Browse content similar to 18/03/2018. 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.
The Foreign Secretary accuses Russia
of "smug sarcasm, denial,
obfuscation and delay" in relation
to the Salisbury poisoning case.
As the diplomatic dispute continues,
where will this crisis go next?
Police launch a murder
inquiry in to the death
of another Russian exile.
So how many other deaths in Britain
are potentially linked to Russia?
We speak to the Chair of
the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Should transgender women be included
on Labour's all-women short lists?
The party postpones
a final decision.
While a government consultation
on changing the law
appears to be on hold.
Has the debate on transgender
rights become toxic?
And on Sunday Politics Scotland,
we'll be hearing from two
been on the receiving
end of racial abuse.
Also, are we a soft touch
when it comes to laundering
"dirty" Russian money?
And with me today a panel
of political insiders helping me
to make sense of all the big
Matt Zarb-Cousin, Isabel Oakeshott
and Lucy Fisher.
Now, Russia's Vladimir Putin has
already been out this
morning to cast his vote
in the Presidential elections.
We'll be expecting the result
later this evening,
but you can probably guess
who the frontrunner is.
It comes at the end of a week
in which UK-Russia relations turned
Is Russia behind the poisoning
of Sergei Skripal?
This week the finger of blame
for the Salisbury attack was
pointed firmly in one direction.
First, work out
what actually happened
there and then we'll talk about it.
A deadline imposed by
the British government
calling on the Russians to provide
answers came and went.
The Prime Minister headed
to the Commons to update MPs.
They have treated the use
of a military grade nerve agent
in Europe with sarcasm,
contempt and defiance.
The only conclusion, she declared,
was that the Russian state
was responsible for the nerve agent
attack on the Russian double agent
Sergei Skripal and his
23 Russian diplomats based
here accused of being spies are to
be kicked out of the country.
Moscow responded by
expelling 23 British
UK-Russia relations are well
and truly in the deep freeze.
The Prime Minister's
response to the crisis has
won her some new fans.
She got flowers and fist bumps
in Salisbury on Thursday.
The Defence Secretary had his own
idiosyncratic message for Moscow.
Frankly, Russia should go
away, it should shut up.
Go away, it should shut up.
The Foreign Secretary
escalated the row by going
further and directly accusing
Vladimir Putin of personally
ordering the poisoning.
Our quarrel is with Putin's
Kremlin and with his
decision, and we think it
overwhelmingly likely that it was
his decision, to direct
the use of a nerve agent.
that parties often come
together on major foreign policy
issues but Jeremy Corbyn is not a
How has she responded to the Russian
government's request for a sample
of the agent used in the Salisbury
attack to run its own tests?
That did not go down
too well with some
of his own MPs who tabled a motion
expressing their support for the
Prime Minister's response.
But Mr Corbyn held
his line, arguing in
Friday's Guardian that we ought not
to discount the possibility that
Russian mafia gangs could have
carried out the attack.
not exactly been
toeing that line.
We fully support the Government's
action because we
hold Russia responsible.
There is no alternative
explanation other than
lies with Russia.
The US, France and Germany issued
a joint statement of support
for the UK.
It's a very sad situation.
It certainly looks like
the Russians were behind it.
Something that should
never ever happen.
Today is election day in Russia.
And this crisis seems unlikely
to hurt Putin's chances of
re-election as Russia's President.
So to pick up some of that news with
Lucy, later this week the National
Security Council will meet to talk
about what further action the UK
Government Meite, they briefed the
BBC there is more in the locker,
that was the phrase the useful
support any idea what they might do
There is a whole suite of
options available to the government,
the idea of clamp-down on visas for
dubious Russian businessmen and
their allies wanting to travel to
the UK, there is talk on pulling the
plug on RTE, the Kremlin backed
broadcaster with Ruth Davidson
calling for that they. The most
important action the government
could take is on the wealth, the
Kremlin gold, and money swilling
around the UK invested here by
Russian oligarchs are linked to the
Boss of people from Russian
politician stomach opposition
politicians who think would be the
most effective route. That's what
Labour are calling for and we
haven't really heard that's what
action the government will go in.
These are quite short-term measures.
What we're looking on with Russia is
a much wider, long-term problem.
What a lot of people in defence
circles talk about is a more
asymmetrical response, so rather
than in addition to the measures
Lucy has articulated, you need to
look at the whole suite of things in
terms of the disinformation campaign
that Russia puts out, we need to
look at where we can niggle Russia
by supporting Ukraine a bit,
supporting states like Azerbaijan
and a much more hybrid response, I
Matt Zarb-Cousin is, there
has been a lot of discussion about
Jeremy Corbyn's response to this
this week. I'm interested, you know
him well, give us an insight into
what he is thinking. He supports the
Government's actions while not being
sure about the conclusion that the
Russian state was responsible. Why
support what they are doing if we
don't support the conclusion?
think the Russian state is culpable
and the Labour Party recognises
that. I think we all agree that it
isn't a proportionate response, it
goes nowhere near far enough if the
Russian state is culpable, to just
expel 23 diplomats and say to the
Royal family they are not going to
the World Cup. So they have to find
out obviously if the Russian state
is culpable, and then once they have
the evidence for that then obviously
build that international coalition
where we can actually take
meaningful action, not these
tokenistic measures. Even closing
down Russia's Russia Today emboldens
Putin, look at the West, they can
censor, he will say. What we really
have to do is go after Putin's kind
of circle. There is oligarchs here,
whether they are pro-or anti-Putin,
who have been allowed to settle here
and stow away their money here and
they have been affected by Putin. If
they are then affected by Putin, if
we say you have to leave, then that
is a very powerful coalition you are
building against him.
Corbyn still isn't convinced that
the Russian state itself is
No, neither is the
He wouldn't back these
actions until they were proved.
would be naive, it would be
difficult to build an international
coalition. Even the statement that
Germany France and the US put out,
the joint statement, said the nerve
agent was of a type developed by
Russia, not that it was developed by
Russia. It looks increasingly likely
that that nerve agent came from
Russia and Russia have lost control
of it, or have used it maliciously,
but we don't know that yet and it's
very difficult to take action until
There is a kind of false
dichotomy here in this idea that
somehow elements of Russian Mafia
might be responsible. Welcome
potentially they could be, but the
idea that the Russian Mafia is in
some way completely distinct from
the Kremlin is a misunderstanding.
