01/02/2017 Politics Scotland

Good aternoon and welcome to Politics Scotland.

Schools are finding out how much money they'll get

And here at Westminster, MPs continue their debate on Brexit,

ahead of a crucial vote this evening on triggering Article 50.

The UK government's White Paper on Brexit is due to be

The Prime Minister made the announcement during

Tonight, MPs will be voting on the legislation allowing the UK

Government to trigger Article 50, which will formally start

the process of leaving the European Union.

The Bill is expected to be approved, despite opposition from the SNP,

some Labour MPs and the Liberal Democrats.

Let's cross to Westminster and our Correspondent David Porter.

David, is this still a live issue? Is there a heated debate is this a

formality that this goes through? There is still a lot of passion

going on in the debate. There are big hitters taking part this

afternoon, Ed Miliband, former Labour leader, George Osborne for

the Conservatives, and Alex Salmond, who has accused MPs of succumbing to

something he has called mad MPs' disease, with the whole idea of

wanting to go forward with Brexit. We had 12 hours of debate yesterday,

and it was incredibly impassioned at times. They will continue until 7pm

today when they will vote for the first time, on an amendment put

forward by the SNP which seeks to wreck the legislation and stop it

going through. The SNP argument is that there has not been enough

consultation by the UK Government with the devolved administrations,

and therefore the legislation to give the UK Government the power to

trick Article 50 should not go ahead. They will get support from

Labour MPs on that one, between 30 and 50 Labour MPs who may rebel

against their party on that. The maths is stacking up very much in

favour of the UK Government, and UK Government ministers are all pretty

relaxed about the way it will go tonight. The obvious exception of

Ken Clarke, there doesn't seem to be... It's not that there is not

despite this -- this fat -- dissatisfaction on the Tory benches,

it is just that they've mostly one vote against it. People on the Tory

benches have decided to hold their fire. They know they would not win

and what they are seeking to do is perhaps as the full Brexit process

and the negotiations go ahead, to try and seek that they will get more

concessions from Theresa May and the UK Government on that one. They have

totted up the sums and they know they cannot win, so they will keep

their powder dry, so to speak. What about labour, does what you

mentioned count as a revolt against Jeremy Corbyn or is it not quite

enough to be that? We need to wait and see the figures. Anything north

of 30 people voting against the Labour leadership tonight will be

regarded as a bit of a revolt. Last week, Jeremy Corbyn said there would

be a three line whip on this, an instruction to his MPs that they

will vote for the triggering of Article 50. When we're talking about

Europe in Westminster, we're used to talk about -- talking about

Conservative splits. It will be interesting to see the size of the

Labour rebellion, if indeed it is, or if a lot of Labour MPs decide to

rebel. The problem for Labour is that in Labour areas, many

constituents voted for Brexit, so their MPs will have to reflect that.

Other Labour MPs, such as labourer -- Labour's in MP in Scotland, said

that his constituency voted very much in favour of remaining within

the EU and that is why he will vote against the legislation tonight. We

will join you again, David. Thanks for now.

Scottish headteachers have been hearing how much they'll get

from a special government fund to help children from poorer

They'll get about ?1,200 for every child who's known to be

Nationally, the scheme's worth ?120 million.

Here's our education correspondent Jamie McIvor.

Remember when you get your board done, what do you shall? Mitt-mac

this school cover some of the most disadvantaged parts of Glasgow and

has been praised for its good work, but now it is set to get more money

than any other primary school in the country from a new Government fund,

almost ?280,000. It will be up to the headteacher at this -- to decide

how to use it. We will need to sit down as a community of the parents,

staff myself and our partners that we were left to make sure we are

spending this money responsibly. Dalmarnock primary may spend some

cash extending this scheme. Children can come in early Sundays for

exercise and breakfast, which helps improve performance. Crucially, the

Government wants this to be extra money to add to the cash councils

spend on education. I want to work with local authorities to ensure we

deliver the best opportunities for young people in Scottish education.

The Government is putting ?120 million of resources out of

Government expenditure directly into the schools of Scotland to support

the efforts that were put in place to close the attainment gap. This

school thinks it's had a windfall, others will get relatively modest

amount or may get nothing at all. Overall council budgets are under

huge pressure. Teachers' unions will want to make sure councils don't now

cap their existing spending on education. The very idea of the

Government giving money directly to headteachers has annoyed some in

council chambers. Jamie McIvor joins me now. Jamie, if this money is

all-new, then why is there so much fuss about it? Well, new, extra is

the keyword. The Government wants to make sure this is extra money for

headteachers to spend on new, additional things. It is to

complement and enhance the cash spent by councils, but of course,

council budgets are under intense pressure, Gordon, so you can be sure

that teachers' unions will watch like hawks to make sure councils

don't trim their existing education budgets, leaving heads spending this

money on things they were already doing. I touched on council budgets

there, councils are unhappy that they are being given less money by

Government for ongoing spending commitments, so some aren't too

pleased about this ring fenced funding which has to go to heads,

and that is the reason they are not so pleased about it. Of course, the

Government is consulting just know one school governance. Some councils

have a concern that the role in the education system could be weakened

or undermined, so in that sense, they view this cash through that

particular prism. To be clear, as long as this is extra cash, it is

broadly welcomed within education itself, and that is separate to the

debate on just what the role of Council should be on the education

system, and what powers headteachers should have. Jamie, thanks for that.

