21/09/2014 Sunday Politics Wales

Good morning from Manchester, where the Labour Party are gathering

for their annual conference as British politics adjusts to what

the rest of the UK. in Scotland might mean for

Scotland's decision to vote 'no' means more powers heading north

But what about Home Rule for England?

Independence for Scotland has been his life's work. Alex Salmond tells

us why he is stepping down after losing Thursday's vote. And we've

got an exclusive survey of what the people who want to

The Shadow Welsh Secretary at the Labour conference says

the party will respond to the First Minister's complain

that Wales is being short-changed. powers and more freedom to spend.

But what is the next devolution step for the capital? With me, the best

and brightest political panel in the business, at least that is what they

pay me to say every week. Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and, this week, we have

done some devolution ourselves to other areas, and we have Sam Coates

from the times. The union survived, but only at the cost of more powers

for the Scottish parliament and enshrining the formula that gives

Scotland a privileged position when it comes to public spending, which

has MPs on both sides of the Commons of in arms. The Scottish question

has been answered for now. Suddenly, the English question takes centre

stage, doesn't it? Absolutely. It has a grubby feel, when that vow was

put to the Scottish people, that they hoped would swing the vote,

there was nothing about English-only votes. It was unconditional? The

Tory proposal did talk very core justly about looking at the

proposals by a former clerk of the House of Commons that looked at this

issue. That was very cautious. -- cautiously. These proposals will not

get through Westminster unless David Cameron addresses the English-only

issue. You look at people like Chris Grayling in the Sunday Telegraph.

Alistair Darling on the Andrew Marr Show said you could not have a link

between what you are giving Holyrood and English-only MPs. Back on says,

is welshing on the deal. -- comic he They were furious that he gave away

these tax powers and inscribed the Barnett formula. They said they

weren't going to vote for it. It is a shameless piece of opportunism.

Now they can say that Labour are the ones that don't trust you and don't

want to give you more powers. He knows it is going to be a tight

timetable. The idea of getting a draft of this out by Burns Night,

most people would say, given they had six years to set up Scottish

parliament, the idea we will solve these huge constitutional questions

in four months is absurd. But they don't care about the constitutional

questions, the one they care about is English votes? There is a simple

reason they won that. If you look at the MPs in England alone, the Tories

have a majority of 59, an overwhelming bias, and if you strip

out Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland, so this has become a

partisan issue. The question is whether David Cameron can follow

through on the promise. He said he would link the two Scottish powers,

but it's not clear you will get either before the general election.

It's not but the purpose is to cause Labour Party discomfort, and it is.

You can see with date -- Ed Miliband this morning, they find it very hard

to answer the question, why shouldn't there be English votes for

English laws? Ed Miliband this morning was saying how London MPs

get to vote on London transport and English MPs don't outside of London

and it is confusing, but Labour is in a difficult position. They were

before the Prime Minister made his announcement. The yes side triumphed

in Glasgow, the largest city in Scotland, a Labour heartland, and

the Prime Minister is saying that if Labour don't agree to this by the

time of the general election, he is handing a gift to the SNP, that that

would be the party that the natural Labour voters would vote for to see

off the plan. It's not just Tory backbenchers. There are Labour

backbenchers saying there should be in which bodes for English laws.

Even people in the Shadow Cabinet think it is right. The cases

unarguable. If you say her chewing a partisan way, you can't sell it to

the country. Ed Miliband is on course to have a majority of about

20, and you take the 40 English MPs, and he hasn't got it. This is a

coalition government where the Conservatives haven't got really to

be in charge, they have put in sweeping laws. Labour should

probably take the bullet on this one. Let's leave it for the moment.

But don't go away. As they struggle to keep the United Kingdom in one

piece, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg promised to keep

something called the Barnett Formula.

It wasn't invented in Barnet, but by man called Joel Barnett.

And it's how the UK government decides how much

public money to spend in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It's controversial, because it's led to public spending

being typically 20% higher in Scotland than in England.

Well, some English MPs aren't happy about that.

I'm joined now by the Tory MP Dominic Raab.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. How can the Prime Minister scrap the

Barnett Formula when he has just about to keep it on the front page

of a major Scottish newspaper? If we are going to see financial

devolution to Scotland, more powers of tax and spend, it's impossible

not to look at the impact on the wider union, and there have been

promises made to the Scottish and we should do our best to deliver them,

but there have been promises made to the English, Welsh and Northern

Irish. If you look at the Barnett Formula which allocates revenue

across the UK, it is massively prejudicial to those other parts. We

have double the number of ambulance staff and nurses compared to

England. The regional breakdown is more stark with double the amount

spent on social housing in Scotland than in Yorkshire and the North West

and the Midlands. The Welsh do very poorly on social services for the

elderly. What are we saying? That they need our children, patients and

the elderly are worth less than the Scots? That's not the way to have a

sustainable solution. I understand the distribution impact of the

Barnett Formula, but Westminster politicians are already held in

contempt by a lot of people and to rat on such a public pledge would

confirm their worst fears. Your leader would have secured the union

on a false prospectus. First of all, it's clear from the Ashcroft

poll that the offer made in the Scottish newspaper had zero effect

and if anything was counter-productive to the overall

result because two thirds of swing voters in the last few days voted

for independence. But we can't keep proceeding without looking at the

promises made to the English. We said in the referendum that we would

have English laws -- English votes on English issues. The Liberal

Democrats, in their manifesto, pledged to scrap the Barnett

Formula. We have to reconcile all of the promises to all parts of the UK,

and Alex Salmond talks about a Westminster stitch up, but what he's

trying to do is, with gross double standards, is in French stitch up in

rapid time, which would be grossly unfair to the rest of the rest of UK

-- is contrive stitch up. What is unfair about the current spending

formula? The extra money Scotland gets from Barnet, is covered by the

oil revenues it sends to London. Scotland is only getting back on

spending what it pays in tax. There is no analysis out there that

suggests it is the same amount. Having voted to stay in the UK. Let

me give you the figures. Last year revenues were 4.5 billion, and the

Barnett Formula was worth 4.5 billion to Scotland. It is awash. A

huge amount of British taxpayer investment has gone into extracting

North Sea oil, and if we move to a more federal system, we would need

to look at things like the allocation of resources, but the

Barnett Formula has been lambasted as a national embarrassment and

grossly unfair by its Labour Party architect, Lord Barnett. So what we

need is to change this mechanism so it is based on need. The irony is,

when the Scots allocate Avenue to the -- revenue to their local

authorities, it's done on a needs basis, and what is good for Scotland

must be good for the rest of Britain. One final question. The

Prime Minister is now making his promise of more home rule for

Scotland conditional on English votes for English laws. Why didn't

he spell out the condition when he made his bow to the Scottish people?