In a sense, the Russian Mafia is in
extra typically linked to the
Kremlin. They are a sort of
paramilitary wing of the Kremlin so
it is a false dichotomy.
Jeremy Corbyn has taken a lot of
flak for his response this week.
Isn't it legitimate to be asking
these questions when, as Matt says,
even the French, US and German
governments don't seem this --
convinced this is state directed?
Early in the week we saw some level
of prevarication by Paris, Berlin
and Washington and that has firmed
up a lot. I think the quite
unprecedented international joint
statement put out by those allies
and the UK goes a lot further than
you say, Matt. I don't think it's as
equivocal as perhaps you suggested.
Some of the questions Jeremy Corbyn
asks will kind of strike a chord
with much of the public. I think, in
particular, raising questions about
the intelligence and exactly what is
known is something that people will
be thinking about in light of the
2003 Iraq War and some of the
evidence being politically sexed up,
people want to know that that's not
the case here.
know exactly how much Jeremy Corbyn
had access to in terms of the
intelligence as well. It could well
be that the government... Boris
Johnson and the Defence Secretary
Gavin Williamson have gone much
further and said... Boris Johnson
said it is Putin.
Williamson said they should
shut up and go away, or whatever he
said. That suggests to me they are
either going off message or they
have seen more evidence that perhaps
Corbyn has not seen.
questions we will explore throughout
the show and if you stay with us we
will talk to you throughout the
Well, let's stick with this story
because the Foreign Secretary has
been speaking on the Andrew
Marr Show this morning.
He was asked how the Government
could be certain that the Russian
Government was responsible
for the attack.
We actually have evidence within the
last ten years that Russia has not
only been investigating the delivery
of nerve agents for the purposes of
assassination, but has also been
creating and stockpiling Novichok.
To the best of our knowledge, this
is a Russian-made nerve agent that
falls within the category Novichok,
made only by Russia.
I'm joined now by the Foreign Office
Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
Thank you for talking to us this
morning. Russia have responded, as
you know, to our expansion --
expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats by
closing the consulate in St
Petersburg. Is there a second phase
of government action that will need
to be reintroduced in order to take
We have lots of
options. But this isn't just about
counting heads. This is really about
making clear to the world that one
of the great achievements of the
world since the Second World War,
which is a convention to ban
chemical weapons, has been violated.
And it is clearly traceable back to
a military grade nerve agent of
Russian origin. We said to the
Russians either you did it directly
or you have lost control of this,
tell us which. They basically just
stuck their tongue out at us. Their
irresponsible response to this
points ever more to them as having
done this, and so the response that
we have done I think is
proportionate. Yes, they have
responded back. But what matters
more than anything else is not that
we now go into some kind of
tit-for-tat stuff by accounting
exact numbers and things like that,
is that we actually corral the whole
world to realise that Russia is
totally out of order here and that
the Chemical Weapons Convention has
been violated in a way that could do
enormous damage to the world in any
country this happens to happen in,
in this case the UK, and that is
what we will do.
You are calling for
a concerted international action,
what would that look like?
already very grateful to the very
clear response we have had from a
lot of countries. I was in the
Balkans over the weekend with
countries like Macedonia and Kosovo,
and they were very, very clear in
their condemnation of this, because
they themselves are countries which
suffer from wider Russian
interference. But we have the EU
foreign ministers meeting tomorrow,
they will be a Prime Minister level
March European Council on Friday, we
have already had an open discussion
in the UN at which the Russian
representative cut a very, very
lonely figure, and this is clearly a
Russian violation of the Chemical
Weapons Convention and we will
cooperate with the Organisation for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
to prove even further what we know
to be the case.
When it comes to
international action, a former UK
ambassador to Russia, agrees with
you that we need to take action
along with others and says the
sanctions imposed by the EU after
Crimea 2014 surprise the Kremlin and
continue to have an impact because
they were EU wide, but went on to
say Brexit has made Britain's task
harder in appealing for EU
solidarity this week and the kind of
international action you are looking
I think that is total nonsense,
Brexit doesn't have an impact on
this and we are still part of the EU
and we operate EU sanctions
collaboratively and we're passing
legislation through the House of
Commons which will give us
autonomous actions regime following
the departure from the EU, and we
will include in that what I hope
will be a firm cross-party said
statement from the House of Commons
that the Magnitsky clause, as people
have been campaigning for, will be
included in the sanctions and
anti-money-laundering Bill. And the
passage of this bill predated the
Salisbury incident, has always been
something we wanted the whole of the
House of Commons today, not just
something in a committee during
passage of the bill.
Labour tried to
introduce an amendment to that bill
with the Magnitsky clause and you
wear minister in the Bill committee
that rejected those amendments two
weeks ago. -- you wear minister.
answer the question before you ask
the question, which is we wanted it
to be done on the whole floor of the
house and in the phrasing of the
amendment it wasn't consistent with
some of the other parts of the act.
-- you were a minister. We have an
understanding that we hope will be a
cross-party thing and that will send
a clear message to the world that
the House of Commons, along with
countries who have done it already,
will be aligned with the Magnitsky
proposal, which campaigners have
The Magnitsky powers would allow you
to take actions against individuals
guilty of gross human rights
violations. That doesn't allow you
to attack the money of Putin allies
unless you can find them guilty of
gross human rights violations so it
wouldn't really allow you to respond
to this attack, would it?
afraid you're totally wrong and
don't understand the wording of the
bill because it is not only gross
human rights violations in the bill.
