05/10/2016 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland.

Coming up on the programme this afternoon: Her government

will stand up for the weak and stand up to the powerful,

Theresa May tells her party conference.

But is the new prime minister's pose as champion

of the dispossessed credible - or ludicrous?

And is the Scottish Government's Finance Secretary showing

Theresa May has given her speech to close the Conservative party

She says it's the Tories who are now the party of ordinary

working class people, that the Brexit vote

was a vote for change and that change is going to come.

In this week, some big questions were hanging in the air. Do we have

a plan for Brexit? We do. All we ready for the effort it will take to

see it through? We are. Can Boris Johnson stay on message for a full

four days? APPLAUSE

Just about. But I know there is another big question people want me

to answer. What is my vision for Britain? My philosophy? My approach?

Today, I want to answer that question very directly. I want to

set out my vision for Britain after Brexit. I want to lay out my

approach things I believe, I want to explain what a country that works

for everyone means. For the referendum was not just a vote to

withdraw from the EU, it was about something broader, something the

European Union has come to represent. It was about a sense,

deep, profound and, let's face it, often justified, that many people

have today, that the world works well for a privileged few but not

for them. It was a vote not just to change Britain last night

relationship with the EU, but to call for a change in the way our

country works and the people for whom it works forever. Our economy

should work for everyone. But if you are Paea has stagnated for several

years and fixed items of spending keep going up, it doesn't feel like

it is working for you. -- if your pay. Our democracy should work for

everyone. If you've been trying to say things did change for years and

your complaints following deaf ears, it doesn't feel like it is working

for you. And the roots of the revolution run deep because it

wasn't the wealthy who made the biggest sacrifices after the

financial crisis, but ordinary working-class families.

APPLAUSE And if you're one of those people

who lost their job, who stayed in work on reduced hours, took a pay

cut as household bills rocketed, or, and I know of people don't like to

admit this, someone who find themselves out of work or lower wage

is because of low skilled immigration, life simply doesn't

seem fair. It feels like your dreams have been sacrificed in the service

of others. So change has got to come.

APPLAUSE And if we believe in the goods that

Government can do, it is important for people to trust us to deliver

the change they need. We can start, as I said on Sunday, by doing

something obvious to stop quibbling, respect what the people told us on

the 23rd of June, and take Britain out of the European Union.

APPLAUSE Because it took that typically

British quiet resolve for people to go out and vote as they did to defy

the establishment and ignore the threats and make their voice heard.

So let us have that same resolve now, let's be clear about what is

going to happen. Article 50 triggered no later than the end of

March. A great repeal bill to get rid of the European communities act,

introduced in the next parliamentary session. Laws made, not in Brussels,

but in Westminster. APPLAUSE

Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg, but in court across the

land. It is, of course, too early to say exactly what agreement we will

reach with the EU. It is going to be a difficult the gauche Asian and

will require some give and take. While there will always be pressured

to give a running commentary, it will not be in our national interest

to do so. Let me be clear about the agreement we see, I wanted to

reflect the strong and mature relationships we enjoy with our

European friends. I want it to include corporation on law

enforcement and counterterrorism work and involve free trade in goods

and services and to give British companies the maximum freedom to

trade with and operate within the single market and let European

businesses do the same here. But let's state one thing loud and

clear: We are not leaving the European Union only to give up

control immigration all over again. And we're not leaving only to return

to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, that is not going

to happen. We are leaving to become, once more, are fully sovereign and

independent country and the deal is going to have to work for Britain.