In the studio with me this week is the political

Hamish, am I wrong in this? A lot of parents will then, we couldn't care

less what the local authority role is, we just want more money for our

children? Yellow like I think there is a big difference here. If you ask

the parent of any child in the country, where would they like to

see the money go for their school? They say they would like the

headteacher to have it because they are in the best position to decide

where that money goes to. It is also worth remembering where that money

comes from. For years, this has been a UK Conservative policy of giving

more and more money and control to headteachers, cutting out the local

authority. The SNP have come late to this, I think because they have

decided is the only way to really drive up attainment, which is the

thing they say they want to be judged on.

It is worth marking that this is a break. Since devolution, there has

been great resistance to this. It was lumped in with, we don't want

league tables, and all the rest of it. To be fair to John Swinney, he

has been waving his arms around, signalling he would do this for

months, but it is still a departure. , It is, and local authorities see

it as the thin end of the wedge. If you give a little money to some

headteachers, you have started down that road of giving local autonomy

to schools, and you could keep on going in that direction and cut the

local authorities are almost completely. Which has implications,

because for those of eyes with memories of prehistoric times,

remember the Concord act with local Government, meaning they would not

bring fenced money is? They said, we are not ring fencing it, we're just

not giving you it at all. What are the local authorities there for? Why

not give more and more money to the schools, some people might argue,

and that is what councils are really worried about. Again, this is a

policy copyrighted by Tony Blair in the 1990s, isn't it? It is, and

pursued by other Conservative governments since then. The other

side is, tell me if I'm wrong, from my reading of it, headteachers get

the money, but the money doesn't have to be spent specifically,

although the criterion for getting it is the number of children who get

free school meals, the money does not have to be spent specifically on

them, firstly. And secondly, they are not being told what exactly it

is they need to do, so whether or not this actually achieved the

measure of reducing the attainment gap is up in the air, isn't it? On

that general point of raising the attainment gap, Nicola Sturgeon has

staked how Government's reputation on it. Whether something like this

or the other things they are doing will have the effect that is desired

within the short time frame that we have before the next election I

think is very much open to doubt. As far as giving money to schools is

concerned, this is probably the fairest way of doing it. If you want

to give extra money to schools that have a bigger proportion of children

from deprived areas, giving it to schools that have the highest number

of children on free school meals is probably the fairest way to do it.

Then again, as you say, what the headteachers do with it is entirely

up to them, but then they have three or four years to try and find some

change to those results and everyone will wait to see if that happens. It

feels like pushing a bit of string to say that this is going to close

the attainment gap. It does. The attainment gap is something that no

one knows whether we'll be -- whether it will be changed in the

next two years. I doubt it. Time now to cross to the Chamber

at Holyrood, where there's a statement from the Minister

for Legal Affairs, Annabelle Ewing, who's announcing the start

of an independent review At the outset, I would wish to draw

attention to my entry in the register of interests, where they

will find that I am a solicitor by profession, that I hold a current

practising certificate, albeit I am not currently practising. I would

like to inform Parliament today of action this Government is taking in

respect of the legal aid system in Scotland. In the programme for

Government, we made a commitment to commence engagement this year with

the legal profession and others to identify specific measures to reform

Scotland's system of legal aid, maintaining access to public funding

for legal advice and representation in both civil and criminal cases,

alongside measures to expand access to alternative methods of resolving

disputes. Presiding Officer, publicly funded legal assistance

plays an absolutely vital role in providing citizens with the ability

to enforce their rights and in upholding social justice. In

Scotland, we have maintained wide access to legal assistance are

across civil and criminal cases, notwithstanding budgetary pressures.

We have a demand led system with a high eligibility rate, meaning that

all who apply and are eligible will receive publicly funded legal

assistance. The system is founded on the legal aid Scotland act 1986, a

statute that predates revolution, human rights legislation and other

major reforms to the Justice system and which is now over 30 years old.

It has been appropriately subject to 30 years of updating to ensure that

it reflects current needs, both in human rights terms and to meet the

social justice ambitions of Government. Legal aid adjustments

are a regular feature of the Justice committee workload, and I would like

to thank members of that committee, past and present, for their

engagement, and in ensuring that we will maintain a strongly delayed

system. However, as a result, we have a complex

web of regulations that can be difficult, even for seasoned legal

practitioners, to navigate at times. The commitment in the programme for

Government reflects our view that the time is right to review the

legal aid system in Scotland with a view to taking forward a programme

of future reforms. As I mentioned, publicly funded legal assistance is

an important aspect of improving lives and tackling inequalities.