There are many purposes included in
the list of things you can do under
the legislation and it does include
what you have just described.
the powers the Government has
already on going after things like
this, like unexplained wealth
orders, have been used only once
since they were introduced. There
haven't been much evidence the
Government was serious in tackling
corrupt money brought in through
That's because the
legislation has only recently come
in and of course it's not
politicians who make these
decisions. There's a distinction
between the liberal democracy in
which we live, where judges on the
law take their course from
politicians. And what we think is
happening in Russia, which is not a
real democracy, we are looking at a
pretty odd election taking place
today where Vladimir Putin will
undoubtedly be supposedly re-elected
for the fourth time. That is a deep
distinction between our values and
bears. One of the great values we
have seen in the world is the
creation of the chemical weapons
Convention. Jeremy Corbyn has always
been the great disarm and here we
have a violation of the ideological,
the sort of principled convention
that has been built up over many
decades, violated in our own
country, which is why I think many
young people are disappointed with
Ben Wallace, the
security minister, said we have
allowed nasty individuals to come to
the City of London and launder
illicit money. That sounds like an
admission that until now this
Government hasn't been doing enough
to tackle corrupt money in London.
think we are amassing the powers to
tackle exactly the kind of issue he
has identified, and indeed Ben
Wallace is the security minister who
has been supporting this, pressing
for it and administering it from the
Home Office point of view. We have
to make a proper distinction though
without compromising our values
between those who are guilty and
those who are not. Not every
oligarch is guilty and not every
rich Russian is necessarily a crony
of Putin and someone who should be
subject to sanctions so we need to
approach this without compromising
our values. But there is something
much more important than this, what
really matters is the world needs to
realise that if we allow chemical
weapons to slip into use any more
that's happened now, we will live in
a much more dangerous world and one
which is tearing up the rule book,
throwing away the chemical weapons
Convention which has been in place
for so many decades, indeed it was
one of the great idealistic
achievements of the post war world
that we put this in place so we have
to the robust in pointing the finger
at Russia and saying this violation
by the use of chemical weapons is
simply not acceptable.
Thank you for
Well, earlier this week the police
announced that they were launching
a murder inquiry in to the death
of another Russian businessman
living in Britain.
A pathologist's report says
Nikolai Glushkov died
of "compression to the neck"
after being found dead
at his home on Monday.
The Metropolitan Police say
there is no evidence to suggest
a link to the attempted murder
of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
But the Home Office has announced it
will investigate a number
of other unexplained deaths
following the Skripal case.
Yvette Cooper is the Chair of
The Home Affairs Select Committee.
You specifically asked the Home
Secretary to investigate 14 other
deaths that you are worried may have
had Russian involvement, do you have
much evidence for that?
is that any area where there are
allegations that there may have been
either Russian involvement or
suspicious circumstances that may
need to be investigated should be,
because I think we have to have the
full facts. There was a BuzzFeed
investigation that made allegations
about 14 cases, there are other
concerns raised about others. It's
not for me to judge the individual
circumstances, my concern is these
cases, where there have been
preliminary conclusions of suicide
or natural causes or accident, that
actually there may be further
evidence of more suspicious
circumstances, they should now be
reviewed by the Home Office and
The Home Office have said
they will do that but if you look at
the the case of someone who died in
2012, Surrey police says they will
not reinvestigate so will they be
able to cover new evidence?
the Home Office will assure there is
a review of all of these cases. The
Home Office Secretary will want to
satisfy herself that every corner
has been looked into and this has
been done properly and we get to the
bottom of this. I do accept the
priority for them at the moment must
be this current investigation and
the current circumstances in
Salisbury and where those
investigations lead, but they will
need I think to follow up by looking
at these other cases as well.
have any doubt that what happened in
Salisbury was directed by the
I share the
conclusions of the French, German
and British government that it is
implausible the Russian state wasn't
involved in some way or another.
Jeremy Corbyn is wrong when he says
it is either the Russian state or a
chemical weapon that got out of
control and into other people's
We don't know which
individuals caused the attack and
how the nerve agent was brought into
the country, we also don't know
which bit of the Russian state was
particularly involved, but I think
the clear evidence, the way in which
the Russian government has been
behaving since this happened really
is not the behaviour of a government
that is saying we weren't involved
and we want to help get to the
bottom of this because we take it
seriously. This morning the Russian
Embassy has been tweeting
Embassy has been tweeting pictures
of Hercule Poirot.
So are you
embarrassed by Jeremy Corbyn saying
there isn't enough evidence to link
this to the Kremlin?
John McDonnell said we should
condemn the Russian government for
the way it's behaved on this, and
that the Russian government is
responsible, and I agreed with him,
and he went further than Theresa May
by pointing the finger at Putin,
something similar to what Boris
Johnson has said, so I think there's
a recognition that even though we
don't know which individual
delivered the nerve agent there is
responsibility here in the Russian
state and I think some part of the
security service is what we expect
It was clear in the House
of Commons this week there were
senior Labour MPs like yourself
uncomfortable with Jeremy Corbyn's
position. There's also been reports
this has been seen as a watershed
moment by some moderate Labour MPs
wondering what they are doing in
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and
revived talk of a breakaway party,
is that something you have heard
I think this is a load of
rubbish. I have not heard this so I
think this is in danger of
spiralling ever outwards and we are
also in danger of making this an
issue about domestic politics at a
time when there is very serious
international issues here that we
should be focusing on and coming
together to focus on as well.
why it becomes a domestic issue
because it's at times like this you
might expect the leader of
opposition to back-up the Prime
Minister, you were clearly
uncomfortable with the way he did
not do that, so it has consequences
within the Labour Party.
understand it, Jeremy has said that
the evidence points to wash, that
also he supports all of the measures
and that's really important that
and that's really important that you
have unanimity about the actions
that need to be taken, and calling
for further action around the
economic sanctions. They understand
he wanted to wait for further
evidence before going further and
criticising the Russian government.
Obviously John McDonnell has
criticised the Russian government
today, but I'm not going to
criticise Jeremy for taking a
slightly different view because I
think there's been too much
temperature in this and you have
heard people being called warmongers
for condemning the Russian state,
you've also heard people being
called appeasers for asking further
questions. None of that helps. We
are not talking about military
action, we are talking about
systematic diplomatic measures,
criminal investigation measures and
I hope there can be unanimity about
what those measures should be.
Yvonne Cooper, thank you. I will
just pick up some of that with the
panel. Lucy Fisher, it was clear
listening to Yvette Cooper, and
Shami Chakrabarti, very much in the
Labour Party people who seemed to be
at odds at the beginning of the week
as saying there is nothing to see
here, is that true?
I'm not entirely
convinced, I think this has opened
up old wounds in the Labour Party,
the front bench has been strained by
this response, and while we were
talking about how some of the
questions he has asked are valid,
tonally I think the response has
upset a lot of Labour MPs, including
those who have called for the
Commons to unequivocally condemn the
Matt Zarb Cousin,
Labour has been
Labour has been calling for -- the
Government have been calling for
Magnitsky clauses, exactly what
Jeremy Corbyn called forth. Were you
satisfied with what you heard from
from Alan Duncan?
No, they are
watered down compared to what Jeremy
Corbyn had in the manifesto in the
last election. I think there is an
agreement among the Labour Party now
and the front bench particularly
that the Russian state is culpable
and that is shared across the house.
