Willie Rennie Ask the Leader

media and then I would have been liked what can we

We're putting the leaders of the SNP, the Conservatives,

Labour and the Liberal Democrats on the spot this week.

They'll each face questions from a live studio

And I'll try to press them for the answers.

If you'd like to join the debate on social media,

We'll hear from Kezia Dugdale, Ruth Davidson and Nicola

But tonight it's the turn of Willie Rennie, leader

And the first question for him comes from Gordon Bruce.

Will the electorate ever forgive the Liberal Democrats

Now that needs a little bit of explanation because we have to wind

the clock back to 2010. The Liberal Democrats were into that election

promising to set themselves against any increase in fees, actually it

was a pledge for England but that did you enormous damage across the

whole of the UK. What we've got to recognise is that in Scotland, we

had a different approach to tuition fees. We abolished it back in

2000/01 as part of the Liberal Democrat-Labour Government. It was

regrettable what happened. But actually, what we've done now is

changed the direction of student policy in Scotland. Now we've seen,

with the SNP, they promised to dump the debt but they've doubled it.

That is deeply regrettable. So Liberal Democrats, yeah, we

recognise we got it wrong at the last election. We recognise that.

But now what we're doing is moving on to try and make sure that

students get the right kind of support so that they can go to

education just like everyone else. In Scotland you were against tuition

fees and then you introduced the graduate endowment, which has

subsequently been abolished. In terms of this pledge, how much

damage did it do to the perception of the Liberal Democrats, given that

at the subsequent election you went from 57 to eight MPs? There's no

doubt it did us damage. We got it wrong. We regret that, of course, we

felt it very dearly. But what we're now doing is we've seen a bit of a

recovery. At the last Scottish elections, I managed to win my seat

in NEET Fife, lost in the previous year at the general election. In

Edinburgh west we won that seat, which we'd lost. In the Northern

Isles, we got over 70% of the votes. Do you think the public are starting

to forgive? I think so. We are proving by what we do, by our

actions. In this election we have a very robust backage of policies.

We're against independence. We're in favour of the European Union. We're

in favour of investing in mental health and education. I think that

is showing signs of positive recovery, with more people returning

to the Liberal Democrats. Let's bring in the audience on the

question of trust and go back to the questioner, what's your answer to

your own question? That's a difficult one. I think partly it

shows the difficulty that the Liberal Democrats had when we were

in coalition down south. But it's shown that certainly when we were in

coalition back up here in Scotland, we were able to put plans into play.

At this election, the Liberal Democrats go in saying there will be

no coalitions, the Liberal Democrats won't do deals this afternoon sort.

You've seen what happens when the Tories run the country by

themselves. Just look, human rights are under threat. We've had the

triple lock for pensioners under threat. We've had Brexit, which is

probably the most damaging thing this country will face for some

time. Renewable energy has been slashed. We've seen a massive cut in

support for people on benefits. That's what happened with the

Conservatives when they're running the country by themselves. The

Liberal Democrats stopped every single one of those things when we

were in power. That's an argument for coalition. You're going into

this election saying no coalition deals. Actually just to go back to

the coalition, so it's worth recognising the difference that we

did make. Because we've seen what happened since. Why no deals this

time? Well, we couldn't possibly do a deal with Theresa May with her

plan for a damaging hard Brexit. We're pro-European. These careering

towards something very dangerous for our economy, for jobs, for security,

but also for our NHS funding. Jeremy Corbyn he's just backed up Theresa

May in terms of a damaging hard Brexit. I couldn't believe when he

voted with Theresa May and Ukip for probably the most damaging hard

Brexit you could imagine, in the House of Commons. We couldn't

possibly do a coalition deal with Jeremy Corbyn. When you say hard

Brexit, you are talking about taking the UK out of the single market as

well as the European Union? Out of free movement of people, out of the

single market, common tariffs. That's what you mean by hard Brexit?

Yeah, cutting all the ties, the formal arrangements with Europe.