There are a range of perspectives on how the legal aid system might be

improved for those that need this public service, and for those who

deliver it. Therefore, I think it is important that the wide range of

interests in the legal aid system play a part in shaping future

reforms. I therefore intend to establish an independent review

group to consider the legal aid system in 21st-century Scotland and

how best to respond to the changing justice, social, economic, business

and technological landscape within which a modern and flexible legal

aid system should operate. Indeed, the programme of justice reform in

Scotland in the last few years has been significant and is shaping a

much more modern and progressive civil and criminal justice system.

Importantly, this includes a greater focus on the needs of individuals

engaging with the justice system. Hence, the legal aid system must

keep pace with the reforms and developments in the justice sector.

So, a review of legal aid is timely, and I note that the Law Society of

Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates are supportive of a review

being taken forward. I note also that some of the parties represented

here today also had a manifesto commitment to look at our system of

legal aid, so I hope that our planned review will be welcomed by

members across this chamber today. The Scottish Government says it

will press the American president to reconsider his controversial

travel ban, directly and indirectly. Speaking to MSPs at

Holyrood yesterday, the External Affairs Secretary,

Fiona Hyslop, said she had already asked the UK Government to make

representations to the US Government, on the implications

of the restrictions here. That bans people from a number of

Muslim majority countries from entering the US, on Sunday I wrote

to the Foreign Secretary urging him to make the strongest reputation to

the US Government about the effect the order will have on people who

live, work and study here, the minister raised the issue with the

PM when he met at the committee in Cardiff yesterday. I have yet to

receive a reply but there has been communication at a official level.

The Foreign Secretary made a statement yesterday saying the UK

has secured an exemption to the ban for UK passport holders, including

dual nationals, it does not go nearly far enough. We know from

cases such as that of a vet studying at the University of Glasgow the ban

may affect some who work and study in Scotland. We are concerned about

confusion about how this ban applies and I am seeking clarification, more

broadly, the imposition of a blanket ban on people on the basis of their

birthplace, nationality or ridge, in the -- religion is counter

productive and morally wrong. It risks exacerbating tensions between

communities. It will undermine much of the work the global community has

been doing to tackle streamy. The the US has welcomed people from

other countries earthquake especially those fleeing

persecution, we will press the US government directly to reconsider

this action and adopt an approach that reflects the values of

tolerance, diversity and human rights and would seek the support of

the chamber in doing so. I thank the Cabinet secretary for

that full reply and look forward to further reflies o ereplies from

ministers such as the Foreign Secretary and the minister in

Secretary and the minister in Westminster.

Joining me now is Professor Christopher Carman,

who's the Stevenson Professor of Citizenship at University

of Glasgow, and Robina Qureshi, who's director of Positive Action

in Housing - the homelessness refugee and migrant charity.