Why has this condition been tacked on by the Prime Minister? In the

heat of the referendum debate lots of things were said, but the truth

is that Parliament must also look at this and make its views known, and

English MPs as well. You will find that conservative as well as a lot

of Labour MPs would say, we cannot just rush through a deal that is

unsustainable. It has to be good for all parts of Britain. Yes, we should

deliver on our promises for more devolution to Scotland, but let's

deliver on promises to be English, and Northern Irish. Why are they

locked out of the debate? Let's leave it there. Thank you for

joining us. The man responsible

for taking Scottish nationalism from the political fringes to within

touching distance of victory, Alex Salmond, has a flair for dramatic

announcements, and he gave us another on Friday

when he revealed he's to stand Friends and foes have paid tribute

to his extraordinary career. In a moment I'll be speaking to

Alex Salmond, but first here's Adam Fleming with

the story of the vote that broke The BBC's HQ on the Clyde, the whole

place converted into a studio for Scotland's big night. You know what

you need for big events, big screens, and there are loads of them

here. That one is three stories high, and this is the one Jeremy

Vine uses for his graphics. The other thing that is massive is the

turnout in the referendum, it is enormous. It was around 85% of the

electorate, that is 4 million ballot papers. First to declare

Clackmannanshire. No, 19,000. 19,000 and 36. The first Noel of the night,

and there were plenty more. -- the first no vote. The better together

campaigners were over the moon, like Jim Murphy, who had campaigned in

100 different towns. I don't want to sound schmaltzy, but it makes you

think more of Scotland. It makes you small tree. Yes, 194,779. Around

five a.m., the Yes campaign applauded as they won Scotland's

biggest city, Glasgow. Dundee went their way as well, but just for

areas out of 32 opted for independence. How many copies have

you had? This is my second cup of tea on the morning -- how many

copies. He was enjoying the refreshments on offer, but the yes

campaigners were not in a happy place. We are in the bowels of one

of the parts of the British establishment that, I've got to say,

has probably done its job in this referendum, because I think the BBC

has been critical in shoring up the establishment and have supported the

no campaign as best as they could. But there was no arguing with the

numbers, and by sunrise, the BBC called it. Scotland has voted no in

this referendum on independence. The result, in Fife, has taken the no

campaign over the line and the official result of this referendum

is a no. There we go, on a screen three stories high, Scotland has

said no to independence. As soon as the newsprint was driving north of

the border, the focus shifted south as the Prime Minister pledged more

devolution for Scotland but only if it happened everywhere else as well.

Just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish

Parliament on their issues of tax, spending on welfare, so to England,

as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on

these issues, and all this must take place in tandem with and at the same

pace as the settlement for Scotland. It began to dawn on us all that we

might end up doing this again. See you for an English referendum soon?

Northern Ireland. There could be another one in Scotland. But not

next weekend? Give me a break. There was no break for Nick, because Alex

Salmond came up with one last twist, his resignation was as leader, my

time is nearly over. But the Scotland, the campaign continues,

and the dream shall never die. So, the referendum settled, the

Constitution in flux, and a leader gone. All in a night work.

Alex Salmond is to stand down as First Minister of Scotland. He shows

no signs of going quietly. Last night, I spoke to the SNP leader in

Aberdeen and began by asking him if it was always his intention to

resign if he lost the referendum. I certainly have thought about it,

Andrew. But for most of the referendum campaign I thought we

were going to win. So, I was... Yeah, maybe a few months back I

considered it. But I only finally made up my mind on Friday lunch

time. Did you agonise over the decision to stand down? I'm not

really an agonising person. When you get beaten in a referendum, you have

to consider standing down as a real possibility. Taking responsibility

and politics has gone out of fashion but there is an aspect, if you need

a campaign, and I was the leader of the Yes Campaign, and you don't win,

you have to contemplate if you are the best person to lead future

political campaigns. In my judgement, it was time for the SNP

and the broader yes movement, the National movement of Scotland, they

would benefit from new leadership. In your heart of hearts, through the

campaign, as referendum on day approached, you did think you were

going to win? Yes, I did. I thought for most of the last month of the

campaign, we were in with a real chance. In the last week I thought

we had pulled ahead. I thought the decisive aspect wasn't so much the

fear mongering, the scaremongering, the kitchen sink being thrown at

Scotland by orchestration from Downing Street, I thought the real

thing was the pledge, the vow, the offer of something else. A lot of

people that had been moving across to independence saw within that, a

reason to say, well, we can get something anyway without the

perceived risks that were being festooned upon them. You were only

five points away from your dream. You won Scotland's largest city.

There is now the prospect of more power. Why not stay and be an

enhanced First Minister? Well, it is a good phrase. I'm not going away,

though. I'm still going to be part of the political process. In

Scotland, if people in Aberdeenshire wish to keep electing me, that is

what I will do. But I don't have to be First Minister of Scotland,

leader of the Yes Campaign, to see that achieved. The SNP is a strong

and powerful leadership team. There are a number of people that would do

a fantastic job as leader of the party and First Minister. I've been

leader of the party for the last 24 years, I think it is time to give

somebody else a shot. There are many able-bodied people that will do that

well. -- many able people that will do that well. I'm still part of the

national movement, arguing to take this forward. I think you are right,

the question, one of the irony is developing so quickly after the

referendum, it might be those that lost on Thursday end up as the

political winners and those that won end up as the losers. When we met

just for the vote, a couple of days before the vote, you said to me that

there was very little you would change about the campaign strategy.