You are still couple books under the
chemicals weapons Convention if you
lose control of the nerve agent,
which is what happened.
Conservative government is serious
about financial powers in order to
target corrupt money? David Cameron
said one of his great regrets is
that he never introduced me
Magnitsky powers, the Government say
they will go ahead with it, is it
powers they will use in a meaningful
I think they are absolutely
serious. The national security
adviser said he understands this, as
does the intelligence minister Ben
Wallace, they have already used
these new powers about freezing the
assets on unexplained wealth. A
fairly new measure which has already
been implemented in at least one
case as I understand it. I want to
come back on your comments, you say
the Labour Party is singing as one,
I don't pick that up from the
rhetoric. I felt Yvette Cooper was
extraordinarily diplomatic, but
trying to paper over serious cracks
within the Parliamentary party about
Labour's position on this. It is
clear Jeremy Corbyn doubts the
intelligence on it.
It is not the
intelligence he doubts, it is the
way the intelligence has been
interpreted by the Government, and
I'm talking about intelligence he
perhaps hasn't seen so we don't know
how much he has seen. Theresa May,
as Lucy's story showed this week,
hasn't necessarily shown the Leader
of the Opposition and chief of staff
everything. It is the same as Iraq
in a sense. It is not the
intelligence itself necessarily, it
is how the Government uses the
intelligence, and that's when it
comes back to the nerve agent being
of a type developed by Russia.
OK, talking of cracks in the Labour
Party we have another story...
On Tuesday the Labour Party
were expected to rubber
stamp their support for transgender
women to be included
on all-women short lists.
But this programme has learned that
that announcement has been delayed
so that arguments on all sides
can be heard.
The rights of the transgender
community have also become part
of a wider conversation
in Westminster after the government
backed calls to simplify the legal
process to for someone
to change their gender.
Greg Dawson reports.
This is Heather Peto.
I've always known I'm a woman,
it's when I became a teenager that
I really sort of like felt
the pressure to be who I was.
And, at the next general election,
she wants to make political history.
I'd like to be one of the first
transgender MPs in Parliament.
But that ambition has
propelled her and others
to the centre of a significant row
in the Labour Party
after she was included
on an all women's short list
as a Parliamentary candidate.
I don't think it's an issue to be
honest. I think the local party
decides and the best candidates will
get through so I don't think it is
an issue. I think it's being made an
issue by some people that are more
anti-transgender, but local people
don't seem to be worried.
Labour say they've always welcomed
self-identifying trans women
onto all women's short lists
but that policy has recently
come under attack.
Enter the self-described radical
feminists who descended
on Parliament this week
for a meeting they titled
"transgender and the war on women".
They've been described
as transphobic, a label they reject.
I can see already there
men cynically use -
what I feel - are cynically
using those positions.
You've got Heather Peto who is
the trans-inclusionary officer
of the Labour Party,
he went on to an all
women's short list.
The fact that you are referencing
Heather as 'he' against her wishes
would be insulting to her.
I could go on and on about
Once we start using she for a man,
we are blurring the distinction.
Venice Allan is a Labour member
but those views got her suspended.
She knows what she says is offensive
to the trans community
but makes no apology for it.
I really do want to have this
conversation, like I say,
you don't have to agree with us
but you do have to listen to us.
Like the Labour Party, you know,
they're not listening.
I've tried to set up Momentum
events, Labour events, I've tried
to meet with Jeremy Corbyn
and other politicians.
Labour were supposed to formally
clarify their support for trans
women on all-women short
lists at a meeting at the
party's HQ this week.
We've been told that decision
would have triggered
the resignations of more
than 200 female members.
Then yesterday, Labour told us
that formal discussion
was delayed until June.
This is all a precursor to a much
wider political debate
going on with the Government
committing to update
the Gender Recognition Act.
As the Prime Minister has explained,
the changes would allow people
to self define their gender
without the need for
We have set out plans to reform
the Gender Recognition Act,
streamlining and demedicalising
the process for changing gender,
because being trans is not
an illness and it shouldn't be
treated as such.
Since she made that speech
at the Pink Awards last October,
progress on those changes
to the Gender Recognition Act seems
to have slowed down.
A consultation was expected
in the autumn but nothing surfaced.
I've asked the Government what's
going on and they just say in this
very short statement that
a consultation will be published
in due course, but no date given.
And our various requests to speak
to politicians both in favour
and opposed to these changes
were all turned down, which came
as little surprise to some.
I know journalists and I know
politicians who have
questions about this,
who have doubts about it,
who don't dare express those doubts,
raise those questions,
because they are worried that
if they do they will be screamed at,
they will be accused of bigotry
and transphobia simply
for asking questions.
James Kirkup has written a number
of columns on the updates to the act
and isn't sure it's been
properly thought through.
There are questions about access
to safe spaces for women
in domestic violence refuges,
there are questions
about the collection,
collation of statistics
on crime, on pay.
Questions that should be asked,
debated, discussed and answered.
Heather Peto says the changes
are long overdue though,
and hopes she can one day speak up
for the rights of the
trans-community from the benches
of the House of Commons.
As a feminist, I would stand up
to that and say, no,
I will just be who I am.
I have the self-confidence that I'm
a woman and I always have been,
and people should just
accept me for that.
The two chip significant issues to
pick about bout the Labour Party and
the Government's consultation about
transgender rights, let me start
with you, Matt -- two significant
issues. The government is in a
terrible tangle on transgender women
on all women short lists and they've
had to put it off until June.
identifying trans-woman has never
been disbarred from being on a
women's short list in the Labour
selection. The consultation was, as
I understand it, coming up with a
form of words...
position that trans-women are
elaborate rules to be on all women
short lists, it has caused such
around the party with two prominent
members threatening to resign if
that warning is put in, that the
party has been bucking the decision
and kicking it into the long grass.
The conversations I have had with
the leader's of this suggest that is
not the case, they are still
consulting on it and exactly what
the form of words will be there is
no actual plan as far as I'm aware
to stop trans-women self identifying
and being on a women's short list.
Can I ask how many trans-women are
applying to be on all women short
I'm not sure.
I suspect it is
Heather Peto is one of them in
the film, there may be several.