Chris, you think there is a bit less slap dashry going on here than meets

the eye when it comes to Trump's executive orders. I there is a bit

of slap dashry, there is is a bit of making it up as they go, I think we

could look at this and say this is their campaign strategy they have

morphed into their governing strategy. Whenever Trump started to

get into hot water, they quickly almost manufactured another story,

that they could then jump to, in a way forcing the 24 hours media

cycles to move on to the NEC story, instead of getting to the meat of

any particular story, moving on to try to keep up. So if we look at

what has happen been happening lately. The stream court nomination

was originally scheduled for Thursday of this week. With the

immigration ban, whatever we want to call it, going into effect in the

protest round the US, they have for some reason moved up the nomination

of the Supreme Court justice, so we see this sort of manufacturing one

story and going from another, they have gone from one what has been

called executive orders to another, to another and nobody has been able

to get down into the meat of any of these. What is your sense about

these huge demonstrations, we have seen in America, against the

immigration orders? I mean does that mean start a protest against Trump

or will Trump, will he be thinking great, that will play, if anything

perhaps increase the support in middle America? It could well

embolden Trump, it could well, he could play off that saying look, I

am doing what I said I would do, and these are the people who, the sort

of elites or the people on the left, they have been getting too much and

I am standing up for the common people, for the regular Americans,

out there, so I could see how this could embolden him, he is, with

every one of the announcements he is saying I am fulfilling my pledges

and promises. This point about fulfilling his promises, people here

might disagree with the substance of what Mr Trump is proposing,

President Trump is proposing but he can plausibly say not just that he

is fulfilling his election pledges but it is a watered-down version of

his pledges. You are referring to? The immigration orders. Well, just

to give you an example of where we have, let us look at this in the

context, you and I are sat here, we are probably born here both in this

country, we have British passports, and you can travel to America, but I

would not dare not travel, because I am a Muslim. That is the context we

are here. Something frightening is happening across the UK... Why would

not not dare travel to America, are you 56 effected by this? It is down

to a Muslim ban, a refugee ban, and what is happening across... I want

to be clear, hang on, I want to be clear about this, are you saying you

wouldn't want to travel to the United States yuelds feel

uncomfortable? Muslim nose we are going to be harassed if we take

flights to America. It is a Muslim ban, we are potentially terroristers

doesn't matter where we come from, the seven nations or UK, or France

or anywhere else in Europe. The fact is America the most powerful country

in the world has elected a fascist, what we have is a British Prime

Minister, acting like a cut price poodle to the President of the

United States, and not having the moral courage to stand up to that,

but instead saying that the Muslim ban is not our problem. This is

where we are, this has echoes of the 1930s, we should know the conthe

tenting, we the British Prime Minister doesn't seem to know that,

they won't stand up to what is going on. Do you think they should not

invite Mr Trump for a state visit? Absolutely. When Britain is talking

about up holding freedom and democracy they have to stop and have

to put a stop to any state visit by this man, and the commentary and the

rhetoric, the fear ridden rhetoric he is coming out with. We have had

state visit from a whole lot of people, like Vladimir Putin.

Holocaust... The President of China The Holocaust memorial has just

happened a few days ago, where we said never again. This is the

refrain constantly. This is the road to fascism. It happened to the dues

and now Muslim, you can look at it, he is talking about building a wall,

it is not just about building a wall. He is the apex of this, this

has been going on for decade, this has been going on and he has built

and the Prime Ministers and Presidents before him have built

walls in people's hearts. When Farage is talking about stopping,

protecting our borders, regarding refugees, what is he saying? He is

saying refugees... I am curious, why is it OK to have the President of

China on a state visit but not the newly-elected President of the

United States? I would argue it isn't correct. I would say what is

insidious is you have the British Prime Minister, agenting like a

poodle, to the US President, and kowtowing to him as she did. It was

embarrassing, she had no moral courage to stand up and say what you

are doing is wrong to discriminate and creating fear. We will put

millions out, across the UK, and Europe, we will put millions out to

stop that state visit to send out a signal to the rest of the world that

this is not acceptable behaviour, or rhetoric or conversation. How is

this, how is the British aspect of this seen in the United States? I

mean, not, did Theresa May's visit, was that a big story this? It was a

bit of a story, certainly, any time that anything connected with the UK,

obviously, does get media coverage in the US, and it was a, the fact

that you have a visiting head of state, come, she gave that talk to

the Republican retreat which was very well received apparently by

Republican, so it, her visit did receive coverage, perhaps not

extensive coverage one might otherwise think but certainly she

was well regarded. There is a Brexit connection here, isn't there. Yes.

That Theresa May is perhaps more reliant on relations than the United

States. I don't know whether she would choose to be that or not. But

more than she would choose to be because Brex is not giving her a lot

of options. Yes, why the state visit? We can go back to this. Why

was the invitation issued far earlier than it usually would be

within a President's term of office. If we look back at the last few US

President, it was well into their administration, at least half way

through if not furtherment so this is quite early for the issuing of a

state visit as opposed to official visit. You can see what Rubina means

when she says it looks like Britain is acting like a poodle to the US,

this is unusually quick. You can imagine going back to your Brexit

idea, this really is then Theresa May trying to make sure that sort of

in the good graces of Trump, around the idea of the trade negotiations

that are going to be forthcoming. I know you are not a lawyer, I don't

expect a legally watertightance to this question, the other thing that

Trump said about giving preferential treatment to example to Christians

from Syria, is that constitutional? This is the big question. And we

would expect that will make it through the courts so we have seen

at lower level courts, a stay of the ban as it were, and this will make

it up through to the Supreme Court, which has implications for the

nomination that we just saw last night, but... Just on the face of

it, saying the United States, the land of the free, will base its

immigration policy on discriminating against people because of their

religion doesn't sound constitutional to me. The US

Government cannot establish a state religion. Exactly. There is a

separation of estate more than here. Many have argued that signalling out

a particular group, and this is where the stay came from, because

the intent of Trump seems to be a ban of a particular religion, there

are this could be seen as the US establishing a religion state

ridgen, therefore it could be seen as being unconstitutional. You

presumably agree with that, I mean whether or not people agree with

your, I mean, one understands how you might feel uncomfortable going

to the US, certainly, if it does become official, you would almost

officially be discriminated against, wouldn't you. If there was official

policy. Foo people have fear in our heart, we are being terrorised.

People are scared. It isn't just about individuals. This right as

cross, sweeping across Europe and Britain. When you have the President

of the United States coming out with rhetoric, this is the man that in

Scotland terrorised a 92-year-old woman for four years and cut off her

water for four year, what did the Scottish Government do about it?

Nothing. They never stood up for her. She had no water for four years

so he could build his golf course and try and drive her off her land.

