01/03/2017 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland, on the programme today.

The UK Government faces its first defeat in the Lords over Brexit.

Did tactical voting in last year's Holyrood election lead to the SNP

And the Justice Secretary defends a plan to cut the number

So far the UK government's article 50 bill has had a relatively smooth

But tonight it could be defeated for the first time,

Our Westminster Correspondent David Porter joins me now.

Any chance of a revolt? The Lords don't always perhaps revolt in the

way we think they do but there is an expectation that tonight they will

ask the UK Government to think again. This is all to do with an

amendment about guaranteed rights of EU nationals to remain within the UK

when Britain exits the EU. It has the support of Labour, the Lib Dems

and a significant number of crossbenchers and the setting seems

to be that it will be carried tonight, which will mean for the

first time that the reason may has been defeated on an aspect of the

Brexit legislation. It went through the House of Commons and was also

then, it has now come to the House of Lords and the giving it the

detailed line by line scrutiny. As we say we think this amendment will

go through tonight but then what will happen is it will go back to

the House of Commons and they will overturn it.

And possibly compromise? There is talk of compromise and this

amendment talks about our bundle of three months to look at the issue

further. A lot of people have been seen to Theresa May that it would be

a sign of good faith in the negotiations if you said that all EU

nationals who are currently in the UK would be able to stay and then

for her to seek a reciprocal agreement about UK nationals living

and working in the EU. The May has said she thinks it is a good idea

but said that she cannot tie her hands in any negotiations and give

too much ground without getting something back in return. The

problem for her is that when it comes to the nitty-gritty of the

negotiations, while she might want to get the issue of EU nationals in

the UK and UK nationals in the EU sorted out fairly quickly, there is

no guarantee that the other 27 states will be quite as keen to

greater timescale. You may want to talk with financial issues and they

might say that we will sort that out sometime down the line so we know in

principle that the UK Government thinks this is a good idea but it

says at the moment it cannot bind its own hands in the negotiating

process until it knows what EU states are going to say in response.

But all indications are tonight for the first time in this legislation

that the government will be defeated.

And the lordships, David, hardly in the mid to revolt or happy more in

the mood do you think to perhaps intervene in the Brexit process with

some constructive ideas? I think it is more likely to be the

latter, they will have seen that the legislation went to the House of

Commons and went through the House of Commons not changed or amended in

any way. I think on this issue in which they feel strongly about it

they will say to the House of Commons, have a think about this

again. We have given you a potential copper mines. See if you can live

with it. But all indications seem to be from UK ministers that they are

relatively relaxed about this and expect to be defeated tonight, they

will take the defeat and when it goes back to the House of Commons

they will reverse that and I think at the moment the feeling seems to

be that if the House of Commons basically stamp sets foot and says

we are going to do it this way the House of Lords will not push it too

far. If you can cope with the sunshine we

will see you later on. Staying with Brexit and at Holyrood

the Economy Committee says businesses should be given more

Scottish government support to expand into emerging markets

such as China and India, MSPs were debating the committee's

report on the economic impact of Brexit on Scotland

and unanimously backed a motion to "note" its conclusions

and recommendations. Here's a flavour of

the debate yesterday. Let's start with exports. Should

Scotland in for the rest of the world rather than for the rest of

the EU? Helpfully, doctors alike of the European policy Centre out of

his own question, it is about what he said rather than either. Other

witnesses told us that much of our trade was invariably with the most

immediate neighbours, the rest of the UK. This is known as the

proximity defence. Generally this is true for food and drink, I want gas

and steel. -- oil and gas and steel. Yet the economies are those of and

India. Where a silver medal and where the growth potential could be

greatest. -- where our sales remain low. Should we be optimistic about

this post Brexit? James Withers of Scotland food and drinks are global

opportunities, he described the potential in premium markets,

tapping into consumerist desires for quality, authenticity and

provenance. Companies represented by the China Britain business Council,

hopeful of a free-trade deal of some kind. But we must strive to

encourage a more international mentality. Jane got reminded us that

50% of Scotland's exports are still generated by just 50 companies, the

challenge is to promote international thinking. And to help

her small and medium-sized companies develop. We know that if MPs are

central to the success of our economy. We share the committee

concerned on trade and inward investment in the labour market, and

rising inflation. We are taking a number of actions that will impact

these areas, like the enterprising skills review which is examining how

better we can support efforts to internationalise the Scottish

economy, improve the range and quality of data and enhance the

supply skills. But let's not be in any doubt, Scotland can trade with

the rest of the UK, the EU and the rest of the world most effectively

if preferably the whole of the UK but at least Scotland remains inside

the European single market. The reality is that the gung ho Brexit

years and the UK Government often seem woefully ignorant of how global

trade actually functions of the 21st century. The presenting no coherent

plan to see the UK through the motorist period that. When the Prime

Minister triggers article 50, whenever that is. The government is

confident that proportion responses are under way in any is of concern

highlighted by the committee. These will be set out in full in a written

response to the report. The report highlights the importance of the UK.