Is that still your view? Yes. There are one or two things, like any

campaign, there is no such thing as a pitcher campaign. I would refer

not to dwell on such things. I will leave of my book, which will be

called 100 Days, coming out before Christmas. Once you read that, I

will probably reveal the things I would have changed. Basically,

broadly, this was an extraordinary campaign. Not just a political

campaign, but a campaign involving the grassroots of Scotland in an

energising, empowering way, the like of which in on of us have witnessed.

It was an extraordinary phenomenon of grassroots campaigning, which

carried the Yes Campaign so far, almost to victory. If Rupert Murdoch

put his Scottish Sun behind you, would have that made the difference?

If ifs and ands were pots and pans... Why did he not? I would not

say that, you have form with him that I do not have. I'm not sure

about that. I was very encouraged. The coverage, not in the other

papers, The Times, which was extremely hostile to Scottish

independence, but the coverage in the Scottish Sun was fair, balanced

and we certainly got a very fair kick of the ball. In newspapers, I

would settle for no editorial line and just balanced coverage. We

certainly got that from the Scottish Sun and that was an encouragement. I

think you saw from his tweets, certainly in his heart he would have

liked to have seen a move forward in Scotland and I like that. He said if

you lost, that was it, referendum wise, for a generation, which he

defined as about 20 years. Is that still your view? Yes, it is. It has

always been my view. It's a personal view. There are always things that

can change in politics. If the UK moved out of the European Union, for

example, that would be the sort of circumstance. Some people would

argue with Westminster parties, and I'm actually not surprised that they

are reneging on commitments, I am just surprised by the speed they are

doing it. They seem to be totally shameless in these matters. You

don't think they will meet the vow? You don't think there will keep to

their vow? They are not, for that essential reason you saw developing

on Friday. The Prime Minister wants to link change in Scotland to change

in England. He wants to do that because he has difficulty in

carrying his backbenchers on this and they are under pressure from

UKIP. The Labour leadership are frightened of any changes in England

which leave them without a majority in the House of Commons on English

matters. I would not call it an irresistible force and immovable

object, one is resistible and one is movable. They are at loggerheads.

The vow, I think, was something cooked up in desperation for the

last few days of the campaign. I think everybody in Scotland now

engines that. -- recognises that. It was the people that were persuaded

to vote no that word tricked, effectively. They are the ones that

are really angry. Ed Miliband and David Cameron, if they are watching

this, I would be more worried about the anger of the no voters than the

opinion of the Yes Vote on that matter. If independence is on the

back burner for now, what would you advise your successor's strategy for

the SNP to be? I would advise him or her not to listen to advice from

their predecessor. A new leader brings forward a new strategy. I

think this is, for the SNP, a very favourable political time. There

have been 5000 new members joined since Thursday. That is about a 25%

increase in the party membership in the space of a few days. More than

that, I think this is an opportunity for the SNP. But my goal is the

opportunity for Scotland. I would repeat I am not retiring from

politics. I'm standing down as First Minister of Scotland. On Friday,

coming back to the north-east of Scotland, I passed through Dundee,

which voted yes by a stud -- substantial margin. There was a line

of a song I couldn't get out of my head, and old Jacobite song,

rewritten by Robert Burns, the last line is, so, tremble falls wakes, in

the midst of your glee, you've not seen the last of my bonnets and me.

So you are staying a member of the Scottish Parliament, shall we see

you again in the House of Commons? What does the future hold for you?

Membership of Scottish Parliament is dependent on the good folk of

Aberdeenshire east. If they choose to elect me, I will be delighted to

serve. I've always loved being a constituency member of Parliament, I

have known some front line politicians that regarded that as a

chore. I'm not saying they didn't do it properly, I am sure they did. But

I love it. You get distilled wisdom from being a constituency member of

Parliament that helps you keep your feet on the ground and have a good

observation as to what matters to people. I have no difficulty with

being a constituent member of Parliament. Can you promise me it

will never be Lord Salmond? Yes! Thanks for joining us. Great

pleasure, thank you. Now, the independence referendum is over, the

next big electoral test is a general election. It is just over seven

months away. In a moment I will be talking to Chuka Umunna, but what

are the political views of the men and women fighting to win seats for

the Labour Party? The Sunday Politics has commissioned an

exclusive survey of the Parliamentary candidates.

Six out of seven Labour candidates say that the level of public

spending during their last period of office was about right. 40% of them

want a Labour government to raise taxes to reduce the budget deficit.

18% favour cutting spending. On immigration, just 15% think that the

number coming to Britain is too high. Only 7% say we generous to

immigrants. Three in ten candidates believe the party relationship with

trade unions is not close enough. Not that we spoke to think it is too

close. Or than half of the candidates say want to scrap the

nuclear deterrent, Trident. Four in five want to nationalise the

railways. If they are after a change of leader, Yvette Cooper was their

preferred choice. Chuka Umunna came in fourth. And he joins me now for

the Sunday interview. Why is Labour choosing so many

left-wing candidates? I don't think I accept the characterisation of

candidates being left wing. I don't think your viewers see politics in

terms of what is left and right. I think they see it in terms of what

is right and wrong. Obviously, many of the things we have been talking

about, how we ensure that the next generation can do better than the

last, how we raise the wages of your viewers, who are currently working

very hard but not making a wage they can live off, that is what they are

talking about and that is what the public will judge them on. But they

want to raise taxes, they don't want to cut public spending, they want to

re-nationalise the railways, they don't think there is too much

immigration, they want to scrap Trident. These are all positions

clearly to the left of current party policy. But that is your

characterisation. If you look at our policy to increase the top rate of

tax to 50% for people earning over ?150,000, that is a central

position. It is something that enjoys the support of the majority

of the public. Trident? If you talk to the British public about

immigration, yes, there are concerns about the numbers coming in and out,

yes people want to see integration, yes, people want to see people

putting a contribution before they take out, the people recognise, if

you look at our multicultural nation, we have derived a lot of

benefits from immigration. I don't think your characterisation of those

positions, that is your view... It's not, it is their view. They are

saying... You describe it... You described those positions as left

wing positions. I am saying to you that I actually think a lot of those

positions are centrist positions that would enjoy the support of the

majority of your viewers. I don't think your viewers think the idea of

the broadest shoulders bearing the heaviest burden in forms of tax are

going to see it as a way out, radical principle. They want to

scrap Trident, not party policy? It isn't.

