21/09/2014 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

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 be

On the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire,

as Scotland votes to remain in the UK, we examine calls for England to

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. 1 ,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 6 %

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,

you're watching the Sunday Politics As Scotland votes to remain part

of the UK, we examine the growing calls this weekend for Engl`nd to

get a better deal from Westlinster. So everyone agrees we need lore

direct power south of the border. An English parliament,

regional assemblies, or giving our big cities grdater

control over taxpayers monex? Discussing this and more,

our guests today are Labour MP for Hull East, Karl Turner, former

Liberal Democrat MEP, Diana Wallis, who represents a group calldd

the Yorkshire Devolution Movement. And in our Hull studio is

Andrew Percy, the Conservathve MP Yorkshire's William Hague whll

draw`up proposals to redress the political balance in England,

at the same time And as Len Tingle now reports,

this is a debate we've been having Power for the North is far

from a new idea. Here at medieval King's Manor

in York, But it got too powerful

and was abolished. It was certainly power to the North,

but hardly power to the people. And for several centuries after

that it was a familiar pattdrn. At Westminster, with first the King

and then Parliament. By the 20th century,

men in bowler hats 200 miles away where making the decisions on how

tax payers' money should be spent. The fallout from the

Scottish Independence vote hs set to Westminster better start listening

because we want a say We want the funding to make

our ambitions a reality and, given those two things,

we will make a real difference. This is just one example

of how local decision`making powers The ?60 million cost of Leeds Arena

wasn't the biggest stumbling block A dispute arose between Leeds and

government departments in London, There were relevant questions,

definitely, but on the other hand, I don't know whether some

of the national agencies understood the particular local issues, what

it would mean for people, how the economy

of Leeds needed the night thme boost that the arena would bring

and has brought since it opdned Some of those little nuances are

lost in Whitehall sometimes. So all that information, official

letters, e`mails, memos flashing between Yorkshire and London,

different layers of bureaucracy just so that this, what's now ond of the

biggest boosts to the econoly of this part of West Yorkshire

at least, could be built. But 200 miles north from here it

was a completely different story. Alongside the ageing Forth Road

Bridge, a brand`new crossing is being built linking Edinburgh

with the north`east of Scotland The Queensferry Crossing will have

cost ?1.4 billion Not a single Whitehall mand`rin

has had to be consulted. Even before it gets any new powers,

the devolved Scottish parli`ment could make that spending decision

for itself. But is there really the appdtite

for those powers from the ptblic I think if they gave

the power to the people now, up here, we would see what's going

on, they would be able to do more Politicians spend too much loney

at the moment anyway, so I think it's probably not a good idda to set

up another assembly in Yorkshire. I think there might be some scope

for some kind of local bodies to vary tax`tion

and raise taxation locally So, yes, to the money, but who's

going to make the decisions If Leeds Arena was being buhlt today

it could be the City Council, the Leeds City Region, the business`led

local enterprise partnership or even the new combined West Yorkshire

Local Authorities body. Is more clarity needed

on where the power will lay? We are nowhere near where wd need to

be in terms of those organisations. There's very good councils

and public bodies working mtch more We have lots and lots of laxers of

local government, Parish Cotncil, Do we need all those layers

and how do we get it more streamlined and how do we gdt people

working between the different parts These are issues that will certainly

be high on the agenda of every political party conference

in the coming weeks. Let's go live to Andrew Percy in the

hole. Andrew, I'd heard you on the airwaves this weekend calling for an

English Parliament, but wouldn't that be dominated by Tory MPs from

the South? How would that decentralise power to board? That

would depend on how people hn the North about. Those times in our

history England has elected a Labour majority and Tory majority. What we

can't allow to continue is this mass devolution to Scotland to h`ppen

without any solution for England. We can't allow Scottish MPs at continue

voting on matters that affect Yorkshire and England. It is not

acceptable to the people I represent. Let me put the issue to

Karl Turner. Is it right, Scottish MPs can decide how much is spent on

health and education in whole was not but we have no say on what they

spend. That issue needs dealing with. This was dreamt up by David

Cameron and written on the back of a fag packet. It's dishonourable. At

the cynical by David Cameron to settle his ranting, right whng

backbenchers. That's the trtth of it. What we really need is lore

devolution for cities like hole `` Hull.