This is what you are dealing this. This. This is someone who is a

malignant narcissist and is happy for his name to be mentioned 24/7.

We will have to leave it there. Thank you.

Now, let's speak to some MSPs at Holyrood.

I'm joined by Ivan McKee for the SNP, for the Conservatives

it's Liz Smith, Mark Griffin from Scottish Labour, Patrick Harvie

for the Scottish Green Party, and Alex Cole-Hamilton

Look, as we have got this full range of you, let's start by talking a bit

about the budget, have you done a deal yet Patrick Harvie? Well are --

we are making a strong case to the Scottish Government, as we have done

persistently that not only sit vital that we protect public service,

public services that all of us depend on every day but that is also

possible do that fairly with the tax powers that are available to the

Scottish Parliament. We are making that case. Let us cut to the quick,

you are insisting that you won't or are you insisting that you won't

vote for the Scottish budget unless they put taxes up? To be honest, I

think we are the only political party that is being constructive and

persistent in this process. There is going to be no budget if we can't

get agreement across the chamber and a majority support for a budget. We

put forward a range of ways in which we can... So let me ask you directly

can you imagine a situation where taxes do not go up, but you vote for

the budget? If parties dug their feet in, and said, my way or the

high way, then the whole thing would Faulks and we would start the see

emergency cuts happening in public services. I am not willing to see

that happen but I am entirely determined to put pressure on the

Scottish Government to give ground on the position it has taken so far.

Right. How things change, because your insistence of a few days ago

The Greens would not go for the budget unless taxes wept up seems to

be a thing of distant past? I want to see where we can get to

tomorrow with progressive tax increases. I think all five of us,

on high incomes, can afford to pay more tax, and I am making that case

strongly as I can to the Scottish Government. But it is not your

condition any longer. It is to protect the public services we all

depend on, because cutting those will have a terrible impact on

policy, -- poverty, equality. It is vital we achieve these things and I

am making every effort to achieve them. Alex Cole Hamilton, you will

have to make a deal with the Government because Patrick will do

one before you get the chance. I don't think things look good for a

deal between the SNP and the Lib Dems. We have been in constructive

talks with the Government because after a year of telling them to get

on with their day job and look at public services, put aside

independence, that we have an opportunity to talk to them about

making that work with the budget. What we are asking for is a seismic

investment in mental health, spending on child and adolescent

mental health... Let me put it to you bluntly, there was a suggestion

at the weekend that the Lib Dems would find it difficult to support

the budget because you would be propping up a Government in favour

of an independence referendum, whereas the Greens would find it

difficult to vote it down because they would be bringing down a

Government committed to an independence referendum. Is the lead

in the -- the Lib Dem bit of that through? We have been resolutely

clear that the Lib Dems are utterly oppose a second independence

referendum, but I don't think the distances to grate on the issue of

mental health, college funding, pupil premium, investing in giving

the poorest and most deprived students the best chance in life.

This is where the SNP are going to have to look to that

pro-independence majority. You heard it here first. It sounds like things

are warming up in that relationship, but I think it will be a distance

too far to travel for the Lib Dems. Ivan McKee, do you feel particularly

warm and friendly towards Patrick Harvie, given what he just said? We

are in the position where the SNP Government was elected on its

manifesto but we don't have a majority, and of course, we

understand that we need to talk with other parties. Hang on, let's cut to

the quick. The point was, you weren't prepared to raise taxes, and

by the sound of what Patrick Harvie is saying, you don't need to.

Theresa I am saying that discussions are ongoing and these things are

moving by the hour, and I am not party to those negotiations. Finance

Secretary Mackay is involved in talking to other parties as we

speak. We are being constructive and we understand we need to do a deal

with another party. As I say, there are a number of things on the table

being talked about and I am not party to all the details, but we are

approaching this in the correct spirit, understanding that we need

to do a deal with someone else to get this budget through, which is

very important to the people of Scotland.

Liz Smith, I won't ask about the budget, because you hate it! The

money to close the attainment gap, ?120 million, new money, that is

good, isn't it? Yes, and we are supportive in principle. We are

particularly delighted that there will be a move to devolve power to

spend that money down to schools. We have a slight concern that it is not

necessarily money that will follow the child every time, but I think

what has been announced this afternoon is very much a step in the

right direction. Why do you say it will not follow the Child? We were

talking about this earlier, is it because headteachers are not being

told to spend the extra money on the particular children that qualify

them to get it, is that the problem? It is not a significant problem, it

is the fact that if you have a fund that is disbursed to the

headteacher, then there is a facility for that headteacher to

spend it as they want. It does not necessarily involve every child who

is eligible, and we would prefer to see a formula more likely pupil

premium that is operated successfully down south. What do you

make of this? The Labour Party were one of the driving forces of this in

the previous parliament, but we are looking at ?120 million to schools

at the same time as the schools budget is being cut by ?327 million.