Theresa May giving a speech to the Conservative conference. Afresh as

leader. Now, speaking before the prime

minister, the Scottish Conservative leader spoke passionately

about defending the union Ruth Davidson told Conference,

that the majority of Scots are telling the First Minister

to let go of planning another I am aware how the Scottish politics

can sometimes look. You have seen Nicola Sturgeon on the television

retailing news and is up in arms, again. Threatening the break-up of

Britain, asserting that independence is closer now than ever before,

declaring that separation is somehow inevitable. Today, speaking to be

from across the UK, I want to make this clear: Don't believe a word of

it. There is nothing... APPLAUSE

There is nothing inevitable about the wake of this great nation and I

for one will fight it with every inch and so will thousands of Scots

with me. APPLAUSE

The SNP does not speak for all of Scotland, nor does it have the right

to. Every nation is bigger than one party, bigger than one person. And

Scotland is bigger, more varied, more complex than the nation the SNP

would like to pretend. Next time you seen Nicola Sturgeon picking a fight

or trying to claim that the UK is over, remember, she does not speak

for the country. And when she threatens to put yet another

divisive referendum back on the table the nation is not behind her.

She is not speaking for the majority because the majority wants us to

move on. The majority have no wish to return to the divisions of the

past, we want to seize the opportunity of the future. Most

Scots have had enough. And they are telling her, for pity's stake, let

this go. APPLAUSE

And the problem is that the SNP isn't listening, instead they are

determined to keep the divisions over the last few years alive. I am

often accused by those same opponents, those ardent separatists

that I bank on about independence in the union as much as they do but for

so long as the SNP keeps us alive, so be it because the union matters

so much. It matters for economic stability and jobs that our

partnership brings, it matters for the defence and security of our

country and matters because of the common bonds we share right across

the UK. And it matters perhaps even more so now that we are leaving the

EU. You all know where I stood on the referendum in June. I tell you

this: I did not vote Remain to see my Butko opted in a fresh SNP

independence drive. -- to see my vote brought into. I can to use

something else: Whatever questions Brexit raises, none of them, not a

single one, is answered by destroying our own union of Nations.

I urged the SNP Government instead of focusing on a second referendum

that isn't wanted, why not get back to the day job instead? We will make

Britain a country that works not for the privileged few, but for of us.

That is noble, that is right, and that is true. In the months and

years ahead it must be our guiding principle. More than that, it is our

duty. Conference: That is why I'm in politics, it is why Theresa May is

in politics and why you are too. Not for my own ambitions goals but

because I believe it is our values and mission and our beliefs that

will make this country a better place. So I'll goals are clear, our

resolve is firm and together every one of us, let us get down to that

work and bills that better future. Thank you, so much.

Listening to that is Scottish Secretary David Mundell.

