04/03/2018 Sunday Politics Scotland

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.

We'll go

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

relevant comparison.

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,

will it?

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?

I don't

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

party.

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

road.

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

with.

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

unacceptable.

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

you?

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.

Your

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.

The Irish

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.

The

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

security first.

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?

I

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

take it?

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.

Nicky

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.

You

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

outcome.

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

the future?

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

control means.

The sovereign

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.

You

never ask me. You would have been

surprised by the answer. These are

sensible, practical arrangements

that we benefit from, and the EU

benefits.

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.

Both wings

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

next?

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

deal.

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.

He is

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

different sectors?

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.

You're being

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

halfway?

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.

She said

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.

That

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

of salt.

When the EU was negotiating

with Greece during its financial

crisis, they were absolutely

insistent, they did not soften their

lines.

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.

Lord

Howard, thank you for talking to us

this morning.

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?

Absolutely

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

world?

The EU is different trading

arrangements with different

countries.

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

morning.

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

union?

We would have to look at that

carefully. We want to be a rule

maker

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.

One of

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

to happen?

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.

If that

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

customs union.

I think there's a

name for that, isn't it called

cherry picking?

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

Union.

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.

They ruled

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?

Let's see

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

back...

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.

Thank you.

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

this programme.

Nicola Sturgeon

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

referendum.

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.

Cause

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.

The

answer, you stick by -- the answer

to whether you stick by your

statement.

Cause additionally, these

things are decided by the UK and

Scottish Government.

--

constitutionally. The UK Government

has been clear it with block of

referendum.

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

morgue.

He said you would back a

legal challenge to the continuity

built that the SNP proposes. -- at

the moment.

I don't want this to go

to court.

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.

I

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

inevitable.

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

ultraviolet?

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

independence?

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...

I am

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?

We both

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

down.

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?

I want

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

individual issue.

On the subject of

negotiations, you argued after the

referendum

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

disguise.

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

saying.

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

Minister?

No.

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

Government's alternative

to the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Not quite as nice a view today.

That

is because it is snowing at the

moment.

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?

No,

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

amendment.

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?

And

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

imposed yesterday.

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

not happen.

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.

Absolutely.

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

Parliament?

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!

Indeed.

Thank you.

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?

Good

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

delighted.

Single market?

The single

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

arrangements...

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 EU?

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

see...

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.

Anna

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

amendment?

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

time comes.

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...

This sounds

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

that.

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

grown-up politics.

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.

As I

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

house.

Thank you, Lesley Laird. I

hope the House of Commons is all

right behind you, it is looking a

bit...

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

been stuck?

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

out blankets.

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.

During a

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

conditions this.

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?

You

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?

Thank

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

Association.

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?

Nobody

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

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.

No, we

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.

He

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.

Yes, we

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

transport.

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

the debrief.

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

travelling public.

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.

I presume

that is not a picture of brandy that

is life. -- Dundee that is life.

Goodbye.

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.

Number

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.

They have

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.

What would

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

terms of...

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