In my own area, North Lanarkshire Council are getting almost ?9

million while at the same time the budget is being cut by ?23 million,

so it is hard to see how this will make an impact on local education.

Hang on, are you saying the local authority budget is being cut by ?23

million? In North Lanarkshire, the budget is being cut by ?23 million.

They can spend what they like on education. But when the budget is

being cut by ?23 million, it is inevitable that some of those

savings will fall on education, given that it is the biggest area of

spending. For the Government to give out ?120 million on one hand and

claw back ?327 million on the other, I think it is another act of spin by

this Government. If they want to support reducing the attainment gap,

they should reverse that cut and invest the ?120 million to close

that attainment gap. We have given costed methods of doing that, by

increasing the very top rate of tax. Patrick Harvie, everyone seems to

think more money for schools is a good idea, but I suppose the

question here is, Headteachers are not being mandated what to do with

the money, so the connection between spending the money and actually

closing the attainment gap remains to be demonstrated, doesn't it? I

think that point is very enough. We also have a concern that we don't

want teachers and head teachers to become principally financial

managers when they are supposed to be leaders of a learning community,

and I do have a concern about this notion of pushing spending decisions

down to school level. But Mark is right to a certain extent - this is

not just the context of the wider local Government funding, which is

why we are so committed to ensuring that we invest in public services

locally, but it is also about the inequality in our society. We cannot

imagine that the attainment gap is suddenly going to be blown away

overnight simply be because we put in a bit of extra money to schools.

We have to look at the poverty and inequality in our society, and why

that drives the inequality in educational attainment. Even if you

did do that, you are talking 20, 30 years. Nicola Sturgeon has staked

her first ministership on doing something about this. She doesn't

have 30 years. Any party that is serious about this recognises that

we will only make progress if we commit substantially for the long

term in the things that close the inequality gap in our society, as

well as changing the way that schools attempt to close the

attainment gap in the short term. Both of them unnecessary. It is not

either or. Patrick, they had just given you about half of what you

wanted to do in your own budget. This is a long way from what we want

from the pupil premium or the attainment fun. ?120 million of new

money... We want an extra ?70 million on top of that to bring us

into par with what is being spent on the pupil premium in England. We

have seen the attainment gap close by as much as 5% just in five years,

so we are lagging behind England, something the SNP are never

comfortable doing, so in our budget negotiations, in order to just get

to the races, let's bring us in line with English spending, and an

additional ?70 million on top of what has been pledged today. Ivan

McKee, if we can swing background to you. There you go, a quick view of

everybody. The problem you have got is that everyone seems to welcome

this money, whether or not it goes directly to Headteachers, but it is

this problem the SNP have - you have got to actually reduce the gap in

educational attainment, not just put money into hoping it will happen.

Absolutely, we are the Government and we have to deliver on that. Over

the course of the parliament, we are putting ?750 million into that fund.

Interesting to hear Liz Smith welcoming it while at the same time

the Tories are arguing that they don't want to pay tax for it. You

also have to remember that the attainment fund will only go through

if this budget goes through, so it is important that parties are

constructive to get this through and get that money to schools. Thank you

all very much indeed for joining us. An extra large Kast of all the

parties in the Scottish parliament. Hamish McDonell is still with me.

That is the issue, if you leave aside the stuff about local

authorities and who should get the money, it is how you actually do

this. Ivan McKee has accepted, they have to do this and demonstrate

this. As we get towards the next election, this political priority of

raising the attainment gap, or closing it, will become more and

more important, because that is the thing which Nicola Sturgeon has

said, judge me, on. Every political party and journalists will be

looking at all the figures to try and see whether she has done it,

because if the attainment gap is not closed to any significant extent by

the next election, she will buy her own admission have failed. I have to

admit, what slightly surprised me was that John Swinney said on the

Sunday Politics a few months ago that there would be a range of

measures by which they would be judged, not just on how the gap

between attainment from pupils at a particular primary school, but on

the overall figures of how many people from lower income backgrounds

are getting into university. The point about this that we should

emphasise is, it is a bit like how you change a Government deficit, it

is a residual land is by nature difficult to target. Attainment gaps

are a bit like that as well. You can boost performance in some schools,

but measuring the gap, getting it down, is more difficult. That's

right. They might be able to achieve one or two but will be achieve all

of them? If you look at Labour over the last few months, any time there

are any university figures that come out, Labour looks at them and says,

look, the attainment gap for universities, for people getting in,

is widening. The SNP Government may child it -- achieve it in primary

and secondary schools, but if they do not achieve it at university

level, they will be judged to have failed. The attainment gap may well

close, but whether it closes enough on all areas by the next election,

that is a big ask. Don't go away, Hamish.

Now, to this week's Prime Minister's Questions where,

as we've been hearing, Theresa May announced the UK

Government's White Paper on Brexit would be published tomorrow.

But Brexit was not Jeremy Corbyn's priority this week.

He instead focused all his questions on the US president, Donald Trump.