There may be but I suspect it is
less than the number of women on
Not from any disparaging how
difficult it must be to be in that
situation. There would be a simple
way of resolving the switch would be
not to have all women short lists
and select the best candidates for
It is also about whether
Labour MPs have access to the
leadership programme, whether they
can stand as
can stand as women's officers in
local parties. What Labour did is
they jumped the gun by saying it is
fine, or self identifying
trans-women can have access to these
full rights. I think it is quite
welcome to have a consultation.
Politics is the art of persuasion
and there was no real attempt by the
Labour leadership to bring the
party, bring some of the feminist...
There are radical feminists in the
party who will take more than a bit
of gentle persuasion to get
accustomed to the idea that people
who were born men should be on an
all women short list.
but as we saw in the VT they are
asking for an opportunity to be
heard and the debate to be had so it
is quite welcome there will be a
It's not just the
Labour Party that seems to have
kicked on this issue of it, we don't
know what happened to the
Government's consultation on making
it easier to self identify as a man
or woman. That's going to be a
difficult one for the government.
Remember the culture wars within the
toy party that David Cameron fought
over gay marriage.
this is even much more complicated
and a sensitive issue. It is so easy
and I've been guilty of it myself to
get the language are wrong on this,
to upset people, and I can only
imagine the Prime Minister's qualms
about opening this can of worms
within her own party, where there
will be people who are incredibly
off message about it. It seems they
are pushing agendas are long grass
and there are bigger issues to worry
You are talking about 2000 or
3000 people in a party of 650,000.
It is a rounding error.
Labour Party, you're talking about?
It is not splitting the party, it is
a small minority of women who don't
believe in trans-rights, that's it.
Interesting to hear Theresa May
talking about the Government's
consultation. That was a clear
statement she made at the pink news
conference saying she wanted to
streamline this and trans-wasn't a
mental health issue, she made a
strong commitment to trans-rights
and she didn't have to do that.
didn't at all and it was fascinating
she went as far as that. It is not
unprecedented. Ireland, Argentina,
Colombia and Malta have changed
their processes to deep apologise it
so it is merely a legal process and
that is what the government is
getting at. My understanding is for
a person to legally change their
gender they have to live as their
desired gender for two years and
they have to have psychiatric
evaluations and medical opinions
from two doctors and tests that some
have claimed are incredibly
traumatising. It can be made legal
process from precedents aboard.
will carry on talking to you
throughout the programme.
It's coming up to 11:40am,
you're watching the Sunday Politics.
Still to come -
There is a big row brewing
in the Brexit Select Committee
Good morning and welcome
to Sunday Politics Scotland.
Coming up on the programme...
I'll be hearing from two politicians
who've been the target of racial
abuse and asking if Islamophobia
is on the increase.
Dirty Russian money -
Is Scotland a soft touch
for illicit finance?
And the Scottish Greens Conference
in Greenock is told their future
is in the "European family".
I'll be hearing from the party's
co-convener Patrick Harvie.
It's been another week
in which racism in Scotland has
returned to the headlines.
That's after a Labour councillor
was suspended by his party
after making an Islamophobic comment
Minister Humza Yousaf.
And while the campaign for equality
has been growing in profile,
there is a view that racism
is getting worse.
In a moment I'll be
speaking to Mr Yousaf
and Labour's Anas Sarwar,
who's also been the victim
of racial abuse.
But first, Andrew Black
has this report.
This weekend, hundreds of people
from all backgrounds marched in
Refugees are welcome here!
Their purpose was to highlight
racism. Many of those who took part
in their own stories to tell.
came here, I didn't speak English. I
couldn't understand people. Some
said go back to your country if
you're not able to speak English.
have experienced racism and I was
younger, pulling up in Glasgow, --
growing up, not so much nowadays but
some is going around in Glasgow.
have racism every day. This is
systematic. You see it everywhere
you go, it is not as blatant as it
used to be but it's still there.
Because it is systematic, that's why
we should start fighting. You cannot
legislate against that.
Brexit, people think their views are
justified and is about telling and
informing people, education is the
best part. Telling people it is
wrong and we need to fight back.
a small office in Glasgow, this man
is trying to bring about change.
He's been trying to empower young
people from ethnic minorities to
achieve great things but he says
that's difficult because racism is
In the past, some
were blunt to your face but now
were blunt to your face but now over
racism. If you look at policies,
it's there but I can maybe, I can't
name any mainstream organisation
those who can put their hand up and
say they are fairly represented.
This week Labour councillor Jim
Dempster was suspended by his party
are making an Islamophobic carpet
cook comment. A Labour MP seen here
-- making an Islamophobic comment. A
Labour MP apologised after making
remarks. For years, this woman has
been trying to make sure all workers
are treated equally. Can you send
someone on a course after they've
made a comment?
necessarily the response needed,
there have been too many incidents
of that kind of language being used.
And that's being reported as being
unacceptable. I don't believe they
haven't seen those earlier reports
and they must know it is
unacceptable. Training is a place to
explore things in new ways and look
at new ways of doing things. I think
it's more an issue of taking
responsibility for making an
unacceptable remarks and there are
consequences for that.
The message from
events like these is one of optimism
but also a feeling there much more
to do. With me now is Humza Yousaf
and Anas Sarwar who have both been
subject to racial abuse. Humza
Yousaf, we can tell about these
cases any moment but you did an
interview and the other day and I
was struck by you said what you
called keyboard warriors, write
insulting and abusive things you
pretty much every
insulting and abusive things you
pretty much tell us more about it,
what is going on beneath the
The rise of social media
has given rise to a lot of hatred
and misogyny, homophobia, in my case
most of it is anti-Muslim and
Islamophobic. I try to mute and what
I can but if you do a simple search
for my name or Anas Sarwar's name I
don't doubt you'd get streams of it
on at least a weekly basis if not
more frequently. Most is pretty
vile. Some of it other than
surprised and shocked about it,
frankly a lot of it is quite violent
and people talk about taking a
bullet to me.
In the form things you
could consider a death threat for
the adds a 90% is all mafia trousers
if I can use that phrase, but one
if 1% take up the fact it is a sin.
I'm sure he will take precautions
sensible. Keyboard warriors are one
thing and we will talk about
specific cases later but what is
worrying me and he saw this in your
BT package, young people are saying
we are hearing more Islamophobic and
racist remarks to our face and
people feel emboldened post Brexit
because of other factors as well.
Are you finding the same thing?
reflecting on that, they will send
frets about burning down my office
which has an impact on my staff.