There is a recommendation that the Scottish Government should focus on

further integration with the rest of the UK market and support expansion

of this trading relationship. This view was echoed by a number of

witnesses including Professor Mackay of the University of St Andrews who

said Scotland's number one priority must always be to keep that trade

relationship with the rest of the UK open and fluid. The importance of

domestic trading market was highlighted by squatters, figures or

lease last month. Since 2002 Scotland's trade with the rest of

the UK has increased by 75% while exports to the EU in this period

have increased by only 8%. In conclusion is a welcome addition to

the debate on the economic impact of leaving the EU. We should work

towards Scotland having the best possible access to European markets.

We think the best way to achieve this will be through a UK wide

approach that secures the best possible Brexit trade agreement for

Scotland. We need to make sure there is capacity to engage in new trade

deals at both government and business level. For Scotland I think

we can learn much from the Scotch whiskey industry, building on

knowledge and global reach. But the Scotch whiskey industry is at risk

post Brexit and indeed we know that the most pressing risk and task for

the sector is losing out to markets further afield in East Asia and

South America. Exporting to these markets is currently supported by EU

brokered agreements. Scotch whiskey is a major employer and how united

industry across the UK and of course this is a major provider of good

jobs and many otherwise isolated communities as well as across the

central belt. Surely these are exactly the types of jobs that we

should be prioritising? I have written to David Mundell today

asking the team needs with the GNP to urge the UK Government to

prioritise Scotch whiskey and I hope the Scottish Government supports

such an approach. With me in the studio this

week is Andy Maciver, director of the PR agency

Message Matters, and former head of communications

for the Scottish Conservatives. Let's talk about independence

referendums, which are dominating everything at the moment. Nicola

Sturgeon speech yesterday, if there is another way of saying I want one

that is even stronger, she will struggle to find it. I thought the

speech was a significant wrapping up of the rhetoric that the error

before, I think the difference with classmate is that it started to use

the language I expect we will start to see in the independent referendum

itself, the narrative is very much Scotland against the hard Brexit

Tories. And a lot of the rhetoric that is being used was pretty

overblown stuff about what the Tories downsize what to do to

devolution and cloying powers back in that sort of thing. It almost

doesn't matter what the reality of Brexit is now, what we're seeing is

Brexit being used as the vehicle to form the narrative of the referendum

campaign. That is not a criticism necessarily, you would expect the

SNP has got to do that, as that is what the campaign will be based on.

Is Nicola Sturgeon leaving herself aware? It is very high risk for her

as it is for treason made, is she leaving herself a way out? She's

closing down the avenues to get out of this. It is extremely risky

because if she loses then she has to go in the same way as I think if to

Reza may lose and she has to go but I think avenues after closing down.

If you think about the government Brexit paper there with the

opportunities the referendum not to be held, one was the UK staying in

the single market, one of Scotland's staying in the single market and we

should consider that to be gone, and the other in Scotland being given

extra powers both the ones that are being repatriated from the EU and

other ones that are just at Westminster. I don't see anybody in

the UK Government or Scottish Tory party realistically talking about

that prospect so I think it is very difficult for a clustered into that

out of this. The obvious next move is a British government says we will

be announcing shortly and then an entry will do this this and this, we

understand what Scots, said, is a huge package. Surely on the basis of

that you will not argue for breaking up the UK when we have given the all

of this? Why would they take that option? Simply because in my

lifetime have always been reactive when it comes to Scotland, they have

never been ahead of the curve and then proactively said let's look at

what Scotland might look like in 152050 years' time, we have always

said let's react to what has just happened and give them a little more

power and I don't think the arrow that strategic when it comes to

Scotland. Do you think they have an attack of strategic vision in the

next few months? It is possible but I haven't heard anything in that

direction so far. Lets cross to the chamber

of Holyrood now where the Scottish Conservatives are

leading a debate on the abolition of the Scottish Funding Council

Board. Lets take a look and

see who's speaking. On the 16th of November it was the

turn of the Scottish funding Council and the 7th of December 20 16th we

have from the Cabinet Secretary for economy jobs in the work about those

changes to the full agencies of skills enterprise in education

function including the Scottish funding Council. That day Keith

Brown set out the Scottish common vision for Scotland's economic

strategy, part of which involve the proposed amalgamation of the

enterprising skills agencies so there would be in his Word strength

and support for the nation 's economic ambitions. Mr Brown told us

that the establishment of an overarching super board was

necessary in order to effectively align the services they deliver. He

also confirmed no fewer than three times to myself and John Mallett and

Daniel Johnson that the boards of the current agencies would be

abolished, a statement then confirmed by John Swinney at the

audit committee of the second figure the oval use carefully to add that

this abolition did not involve the abolition of the funding council

itself. Something that had originally been a concern for the

colleges and universities when America was proposed. There we have

it. On record not just from an Cabinet secretary but to, that the

board of the Scottish funding Council would be abolished. Not

surprisingly this raised further questions from the further and

higher education sectors and from MSP is about the justification for

the smooth and on what evidence the proposal was based. We received from

Mr Brown in response to questioning from the convener of the education

committee of robust as another reason for having an overarching

board. He said it would provide much better strategic alignment of the

delivery of schools enterprise in education, a decoupling of the

agency landscape, a solicitation of the support networks and the removal

of the tensions between national and regional delivery. Policy principles

which were generally finding favour with university and college Scotland

and enterprising business. What Mr Brown complete is to address was the

other side of the coin. Exactly why did the strategic alignment mean

that the individual agency board each with the separate legal status

have to be abolished? What was the evidence for this part of the

proposal? My colleagues have a Scot in Manning asked Keith Brown for a

list of the organisations with links to the Central board. After intense

questioning and an inability to answer the question it appeared that

the only body the Cabinet Secretary could name was called Scotland but

on further investigation it transpired that while Colin Scotland

received merit in the strategic alignment of agency workers had not

been any specific commitment it is double its SSE board.