Doesn't that free the UK up as the Conservative Government would argue

to do international trade deals and find new prosperity. I'm rather

sceptical about that. It's like returning to the old empire. We're

better working with our closest neighbours. Just like I believe

Scotland should work within the United Kingdom. I think the United

Kingdom should work with the European Union. Our closest allies

are our best friends. Hands up, if this is on the issue of coalition,

then I'll take a point from the gentleman at the back row. Then the

guy in the red T-shirt. By saying no to coalitions then would you rather

see another Tory Government than going into a progressive alliance

with Labour and the SNP? I would prefer neither. I would prefer more

Liberal Democrat MPs in the House of Commons. That means we have a

greater chance a a closer relationship with Europe. A greater

chance of Scotland in the United Kingdom and a greater chance to

deliver policies on mental health and edgeindication that we feel very

strongly about. No the terrible choice between either of those, with

the more of us we have, the greater chance of delivering those things.

You are against a coalition deal during the next Parliament, but

you're also against taking part in some kind of so-called progressive

alliance with Labour and others? I couldn't believe Nicola Sturgeon

last night, she was saying that Jeremy Corbyn had no credibility as

a potential Prime Minister but she would put him in as Prime Minister

nonetheless. That's incredibly reckless. It's nothing we will have

anything to do with. The gentleman there. Do you not think you could

achieve some of your aims if you did go into coalition with the

Conservative Government, say for example, the land slide doesn't

happen and they either don't have an overall majority, so this could be

an ideal opportunity for your party to reprove themselves and also

achieve some of the aims and policies that you've got? I think we

can flex our muscles in the House of Commons using the votes we have got.

The more of us there are in the House of Commons, the greater the

chance we have of getting whichever Government it is to do what we want.

That's the influence that we'll exert. Won't voters find this hard

to believe? Because the Liberal Democrats have always stood for

sharing power. You were in coalition with Labour at Holyrood for eight

years. A five-year deal with the Conservatives at Westminster. You

put a Liberal Democrat as a minister in the Welsh Government. If it's

been OK in those occasions in the past, if you had a sniff of power

this time, wouldn't you take it? These were exceptional

circumstances. We are probably the most pro-European of all the parties

that exist in British politics. There's no way that we could go

along with Theresa May and her plans for Brexit. Or Jeremy Corbyn, who

backed her up alongside Ukip. That's not something that we could ever

contemplate. Of course, we're pragmatic, we're reasonable. We form

coalitions in councils across Scotland with various parties. What

we're not prepared to do is go along with those two parties, careering

towards a hard Brexit. It's going to be damaging for our country. I'm

going to take a second question now. If you are against another

independence referendum, why do you campaign for another

Brexit vote? I'm going to ask to unpack this a

bit to take it in two parts if you don't mind. What, first of all, is

the reason for pushing for a second vote on Brexit? Last June, when we

had the referendum campaign, we had slogans on the side of a bus, from

Nigel Farage, telling us ?350 million a week would be coming to

the NHS. That's all we H we didn't have a white paper. We didn't have

the detail. We didn't know what the deal was going to be like when we

came out of Europe. We voted to leave the European Union. We did not

vote on the destination. So for something so monumental, we believe

it should be put back to the British people for them to have the

sign-off. It's either going to be Theresa May and her Conservative

Government, a few people inside round the Cabinet table that are

going to decide whether that deal is good enough or not, and bearing in

mind they'll accept Brexit whatever it is, because they're destined to

leave the European Union - or it should be the British people. I

think the British people should have the right to reject a bad deal.

That's all we're asking. If that vote took place and certainly the

Conservatives and Labour are against that happening, if it were to take

place, and people voted against whatever deal has been negotiated,

what would happen then? The choice in our minds would be between

staying in the European Union or accepting the deal. If people voted

against it, what would happen? We would stay in the European Union. So

effectively it's a rerun of the referendum. It would change the

referendum. The British people would decide. Because we were denied the

detail last year, we should be offered it before we go ahead with

it. The Conservatives are determined to deliver a hard Brexit. I think

the British people should be given that final say rather than Theresa

May I'd be interested to hear thoughts from our audience on that.

