Patrick Harvie

:00:12. > :00:18.The Scottish Greens will fight only three seats in the general election.

:00:19. > :00:21.And they will not be endorsing any other party in the 56 seats that it

:00:22. > :00:29.is not contesting and you are pretty much up to speed the Green Party

:00:30. > :00:33.strategy, which has left them open to claim that they are propping up

:00:34. > :00:38.the SNP. I am now joined by Patrick Harvie, who laughed when he

:00:39. > :00:43.suggested he was propping up the SNP. A wry smile, Gordon! You are

:00:44. > :00:49.very proud of the idea that local parties make the decisions. Did your

:00:50. > :00:53.local party in every single one of the 56 seats where you are not

:00:54. > :00:57.standing have a meeting and decide, no, we don't want a candidate in the

:00:58. > :01:01.general election? All our branches made the decisions in their own way.

:01:02. > :01:07.Some held meetings and others online. All of the 56 decided not to

:01:08. > :01:11.stand the candidate? Rather than we don't want to, all of them looked at

:01:12. > :01:14.the resources they had left after the seven national votes they had

:01:15. > :01:18.including Holyrood and local elections that we put a huge amount

:01:19. > :01:22.of resource and energy into, and they recognised this was not

:01:23. > :01:26.something we were able to do. In 2015 election we stood in about half

:01:27. > :01:29.the seats in Scotland and I regret, honestly, that we are not in a

:01:30. > :01:35.position to do that again this time. Even to get close to it. What we

:01:36. > :01:39.have got to do is focus our resources where it will really make

:01:40. > :01:42.a difference. It is critical at the particular time we are in at the

:01:43. > :01:46.moment that Scotland has a green voice at Westminster. We can achieve

:01:47. > :01:56.that but only if we focus and target. This has nothing to do with

:01:57. > :02:00.helping other to parties? Our colleagues in the branches will

:02:01. > :02:04.contemplate as one of the fact of how best to stop the Tories and if

:02:05. > :02:08.there is a Tory held seat, that is one of the factors that people will

:02:09. > :02:12.have in mind. Anybody on the progressive side of politics needs

:02:13. > :02:17.to be trying to prevent the kind of Tory take-over of Westminster that

:02:18. > :02:20.Theresa May is planning for. This is an entirely opportunistic election

:02:21. > :02:23.that she didn't need to call and she said she would not call and she is

:02:24. > :02:29.doing it purely to capitalise on a weak Labour Party. I am confused.

:02:30. > :02:35.The two answers you have given seem to flatly contradict each other. One

:02:36. > :02:38.minute you say it is entirely about resources and branches deciding not

:02:39. > :02:43.to stand, and now you don't stand because you want to help beat the

:02:44. > :02:47.Tories. It is overwhelmingly about resources. One of the factors that

:02:48. > :02:52.are bright which is covering a Tory held or Tory marginal seat, one of

:02:53. > :02:55.the factors they will consider is how best to prevent that damaging

:02:56. > :03:01.outcome of a bigger Tory majority at Westminster. The reality is that

:03:02. > :03:03.there will be hugely important social and environmental powers

:03:04. > :03:09.moved from Europe to Westminster in the next session of Parliament,

:03:10. > :03:13.where many Tories want a bonfire of the regulations. That will literally

:03:14. > :03:17.put people's lives on the line and a Green voice at Westminster is an

:03:18. > :03:22.urgent priority for us. Maggie Chapman said a few weeks ago that

:03:23. > :03:26.you would consider, as you have suggested, a strategy of trying to

:03:27. > :03:30.keep the Tories out and not standing in areas where you thought that

:03:31. > :03:34.would help people fighting the Tories. She said an approach would

:03:35. > :03:38.be made to the Scottish National Party about a progressive alliance

:03:39. > :03:43.in what she said was the next couple of days and that was an April the

:03:44. > :03:50.18th. One such an approach ever made? No. Why not? It wasn't a

:03:51. > :03:53.discussion that took place and it was not something the party had

:03:54. > :03:57.decided to do. Maggie was expressing a personal view in an off-the-cuff

:03:58. > :04:02.interview. Reality is that the party makes decisions, not me and not

:04:03. > :04:06.Maggie, the party, at every level, as locally as possible. That is the

:04:07. > :04:09.way we have always worked as a party. Maggie Chapman said there

:04:10. > :04:14.would be an approach in the next couple of days and there wasn't. Why