It's disgusting of David Caleron. Carl can't give a single good reason

why Scottish MPs should trot down to Westminster and continue to vote on

help service funding for Yorkshire. And not vote on it for their own

constituents. There is not one good reason other than labour wanting to

maintain its electoral advantage from Scotland and Wales. We have

been talking about that English was over a decade.

David Cameron made no mention of this when he was begging and

pleading Ed Miliband to savd the union. It absolutely dishonourable

of David Cameron to come out with this after the Scottish people have

voted on the issue. Let me bring in Diana. What would your model the

devolution of the Yorkshire luck like? I think this is very sad and

depressing that we have a London based argument. What I'm interested

in is what we do here in Yorkshire. We have a population of Scotland, an

economy twice the size of W`les With the same size of many countries

in northern Europe. Why are now can we not have a reasonable offer of

powers for Yorkshire? Peopld have seen what has gone on in Scotland.

They've seen the energising political process. People w`nt to be

involved. But they want to be offered something realistic and

something with real power that they can use here in Yorkshire. They can

argue for as long as they lhke about what happens in London. Frankly I

don't care but I want to have a good discussion and a good conversation

about what the people of Yorkshire want for Yorkshire. Andrew, you re

in a position because your constituency straddles the Xorkshire

and Lincolnshire. You have to admit there is a huge Yorkshire identity

at the moment. Surely there's an argument or some form of regional

woman? There is a strong Yorkshire identity. Any Yorkshire solttion

would be dominated by the Wdst riding and over in the East Riding

we have a very small population for them I went out and asked the people

long before this whole debate was decided last Thursday. A thousand of

my constituents responded and 8 said they supported regional

government. The most popular response was English motor Dnglish

people. I don't think there's any movement to create a whole new layer

of politicians in Yorkshire. I'm not sure that actually would deliver any

more local governance than `ny other solution. I think you're behng local

councils more power is important but this is a fiddle. This is l`bour's

fiddle. They want to deny the people of England the same solution that

the Scots have. They think they can throw a few crumbs to local councils

and the English will be bought off. We won't be this time. We should

have the same solution is the Scots. Yorkshire should have the s`me as

the Scots. If you want to propose that in a referendum in Serbia. ``

survey. But there is a movelent for is to stop this anomaly where Scots

MPs vote on matters in Engl`nd that do not affect this constitudnts

Nobody on this panel today can give a single good reason why th`t should

continue. Carl Turner, is Ed Miliband taking this issue hnto the

long grass? Why doesn't he support David Cameron's proposals? This

issue does definitely team need to be dealt with. We have to ddliver on

our promise to the people of Scotland. People are bolted. They

voted for unity and David C`meron has with dad by coming after the

fact with this plan for English vote for English law to settle pdople

like Andrew Percy down. The real truth is people want devolution The

Labour Party will absolutelx offer devolution.

The plan has been properly considered and can be delivdred The

reality is David Cameron is the one who had is deflecting things. We

need to deliver on our promhse to Scotland before we deal with the

serious and important issue of the West Lothian question. Andrdw Percy

said in true family fortune style he's been out and survey thd public.

Is that your take on things? It s not my take at all. It's very good

that Andrew has done a survdy. But we need a proper process in

Yorkshire to allow people to decide what sort of solution and what sort

of future they going to get. A process that involves not jtst

elected politicians but ordhnary people feel that they can ilport

into it properly. `` input. We are going to move on now. The

The term 'devo max' we have heard a lot in recent weeks,

Phillip Blond, the man who hnspired David Cameron's policy of creating

a so`called "Big Society", tells us the government shotld be

much bolder and hand over control of raising and spending taxds to

The consequences of Thursdax's referendum are going to be

game`changing, not just for the devolved n`tions,

Everyone's talking about thd West Lothian question

and only allowing English MPs to vote on English issues,

This is just the status quo and the continuation of London`based, South

The only game`changer in town is full city`based

and city region`based devolttion to our great towns and cities that

have effectively been abandoned by the politics and economics

Unless we do this, unless wd give things like full tax raising powers

in terms of property taxes, and local income tax even, `nd the

ability to change business rates in these areas, in places like Leeds

city region, Sheffield city region, we're not going to transforl

the economic social outcome for our people who live there

and for their children and their children's childrdn.

This is what the demand for devolution is.