I think that 73... Well, we will have 400 Parliamentary candidates at

the time of the next general election, not including current MPs.

This is 73 out of over 400 of them. I think we also need to treat the

survey with a bit of caution. They are not representative? You are

basically quoting the results of a small percentage of our

Parliamentary candidates. It's pretty safe to say when you look at

their views, they might be right or wrong, that's not my point, it's

fairly safe to say that new Labour is dead? Again, I don't think people

see things in terms of gold -- old or new Labour. We are standing at a

Labour Party. We are a great country, but we have big challenges.

We want to make sure that people can achieve their dreams and aspirations

in this country. Too many people are not in that position. Too many

people worry about the prospects of their children. Too many people do

not earn a wage they can live off. Too many people are worried about

the change. We have to make sure we are giving people a stake in the

future. That is a Labour thing, you want to call it old or new come I

don't care. It's a choice between Labour and the Conservatives in

terms of who runs the next government. That one of your

candidate we spoke to things that the party's relationship with the

unions is to close. 30% of them think it should be closer. You have

spoken to 73 out of 400 candidates. Why should the others be any

different? It's a fairly representative Sample. Many people

working on this set are the member of the union, the National union of

journalists. People that came here to this Conference would have been

brought here by trade union members. Do you think the relationship should

be closer? I think it is where it should be. It should not be closer?

I think that trade unions help create wealth in our country. If you

look at some other success stories we are in the north-west, GM

Vauxhall is there because you have trade unions working in partnership

with government and local employees to make sure we kept producing cars.

I'm not asking if unions are good or bad, I'm asking if Labour should be

closer. You are presupposing, by the tone of your question, that our

relationship is a problem. Let's turn to the English question. Why do

you need a constitutional conversation where you have to

discuss whether English people voting on English matters is

unfair? We want to give the regions and cities in England more voice,

but let's get it into perspective, we have had a situation where the

Scottish people, as desired buying rich people, have to remain part of

the UK -- by English people. What is the answer to the question? I don't

want to get to a situation where people have voted for solidarity

where you have a prime ministers talking about dividing up the UK

Parliament. Let me put this point you. Most Scottish voters think it

is unfair that Scottish MPs get to vote on English matters. That comes

out in Scottish polls. Why don't you see it as unfair? If the Scots see

it as unfair, why don't you? This is an age-old conundrum that has been

around for 100 years and it's not so simple. You're talking about making

a fundamental change to the British constitution on a whim. It's not

just an issue, in respect of Scottish MPs. As a London MP, I can

vote on matters relating to the transport of England and transport

is a devolved matter in London. In Wales, there are a number of

competencies that Welsh MPs can vote on and they've been devolved to

them. So with all of these different votes, you will exclude different

MPs? I think the solution is not necessarily to obsess about what is

happening between MPs in Westminster. That turns people

politics. We need to devolve more. I think we should be giving the cities

and regions of England more autonomy in the way that we are doing in

Scotland, but I've got to say, Andrew, it's dishonourable and in

bad faith for the Prime Minister to now seek to link what he agreed

before the referendum to this issue of English votes for English MPs.

That is totally dishonourable and in bad faith. You have promised to

devolve more tax powers to Scotland. What would they be? This is being

decided at the moment. I cannot give you the exact detail of what the tax

powers would be. Could you give us a rough idea? There is a White Paper

being produced before November and there will be draft legislation put

forward in January. Your leader has vowed that this will happen. And you

haven't got a policy? You can't tell us what the tax powers will be? I

can't tell you on this programme right now. But we have accepted the

principle on further devolution on tax, spending on welfare and we will

have further details in due course. Your leader promised to maintain the

Barnett Formula for the foreseeable future. Why is that fair when it

enshrines more per capita spending for Scotland than it does for Wales,

which is poorer, and more than many of the poorer regions in England

get? Why is that fair? We have said that in terms of looking at go --

local government spending playing out in this Parliament, we have

looked at what the government has done which is having already

deprived communities having money taken away from them and wealthier

communities are getting more. We accept that the Barnett Formula has

worked well. How has it works well? There is a cross parliamentary

consensus as they don't know what to do about it. Why has it works well,

when Wales, clearly loses out? I'm not sure by I accept that when you

look at overall underspend -- government spending. It is per

capita spending in Scotland, which is way ahead of per capita spending

in Wales, but per capita incomes in Scotland are way ahead of Wales. Why

is that fair Labour politician? We have said we want to have more

equitable distribution. You haven't, you have said you will keep the

Barnett Formula. I'm not sure necessarily punishing Scotland is

the way to go. The way that this debate is going, what message does

it send to the Scottish people? I want to be clear, I am delighted

with the result we have got. The unity and solidarity where

maintaining across the nations of the United Kingdom. All of this

separatist talk, setting up different nations of the UK against

each other goes completely against what we've all been campaigning for

over the last two years, and we shouldn't have any truck with it.

Coming onto the announcement on the minimum wage, you would increase it

by ?1 50 to take it to ?8, which would be over five years. That is

all you are going to do over five years. Have you worked out how much

of this increase will be clawed back in taxation and fewer benefits? Work

has been done on it. How much? I can't give you an exact figure. The

policy pays for itself. The way we have looked at this, we looked at

the government figures, and if people are earning more, they would

therefore be paying more in income tax and they will be receiving less

in benefit and will pay out less in tax credits, so we are confident

that this will pay for itself. I'm not asking about the pavement, I'm

asking what it means for low paid workers will stop they will get an

extra 30p per hour -- about the payment. How much of the 30p to they

get to keep? In terms of what they get in the first instance, somebody

on the minimum wage now, with our proposal, would get in the region of

?3000 a year more than they are at the moment. That is before tax and

benefits. How much do they keep? I cannot give you an exact figure. Why

don't you give me an exact figure if you've done the modelling? We are

talking about some of the lowest paid people in the country, and I

would suggest to you that going down this route, they would face a

marginal rate of tax of 50 or 60% and they will not keep most of this

increase you are talking about. I don't accept your figures. But you

haven't got any of your own. I just don't have any in my head I can give

you right now. Don't you think out policies before you announce them?