Of course, what we know only too well from the submissions made to

the commission and from the recent debate is that there was no such

debate to admonish the boards. Instead, I would suggest that a

letter arrived Mr Brown's desk specifically advising against the

abolition of the Scottish funding Council board but maybe the Scottish

Government might like to confirm the existence of that letter sent

attempt to do so have so far achieved nothing but obligation.

What really happened is that the Scottish Government made up their

mind before phase one had even begun that the boards would be abolished

and one board would replace them, but there was no support for this

last summer. So all we got was, don't worry, because in phase two,

that will allow us to debate what is the best Government structure.

Unbelievably, ministers couldn't understand why MSPs and stakeholders

were so concerned. But we were surely right to be concerned. A

point that was very strongly made by Ross Greer at committee when he

questioned the logic of making up your mind about what's going to

happen and then hope that you can find enough evidence to support it.

Well, that was Liz Smith speaking in the Scottish parliament. Andy

Maciver is still with me. Following on from what you were saying, what

does the Scottish Government do next then? There is an SNP conference

coming up. Yes, and there is a bit of debate as to what the timing of

any of this should be. There is a heavy rumour that she will announce

at the conference that she wants to have another referendum and there

will be a vote to ask for a section 30 order but conversely it looks

like it will be right back at the end of March that Theresa May

announces the article 50 letter is going in and there is some thought

that that is made the -- that is maybe Nicola Sturgeon's Op

opportunity to say that they could be another referendum. Presumably

she could say that she is going to ask for a second 30 order, allowing

her to hold one whenever she wanted? I would imagine there will be a vote

to ask for a referendum and then you have to go through the process of

asking the British Government to have a referendum and then the

British Government have decided on their original section 30 allowing

them legal responsibility -- the legal ability to hold a referendum.

This will be all about the timing. It looks like that response from the

British Government might be, yes, but you will have it when we tell

you that you can. When being presumably after the Brexit

negotiations? Presumably after the Brexit negotiations so that the

argument that the SNP will use, that they voted to stay in, that would

make that argument redundant. Would Nicola Sturgeon have to commit

herself as far as you are suggesting to pay that there will be another

referendum? I am asking for a section 30. Or can she say, we have

been saying for weeks that if we don't get, we see no sign of

movement on the part of the British Government, I'm not saying we are

going to have a referendum but we're going to ask for a section 30 order

because if they keep behaving like this, we certainly want one. I

suppose she could do but I'm not sure that doesn't amount to the same

thing. If you are asking for the power to hold one. I don't think the

British Government would say yes to a section 30 without calling a

referendum in the first place because that would be a blank cheque

and I don't think they would allow Nicola Sturgeon to have that. We

will be with you again later on, Andy, but for now I am joined by

some SNP 's. -- MSPs. Now, I wonder, Rory Grant, first of all, I don't

know if you can hear what we are saying, what did you make of Nicola

Sturgeon's comments about an independence referendum last night?

It seems to me that she is getting increasingly desperate and looking

for excuses to hold a referendum. She knows quite clearly that the

Scottish people don't want it and she is trying to manufacture

arguments to have it. I think she needs to be a wee bit careful

because I think she's marching her supporters up to the top of the hill

and if there's not enough support for a second independence

referendum, it will be disastrous for her, because they wait to be

expecting her now to announce that at conference and I don't know how

she backs down from that. If she announces it at conference, she

loses her sabre that she's been rattling since Brexit. Where will

she go from there? What is your answer to the question that Rhoda

Grant has just asked, Richard Lochhead? Clearly the First Minister

is exceptionally frustrated as we all are and all should be over the

lack of recognition from the UK Government of the fact that 62% of

Scots voted to remain within Europe. Scottish ministers have bent over

backwards to reach a compromise position with the UK Government and

we are getting nothing back in terms of retaining a relationship with the

single market in Europe at the very least. We are getting nothing back

from the UK Government. They seem to be completely ignoring the views of

the Scottish people. If you were Nicola Sturgeon, what would you do?

