there
would be a problem with that road in
the Government should have looked at
that earlier. 30 hours later we
still have tracks on a major trunk
road in Scotland and I think
questions need to be asked as to why
that was not cleared quicker.
Transport Secretary Humza Yousaf
joins me now from Dundee.
You heard what that truck driver was
saying. Ten years ago there was a
heavy downfall of snow and hundreds
of people were stuck overnight on
the M80. Sorry, eight years ago.
Eight years later, the same thing
happens, hundreds of people stuck on
the M80. Why is this happening?
are right, lessons need to be
learned but this weather event was
the first ever read warning for snow
in Scotland, so it's not like we had
a precedent. Clearly, lessons should
be learned and must be but I would
also like to say that for the
incidents but did take place and
those are deeply regrettable, of
course there are many other parts of
the trunk road network where advice
was he didn't things moved as they
should. There were some positives
out of that but clearly lessons need
to be learned.
Again, at that truck
driver said and I know from my own
experience, you can drive in the
rush-hour in that section of the M80
on a sunny morning in the summer and
there are problems. You have had
plenty of warning this red alert was
going to come. Why didn't you...
Could you not have taken lorries off
the road? If you had closed the M84
for a few hours and let the snow
ploughs into clear it, then it might
have been in Kameni but would not
have left people stranded for 18
hours. Why was nothing done?
you for your expert advice but the
fact of the matter was that there
were dozens of snow ploughs on the
M80 in the days before that and of
course during the weather warning
time, so there was grit out but if
you would like to remind yourself of
what happened on Wednesday, we had
around 80 hours of continuous
blizzard conditions, not easy for
anybody to deal with. So, as much as
I do respect your advice on this
matter, snowploughs where out there.
Let me make a second point which is
really important. This is an
operational matter for Police
Scotland weather roads are closed or
not. The point the First Minister
was making, and I watched the
cameras live for pretty much
three-day strike in our control
centre, there were clearly weather
warnings issued around avoiding
travel unless absolutely essential.
I struggle to see why HGV lorries,
from the branding anyway, carrying
flatpack furniture, stationery,
empty car transporters, how anybody
can justify this as essential, yes,
food, fuel, all of that makes sense,
but certainly there was too much
evidence for my eyes anyway, and
hence why I have called with a
meeting for the Road hauliers
Association and the freight cars but
I am not trying to give
expert advice, I am simply asking
the question, could more not have
been done? Did we know the specific
section of the motoring is a problem
and that there was plenty of warning
of a red alert, is there nothing
that could have been done other than
later to blame truck drivers?
has blamed truck drivers, the First
Minister was asked the question I
remember the opposition at FMQs and
gave an answer. All I have said is
that clearly there are lessons for
all of us, including the Government
and the police and we will have that
proper debriefed. Clearly, there are
sections of the motor ways where we
will have to look at again and ask
if we can do things differently. If
people will not listen to the crisp
and clear advice that was given and
choose to travel or have no choice
but to do so, then can we do
something like restricting lanes
particularly for HGV vehicle is?
Clearly, we cannot do that for the
whole trunk road network but where
there are a pinch points, how do we
reinforce it and what's legal powers
to we have?
Exactly same thing happened in
exactly the same place eight years
ago. You've heard it used to think
of doing what you've just suggested
you might do in the future. --
keypad eight years to think.
find no Mr Reid and traffic customs
-- and traffic has managed to flow.
To say that we could have led, there
was never a red warning for snow
before in this country. This is
unprecedented in Scotland. Let's not
be foolish about this. There is
listen to be led and everything
that. -- as lessons to be learnt.
suggested a special late for SGB --
HGVs. Will there be a new policy
about that particular motorway and
perhaps others that will make sure
that I accept that you can never
make sure nothing happens but at
least it would mean that we will be
more prepared the next time.
are still in the middle of a yellow
weather warning. A attention and
focus is to get us through this
period of weather warnings. -- my
attention. They will be a debrief
afterwards and part of the
conversation will be with the RHA
and the FTA, they will be part of
the solution and come up with a
common solution and understanding of
how to avoid this from happening.
For the majority of the John -- the
trunk road network, HGVs and others
passed through it without incident.