Of course we think our policies before we announce them but we are

confident people have more in their pocket and will be better off with

the changes proposed, and we are also seeking to incentivise

employers to pay a living wage as well. At the end of the day, as I

said, the economy is recovering, great, but we know, at the moment,

it's still not delivering for a huge number of your viewers and we're

determined to do something about it. The status quo is not an option. And

even joining me. Twice in three days. You can't have too much of a

good thing. I am mad. He said that, not me.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics. We

say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now for

Coming up here in twenty minutes, we'll be joined by John Prescott to

talk about the challenge facing Labour as their conference starts

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to the Sunday Politics Wales.

As we digest Scotland's No, the chairman of the

Commons' Welsh Affairs Committee says allowing Welsh and Scottish MPs

to continue to vote on English affairs is "wrong and divisive".

We'll hear what shadow Welsh secretary Owen Smith makes of that.

The leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats wants

a cross-party consensus, but with splits emerging in Westminster,

Now the political parties are deciding how to respond to

The ramifications of the referendum are being felt right

After a long campaign, the emotion was palpable.

In the end, the No camp had a bigger margin than many polls predicted.

Yet, more than 1.6 million Scots voted to leave the United Kingdom.

It is absolutely right that a new and fair settlement for Scotland

should be accompanied by a new and fair settlement that applies to

In Wales there are proposals to give the Welsh government

I want Wales to be at the heart of the debate on how to make our United

The First Minister played his part in the Scottish referendum campaign,

He says Wales deserves something from London.

Whitehall has to be careful not to give the impression that

in order to get noticed you need 25 years of war or you need

It is absolutely right to point out that it is a very dangerous message

to send that if you cause a problem then you get noticed.

I think it is absolutely right to say that we in Wales,

because we have had neither of these things, we deserve to be listened to

and it is important that we have a strong voice around that table.

The First Minister has joined his party in opposing

David Cameron's plan for English-only votes in Parliament.

The Welsh Secretary says the UK government is talking to

the First Minister, even though they did not hear his plea for talks

I had a conversation with Carwyn Jones myself

and the Prime Minister has spoken to the First Minister as well, and both

There's a lot we agree on in terms of how we make sure that Wales'

voice is heard, giving reality to that commitment that Wales is at the

heart of the debate, but also ideas that Carywn Jones shared in terms

There is clearly got to be a lot more discussion in the days,

The leader of Plaid Cymru wanted Scotland to vote Yes and says it is

not just the present occupiers of Downing Street who should listen

The test for the Welsh First Minister is what appears in Labour's

It is very warm words from him this morning but I know for

a fact that there are difficulties within the Labour Party in terms

The wording in the manifesto will be his great test on this.

Constitutional reform is flavour of the month.

Among visitors to Abergavenny Food Festival yesterday, David Davis,

the local MP who chairs the Welsh Affairs Committee in Westminster.

He told me David Cameron is right, English matters should be decided

Allowing Welsh MPs like him to vote on them is divisive

I asked him whether the response to the Scottish vote had been ad hoc.

When it was set up in the first place, we were told that

devolution would be a process not an event, and the clear implication

was that extra powers would keep on coming, although nobody could

We had further powers in 2005 in a referendum.

And similar things happened in Scotland.

I think the government recognises that can no longer go on.

We have to have a lasting settlement and they are going to think through

all of the implications, which essentially means England.

I do not think they needed to go down this route in the first place.

The only way to keep the union together would be to have

some sort of federal solution which is fair to England, Scotland,

It may even mean giving some extra powers to Wales, which is something

I would not like to see, but it is a better option than further moves

towards independence coming from Wales and from Scotland.

I think we need to lock everything in place finally.

What is your position on the way that extra powers were

offered to Scotland later in the referendum campaign?

I thought it was always clear that extra powers would go to Scotland

What happened in the last few days is that the party leaders went out

of their way to remind everyone of that fact, so for those of us who

had been following the double debate closely, it was not a secret.

You do not think it was a panic measure?

I think they decided at the last minute that perhaps people

in Scotland were not as aware of it as they might have been.

Those of us who follow our politics closely were aware that

Scotland would get extra powers if they voted No but perhaps that

had got lost somehow in the debate, and I think they were right to

Some say it is not proper for the Prime Minister

and other two main party leaders to offer more devolution in this way.

As a Conservative MP, were you consulted?

No, I wasn't, but it was always something that was going to happen.

What I did make very clear before the referendum was that I do

not believe we can simply hand over further powers to Scotland and Wales

without resolving the English question and the whole future

What had disturbed me is that under successive governments we have been

too quick to hand out powers to the Scottish parliament and

to Wales without thinking to ourselves,

My frustration is that every time in Wales...

First of all the Assembly was set up, then extra legislative powers,

Each time I heard people saying, this is it, we have everything we

need, we can just get on with the job, and each time within months,

or sometimes within days, people were calling for more powers.

Carywn Jones used this phrase, we have all the tools in the box,

but even before the referendum he was saying if Scotland get this we

There has been no discipline, no thinking it through, no thought

Labour MPs are jumping up and down saying we cannot do

They opened a Pandora's box in the first place and pushed

for devolution and this is precisely what I predicted would

If we do not do something about this, Scotland will get extra

powers, Wales will get them within a year or two, Scotland will go

for another referendum in about 15 years and possibly win.

Wales will want one ten years later, and before I shuffle

off this mortal coil, I will be living under a completely different

The only way of stopping this is a proper federal settlement.

It sounds like you might agree we need a constitutional

I do not agree with Carwyn on very much.

The English question is vitally important and a part of that.

The Labour Party, your party, is trying to decide what goes

in its manifesto on the question of more powers for the Assembly.

I thought it was a waste of time in the first place.