Targeting me and my family,
questioning my loyalty to Scotland
and the UK. Saying I am part of some
undercover mission to impose sharia
law in Scotland or the UK,
questioning whether we belong and I
think every politician of colour or
a certain faith must use the same.
Is it largely social media or is it
as Humza Yousaf says, it spills
The vast majority is social
media but I've had lots of e-mails
as well, let us through the post,
answering machine messages on my
office phone, all making direct
threats, some of them death threats.
If you listen to other people's
experience, people on the street are
having an impact as the number of
women wearing headscarf is how then
shall slot in the Street or
-- shouted at in the street or taken
killing a group
or staff at called terrorists. We
can voice those concerns but for the
vast majority of incidents
happening, everyone in our country,
people are scared to speak out --
everyday in our country.
mainly Islam or is it straight
racism or has one morphed into the
I have to speak on my own
example but Anas is right, fewer
people will be brave and bold enough
to see it to our faces than people
who don't have a higher profile will
get a lot more. Speaking
anecdotally, I was born and bred in
Scotland, 32 years old now, most of
it was racial growing up. After 911,
the majority have flipped out to
anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim
statements. Instead of the P macro
word which was used for brown Jeremy
-- used for brown people, other
called a terrorist.
As this morphed
in the culture?
A lot of it is Miss
recognition. A lot of the people you
talk to who are victims of
Islamophobic, because of
misrepresentation -- Sikh people. It
was the P word that you heard in the
city centre or in school, now it is
Islamic references like terrorists
and Jihad. The dig deference than
was colour and race another big
difference is faith. People use it
to express their hatred.
strikes me you both saying about
social media, we tend to think about
that Italy as a young medium that
young people use. -- not entirely.
Is this Islamophobia racism, the
cases that have come up as tender to
be people of a certain age. The
implication of what you're saying is
it is not?
In wider society and
day-to-day conversation, it will be
the dinosaurs who say stupid things
and crass things and unacceptable
thing. But don't think we should
pretend it will get phased out with
with that -- with age or time. A
global village communicating and
sharing ideas and vision and
stories, but social media has
commissioned a lot of unfathomable
views because if you heard something
before come you would go away and
festival a few hours before sharing
it with someone else, if you're
angry about something, you go on
social media, post a comment, find
people who agree with you, live
within that framework and allow that
opinion to fester, and social media
has dangers as well as great things.
Also making things acceptable.
People of older disposition would no
doubt Islamophobic views as well as
slightly young people the
differences be borne out emboldened
to speak about it. Whether that's
domestic or international factors.
It's not the case that Islamophobic
views have only existed since 911,
people are more emboldened.
difficult to tackle isn't it. Anyone
who's even you're a age who has been
brought up in Scotland will have
brought up in a school system
explicitly telling people racism is
bad, if rather be as bad. It's not a
simple things to tackle, there seems
to be something from the same,
rooted in the culture, the veneer on
top is not managing to get down.
positive is now people are willing
to challenge it. For example, I
started as a researcher for the
first ethnic variety MSP. A BBC
first ethnic variety MSP.
-- ethnic minority MSP. There was a
BBC programme about Anas Sarwar'
father and the MSP was going to
comment and a guy in a pub started
making racist comments. And David
Henderson Sophie said this is all on
tape, shall I send it to the police,
and Bashir turned round to me and
said don't report it, he is the host
and the guest, let's not reported
and let it lie. I convinced him to
report it. The difference is even,
he was elected in 2007, the
difference is our generation are
much more willing to call it out and
hopefully will do.
What shall we do,
do you think, Anas Sarwar, taking
the latest case, but Michael has
called for Dempsey to be out of the
Labour Party. -- Humza Yousaf has
been calling for him.
Les Dogues by
individual cases as I've said
before, people are dinosaurs, they
make crass and unacceptable marks,
he readily apologised, a rightly was
suspended. The Labour Party will
make a decision if the long-term
based on how to reflect in terms of
society, whether it is one thing
saying sorry and then it is about
changing yourself, changing your
behaviour and other effects wider
You think you should be
Think any less Amat will be
tolerant of some Afobe and the
reason I say that, was that this was
an off-the-cuff remark. I'm not
saying they should be expelled comic
Hugh Gaffney, people should be from
This is you and
In front of my
officials, members of the public, it
was not a slip of the time, it was a
It's a disgraceful
thing and I stand shoulder to
shoulder, there's no party politics
here, we are at one.
The guy should
be expelled from the Labour Party
grip labour will take a decision on
this and quickly.
It's not just
about one individual or
organisation, although it is right
to call out individuals and our own
organisations, as made clear my own
disappointment with certain remarks
made by members of the Labour Party.
This is a culture that impact on
organisations and institutions
across our country and that is what
we must challenge head on.
from what thing, should he
eventually be expelled, he would be
No, I will not be
distraught about people being called
out and changing their behaviour.
Humza Yousaf, we have to leave it
there. Thank you.
Now, the stories and the fallout
from the Salisbury chemical
attack keep on coming.
Today, Vladimir Putin is expected
to romp home in the presidential
polls before returning
to the escalating diplomatic
crisis with the UK.
Closer to home, in fact,
on our very doorstep,
there are allegations that "dirty"
Russian money is being laundered
through Scottish limited
partnerships, or SLPs.
The allegation comes
from the SNP's Treasury
spokesperson in Westminster,
I spoke to her earlier this morning.
First of just explain what these
Scottish limited partnerships are,
and why they are controversial.
Well, they are in financial
mechanism for investments and they
have been around for a long time,
but more recently, the lack of
transparency around them has been
centred around money laundering, and
if you look at the Azerbaijani
laundromat scandal, a couple of the
companies involved in that work
And the point about these is
what? You don't have to give very
much information to the authorities?
Yes, and they also have dug by the
advantageous aspect of them over
English looked at companies if you
can hold assets, all sorts of things
like ships or property.
So just to
spell this out, in theory, I could
set up a Scottish limited
partnership, I wouldn't need to have
duck would have to be the beneficial
owner? Ike could have someone else
that looks like they are running the
company... If only I could put in $1
billion, and it wouldn't be too many
There is very
little transparency as well. There
is also a related problem with the
setup of companies in the UK, you
pay £12 to Companies House and
Companies House does not carry out
any due diligence.
As you said,
these are historical, they have been
around for some time. They are now
perceived to be a problem. What do
you think should be done about them?