It comes from a desperate need to ch`nge

and he joins us live from Westminster this morning. There was

a phrase in your report that I think might send shudders down a few

spines. You talk about tax raising powers for the cities. Why do we

always talk about tax raising? Why not tax cutting? Well you'vd

answered my question for me. My vision is that the northern cities

would be able to cut their business rates and cut their income tax rate.

So that they can make themsdlves far more attractive places to locate

businesses and grow jobs and build homes and futures. Let me ptt that

Andrew Percy. How are peopld in your area about that smart I'm not sure

where we fall into this. Quhte how we fit in, unless someone is

proposing expanded cities, which of course is not popular with the

public. I don't think it by most of my constituents if they wanted me to

go to Westminster and evolvd the power and setting income tax to

local councils, whether thex would be in support of it. I don't sense

there is any movement that. What we should have is some power from

Westminster by mature tax r`ising powers are the answer. Some of our

smaller towns and cities in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire get

nothing. Yes, of course. And not just saying cities. When thd

situation were our local cities particularly in areas outside of the

South East, have suffered long`term neglect. What we're trying to do is

let these areas have power to shape the outcome is and to control their

own fate. If you look at thd Scottish referendum, the people that

voted yes were those areas that had the highest rate of unemploxment in

Scotland. I think the demand the devolution is a demand to actually

not be left out. To not be left out of prosperity and reward. Wd know,

for instance, and I think you're guest is mistaken earlier. We know

that if we place ace Publix Sir it is. If we let localities integrate

public services. Instead of having bad to different funding Latins with

the enormous levels of bure`ucracy but read based around invigorated

public authorities, they will say enormous amount of money th`t can be

reinvested in those communities We actually get an enormous increase in

public expenditure by saving money. Over the last, with done sttdies,

and Ernst Young calculated that over five years the broach directly

mended we could save between nine and ?20 billion a year. That would

be extra money going into these localities. Only talk about

tax`raising powers what we're talking about is the abilitx to

actually say, you know what, we want to encourage a clothing indtstry.

Let's take that five years they dump a business rates. That's thd type of

power I would like localitids to have said they can encouragd their

own developments. The point is Westminster has failed the North. If

Westminster has failed the north, Denver North has to look after

itself and be in a position to shape at a ad comes. That's what H'm

arguing for. As Westerners `bout the North? I think to some extent it

has. The Tories chose to scrap. . What we need is more power to

localise partnerships. They know where the money needs to be spent to

improve the local economy. We need combined authorities like

Manchester. Again, they know where money needs to be spent. It's not

necessarily about throwing loney at them. It's about spending the money

that is already going there properly. More efficiently, by

people. Decisions made by pdople who know what is needed for the area.

Not Whitehall, not David Caleron, who is completely out of totch with

people who I represent. Labour had 13 years to do this. To devolve the

power. Basically, you bottldd it. The reality is we were doing a lot

of good. I think Yorkshire forward was a good example...

Things are happening through Yorkshire forward and improvements

would definitely made. That's what we need more power to local

enterprise partnerships. And a bit more money. At about spending the

money properly. This idea that Yorkshire forward was doing great

things but our area. We don't need any lectures `bout how

Yorkshire forward was. The real solution is more money. With address

some of those big infrastructure issues that the last Labour

government didn't. We don't need any lessons from Karl

Turner. They had the opporttnity to devolve power to the north `nd they

didn't do it. They still can't answer the question, why should

Scottish Labour MPs continud to govern England when English LPs have

no say in Scotland. This is to `` how come you `re

prepared to give them all these powers?

This is hypocritical. You are a hypocrite.

It's fine for Scotland but not in England? . I cannot imagine what

people listening and watching this thinking. A very good suggestion is

made about regions cities h`ving tax raising powers. That politically

empowering and it allows people in the region to make the decision

about how tax is raised. I `lways remember a local council having to

go to London with a begging bowl. I want this region to be able to make

its own decision about how H get its income and how it spends it. People

in Scotland were energised `bout politics because they knew that sort

of decision making power was on offer. Philip Al give the vhew of

the last word on this. How do we know your tax raising cities will

become corrupt little fiefdoms. That's the danger with all

politicians. The point is wd also told the local Public Accounts

Committee is. The real point is this? Neither left nor right has

devolve power for the last 30 to 40 years. This government has done some

good things. City deals are just not large enough. If we really want to

create the outcomes we need, devolve downwards,. We are going to have to

leave it there. Thanks to our guests today

Karl Turner, 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 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.