They spent about ?1 million going around empty village halls trying to

gather evidence for a report that we all knew they were going to write.

I knew what was going to be in the report before it came out,

which was going to be recommendations of vastly increased

Should those recommendations be there?

I do not like the idea of handing over further powers to the Welsh

Assembly but if somebody is going to say, what are we trying to achieve

And we have a constitutional settlement that locks us into

the union instead of destabilising it, reinforces it, I suppose I

might have to go along with that as the least worst option.

Finally, the powers that be in all parties

have begun to realise we cannot keep on handing powers out left,

right and centre without anything going to England and I welcome that,

William Hague is going to be presiding over a committee.

David Cameron has talked about doing it in tandem and I think that is

something that will reinforce the union rather than undermine it,

Labour is meeting in Manchester for its annual conference, where many

The party's shadow Welsh Secretary, Pontypridd MP Owen Smith, is there,

and he's faced some questions from our parliamentary correspondent.

Hello from Manchester and the start of the UK party conference season.

The last conference before a general election is usually a

chance for political parties to set out their stall, explain why their

leader is really the Prime Minister in waiting, but of course events in

Scotland have cast a shadow over the start

I am sure Owen Smith will forgive me if I start by looking at Scotland.

Quite clear that Labour will offer Scotland extensive powers.

What we don't know is exactly what you would offer Wales

We know Labour is already committed to tax varying powers for Wales

and we have supported the Wales Bill.

We have also said we will extend that.

We will extend the same powers to Wales in respect of taxation so that

is up to 15p in the pound in all of the tax bands, the ability to set

a progressive top rate of tax, but the 50p rate back on people

Wales should have the same model of powers as Scotland,

Wales ought to be more like Scotland in terms of the powers it's got

but the crucial thing we have said, Ed Miliband announced that a couple

of days ago, we need a bottom-up convention, we need a process.

Carwyn Jones has been ahead of the curve on this.

For people to talk about what they want out of it.

Tax varying powers, you sound almost enthusiastic.

Would that trigger the referendum to bring those tax varying powers?

We have said all along what we need to do is make

sure that Wales would be better off as a result of this and this is

not clear because Wales does not have oil revenues as Scotland has.

Wales does have big needs and we do not have a big tax base, so if this

were going to replace Barnett funding for Wales than that would

We need to do a careful analysis and we're never going to commit to

something that sees the Welsh people worse off.

No, the second thing, we would have to have a referendum.

If we decided Wales was going to be better off, and we would have to get

into power and see whether Wales can stand on its own two feet in terms

of tax, then we need a referendum because the people of Wales have

never been asked if they would like Wales to have tax varying powers.

You think you would trigger that referendum?

Because the signs have been that you seem to discover all these hurdles

that would come just before the need to trigger that referendum.

No, I think we could trigger a referendum but we have always been

really honest with people that we would make sure Wales was going to

be better off and we don't know presently.

We do know that Wales presently raises around ?16 billion to ?18

billion in taxes and spend is double and we need to be pretty certain we

are not asking people with the shallowest pockets in Britain to

We would need to be clear Wales was going to be better off.

The vote in Scotland was a vote for people sticking together,

not breaking apart, and what we do not want its tax

We want to augment the ability for the government to deliver

Carwyn Jones says that until funding is sorted out you

A bit difficult, isn't it, when you have signed up Ed Miliband

has signed up, to continuing ar funding formula that

Carwyn Jones says short-changes Wells by ?3 million a year?

No, I don't think that is difficult because you need

You need a way in which we address this shortfall for Wales.

That ?150 million to ?300 million shortfall that comes about to do

with population growth in Wales and public spending in England and

We have not said exactly how we are going to do it, but if we win in

May next year we will fill the Barnett gap.

You talk about this constitutional convention.

You do not need a grand convention to say that it is

unfair that people like you can still vote on English issues.

I think we can look at the way in which English MPs have an extra

level of scrutiny and accountability in English only issues.

The only reason this is on the table, I suspect the Tories have

been planning this for the last two years, is that Cameron is running

scared from backbenchers, he is worried that Farage is nipping

at his heels, and this is a clear attempt to unfairly exploit the No

vote in Scotland and try to cement power for the Tories at Westminster.

It is a terrible thing to say to the Scottish people that

your reward for voting to stay in the union, your reward

for backing solidarity, is reduced voice for Scotland in the centre.

They wanted to stay in the UK and remain as wrong part of the UK, not

Is Cameron saying that a Welsh MP or a Scottish MP cannot be

the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of this country?

That is a recipe for breaking up Britain and sewing great

Labour is saying we have to heal these wounds, because they are

wounds, and we have to bring people together, and parliament is one of

the institutions that binds Britain together so we don't want to

disaggregate Parliament, we want to make it stronger

in the centre, but we also want to push power to the people.

The big announcement in Manchester today from Labour is that a Labour

government elected next May would increase the minimum wage over

the next Parliament from ?6.50 this October to ?8

So Labour and the Tories don't agree, even though last week both

parties and the Liberal Democrats were united in a vow to deliver more

The Welsh Lib Dems' leader says Wales needs a cross-party

consensus too if there's going to be more devolution here.

I think it's clear from what we have seen over the last

couple of days that the arguments in Westminster are going to perhaps

naturally focus on what happens next for Scotland and what devolution

I am very concerned that Wales could be left behind in this debate.

I think the best chance that we've got of securing Wales' place in

these discussions and moving power out of Whitehall and Westminster to

Wales is to ensure where possible we build a consensus and that political

leaders across the spectrum in Wales become one voice.

That puts us in a much more powerful position if Westminster is hearing

one consistent message rather than Welsh politicians squabbling amongst

themselves about what should happen next.

In the past you said there's too much consensus in Welsh politics.

Perhaps we should be more like Scotland weather is not

a consensus and there is a much more lively debate.

