18/03/2018 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.

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

politicians who've

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

stories:

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

positively sub-zero.

President Putin.

BBC News.

Is Russia behind the poisoning

of Sergei Skripal?

This week the finger of blame

for the Salisbury attack was

pointed firmly in one direction.

TRANSLATION:

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

daughter Yulia.

23 Russian diplomats based

here accused of being spies are to

be kicked out of the country.

Moscow responded by

expelling 23 British

embassy staff.

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.

Hello.

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.

Convention dictates

that parties often come

together on major foreign policy

issues but Jeremy Corbyn is not a

conventional politician.

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?

Shameful!

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.

Labour frontbenchers

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

that responsibility

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

our panel.

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

next?

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

Kremlin.

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

think.

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?

I

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.

But Jeremy

Corbyn still isn't convinced that

the Russian state itself is

responsible.

No, neither is the

government.

He wouldn't back these

actions until they were proved.

It

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

we do.

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.

Lucy,

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.

Briefly.

We don't

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.

Overwhelmingly

likely.

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.

These are

questions we will explore throughout

the show and if you stay with us we

will talk to you throughout the

programme.

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

this further?

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?

We are

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

for.

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.

I

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

been wanting.

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?

Again, I'm

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.

But

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

London.

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

his response.

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.

I

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

that.

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?

My concern

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

police.

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?

I assume

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.

So you

have any doubt that what happened in

Salisbury was directed by the

Russian state?

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.

So

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

hands?

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?

This morning

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

as well.

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

about?

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.

That's

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.

As I

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.

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

Russian state.

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.

Now the

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

way?

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

are trans-identifying

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

preferred pronouns.

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

medical diagnosis.

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.

Self

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...

Clarifying the

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

lists?

I'm not sure.

I suspect it is

zero.

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

this.

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

the job.

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.

That's right

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

consultation.

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.

Absolutely and

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

about.

You are talking about 2000 or

3000 people in a party of 650,000.

It is a rounding error.

In the

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.

She

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.

We

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

about Transport

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

Glasgow.

Refugees are welcome here!

Their purpose was to highlight

racism. Many of those who took part

in their own stories to tell.

When I

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.

I

have experienced racism and I was

younger, pulling up in Glasgow, --

growing up, not so much nowadays but

some is going around in Glasgow.

I

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.

After

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.

In

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

getting worse.

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

apologised after

-- 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?

Training isn't

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.

Refugees are

welcome here!

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

surface?

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.

Seriously?

You can

search it.

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?

Yes,

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

over?

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.

Is it

mainly Islam or is it straight

racism or has one morphed into the

other?

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.

What

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

AIDS or

much more

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.

It's

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.

The

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

society.

You think you should be

out?

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

promised further.

This is you and

your officials?

In front of my

officials, members of the public, it

was not a slip of the time, it was a

deliberate slur.

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.

I get

from what thing, should he

eventually be expelled, he would be

distraught?

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,

Alison Thewliss.

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

SLPs.

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

questions asked?

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

beneficial owner?

Not necessarily.

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

further.

What do you think they

should do?

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.

Again,

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

that?

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

transparency.

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?

Absolutely.

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

properly.

There is a broader issue

here. Just to make one thing clear,

the Scottish Parliament has no locus

in this?

They are called Scottish

limited partnership, but the

regulation is very much reserved to

Westminster.

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

begotten.

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...

And

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

and Glasgow?

Absolutely.

Alison

Thewliss, 20 very much. -- thank

you.

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

one-day conference.

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

Brexit referendum?

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.

The Liberal

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.

People

are saying you don't want the

referendum because you're scared of

the result.

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?

We've said

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!

There is

nothing to stop you doing what

you've just said and saying, want

another referendum on Brexit.

another referendum on Brexit.

I have

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.

A

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,

presumably?

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

felt.

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?

even Labour? That is a danger for

you as well. Are you alienating some

people?

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.

Patrick

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.

Boris Johnson

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

say that?

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

the matter.

With me now alongside Patrick Harvie

are author and columnist Katie Grant

and political commentator Iain

Macwhirter.

Where do you see this rash of

business ending, Katie? It is

escalating at the moment?

-- Russia

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?

Or the

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

extraordinary geopolitical

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

last week.

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