:04:15. > :04:19.not? She said she was expressing a personal view. And why wasn't there

:04:20. > :04:21.an approach? The party had decided to do that. The national council

:04:22. > :04:29.never considered the option of doing that. Look, after the 2014 election

:04:30. > :04:31.and in the run-up to 2015, the party's national council agreed

:04:32. > :04:36.there should be some level of discussion with the SNP about

:04:37. > :04:39.whether there should be a different approach to the 2015 election. They

:04:40. > :04:43.were not interested and frankly I didn't think they would be. They

:04:44. > :04:47.clearly had the resources to fight every seat and why would they change

:04:48. > :04:50.that strategy? I didn't expect anything different this time and I

:04:51. > :04:55.am not sure why we are exploring that. People who would like to vote

:04:56. > :04:59.Green in the 56 seats where you are not standing, who should they vote

:05:00. > :05:04.for? They should ask all the candidates the issues most important

:05:05. > :05:07.to them. If a voter feels that renewing Trident is the most

:05:08. > :05:12.important issue to them, they may find a great many SNP candidates who

:05:13. > :05:15.agree with them, but they might find Labour candidates who agree with

:05:16. > :05:21.them. If the most important issue to them is ending the subsidies of

:05:22. > :05:23.fossil fuels, they are likely to find many SNP candidates aborting

:05:24. > :05:29.them because they call for deeper subsidies for fossil fuels. --

:05:30. > :05:33.supporting them. If the most important thing is a sustainable

:05:34. > :05:37.transport system, why would we send Scottish MPs to argue for a nature

:05:38. > :05:41.runway at Heathrow when public transport is underfunded and

:05:42. > :05:47.unreliable and overpriced here. What if they decide the Tories have got

:05:48. > :05:51.the best offer? If people want an ever meaner, harsher social security

:05:52. > :05:56.system that forces ever more people into poverty, then they really need

:05:57. > :06:00.to check their values. Yes, but there must be many people whose

:06:01. > :06:04.priority is the environment, who for example feel very passionately that

:06:05. > :06:06.they don't want an independent Scotland, which the Tories are

:06:07. > :06:10.sticking up for. The Tory party would give the go ahead to fracking,

:06:11. > :06:16.subsidising nuclear power while removing the support from the

:06:17. > :06:19.renewable energy industry. Anybody who support the positive,

:06:20. > :06:23.sustainable vision for Scotland's future or the UK's future if they

:06:24. > :06:26.are committed to staying in the UK, they will look at the Tories and

:06:27. > :06:31.think they are not where it is at. Will you produce a manifesto given

:06:32. > :06:37.you are only standing in Parisians? The green thing would be not to give

:06:38. > :06:47.in the paper you would be saving. -- you are only standing in three

:06:48. > :06:50.seats. We want to focus our resources on getting a Green MP in

:06:51. > :06:52.Westminster. We are not knocking on the doors of millionaires and

:06:53. > :06:56.billionaires to fund the campaign and we are knocking on the doors in

:06:57. > :07:00.constituencies that we are contesting and we are talking to

:07:01. > :07:02.people in an investment in a sustainable future, not a fossil

:07:03. > :07:06.fuel addicted economy that will never last in the long term but one

:07:07. > :07:10.that will create jobs and serve as for the future. The social security

:07:11. > :07:22.system worthy of the name based on a universal basic income which means

:07:23. > :07:25.everybody's needs and allows them to choose the balance in their own life

:07:26. > :07:28.between working and caring and all the other things that matter in

:07:29. > :07:32.life. But you are pan UK movement unlike the SNP. A global movement.

:07:33. > :07:36.And you say on your website that you want to make an impact by joining

:07:37. > :07:41.forces with Caroline Lucas here has been doing the work of 100

:07:42. > :07:45.politicians, the first Green MP. But you want to split up the UK so you

:07:46. > :07:49.can't even be in the same Parliament as Caroline Lucas. If Scotland, as I

:07:50. > :07:53.believe it should, has the opportunity to ask yourself the

:07:54. > :08:01.question again about independence, and resolve this conflict between

:08:02. > :08:04.55% no vote and 62% remain vote in 2016, if the people of Scotland are

:08:05. > :08:09.going to make that choice, I will stand with those who see a positive,