Among them, he asked the Prime Minister whether she had

advance notice of the US president's travel ban when she visited him.

Mr Speaker, Downing Street has not denied that the Prime Minister was

told by the White House that the executive order on travel to the US

was imminent, so let's be clear - was the Prime Minister told about

the ban during her visit, and did she persuade -- try to persuade

President Trump otherwise? First of all, on the policy that President

Trump has introduced, this Government is clear that that policy

is wrong. We wouldn't do it, as Home Secretary for six years, we never

introduced such a policy. We believe it is divisive and wrong. If he is

asking whether I had advance notice of the ban on refugees, the answer

is no. If he is asking if I had advanced notice that the executive

order could affect British citizens, the answer is no. If he's asking if

I had advance notice of the travel restrictions, the answer is, we all

did, because President Trump said he was going to do this in his election

campaign. We on these benches very much welcome what the Prime Minister

has had to say on all these issues, and we also welcome the intensifying

of negotiations between the UK Government and the devolved

administrations ahead of triggering Article 50. So, the Prime Minister

has very helpfully explained that it is perfectly possible for parts of

these islands to be in the single market without hard borders, with

free movement of people, and at the same time, protect and enhance trade

with one another. This is very, very welcome, Mr Speaker. So, will the

Prime Minister give a commitment to work with the Irish Government and a

commitment to work with the Scottish Government to deliver all of these

things, or will we just have to get on with it ourselves? First of all,

the Right Honourable gentleman is right that following the meeting of

the JNC plenary session on Monday morning, we did agree to an

intensification of discussion on issues related to the bringing back

of powers from Brussels, and as to whether those powers should lie

within the United Kingdom, and to intensify that in the run-up to the

triggering of Article 50 and beyond. On the other question, I'm afraid,

you know, he really should listen to the answer is given, because he is

trying to imply something that isn't there. Yes... We are very clear that

we want to see a frictionless border between Northern Ireland and the

Republic of Ireland, but I'm also clear that one of our objectives of

our negotiation is to see as frictionless a border as possible

between the United Kingdom and the rest of the EU. And of course, if he

is so worried about having a frictionless border between Scotland

and countries in the EU, he shouldn't want to take Scotland out

of the European Union by wanting to see yet independent. A few moments

ago, the Prime Minister tried to claim credit for passing Stonewall's

during Bill. She didn't. It pardons all gay men found guilty of crimes

no longer on the statute book, so when will the Prime Minister

followed the Scottish Government and pardon automatically be living as

well as the dead? -- the living. It gives an opportunity for those alive

to apply to the home efforts to apply to have their record expunged.

My honourable friend the member for Pudsey and I have both in the

chamber today encouraged people to come forward and make that

application, and I think that is a message we should all give.

Well, for reaction to that, here's our Westminster

I have two MPs and two Lord's, first of all without any ado, let me

introduce you to them, for the Liberal Democrats, Lord Purvis, to

Labour Lord George Faulks, you will soon realise he is a Scot as well.

Mark, referring to everything that went on in PMQ, was Theresa May to

go to Washington so quickly, and to embrace the new Presidential team?

Absolutely not. The Prime Minister was very very right, to go to

Washington, at the earliest opportunity. We are talking about

our closest allies. Not just in Nato but round the world. A country we

have to maintain good relationship with to get things done. When the

Prime Minister went there she made the case for Britain's interest.

That was a good result. Are they right? This is a politics

of protest again, the Prime Minister picked up on this, at PMQ. She

highlighted to Jeremy Corbyn he is good at leading protest. This is

about making sure the United Kingdom place in the world is secure, that

the things that matter to us are heard in America, one powerful way

to do that is by bringing the President here to London, to meet

with his United Kingdom counterpart and to make sure that he is in no

doubt as to the British values. Ian, if as part of the... If we have the

relates ship we are supposed to have we should be saying to Donald Trump

it is wrong. We should be saying yes we will talk with you, but it

shouldn't be done on the basis of affording a state visit. That is

wrong. Is it not inconceivable to withdraw thaw? Not at all. In the

light of what has happened in the course of last few days, Donald

Trump taking action against Muslims the way he has done, we have a

responsibility to stand up and say that you are wrong, yes we will

talk... But to afford him the privilege of a state visit is wholly

wrong. So you engage with Donald Trump, but you don't afford him all

the advantaged of a state visit? Yes I think Theresa May rushed in, fools

rush in where angels fear to tread. I think history will show she has

been far too, she has rushed in far too quickly normally Presidents wait

for two or three or four years into their term of office before they are

afforded a state visit. Boris Johnson said the Queen has already

met Ceausescu and mug by. That says something he thinks that President

Trump is is a bit like those dictator, and I think that is

revealing. Let me return to the question. It is inconceivable you

withdraw this, because that would take a diplomatic row and it would

escalate it hugely? I still don't think there has been a time set for

it. If we are looking for a reasonable outcome, I agree with

George, the preponderance was too rushed. This had been agreed

internally behind the scenes before she got on the plane to go to

America. But I think what would be appropriate, is if we are to have

the proper dialogue with the most powerful ally, it should be a

government to Government #4re68. It should not be a state level visit.