Lily a lot of this depends on the UK Government's response of our request

to have our view is taken into account. Article 50 has not been

triggered so the exit process has not started yet and clearly the

Scottish Government is asking for bespoke arrangement here in

Scotland. If the UK Government refused to do that, of course the

debate moves up another year and there is potentially another

referendum, but let's see what happens. It's still in the hands of

the UK Government. Do you think she could say, there is going to be a

referendum but not for a year or something like that? Would you be

prepared to commit yourself to that? What I will say is that each day

that goes by, it seems more likely we will have to have another

independence referendum if we want Scotland's democratically expressed

wishes to be taken on board and have our own sake in Europe. I repeat

that this is largely in the hands of the UK Government. So far, they are

treating Scotland and the Scottish Government with contempt when it

comes to the Brexit process. We are supposed to be equal partners with

the other nations of the UK and 62% of Scots voted to remain. Adam

Tomkins, what do you make of Nicola Sturgeon's latest comments? I agree

with what Roeder said earlier. She is sabre rattling. The sabre seems

to be growing in sharpness and I think Scotland is sick of it. Only a

minority of Scots want is the second referendum. Scottish business

doesn't want to see it. It would be devastating for the Scottish economy

and there is no need for it, no mandate for it. I can't be clearer

than that. Your colleague was just saying that there is no need from

the UK Government to say, he is a package of things we will offer at

the point of Brexit to be to your advantage. There does seem to be

that almost the UK Government are turning a blind year. I don't agree.

The SNP have been in search of a grievance ever since the morning of

the 24th of June. Verse double they said it was that we had not -- first

of all they said it was outrageous that we had not made our position

clear and that we are leaving the single market, but actually we said

we want the fullest possible participation in the single market.

The difference between the SNP position and be Government provision

is nothing like as great as Richard and his colleagues want to make out.

Every time there is an opportunity for SNP to dial it down a bit or

ratcheted up, they ratcheted up. It started in the morning of the 24th

of June and has got worse and worse and worse ever since then. Alex Cole

Hamilton. Hello. I think it's clear that Nicola will have to go for a

swashbuckling attempt at a second referendum because in 20 years'

time, she doesn't want to look back and think, what might have been?

What's interesting here is that in addition to the comments from Adam

and Raider which I can beat the agree with, that there is no

appetite for a second referendum, there is a change in rhetoric. They

used to say that we can choose to remain in the European Union but

they have stopped saying that. Why? Because there were a significant

number of SNP voters who also voted leave. If she wants to win a second

referendum, she needs them to rate for it as well. That is why she has

dialled the rhetoric back. Does an independent referendum mean going

back into the EU or is she playing both horses? At the moment, we are

utterly opposed to a second referendum. We don't believe that

our services are best supported by this constant wrangling. Just to be

clear. Your policy is that we should in Britain have another second

referendum on leaving the European Union but the Liberal Democrats

don't think there should be a second Scottish referendum? Absolutely. The

Brexit vote was for an exit, and on facts that have been totally

discredited. Like the ?350 million for the NHS. To their credit, the

SNP laid out very clearly what an independent Scotland would be. My

party absolutely disagreed with that and we voted against it, as did most

of the Scottish people. Now the SNP are using Brexit at the Trojan horse

to have this battle once again. It looks like we are in a death spiral

again. Education attainment is slipping down the league tables and

policing levels are at rock bottom because this Government is asleep at

the wheel. Rhoda grant, with Labour's position be to stay in the

United Kingdom so that we have a constitutional agenda to have a

federal UK when Labour wins the next general election, even though all

the opinion polls say there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of

Labour winning the next general election? People will say a week is

a long time in politics. You are talking a number of years. I believe

that if we speak to the people, of course people will vote for us at

that election. That is what we are doing, trying to represent the views

of the people and take those on board. We have to find out what the

settled view of the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK is

so that they can fit well together. One of the reasons people voted to

leave Europe was because they saw power in the distance, out of their

hands. We have to bring that back to them and leave those aspirations

which are clearly held by them. To do that, we need a second

Constitutional convention that listens to what people are saying.

What is wrong with that? Richard Lochhead, there was much talk last

year of, well, the SNP can't afford to lose another independence

referendum, said the talk was that there should be 60% in favour of

independence before you would risk it. Have you abandoned that?

Because, after all, losing a referendum is not just a threat to

Nicola Sturgeon but an existential threat to the SNP? Clearly political

events will take us towards a referendum if we end up there. And

clearly we would want to win that by a substantial margin, of course we

would, but the key is to win is as natural -- to win the referendum and

unfortunately we didn't do that in 2014. Otherwise we would be staying

in the European Union. It is the Tories that are taking us out of the

European Union. It is not the Tories, it was a democratic process.