Gentleman in the back row. Do you not think it's quite elitist to say

that people didn't know what they were voting for, considering it was

a largely working class vote that wanted to leave? They voted to

leave. I don't deny that. I respect that. But I think it should be more

something so monumental, we should see the detail. That's all I'm

asking. So people are leaving in full knowledge of actually what it

will mean for the Nantes nonce, for jobs -- NHS, for jobs, for the

economy, security. All those things should be laid bear. -- bare. I'd

like to know that everything you're saying there is going completely

against what the SNP have put forward for the referendum on the

freedom of Scotland. You're saying that the British people should

decide about the Brexit again. It was a democratic vote to say to come

out of it, well England was. The thing is that you're turning around

and saying the same thing. You're not letting the British people have

a shot at going for independence again. To be fair to the SNP, three

years ago, they produced a white paper and there was a lot of detail

in it. It was a wee bit repetitive and boring at times, nevertheless, a

white paper, chunky white paper. People knew what they were voting

for when they rejected it. We rejected, in my mind, a bad deal

three years ago. I think we should have the right to reject a bad deal

when the detail is forth coming this time. Should we not be allowed a

right to go back again, if people have changed their minds with things

that have happened recently and go there? Let's deal with that. It was

the other part of the original question, if you are in favour of

another vote on Brexit, why not another vote on Scottish

independence? We decided three years ago, in full knowledge - You know as

well as anybody, circumstances have changed in that we have voted to

leave the European Union. The oil price has plummeted. We have a ?15

billion deficit. We've got economic circumstances which are much worse

in Scotland. We're totering on the edge of an economic recession.

Wouldn't you get a more decisive result for the union in those

circumstances? How many times are we going over and over this? Three

years ago, we decisively decided to reject the SNP's proposition on

independence. We've rejected that deal. We need to get on. If you had

nothing - if the referendum in 2014 didn't settle it and you are more

confident, it seems, of the case for the UK now than you perhaps even

were then, what have you got to fear? I'm against independence. We

Democratically decided. The opinion polls show that people in Scotland

don't want another independence referendum. One of the critical

things here is that last time round, the number of people I met who had

fallen out with brothers, sisters, friends, neighbours over this issue.

It caused huge division. Putting aside the economic uncertainty that

was created, it caused huge personal diviegss. I -- divisions. I don't

want to go through that again. We should reject the SNP's plan for a

devicive referendum and that's what you get with the Liberal Democrats.