A couple of different things. The
UK... Needs a few changes, the has
to be a person of significant
control, one person accountable for
this SLP, the buck stops with them.
But with that have to be the
It could be an agent?
Lots of SLPs
still have not registered this
person even though they have been
obliged to do since last year. The
UK Government has had reviewed going
which has not yet reported back so
we don't know how effective this
regime is. Lots of people are
concerned about SLPs and fed into
this review, we don't actually know
what the UK... Is going to do
What do you think they
A couple of things they
could do. I won't SLPs to have a UK
point of contact, registered with
Companies House, they don't have to
do that at the moment. It would also
be useful to get more transparency
around them. At the moment, legal
firms can manage SLPs for clients,
and if the company has not
registered a person of significant
control, there is no come back to
the legal firm, they can ask their
clients to do that, if the clients
do not do that, the law firm doesn't
have any real incentive to strike
them off. They will continue to
manage that SLP for those clients
but they will not know necessarily
through the clients are. I would
like to see more comeback on the
people who are managing SLPs.
just to spell this out, because it
is, the kid, let us say the race and
SLP and it has $1 billion in aid.
And actually, it is suspected or
found out that is either drug money
or it is, I don't know, illicit
wealth coming from somewhere like
Russia. What can the authorities do,
and who in that SLP would actually
be responsible? Would this nominated
person be legally responsible for
At the moment that hasn't even
been tested. There have been no big
cases being brought against these
SLPs are persons of significant
control yet. So that is a big gap in
the system as well. There are huge
gaps around scrutiny of these SLPs.
Journalists have been digging into
these SLPs and it is not transparent
at all. You can have hundreds of
SLPs registered to one mailbox
address and very little
One of the point
you're making was, if we're going to
be talking sanctions against
Vladimir Putin's state, because of
what happened in Salisbury, these
SLPs, they could be one of the
issues that clamping down on these
could be part of that?
And Theresa May during the week
mentioned the need to crack down on
Russian dirty money in the UK but
she has to show what that actually
will be as a result of that. In
Parliament, the happy anti-money
laundering bill, it has been through
committee stage and it will come
back to the House at some point for
further scrutiny. So at that point
at report stage I would like to see
the Government bringing forward
amendments to tackle some of this
dirty money. We can talk about dirty
money all we like but they do not
close the loopholes which allow the
dirty money to flow through the UK,
they are not doing their job
There is a broader issue
here. Just to make one thing clear,
the Scottish Parliament has no locus
They are called Scottish
limited partnership, but the
regulation is very much reserved to
There is a more general
point, some people who have written
books on money laundering and all
the rest of it argued that Britain
is particularly bad, we always think
about is the problem is British
territories, like the Cayman Islands
or Jersey or the Isle of Man, but
actually, Britain itself as
regulation is not just on SLPs but
on other things, which make it one
of the big places to come to, if you
want illicitly to get rid of money
or to store money that is ill
Absolutely, and people are
trading on the reputation of the UK
in order to set up these structures.
Journalists have pointed out that
SLPs have been marketed in parts of
the world as a means to legitimately
hide money and launder money. So we
need to look at this in great detail
and the Government really, if they
are serious about taking action on
Russian money, they need to...
perhaps more likely to know about
the existence of SLPs Offiah am a
member of the Mexican drug cartel
than if I am a citizen of Edinburgh
Thewliss, 20 very much. -- thank
It was a speech ranging from
an accusation that the Conservatives
are treating the Scottish Parliament
with contempt, to a heartfelt plea
to ensure both Scotland
and the UK remain part
of the "European family".
The 150 or so Scottish Greens
supporters were left in little doubt
about the direction of their party
after this weekend's
Joining me now is the co-convenor of
the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie.
Good morning. Scotland in Europe
Britain in Europe, part of the
European family, that was your big
idea. Does that mean that he would
like another European, another
We certainly want
to oppose the Brexit crisis in
everything that it represents. We've
heard about the wave of racism and
xenophobia that has been emboldened
by it. We know about the economic
wreckage. Even the UK Government's
gun analysis shows they can only
really salvage any gains by
scrapping their commitments on
social and environmental standards
and protection of peoples rights. So
we absolutely want to oppose the
project but if this is done to us,
if we are taken out of the European
Union against the will of the clear
majority of people in Scotland who
voted, we will be campaigning to get
back in. We believe the future of
our country is European.
Democrats say, we want another
referendum on whatever is agreed as
part of the Brexit deal. Why don't
you agree with them?
At their case
can be made for a second referendum.
I would not want trash-mac I would
want to ask a couple of questions,
first, what is to prevent the same
situation happening again with
skulls and not having its view
represented, and also, is this can't
be another opportunity for the UK
Government to take a vote on the
European Union to the extreme and
take us out of the single market and
a customs union as well? For which
they have no mandate. So I would
want to ask those questions.
are saying you don't want the
referendum because you're scared of
The House of Commons and
other European countries are going
to have an opportunity to take their
view on this deal that is done. Just
today, I'm reading that there are
MPs in the House of Commons who say
if the deal is unacceptable, it has
to remain the status quo. If they
reject the deal.
Just on the
referendum, I'm curious you're not
campaigning for this, because when
it comes to a second Scottish
referendum on independence, you
think it is a great idea and you
want one as soon as possible. Why
not another one Brexit?
very clearly that Scotland has the
right to have this question put at
any time in the future, just as the
whole of the UK has the right to
have a question about EU membership
but at a future time. But the
immediate challenge is to oppose a
Brexit and all of the damage that it
represents, but also to oppose the
direct assault that the UK
Government lodging against
devolution on the pretext of Brexit.