I will allow you to pick up after the programme. Do you think it would

be worthwhile for the SNP to embark on another independence referendum

if the polls are the way they are now, given the risks to the whole

independent project if you lose again? I don't think you can be

guided by polls again. If you remember the 2014 referendum,

independence was in the low 30s and we got 45% of the vote. Therefore

our starting point at the next referendum is 45% support for

independence, so that is a much better place. I have to say to Adam,

in the 2014 referendum, the Conservative Party told us that if

we vote no to Scottish independence, that is the only way to stay in

Europe. We did vote no and now we are being taken out of Europe at

that match against our will. When Theresa May sted and made a speech

recently and said, we are leaving the single market, it is a hard

Brexit, she hadn't responded to our plea for our concerns to be taken on

board. Adam, why are you say adamant that the British Government doesn't

have to come and make an offer? There have got to be some kind of

settlement over fishing and agriculture. Why are you so adamant

that they can't just come with a big deal and other control over VAT,

offered some control over immigration, that sort of thing, and

say, look, we will give you all of this that weekday you to have a

referendum on breaking up the United Kingdom given that we have made this

offer? Nicola Sturgeon in her shrill and

unnecessary speech in Edinburgh meet all kinds of unjustifiable remarks

about how the Conservatives were trying to do devolution down and

reverse it but this is post to politics, the opposite of what the

British government had set. It is plain to all is across the clinical

spectrum that Britain's exit from the EU will involve a repatriation

of powers from Brussels and some will go to Hollywood. That all has

to be negotiated. The British government is not being

intransigent, there been vocal about the fact that there will be no

really survey of power from Hollywood, no power exercised by SN

by -- by MSP 's will be taken away. We have to leave it there. We have a

lovely way short of you. All of you say cheese.

The Justice Secretary has been defending a proposed cut

of around 400 officers to Scotland's police force.

Speaking at Holyrood yesterday, Michael Matheson told MSPs

that the nature of crime in Scotland was changing.

The minister began with his general reaction to the new plans.

We welcome the publication of the draft policing 20 26 strategy sets

out the steps that Scottish police authorities and police got the

proposed to take in order to better meet the policing challenges of the

future. The strategy is clear focus on improving the operational

capacity of the police and enhancing the quality of the service at the

public receives is something we very much support. Once finalised the

document will play a key role in shaping the future direction of

policing and I would encourage all those who have an interest in

participating in the consultation to do so now that it is under way.

Yesterday we learned not from the 2026 strategy but from the

accompanying press conference that 400 officers will be cut from the

single force by 2020 and that officers are currently backfilling a

ministry to rules. This came one week after I received a letter from

David peeves the deputy fossa with Bonnie Scotland denying that the

policy even existed. What confidence can public have to respond to the

strategy and I agree with the Cabinet Secretary that they must

respond, but what confidence can the public have to respond when it does

not even mention police officer numbers? And given that the word

Roel is not mentioned once in the strategy despite the ruble

population growing faster than the rest of Scotland, is the Cabinet

Secretary agreed this is a major consideration in what guarantees can

he give that these committees will not be overlooked? Let me unpack

some of those points. The issue around police numbers which is again

of course a draft proposal would have been put forward by the Chief

Constable is on a change in the way in which they wish to have the mix

of staff within police Scotland. It is right to recognise that the

nature of crime which the police service and the demand on the police

service over the past ten years has significantly changed. The way in

which they have the demand from mental health issues from missing

persons and vulnerable individuals and ageing population, the demand

they now have from crimes which are taking place within a private place,

most of them big drops in crimes which take place within a public

place, particularly crimes such as violence and how that will be moved

into the private prey -- private place with an increase in domestic

violence being reported and also the way we saw an increase in cyber

related crime. It is important the police have the right mix of crime

-- right mix of staff and the skills to meet these types of crimes and

new emerging threats effectively. On the issue of rural matters of course

that is a significant issue for police got them, we would expect

that to be set out in the final strategy. Of course no doubt the

memorable want to make his views known to police got under his own

submission to this consultation exercise and ordered the issue of

rural concerns as a matter he will choose to focus on. I still have

concerns that if the Chief Constable is able to tell a press conference

immediately after the release of the strategy, why is not there to get

the public feedback on that? And I would like to concentrate on another

issue which is technology. By its own admission the police got an

technology is full and outdated as there's duplication of input. These

problems were supposed to have been overcome by the merger as the ice X

project. Technology is a linchpin of the strategy and the single force's

track record has been pure so far. We have heard that police service

that I fully Scotland will invest in technology. This could serve as

local communities are just want to speak to the local officer. What

safeguards can we take from the strategy that the size will not be

eroded? The vast majority of the IT infrastructure we haven't only

Scotland has been inherited from the legacy forces but the need for IT

improvement is exactly why we have provided additional reform money

within the draft budget that we took through Parliament just last week in

order to allow that type of IT investment to take place, that will

support the police and being able to make sure they are releasing the

capacity they have within your organisation at the present time.

That is being taken up by the slide outdated IT systems which they have

at the present time and that is the type of thing which has said of the

SPSS out and also the Chief Constable set out will be key

priorities and moving forward with the strategy in coming years.

The Electoral Reform Society has published the first extensive

analysis of the 2016 Holyrood election.