I will come back to the audience, the gentleman in the back row with

glasses. Then the gentleman in front of him. You said that we

Democratically rejected independence in 2014, so you're saying it's

undemocratic that the Scottish Parliament this year passed a vote

to give permission for a second independence referendum? Well, the

Parliament has got a majority of SNP Parliament has got a majority of SNP

- Is that undemocratic then? They have a majority of SNP and green

msps. They were elected. I wasn't surprised they did that. What they

need to recognise is that the Scottish people don't want this. We

don't want to go back into the division. This election is an

opportunity to say clearly we do not want more division. We do not want

another divisive independence referendum. The seats across

Scotland, where the Liberal Democrats are challenging the SNP,

that's the choice that people have got. Actually you say that, you put

out a statement yesterday saying you were the party, your party was the

spearhead against independence. But actually, there are people in the

Liberal Democrats who support independence and are sympathetic to

the idea of an independence referendum. Mark Littlewood, former

press spokesperson - Really Mark Littlewood. He's been well gone from

the party for a long time. He's one of the most right-wing commentators

you could find. He says things have changed. It's a sensible reason to

revisit. Nick Clegg, former Deputy Prime Minister talked about

independence, there be a more compelling case for independence

given the result of the Brexit vote. I don't know what quotes you're

taking. That's not the quotes I have. Christopher Wilson, the youth

activist, at your party conference, who said on independence he was a no

supporter in 2014, then he saw was happened in the Brexit vote and

changed his mind. You would be able to pick out one or

two members. You can pick out one or to members within any political

party who are sympathetic towards independence. The Liberal Democrats

are against another independence referendum. I have said that very

clearly. Very brief contributions from the two people I invited. I

don't understand how you can say it is undemocratic. Scottish MSPs are

elected by proportional representation. Surely that is more

democratic and representative? You still got the result you do not

want. I got a mandate last year in the Scottish Parliament elections to

oppose another independence referendum whenever I have the

opportunity to do so. That is exactly what I am doing. I'm going

to let that be the last word. I am running out of time. Another

question now. Our third question of the evening. It comes from Andrew

McDonald, who is not with us in the studio audience this evening. He

asks, should we aim to keep our taxes are with the rest of the UK to

avoid the risk of wealth creators moving south? I think the main

objective for the Scottish Parliament should be to decide what

is best for Scotland one of the biggest challenges we have is

getting the Scottish education system back up to the best it can be

full to it used to be one of the best and it has now been judged as

just average was that is why we are saying we should have a

transformational investment in education. It is confusing. Let me

explain you are talking big your policy for the Scottish Parliament

and this is a UK general election for the question at the outset was

about a principle. Should we keep taxes aligned in Scotland with that?

This transformational investment will be for nurseries, schools and

colleges where investment is required. Nursery education is one

of the best educational investments you can possibly make in young

people from two to four years old for that I think that investment is

worthwhile, even if it is different for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Scotland deserves an education system it can be proud of once

again. Absolutely we should be pursuing that policy, even if it is

different from the rest of the UK. In terms of the UK position, you go

into the election proposing to put a penny on income tax at UK level.

What impact would that have on the Holyrood budget? It is two separate

pens. A penny for the rest of the United Kingdom which has been

proposed by Tim Farron and then a penny for Scotland we have been

arguing for. I'm hoping to persuade the Scottish Parliament to accept

that as part of the next budget. The penny at the UK level is to spend on

health and social care, presumably south of the border. Would a sheriff

that come to Scotland? Through income tax, ?30 million would come

north of the border. That is still deserved. That would be invested in

mental health services to have a step change because mental health

services are not good enough. With the penny that is proposed at UK

level, what net impact would that have on the Holyrood budget? Would

it go up or down? Apart from the 35mm handle so, it would have no

other effect. The extra money would go towards mental health. -- the ?35

million or so goes up there are other taxes, like corporation tax,

which would apply across the United Kingdom. The extra revenues are

there would be a Barnett Formula share for those. There are English,

Welsh and Northern Irish and that would stay in those areas but we

would not get a Barnett Formula consequential from that. A penny

north of the border is what we are proposing. What happens if the penny

goes on at the UK level question of what should happen in Scotland? ?35

million extra to be invested. I can go through how the Barnett Formula

works will dub it is ?35 billion extra a year that would go on mental

health services. I come across an awful lot of people who are crying

out for proper mental health support. There was a young mother

the other day who told me about her daughter, who went to accident and

emergency over the weekend and was sent home and told to see the GP on

a Monday morning but no follow up support, no extra support which the

family needed. That money would go into that we could have the change.

Your priority, I thought, in raising tax in Scotland, was to spend on

education above all else. The ?500 million would go towards education

because Scottish education is stopping that. Though be a change in

two sectors, mental health and education as a result of that. If

the liberal democrats say extra is being paid, how much? If we get ?500

million, we would be able to invest. How much I would income tax have to

be? 1p. There was a hands up in the audience. Lady in the front row and

a gentleman behind with the glasses. Thank you. Put more money in mental

health is what you are saying. We don't want Apple to loads of money

is going into mental health. It is not providing a service. It is

making lawyers rich and the drugs companies buried rich and powerful.