Offering people in Wales real choices is important engendering

that sense of enthusiasm about politics, but this is about trying

to ensure Wales gets heard in the context of the discussions that are

going on in the UK as a whole and we are already seeing that is

Let's see if there's any consensus between my studio guests, Cathy

Owens, a former Welsh Government special adviser, and Dafydd Trystan

There is a mag agreement on a Scotland Bill, talk about timing on

how to deal with English foods in Westminster. Where does Wales fit

into this? We are getting a few extra powers in this Parliament. In

the next Parliament we know we will get that reserve model around the

structure of lawmaking, this Barnett plus, about keeping Barnett but

making it better for Wales. We do not know if there will be another

Wales Bill with powers for Wales and it is the same with the

Conservatives who have not said... We are waiting to see general

election manifestoes. I think so. It is unclear. Everyone has been

energised by what has been going on in Scotland. In terms of the

reaction from Westminster, that is the irony, devolution is not

devolved, you have not seen any movement towards thinking again the

extra powers that are going to be coming to Wales next Parliament. For

people like yourself who want more devolution, do you think consensus

is the way to go? There's not much consensus in Scotland between the

SNP and the other three parties. In Wales there is a chance to build

consensus around a significant measure of home rule for Wales with

those powers to make a real difference to people was Matt lives

in the valleys, those people who are suffering at the moment, from

poverty and austerity, those are the powers they need to make that

difference. There is a chance for consensus but I have been depressed

listening to people saying we are going to beg for a few crumbs from

Westminster's table. That is not good enough. People saying that

Wales should be rewarded for sticking by the union. We have not

been as bothersome to Whitehall and Westminster as Scotland and Northern

Ireland. We do not have any bargaining chips in the same way

that Scotland have. We are not rich enough to threaten. The nationalist

movement is in no way comparable year as strong as it is in Scotland.

We are going to have to get the Westminster people to understand

this is a message that is being sent, it is not good enough, and we

have to do more. We also showed in Scotland that it is about those

issues that will make a real difference to people's lives. It is

not necessarily about identity. It is about being able to have

programmes here that impact on the welfare state, unemployment and all

sorts of issues, rather than the police. We have seen the flourishing

of democracy in Scotland apparently. The question is, is

talking about the constitution and a few more powers, is that going to

meet that demand? I do not think it will. You have seen over 10,000

people join pro-independence political parties in the last three

days in Scotland. There is a very clear message reinforced by Cathy

that if you want Wales' voice to be heard loud and clear you need a

strong national party and to be part of that ambitious movement. The way

to get what the First Minister wants is to join the national party? There

is a failure to capitalise on devolution. That is a factor here.

There's more to it. It is about pressure for change. If you want

more devolution. We do not have those bargaining chips. People in

Wales quite like being part of the union. They do not just like being

part of it, there might like there is redistribution of wealth in the

centre. It is not perfect but have it gets any worse we are going to

have to look again. Some of the issues being talked about are around

that. If we get extra powers because we are building a nation around tax

and it ends up again less money to spend on things we want to spend it

on, we have to look again at what that union is delivering. Opinion

polls tend to suggest that people in Wales like the union. Was it a

gamble for your party to back Scottish independence so strongly?

Was there a debate in the party? Not at all. We believe the best people

to make decisions about Wales' future are the people of Wales.

Likewise in Scotland, the best people to take decisions on

defence, welfare, the economy, are the people of Scotland, and that is

our principled position. The important thing here, there is a

major challenge ahead of all parties to develop a strong and successful

Welsh economy, something that has not happened in 16 years of

devolution. It is a valid view but it is not sure why the majority. We

are going to have it leave it there. the Conservative mayor's policy. No

more time I'm afraid. Andrew, back to you.

Welcome back the to Labour conference, where we're joined

by the latest hot new stand-up comedian on the Manchester circuit.

I speak of course of former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.

In between giving tub-thumping speeches to rally

the party faithful this week, he's appearing at the Comedy Store.

He was also of course the man behind the last attempt to solve

Our political panel is with me as well. John, we have got Scottish

votes for Scottish laws, and more Scottish votes for Scottish laws,

why not English votes for English laws? That's an English parliament

in a major constitutional change and that is what has started. I

certainly don't agree with that. I campaign for powers to be given to

the regions. When I first tested it in the Northeast, I lost. Why?

Because they said they were not the same powers you are giving to

Scotland. So, basically, we must do that, decentralised, not just with a

Westminster Parliament. As you know, in 32 years I produce the

alternative. You've kept that for 32 years? I took it off my shelf and

everybody was talking about it now, but they weren't in 1982. This was

my five plan. 200 meetings all around the country -- five-year

plan. You wrote this morning, not 35 years ago, that this was a plot to

turn Westminster into a Tory dominated English parliament. But if

that is how England had voted, it's not a plot, it's democracy. You can

get reform in a more federal structure, and even English

parliament does fit into the federal structure and that is what the

Liberals say, but you need a fairer representation. It might be quite

radical, and we could get rid of the Lord's, and have representation in

the region there. It can't be done in two weeks. Alex Salmond, he's

assuming he has been sold out, and it was less than a week ago they

remain the announcement. We have to get it carried out will stop but

don't connect it to the English parliament that fixes it in their

favour. It may be pretty low politics from David Cameron to come

up with something that was not in the vowel -- a bow on the front page

of the daily record, but if they do not agree with what he said at the

time of the general election, he will say two in which voters, if you

want real protection in England, vote Conservative, and if you want

Scottish MPs deciding on your level of taxation, vote Labour. He is

scared to death of UKIP may have been saying it for a while. In the

constitutional changes have to see what is fair and equitable, the same

with the Barnett fallen -- formula. But what you have to do is get a

fair system. It takes time to discuss it. I was doing a 32 years

ago and nobody wanted to know. We had better start a debate, and don't

mixed up the constitutional type of English parliament with what we are

promising in Scotland. It is about trust and politics. So the turnout

of the north-east regional assembly and they voted against it. The

turnout that the police and crime commissioners was low. How'd you get

people interested in the process and it doesn't feel like a conversation

in smoky rooms and you go back to British people and tell them what

you decided? If you look at the turnout in Scotland whether they

were interested in, now it is phenomenally interesting. It is

about real power, having real influence. What they said to me in

the north-east, they said we know you have an idea for devolution and

you will give us assemblies but it doesn't have the power of Scotland,

but now we are talking about equity, similar distribution of

power and similar resources. The English people are entitled to that.