It's a detailed breakdown of voting numbers and

The author of the report is John Curtice, Professor

of Politics at the University of Strathclyde, and

The main point here is I think if you're Patrick Harvey and greens you

can breathe a sigh of relief, it is not your fault SSE lost its

majority. That's right, the report is primarily looking at how the

holiday delightful system worked this time, a follow-up to previous

endeavours. It has the fascinating question from many people, the SNP's

shell of constituency vote was a percentage point up on 2011 yet in

contrast to 2011 they did not get an overall majority and wanting the

report try to do is explain why this happened and therefore how the

system operated. One thing we can discuss -- one thing we can discount

although it was somewhat in evidence in the 2015 Westminster election,

there's not much evidence that unionist voters were ganging up on

SNP. There's not much evidence that Labour voters who were third or

fourth the constituency were switching to the Conservatives in

order to be the SNP are vice versa. Very little if any of that seems

that went on. What however may be important is that while the SNP's

shell of the constituency vote went up its share of the list for went

down by a couple of points so you might see in an, is the issue here,

the Patrick Harvey point, that voters who voted for the SNP on the

constituency vote switched to the Greens on the list foot perhaps in

the belief and there was much debate about this, that voting for the SNP

on the list was going to be a waste because they were going to do so

well in the constituencies that they would not get any more list MSP 's.

They did that -- did that at the end of the day cost the SNP? It

certainly looks like some voters did do that, there is a strongly between

how well Greens did and how big is the gap between the SNP's shell of

the constituency vote and the list. Even if you assume that all of the

increase in the Green vote since 2011 was the result of this tactical

voting, you're still missing the SNP might have gotten one, maybe at most

two more MSP 's. What clearly did for the SNP 's overall majority were

some of the spectacular unexpected against the tide of victories for

example, for Ruth Davidson in Edinburgh Central, for Willie Rennie

in North East Fife and four Jackie Baillie hanging onto Dumbarton. That

and the couple of other instances, as a result the SNP lost but because

they were already doing so well in many constituencies contested in

Edinburgh at five and the West of Scotland, that failure to pick up a

seat was not compensated on the list but if they had managed to win all

of these constituencies they would have had about 60 seats and clearly

have had an overall majority so I think that benefited SNP's and

mental problem is they just did not do as well in the constituency

contest as the 46% of the vote they got across the country as a whole

may have led you to anticipate. What is the conclusion? That the SNP

could have fought a bitter campaign in these constituencies in an

overall majority? Or that the majority they had before the

election is an aberration and unlikely to be repeated? Certainly

it is an indication about how fortunate the SNP were in 2011

getting overall majority, but I think the other exit point is that

actually what the SNP perhaps need to be better at is having really

good intelligence as to where an opponent of theirs is fighting a

really strong local campaign. Because evidently educated is quite

clearly, Willie Rennie did far better in North East Fife and his

party was doing on the list foot. Much the same is true of Ruth

Davidson. Actually if you can pick up a very popular candidate, well

likeable party leader, in a constituency, then they are likely

to vote for the party and perhaps when the constituency. If the SNP

are going to try and counter that in future they have to put a lot of

resources into these constituencies. Otherwise you say frankly there was

not much the SNP could do about it and to that extent we least the just

ended up getting a little more than they deserved. Another conclusion of

the Fort is that in party terms at least this is the most

proportionally accurate Parliament we have had. Yes, the link between

the shares of the vote, one by the parties, on the list foot which is

the crucial one, and the shell of the seats in Holyrood is not

perfect, it is by no means a highly proportional system in the SNP 's

and Tories are still overrepresented in the Liberal Democrats and Greens,

Labour are underrepresented, so it is still a system that favours

larger parties but because the Greens were running at six or six

and a half percent of the vote rather than 4% the last time at six

and half percent you have a good chance of getting a seat in the

region and the Greens managed to pick up six seats as a result.

Therefore the result is more proportional but this is perhaps the

hidden part of the election, fewer people voted for parties other than

the five currently in Hollywood. -- Holyrood. The sense of having the PR

system says that he will have the rainbow Parliament with more parties

fighting in Scotland, apart from the Green party nobody but nobody has

managed to break through as concurred with the position before

the Scottish parliament was created. Well we have you NIcholas Jacobs Mac

speech, rhetoric on independence referendums -- Nicola Sturgeon is

speech, the referendum, is she boxing? Is there a way for the

government? It seems to be the case that tickle a Sturgeon is

increasingly wrapping up the rhetoric and suggesting that unless

you get something in terms of what the UK is aiming for Brexit

negotiations it does not look as though she has left yourself much

room for manoeuvring for doing anything other than Colin

independence referendum. That does in a sense mean the ball is put into

the UK's court as to whether or not it might make them some kind of

offer in terms of more powers, perhaps an emigration, that might

make it possible for Scotland to have a closer relationship with the

EU in certain respects are not. All the movement coming out of the UK

Government is not, we have perhaps finally had from the newspaper

reports that maybe the penny is dropping in Whitehall that indeed

perhaps Nicola Sturgeon made want to try and hold a referendum if indeed

they don't get something but at the moment the UK Government is

seemingly sticking to the line that it is not doing anything

particularly for Scotland. Both sides are clean poker, given that we

are talking about a situation where around 53% of people say they are in

favour of the union and 47 in favour of independence, Nicola Sturgeon

will be taking one hell of a risk if she decides to go for a referendum

but equally Theresa May will also be making one very big mistake... Why

is the abyss, this junction, a distinction between many people

wanting another referendum in the short-term, it supports independence

at least retaining is not increasing? The excavation is not

difficult, chilli everyone opposed to independence does not want a

referendum, surprise surprise. Among those who are in favour of

independence that is around one quarter also see I would like to be

independent sometime but I am not quite sure the time is right, but

the perhaps because they are not quite sure that the site would win.