The times has not been agreed. We should have political dialogue. If

the sum total of the visit was to get Trump to agree with his proposed

Secretary of State for Defence, and state,

that we will have tonight? Hugely significant. This is a very very

defining moment in British political history and in Britain's relations

with the EU, this is Parliament exercising its democratic will.

Members of Parliament will vote as individuals in order to make it

clear that the Government has the authority of the House of Commons to

trigger article. Your party is voting against the

trigger of Article 50. Your party does not want to be in this

position. You are not going to win unless something extraordinary

happens tonight, why don't you just accept the inevitable? I think what

we have got is the Government in London being disrespectful to the

Scottish Government, to the Government in Belfast and to the

Government in Cardiff. Because we have a clearly nuanced position that

we accept that England has voted to leave the European Union but there

is no issue as far has the is concerned. We have a mandate on

behalf of the Scottish people... A co-promice to reach a settlement and

to rush this through against the interest of the Scottish people, I

think demonstrates if the futility of what the Government is doing.

That is the voice of the two MPs, to the two Lord's, when it comes to

House of Lords how rough is the House of Lords going to play with

the Government on this? It depends on what happens in the House of

Commons later today and in the subsequent stages,er if some of

these amendments get through. Brexit was supposed to be a return of

Parliamentary democracy, here, to Westminster. And in fact, the MPs

are not going to vote according to their own belief, conscience, their

knowledge, understanding, they are going to be dictated to by a

referendum which was only participated, only 37% of the people

in that referendum voted in favour, 16 and 17-year-olds weren't allowed

to vote, the European Union citizens in the United Kingdom weren't

allowed to vote, and it was only an advisory referendum, yet in the so

call Parliamentary democracy MPs are not willing to make up their own

minds about what is right. We had one MP in my own party saying this

is goes to be disastrous for Britain but I will Voe for it. That is no

kind of Parliamentary demock Si is. It is the end of Parliamentary

democracy if that is going to be the case. How rough are the Lords going

to get do you think on this? We have a duty to acknowledge votes in the

Commons but have our own voice, that is what the Government of the day,

the Conservatives want us to have as a constitutional power. As a Liberal

Democrat I will maintain the consistency of my party, that while

acknowledging the decision was made by the people in the referendum, we

also believe that the people should have the choice to say whether the

deal is a good one or not. If that is not what is going to be on offer

we will not support the triggering of it. Unless it has that insurance

policy for the people, that they will have the right to decide the

agreement will be good for them, and for generations to come, then I

don't think we should be starting this process. It was, we had

tributes to Tam Dalziel. To each of you briefly, how should we assess

the political car reel of Tam? He left Parliament before I joined it,

but one thing is leer, he has left a considerable legacy s today I hosted

an Argentine delegation from the Senate and Congress and for them,

many of them will remember him for a lot of his probing and tough

questioning over the ins and outs of the sink of the general Belgrano.

Tam was a feisty character, he was independent minded. Spoke up clearly

to what he thought was important. Of course he did foresee that

devolution would lead to Scottish independence, think he will be

right. He was a great pantarian. I didn't agree with him on everything.

He was in favour of Europe and I agree with him on that, he would

have certainly not voted for Brexit and I am not going to. People will

remember when he was a candidate for the Labour Party in the borders

before he... I remember that. Most politicians like to provide the

answers for anything but he will go down in history for asking the

questioning we are still struggling to answer, we are failing to answer

the question he set. I am grateful for your recollections there and for

the discussion earlier on, Brexit and Donald Trump, now, back to you

in the studio. A final word from my

guest, the political We seem to have unimpassed it. Must

be your forensic questioning. It was then't very forensic! He didn't try

to deny it. Patrick Harvie has kind of rolled over. It tends to give the

impression that The Greens are in the bag as far as the SNP are

concerned. They have to give them something but The Greens do appear

now ready to back the budget, give Nicola Sturgeon the votes she needs.

For anyone watching you hasn't been closely, who have got enough of a

life not to have been following this. The point is that The Greens

were, until Patrick Harvie insisting taxes had to go up before, because

there a vote on taxes the and the a vote on the spending. They said the

taxes had to go up before they would agree to the budget and suddenly he

is saying no, no, no, that is not necessarily at all. The The

conundrum, Nicola Sturgeon has to get three votes from where. The

Liberal Democrats wanted money for mental health and The Greens wanted

to put up tabses. What Patrick has done is reign back from that. There

will be a few greeny thins. I am sure.

First Minister's Questions is tomorrow at midday.

Oh, my goodness me, I don't like the look of that.

The Robshaws are going back in time again...