:08:10. > :08:14.constructive relationship between... It is not obvious what the

:08:15. > :08:17.connection is. I am sure many people in Scotland care deeply about

:08:18. > :08:22.environmental issues but are deeply opposed to independence for Scotland

:08:23. > :08:23.or see it as a secondary issue. Why have you got such a bee in your

:08:24. > :08:34.bonnet about it? I know there are such people and

:08:35. > :08:38.there are such people in the Scottish Green Party, we have people

:08:39. > :08:42.clearly uncomfortably saying, a clear majority of our members

:08:43. > :08:46.campaign for a yes vote but we have no problem they did that in a spirit

:08:47. > :08:52.of friendly disagreement but those embers of the party who... If your

:08:53. > :08:55.main issue you is you don't want a second independence referendum but

:08:56. > :08:59.you were otherwise totally paid in caring for the environment, you

:09:00. > :09:03.shouldn't vote for the Green Party, should you? The question of whether

:09:04. > :09:07.Scotland is calling for a referendum has already been voted on in the

:09:08. > :09:12.Scottish parliament, I've no doubt if the SNP take the majority of

:09:13. > :09:15.seats as they look likely to in Scotland, the Tories have a majority

:09:16. > :09:19.at Westminster, there will be a toss all about who has the bigger mandate

:09:20. > :09:24.but look, the critical issues at the next UK Parliament will determine or

:09:25. > :09:26.what to do with those hugely important social and environmental

:09:27. > :09:32.protection is hard won over many years in the European Union. Do we

:09:33. > :09:36.want to hand those over to a bunch of Tories at Westminster? I think a

:09:37. > :09:40.green voice of the spinster for Scotland is more important than

:09:41. > :09:44.ever. We can do that if we focus our resources. The biggest fall in

:09:45. > :09:48.carbon emissions last year anywhere in the world was in the United

:09:49. > :09:55.States, carbon emission levels are back to where they were in the early

:09:56. > :10:01.1990s. This is almost entirely because of fracking and fractured

:10:02. > :10:06.gas replacing coal power stations. Yet you are adamantly opposed to

:10:07. > :10:12.fracking on the grounds that it's bad for carbon emissions, it clearly

:10:13. > :10:16.isn't, it's the main factor that is helping reduce carbon emissions, not

:10:17. > :10:21.just in the United States but in countries like China. If we want to

:10:22. > :10:25.reduce carbon emissions and have... You're not nine the fact? If we want

:10:26. > :10:28.to reduce carbon emissions and have a decent chance we need to look at

:10:29. > :10:33.the global picture not just the picture in one individual country.

:10:34. > :10:38.I'm talking about the biggest economy in the world. And one of the

:10:39. > :10:40.most polluting. The US shifting to fracture as and consuming less more

:10:41. > :10:45.polluting doesn't mean those more polluting fuels are not being used,

:10:46. > :10:52.are simply shifting elsewhere in the global economy. Fracking is opening

:10:53. > :10:58.up a new scene of fossil fuels, a new role of the dice. It's much less

:10:59. > :11:01.in terms of carbon emissions from... That's why carbon emissions are

:11:02. > :11:07.falling. The other part is nuclear... If coal is being used

:11:08. > :11:13.elsewhere... You are against nuclear as well which is the other form of

:11:14. > :11:17.clean his power. Scotland is well able to achieve a sustainable energy

:11:18. > :11:22.system without new nuclear. The two main things that can reduce carbon

:11:23. > :11:26.emission and you are against both of them. Look at what the UK is doing

:11:27. > :11:30.and you say it can be done quickly, I don't think so, it can't be done

:11:31. > :11:33.quickly and cheaply and there are hugely worrying questions about

:11:34. > :11:37.whether it can be done safely. But the allegation against you would be

:11:38. > :11:42.you are better at being Scottish Nationalists than being a green.

:11:43. > :11:45.I've heard that and other very silly allegations from the Conservative

:11:46. > :11:53.Party in recent weeks. They keep coming up with ever more creative

:11:54. > :11:57.and not very well done means online. Maybe with an element of truth? The

:11:58. > :12:00.argument from us coming from no one else in the political landscape

:12:01. > :12:04.about the transition away from fossil fuels and the investment in

:12:05. > :12:10.sustainable future that we need. We keep making that case. Harvie, thank

:12:11. > :12:12.you for joining us. -- Patrick Harvie.