There is uncertainty about -- around those who are in favour of

independence as to whether -- when the timing of the M should be but in

terms of the principle of having another referendum is really does

follow very closely in people's preferences as to whether they want

Scotland to be independent in the first place. It is the division in

the yes camp about the issue of timing that makes it look as though

people in Scotland don't want a referendum, and in some senses it is

true. Thank you. As usual you have explained everything. There will be

a written exam later on. To this week's Prime

Minister's questions now. Jeremy Corbyn accused the

Conservatives of being the nasty party, the Labour leader urged

Theresa May to scrap proposals to deny benefits to disabled people

while SNP's deputy leader asked about the repatriation of

agriculture and fisheries powers post-Brexit.

I take a look. Mr Speaker after the last budget the then Work and

Pensions Secretary resigned, accusing the government of balancing

the books on the backs of the pure and vulnerable. Last week the

government sneaked out of the decision to overrule a court

decision to extend personal independence payments to people with

severe mental health conditions. A government that found ?1 billion in

inheritance tax cuts to benefit 26,000 families seems unable to find

the money to support 160,000 people with debilitating mental health

conditions. As a society, we are judged by how

we treat the most vulnerable. The respected charity mind has said this

is misguided legislation must be reversed. Can't the Prime Minister

look again at the decision of the court, look again at the

consequences of it and withdraw this deep decision, this nasty decision,

except the court's judgment and support those going through a very

difficult time in their lives. That is how we will all be judged. The

way that we are dealing with disability benefits is to ensure

that payments are going to those who are most vulnerable. What we are

doing in relation to the personal independence payments is ensuring

that the agreement of this Parliament is being put into

practice. Just prior to PMQ 's today in Scottish questions, ministers

were unable to answer basic questions about plans for

agriculture and fisheries. These are important issues for the rural areas

and they are devolved issues to the Scottish parliament. With Brexit

ending the role of Brussels in this area, will all decisions for

agriculture and fisheries be made at Holyrood? Yes or no? The right

honourable gentleman knows very well that we are discussing with the

devolved administrations the whole question of the UK framework and

devolution of issues as they come back from Brussels. The overriding

aim for everything that we do when we make those decisions is making

sure that we don't damage the very important single market of the

United Kingdom, a market which I might remind the right honourable

gentleman is more important to Scotland and the European Union is.

That's a very interesting answer because during the Brexit referendum

people in Scotland, including those working in agriculture and

fisheries, were told that farming and fisheries powers would be

exercised fully by the Scottish Government and the Scottish

parliament. But now it seems dodging by the by Minister's answer that

that is not going to be true. Will the Prime Minister confirmed today,

she has the opportunity, will she confirmed today that it is parents

tension -- her intention that it will be UK ministers who will

regulate across agriculture and fisheries that largely affect

Scotland post Brexit. I repeat the honourable gentleman because he

seems not to have understood this point that we are in the process of

discussing with the devolved administrations the whole question

of which of those powers which currently reside in Brussels will be

returned and remain at a UK level for decision and which will be

further devolved into the devolved administrations. That is a

discussion which is taking place at the moment. But when he asks about

the negotiations for Brexit with the European Union, it will be the UK

Government that will be negotiating with the UK -- the European Union,

taking account of the interests and concerns of the devolved

administrations and indeed of the other areas of England.