That is entirely unjustified and not
what people voted for. Last week,
Tory MSP is proposing legislation in
the Scottish Parliament which would
forbid the Scottish Parliament from
passing future regulations that
conflicted with the UK Government
policy. You can have any devolution
you want as long as it is Tory
policy that is implemented!
nothing to stop you doing what
you've just said and saying, want
another referendum on Brexit.
another referendum on Brexit.
certainly said we are open to that
by Barack two specific questions I
would want answered and they haven't
been, yet. Right now, it is very
clear that a wafer thin UK wide
majority for leaving the EU, is
being abused as a mandate which it
doesn't represent, for an extreme
hard Brexit which many in the Tory
campaign said would never happen.
big challenge for you, Jeremy
Corbyn, his Labour Party did
relatively well in the last general
election, certainly in England, but
in Scotland they have brought a lot
of younger people who might have
otherwise -- otherwise been
persuaded to think, I like that
Patrick Harvie and I will vote
Green? That is a problem for you,
It has posed significant
challenges for our colleagues in
England and Wales who have done more
than most to try and make the case
for pluralist politics, it hasn't
quite played out that we in
Scotland, where we have some of our
best election results about the same
time as Labour getting a bit of a
Jeremy Corbyn bounce. I'm not sure
how much the Scottish Labour Party
have created that as opposed to just
riding the wave, but I can
understand the enthusiasm and energy
many people on the left of the party
What about... You have made
such a big thing about independence,
are you losing support for it? If I
met someone who thinks that animal
welfare, renewable energy, being
against fracking, is really
important but really don't want to
leave the UK, why should I vote for
the Scottish Greens? Am I not better
to look at some like the Lib Dems or
even Labour? That is a danger for
you as well. Are you alienating some
If anyone says that one
particular issue is the most
important thing to them, they would
run some consistency. I'm not sure
the Lib Dems offer that on fracking
anywhere than they do on something
like nuclear weapons. The Green
Party have always tried to conduct
the debate on independence in a
manner of respect and understanding
and listening to one another. We
still have members who voted no last
time, the clear majority voted yes
in the party will campaign for yes
again because the wreckers clear and
distinct vision about what
independence can be. It is about a
better and greener society.
Harvie, thank you very much.
Time now for a look
at the week ahead.
Well, the week ahead is likely to be
dominated by Russia again.
Here's what the Russian Ambassador
and Boris Johnson had to say
on the Andrew Marr Show
a little earlier.
Russia, and I can assure you,
without using the phraseology like
highly likely, which has become very
popular these days, Russia had
nothing to do with it.
has gone even further and said he is
-- it is very likely that Vladimir
Putin himself ordered this attack.
Well, that rests with the
responsibility of Boris Johnson, who
I believe is acting in an
inappropriate manner, which doesn't
give him credit.
You have said it is
overwhelmingly likely that Vladimir
Putin is responsible. We saw the
ambassador brush that aside, wide EU
We gave the Russians are
very clear choice and the Prime
Minister said on Monday, as I said
to the Russian Ambassador to the UK,
either help us to understand how the
stockpiles of Novichok have gone
missing and has some of it could
have turned up on the streets of
Wiltshire in this way, or else I'm
afraid we will be forced, as the
Prime Minister said in the House of
Commons, to draw the conclusion, as
we did in the case of Alexander
Litvinenko, that the trail of
culpability leads inexorably to the
Kremlin. And I think listening to
the Russian response and the
response of the Russian Ambassador
to the EU with his satirical
suggestion that this was done by a
UK agents from Porton down, this is
not the response of a country that
really believes itself to be
innocent, this is not the response
of a country that Lee wants to
engage in getting to the bottom of
With me now alongside Patrick Harvie
are author and columnist Katie Grant
and political commentator Iain
Where do you see this rash of
business ending, Katie? It is
escalating at the moment?
business. Assessing where ever
really going to get the bottom it.
One of the interesting things going
on is we are all fixated on who is
responsible. That is completely
right. But there are so many other
imponderables in the story. For
example, if they wanted to kill Mr
Skripal, his daughter is a Russian
citizen so how does that fit in?
There are lots of unanswered
questions here that sometimes if you
try and ask them now you are accused
of being a fifth columnist somehow.
But there are a lot of unanswered
questions, and some answers may be
forthcoming not least what Mr
Skripal was doing that morning with
still don't know.
There have been
strong words this week from the US,
France and Germany, from Nato, but
whether that translates into
anything more, frankly?
circumstantial evidence points to
Vladimir Putin and the Russian
state, is the kind of action you
seem only a state is capable of
conducting. If it was Putin who
ordered it, then it was an act of
stupidity. Unpardonable folly, you
might say. All he succeeded in doing
is reuniting the West against
Russia, guaranteeing further
sanctions against Russia with the
Russian economy cannot afford.
Compromising either the oligarchs'
friends who are hiding out and
recycling their money through London
financial markets. And uniting for
most importantly, reunited Nato
after the election of Donald Trump,
it was looking a bit ropey because
he is an instinct of isolationist,
it was falling apart and this has
reunited Nato family, which we saw
Brexit, more discussions
this week about the Scottish aspect.
The talk is, Katie, not just the
talk actually, Nicola Sturgeon said,
that there has been progress and a
deal might be possible, do you think
there will be one?
I hope there will
be. I think Brexit has become about
practicalities for ordinary people
living in Scotland, we want to know
what it means for us. I don't think
we want to give an harping on about
what if I could be possibly not be
part of this any more. I hope that
these discussions which did seem
quite grown up if you like, will I
hope will continue. And continue a
good deal for Scotland. I think
independents get in the way
sometimes quite understandably,
Nicola Sturgeon is the head of the S
NP, I think sometimes you need to
put that aside and go where we are
bound, where we are going to go.
are a bit more sceptical about this
I don't share Katie Boulter
Cobden was about a deal happening
imminently, I think there was not
Both Nicola Sturgeon and the
Welsh Government and jab
Both Nicola Sturgeon and the
Welsh Government and had been?
understanding is there has been no
progress. This is going to the
client grey crunch
the EU -- crunch because the clause
11 is being adapted as power grab.
There will be a debate on this next
week, and there is no resolution of
this fundamental issue, whether or
not the UK Government can impose its
will even on these 25 devolved areas
or whether or not it should be
power-sharing between the UK
Government and Scotland. This is not
yet resolved. The UK Government is
determined to push through this. It
sees it as essential for retaining
integrity of the UK internally.
Despite everything that has been
said, there's a possibility there
would be a deal and secondly the
Scottish Government will still say
we pass over legislative consent as
it is called, for Brexit in the
As things stand
at the moment, certainly, that is a
way it is heading. There will be a
continuity bill passed by the
Scottish parliament. He had Patrick
Harvie absolutely crucial to this.
-- you heard Patrick Harvie crucial
to this. His earlier he is clear
that this is a fundamental, real and
present danger to the future of
devolution and the state of the
Scottish parliament and was not
prepared to go along with it.
There's no cracking there.
Katie, you look depressed.
be, the language that came out and
the language that Nicola Sturgeon
We are completely out of
time, that's all form has this week.
Thank you, I'll