There are no human rights in mental health. -- very rich. It is creating

a problem. You are paying lawyers to keep people locked up, drugged up

and beaten up with no human rights. Not even the right to live. 78

people year die in hospitals in Scotland from forced treatment which

the UN is saying is illegal. The Scotland act says it has to be human

right is compatible. The Mental Health Act so she can fall treat

someone who is perfectly capable of saying no to drugs. Let's get a

response to that. The human rights aspects are incredibly important. We

can discuss afterwards about the particular cases you are concerned

about. Of course human rights is a concern. What you need to recognise

is that mental health services in Scotland are way below par. People

are waiting up to two years. Waiting up to two years to get mental health

treatment. It is not satisfactory. I disagree with you about how much

money is going into mental health because it is not enough. The SNP

mental health strategy was 15 months late. It used to be world leading.

It is now 15 months behind schedule and money was left unspent. Mental

health is a matter for the Holyrood parliament. We have six minutes

left. Want to bring in the gentleman in the middle. That extra penny you

talk about, would that have an effect on an ordinary person's pay?

We would raise the tax thresholds so the personal allowance has gone up

to about ?12,500. It takes a whole load of people out of tax

altogether. It puts money back into people's pockets because of that. We

can actually increase the income tax by 1p and actually protect low

earners. That is the beauty of what we did when we were in government.

You can now make that transformational investment in

education which we need. Another question in the last five

minutes. It comes from Stuart in Glasgow. In their wake of the recent

attacks at Westminster, what measures do you think should be

taken to maintain national-security? There are a number of different

measures. We need the Prevent strategy to be scrapped. There are

problems in engaging disaffected communities will stop there is huge

distrust in that strategy. It needs to be community led. We need to make

sure community services have the money they need to be able to tackle

terrorism. We need to make sure the Scottish police force gets the extra

investment it requires. We have set aside money as part of a costed

proposal. The final one is international aid which may be

counter intuitive. We need to invest in countries abroad with our big,

international aid budget to try to prevent terrorism happening before

it even starts for that dealing with the route conditions is

comprehensive and rounded strategy for dealing with terrorism. Does it

still makes sense to rollback states of valence powers? We have an

extensive number of CCTV cameras around the country. It did not

identify the bomber in Manchester. We need to protect the freedoms we

cherish in this country and the terrorists hate. That is why they

attacked us. If we can constantly improve and increase the valence

across the country, or we are doing is undermining the freedoms we

already have. These are developed online. Shouldn't the security

service have greater access? There needs to be made sure that the state

does not impinge on freedoms. I think it protects our freedoms and

our security as well stop gentleman in the front row. On Friday, the man

at the Manchester Central Mosque, when he was addressing the

congregation, he said he thought the country, to defeat terrorism, they

should be united and no tolerance. Do you think the media has a role to

play in the way they portray terrorists in the aftermath of these

kind of attacks? To think they are glorifying the acts? -- do you

think? I think the media has got to be responsible. These events are

pretty horrific, as well. I think people want to know what impact it

has had on an individual's rights. I think the media by and large get it

right but sometimes they get it wrong. They are sensitive. They want

to tell the story in a sympathetic way. People have a right to know

what happens. You have to make sure it is sensitive to people's feelings

and beliefs. Our biggest allies in all of this are the good people in

the mosques. I was in a mosque last Thursday. There were desperate to

help the wider community. It is their problem as much as our problem

and they want to eradicate terrorism from this country. We almost at the

end of our time I wanted to finish by looking at some of the campaign

images you have brought in recent times. From last year, it was Willie

Rennie and the peaks. More recently, we have had Willie Rennie and I

think it is a ram. Only this weekend, Willie Rennie and a pair of

alpacas. What is it with you and animals? Everybody likes animals.

They are all pretty. The ram was Rambus duress. The Packers, somebody

said it would be an alpacalypse if the Liberal Democrats got into

power. Elections can be very dry and dusty. We need more fun in election

campaigns. It has been great fun having you here as our first leader

in this series will hear from Kezia Dugdale on Tuesday. It is the turn

of Ruth Davidson on Thursday. Thank you for watching.