And juries as to the force over
travel warrants. You were asking
people not to take to the roads. --
and dubious as to the force of your
travel warnings. What happens to
people that did not turn up to work,
could they be disciplined? They say
that the reason they didn't go to
work was because the transport
minister told me they shouldn't get
in the car and there was no public
I'd be extremely
disappointed if employers chose to
dock wages for somebody because they
couldn't travel during the red
warning. I've had a number of
e-mails that have come from
individuals, that will be part of
If I deem us from
people saying what? That they are
being disciplined? -- you fat
e-mails from people saying what.
They are saying that they've had
their wages docked, etc. When the
Government and police and other
agencies come together to give crisp
and clear advice, it is not for our
own good it is for the safety of the
It is a bit like
warning drivers, you can warn
employers that it's not acceptable.
Are you intending to do anything?
Can you do anything. I don't know
about the legal position.
It will be part of the debrief after
the yellow weather warning buses on
Monday night. Talking to a employers
and having that dialogue and looking
at what we can do a spot of that
discussion. -- the weather warning
passes on Monday night.
that is not a picture of brandy that
is life. -- Dundee that is life.
It's time to look back
on what's happened this week
and what's coming up.
With me now are Libby
Brooks of the Guardian
and Ramsay Jones, a former adviser
to David Cameron
and the Scottish Conservatives.
Ruth Davidson wasn't prepared to
commit to say that the British
Government shouldn't put another
referendum. It is clear that the
British Government would.
one, I don't think that one will be
called, secondly, I think another
Edinburgh agreement would be
hard-fought and hard on this time,
to be honest. It would be a replay
of last time we are be careful what
you wish for is the view taken by
the UK Government back then when
Alex Salmond unexpectedly won a
majority and had the right. I think
that the same thing would play out
again. With the Edinburgh Agreement,
if it replicated again, what with
the conditions be?
Would it be
played out? The British Government
have made it pretty clear that they
will not have one. At least until
the May general election.
made it clear. There is at the
question of whether this is
something that Nicola Sturgeon
herself once. She was speaking on
another channel earlier today and
she was talking about the fact that
she was very concerned that we would
reach the autumn without really any
sort of clarity on what the Brexit
deal means. -- Nicola Sturgeon
herself wants. And she has been
previously said that you would then
have to make a decision on whether
she wants a second referendum. And
this was absent Mr.
please the Scottish Government
enormously would be to be blocked.
Therefore, to go for an advisory one
with no legal backing and great
elliptical input. That is one the
likely to win. --
with Davidson pass
policy on Brexit, is anything left
of her baldness?
She has remained
fairly consistent and it is always
been a difficult line from her. --
boldness. She was talking earlier to
you about pushing on fisheries. I'd
like to know whether she has had
conversations about population,
which is something the Scottish
Government is concerned about in
This is the idea of
having a different immigration
policy for Scotland.
It would be
interesting to Rashford what the
discussion would be in Aberdeen this
week and -- to hear what the
discussion would be in Aberdeen this
week if the Conservative conference
had gone ahead. Jacob Rees-Mogg's
hard Brexit letter was signed by
four Scottish MPs. I imagine that
they would say that this is simply
meaning that it is a broad church.
Theresa May is not the only person
who has a variety of views and her
party. I would argue that one of the
things she's been very good at has
been to encourage voters that would
not normally vote for Conservative
devote her party shown that she is
hurting different flavour of party
did answer. -- for the Conservative
to vote for her party that she is
heading a different flavour of
Everybody is looking for
somebody else to blame. One of the
things that has restricted me over
the last five days, maybe just me
harking back to my youth when we
just got onto it, everybody was to
blame somebody else. We just want to
have our cake and eat it, we want to
get to the shops... People panic
buying. We create this ourselves
But if we drive RPM -- if
we drive up the M80, there are HGVs
in front of you, there's nothing you
If the road is open and you
are a whole year, then you have
reasonable expectation to expect you
can go. There are sometimes pressure
to get through even if your goods
are not essential.
It's essential to
think that sometimes things just
have to stop.
terms of HGVs, they are essential to
our transport infrastructure and
they are difficult to drive in snow,
so perhaps we need clearer
It's interesting that
Humza Yousaf says that he has been
contacted by people who have been
disciplined or threatened by
employers because they have followed
the Government's advice.
I wonder if
we have to look at clearer insurers
guidelines as well. That was of the
problems with HGVs, that may employ
their employers as well. -- that was
one of the problems.
Some of these
people on this debris contracts...
Regardless of the contract, if any
employer is not looking after the
health and well-being of employees,
then shame on them. Name and shame
-- on these temporary
That's all from the us this week -
I'm back at the same time next week.
Until then, goodbye.