To Westminster now, where our Correspondent David

We have the type of sunshine that comes in raindrops as well here but

I also have MPs. Alistair Carmichael from the Liberal Democrats, Neal

Gray, John Stevenson from the Conservatives as well. John

Stevenson, I begin with you. The Lords are doing probably this

afternoon but the comments didn't do. It looks as if they are going to

amend the Brexit bill, particularly on the issue of guaranteeing legal

rights for EU nationals in the UK. We will wait and see what they do

decide later this afternoon. If it comes back to the House of Commons,

I suspect we will reject that amendment. The view of the

Government is that we want to leave the by Minister as free as possible

for her negotiation. She will trigger Article 50 later this month

and we must remember that negotiation involves two parties. We

have our intentions of what we want to see, but we have Steve respect

that the Europeans will have their own requirements as well. We will

end up with the UK European perspective. If this amendment is

passed, is this just the Lords having a bit of fun, knowing that

you will say, no? It depends how it goes. We are presupposing they will

pass this amendment which may not be the case. I have every confidence in

the House of Commons will reject it. Neil Gray, the Assembly doesn't have

anyone in the House of Commons, -- BS NP doesn't have anyone in the

House of Commons, but you have concerns about European nationals

living in the UK? Absolutely. We have all heard the stories of EU

nationals living in the UK who are very much contributing to society

and they are very much concerned that there ability to stay cannot be

guaranteed and there is no reason for the Government not to guarantee

that now. The Government could argue that we can promise this but we

would need is reciprocal agreement with the British National Spring

allowed to stay in the EU. Let's be clear. The Government caused this

when they said that they could not guarantee the rights of EU nationals

living here. It is up to them now to say, it is time to sort this out and

sort it out quickly. Is this something that the UK Government

should be doing unilaterally? To say, we know we are coming out of

the European Union but we will give you this commission -- we will give

you this guarantee now. It looks as though the Lords may vote to put

this into the bill tonight. John Stevenson and indeed the Secretary

of State at Scottish questions today responded to my question saying,

they would reject it as well. It looks as though the Government will

not go down this route. I take a completely contrary view to John

Stevenson on this. If the UK Government was able to pollen --

guarantee the rights of EU nationals now, it would strengthen our

negotiating perspective. We would be saying, we are doing it, you need to

give us a reciprocal deal. It would embarrass them to bring in the

policy, in my opinion. Let's be clear, nothing will change as far as

the rights of EU nationals are concerned until at least two years

have passed, until at least two years after article 50 has been

invoked. People's rights will not change. That is very important. But

let's sort this out now and move other issues. Alistair Carmichael,

it is not quite as simple as that though, is it? Because he would be

having negotiations with 27 countries, not the EU as a whole.

This isn't about negotiations or tactics, this is about people's

lives, the lies sometimes people who have lived here for decades and have

made a tremendous contribution to community is the length and breadth

of this country. Let's not look at this as some sort of game the

governments playing with itself, let's have a look at this as the

right and decent thing to do and there is no reason not to do it. In

fact, if we did, there we know from what we hear from UK nationals

living in other parts of the EU that they feel this is something that

would strengthen their position. So it's not just doing the right thing

in this country. It's actually looking after the rights of British

citizens living elsewhere in Europe. What about the argument that some

are saying that actually be EU might not put this as a priority? They

might want to discuss financial issues before they move onto

residency concerned? That is a possibility but it is frankly

downright unacceptable that people who have lived for decades, some of

them doing difficult, unpleasant, menial work, some of them owning

building companies that are now worth millions, it is downright

unacceptable that they should now find themselves with their lives

turned upside down through no fault of their own. They committed to

living here in good faith. That should be recognised. Allied to

that, when Brexit negotiations get underway, we heard about what

happens to powers that Brussels have over agriculture and fisheries at

the moment during PMQ 's. Where should that go to? Should it go to

Westminster or Holyrood? Although they are devolved fully -- to the

Scottish parliament, they are under a European framework, so I think

anything that comes from the EU and is repatriated, aged automatically

go to the devolved administration. However, we need to make sure this

is done properly. The NFU are concerned about agriculture because

of the amount of money spent in Scotland in proportion to the rest

of the UK. Yet, we should say clearly that it should go back to

the Scottish Parliament and in theory it should, but we need to get

the regulatory framework right to make sure we are not damaging those

sectors. The other thing I would say is this they go back to the Scottish

parliament, it though they want to hand it back Brussels again. Is that

true? No. What we want is to see about powers of devolved competence.

We were looking for clear assurances from the Scottish Secretary and from

the by Minister this afternoon about what will happen to those powers and

we were given no answer to those very simple questions and they

should be resolved now before we go into negotiations? John Stevenson

this is something whereby we could say, we get the powers back and we

can enhance devolution? It's interesting listening to the SNP.

They want all the powers but they don't want to do anything with them.

I think the bulk of the power should be repatriated to the devolved

parliaments and that's probably the right way to approach it. But Ian is

right. We have to make sure that we safeguard, for example, the

agriculture industry so that Scotland is not affected badly by

going back to Scotland. I think Neal had an opportunity here to answer a

question that a lot of farmers and fishermen will want to hear and that

is that if he gets his way, if he had his independence referendum and

Scotland votes to be independent, is it in an EU deal or in some sort of

Norway way? Are we going back into the European Union or not? We would

have to consider what is going on now in regards to the UK

Government's negotiations at the moment. A compromise document has

been put forward spelling out the Scottish Parliament's position. Will

they dismiss that out of hand? I think that would be dangerous. I

didn't want the UK to come out of the EU. I campaigned very hard for

them to stay there. It seems to me that what Neal is saying to

fishermen and agricultural workers all over Scotland is that we are

going to fight and fight for the Scottish parliament to have these

powers, which they should, but then we are going to hand them straight

back to Brussels again. I'm not sure that is unacceptable position.

Gentlemen, we are going to have to leave that there. This time next

week, we will no doubt be discussing the budget. Gordon, back to you in

the studio. Andy Maciver is still here. You raise an interesting point

that apropos of that discussion over agriculture. If there is some reason

whether Scottish Government would want to retain some elements of

agriculture, you reckon they may have to change the Scotland act,

because it is devolved and they would have DD devolve it -- if the

UK Government would want to retain some elements of agriculture. I may

be talking nonsense but I think they would have do alter the Scotland

act, which would be a can of worms. You can only imagine what the SNP

would do with that. You mentioned subsidies but it could also be

issues of national security. We want to be able to intervene in a

national emergency. I think Ian Murray made a important point about

whether or not it is the right place for these powers to arrest from a

financial point of view. Andy, thank you very much indeed.

That's all for this week, FMQs is on BBC 2 Scotland

The idea of having hot running water and inside toilets -