They have been robbed of it for too long. Labour has long struggled with

what it should do over devolving power to the regions and you came up

with regional assemblies. Ed Miliband has a different idea of

city regions. Aren't they the same idea of yours but without a

democratic accountability? Can we really trust the greater region of

Manchester or Birmingham to deliver if there is not the same kind of

democratic link with the people? I live in whole, and it stops on the

boundary of the Pennines -- the city of Hull. We have city regions from

Labour because I failed in the north-east to get the assemblies in,

and now we have to look at those options. Do you work through city

regions? Mainly in the north, I might say. Even the federal

structure they talk about my be in the North or Midlands with

Birmingham, but there are a number of options and that is where I

believe that what the White Paper should do is to put those options

in. Instead of having to put them together, state what you want to do

in the English regions. Leave it to the legislation, which is what will

happen with the Scottish, and once you've agreed it, you do it after.

You have to start the radical debate about giving the English regions,

not centralised in London, but decentralised. Do you need to have a

separate English parliament? Wouldn't it just satisfy the English

if you simply said to MPs, when it's in English matter in the House of

Commons, stop interfering? I would disagree with that. I would say put

the option in the White Paper. The White Paper seems to be talking

about Scotland. If you don't put the commitments to what you want to do

with the English regions, people might say I'm not supporting that.

Put the framework in the White might say I'm not supporting that.

Paper, but a different timetable. Devolution in this country has been

to a different timetable, whether it's Wales, Northern Ireland. Start

looking fundamentally at it and the Labour Party should be leading the

debate. Let's come the no campaign lost Glasgow. The cradle of British

socialism. -- let's come to something that happened with the

referendum as the no campaign lost Glasgow. Is it a sign that the

Labour Party are finding it hard to what -- hold on to their traditional

working class vote question mark its different in Manchester. They would

say it is a message about decentralisation. If we change the

message a bit maybe. We have been thinking that now it is that either

the Labour Party to recognise it is not the old message and old areas

that will win it. I remember covering the 1997 referendum in

Scotland and you gave a tub thumping speech in a big hall in Hamilton and

you really connected. Obviously it was a different referendum because

that was about a parliament, not independence and Alex Salmond was on

your side, but you, and Ingush MP, an English minister, connected to

the core Labour voters in a way that Ed Miliband is failing to do -- an

English MP. You make a fair point. In the big rally, I had to point out

I was Welsh. Enough of this. Get on with it. What I was saying there was

that I supported you, as I did for 30 odd years when Labour MPs were

against any thinker Scotland. I support you, but I expect you to

come in with your Scottish MPs and make sure the English get their

share of the powers and resources and that is what that speech was

about, and by God, it's as relevant today as it was then. I haven't got

any Scottish MPs, I live in Knightsbridge. Did you get the vote?

No. What would you have done? I can't tell you. You would have voted

yes, come on. I'm interested. What do you want to hear from the speech

by Ed Miliband? People are wondering about where Labour stands. There are

many issues we have flown around, and we've done the discussion just

now. What he has got to do where he started off on the minimum wage. You

are trying to deal with those left behind. Those are the bottom. That

is the Labour message. The National Health Service is our creation and

we have to say it will be saved. If you can save all of these bankers

with all the money and say you haven't got the money for the NHS,

say where we stand. That will be the priority. The third one, housing. I

have had a revolutionary idea that you can buy a house without a

deposit and without the interest or paying the stamp duty, and you buy

it by rent. The government gives ?150 billion guaranteed housing for

up to 600,000. Get down to ordinary people who can use their rent to buy

the house. It's happening in the north-east. Why are they not

listening to you? You have said more to connect with ordinary people in

three minutes than we will probably hear in an hour. I've been telling

them, made, and we have a commission coming out. People don't want

commissions, they want action. I say, I know what we do, housing,

health, the people. That is our language. That is why we are Labour.

That a lot of people run away. I think in Glasgow, they wondered

about that. If you turn up on the same three platforms, and I know

it's a critical thing to say, they think in Scotland it is a coalition.

I don't like coalitions. It looks like a coalition, didn't it? Maybe

it was saved because Rupert Murdoch started the The Times about the

polls and he couldn't even get the sun to say that they wanted. We

haven't got time. I wondered how long it would take is to get to

repot Murdoch. You beat the record. -- to Rupert Murdoch. Labour is

quite behind on the economy, and people are looking at Labour, trying

to work out if they can trust you to the stewards of the economy given

2010. Under Labour 's plans there is 20 billion of cuts to make in the

next Parliament. Will we hear anything about that? It is about the

proportion of debt to GDP. I know it sounds historic, but our debt when

we came in in 1997 was a proportion of GDP, and you must know this, and

that was less than Thatcher's. Why did we get done on debt? You guys

run around saying a lot about it, but the fact is it was worse under

Thatcher. Thatcher is now seen as a hero. If you look at the debt, it is

still a problem. Gordon Brown did an awful lot to solve those problems,

but they were still left with us. What we have to have is a sensible

discussion like we had on devolution and now we are talking about

finances. Let's look at the public sector debt and the price we pay. We

need to be putting the record straight. The problem is they tell

me, John, we have to look to the future not the past. We are getting

screwed on the past and we have to change it and perhaps Gordon Brown

coming in could do something. Finishing on the future, when we did

a poll of the Labour candidates, you were watching on the big screen,

when it came up that their favourite to succeed Ed Miliband was Yvette

Cooper, why did you shout no! That is alive. -- alive. -- that is not

true. I know resistance is not strong. What did that mean?

You can't get away with anything at a Conference, John. I was dropping

comments them to pick up everywhere, I do not wear -- nowhere they got

that one from. Good to have you back. Round of applause for former

Deputy Prime Minister. That's it for today. Don't applaud them, they are

useless. my guests. I'll be back here at

Labour conference for the Daily 11:30am tomorrow when we'll bring

you live coverage of the speech by We're here all week, and next Sunday

you can find us in Birmingham for Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.