Elsewhere in that speech Ruth Davidson made it clear she wanted

immigrants to feel welcome in this country and in particular she wanted

the British Government to give guarantees to people from Europe who

are already living here. Would you agree with her on that? Of course I

agree with her on that and it is something I've said before and

something rehearsed set. It is what the Prime Minister said she wants to

be able to give people from the EU who are already in the UK the

guarantee that they can stay but she also wants to ensure that British

citizens who are overseas in the EU can stay there as well. I hope we

can get that issue resolved quickly. People who are already here are very

welcome everyone them to stay and we want to resolve the issue of people

from the UK who are in the EU. There is no prospect now on the broader

issue of free movement of Labour which Ruth Davidson said she

supports during the referendum campaign, the SNP Government

Scotland supports free movement of Labour, there is a zero prospect of

that continuing given what we've heard from the Tory party

conference? The Prime Minister on Sunday set out the basis for moving

forward with the negotiations. As she has said again that speech,

there is not going to be a running commentary on those negotiations,

having set the view... She said in the speech that Britain should take

back control. Yes, exactly, that is what we want to do and we will make

the decisions about the people who come from the EU into the UK. We are

now going to go forward with the negotiations on the timetable at the

Prime Minister has set out but I think it is clear that post-deal,

whatever framework that takes, people will still be coming from the

EU to the UK to work, it would just be the basis on which they are doing

so that will have changed depending on employment or study

opportunities, for example. Now, the suggestion from Michael Russell, the

Brexit Minister on Sunday" as Government, that this great repeal

lock could be voted down by the Scottish Government, what did you

make of that? There seems to be a consensus that could be overruled by

the British Government, but nonetheless, it would be pretty

embarrassing if the Scottish parliament were to vote it down,

wouldn't it? I think we're in a position where everyone agrees the

Scottish parliament doesn't have any veto over Britain leaving the EU. Of

course it will have its say, debates, it will have votes. I would

be very surprised if there are votes in the Scottish parliament given its

make up that goes against what might be the UK Government position. What

is clear is the Scottish parliament will not have a veto over the

process of the UK leaving the EU. Should the British Government allow

the Scottish parliament even to vote on this or do you think they should

find some way of avoiding that situation arising in the first

place? It is not for the British Government or anyone else to tell

the Scottish parliament wanted votes on. These are matters for the

Scottish Parliament to determine. I certainly want to tell them what to

say, not because I know they wouldn't listen to it but because I

respect their right to make their own decisions and choices and

express their own views. But, the framework for leaving the EU is

quite clear in the sense that it is a UK Government responsibility to

negotiate this arrangement and implement this arrangement and the

Scottish parliament does not have a veto. That said, I still remain and

am very confident that we will be able to engage fully with the

Scottish Government in the process because despite a lot of' we see in

public behind-the-scenes we have a very good working relations with the

Scottish Government officials and the meetings I've had with Mike

Russell were very positive and the meeting with David Davis was very

positive, think we will see engagement as we move forward and I

very much want to see that happening.

Are you saying the Scottish Government's bark is worse than its

bite? I am saying that behind the scenes, the Scottish Government are

approaching these discussions in a professional way. We all know that

that doesn't mean that politics will not intervene. It may well intervene

in the sense that despite doing a lot of legwork behind the scenes,

despite coming up with agreed positions, those might not be

politically acceptable. But I am confident that if we want to work

together to have this team UK approach, it can be achieved. People

in Scotland realised that the way to get the best deal for Scotland is

for both governments to work together, not to be engaged in

politicking and point-scoring and needless rows. David Mundell, thank

you. In the studio today we have

political commentator You thought Ruth Davidson was

sticking her neck out a bit on immigration, given that she was

speaking before Theresa May. This has to be seen in context. Ruth

Davidson was given the privileged position of being the warm up act

for the new bra minister. Most people would just praise the Prime

Minister and take a standing ovation and move on, and yet she made a

deliberate attempt to say that as far as she is concerned, she wanted

European citizens here to feel welcome, to feel it was their home

and that an olive branch should be held out to immigration. That is

very different from the message that has come across from the conference

that has been led by Theresa May. It was a brave thing to do for the

Scottish leader to set out such a different stance just before the

Prime Minister spoke. What do you make of Theresa May's speech more

generally? I suppose the big-ticket approach is that she's trying to

redefine the Conservatives, something they have started to do

since Brexit, trying to claim that they are now the party of the

working class, that they represent the interests of working people, not

Labour, with their wacky internationalist ideas. It was an

appeal to old-fashioned blue collar Conservatism in one sense. In

political terms, it was more than that. Theresa May has seen whether

votes were in the Leave campaign in the EU referendum, and she has said,

we need to appeal to those people. By doing so, she is also trying to

undermine the appeal that Ukip has the right wing working class

conservative base, and tried to take votes away from Labour. Politically,

it was spreading the conservative wings towards labour and towards

Ukip and also distancing herself from the elitism that David Cameron

perhaps came to embody. You could imagine measures to bring in extra

money for areas where public services have been affected by

immigration. They have already said Babel abandoned George Osborne's

budget targets. You could see them trying to portray this as being

nothing like David Cameron and George Osborne. But every time

Theresa May mentioned the elites that people have rebelled against,

back to a big point of the Leave campaign, I couldn't help but think

she was referring to David Cameron, George Osborne and perhaps even

Boris Johnson. But you are right, the real test is not the rhetoric,

but how she delivers. She talked about having a go at those corporate

to avoid tax. Well, David Cameron said he would do the same, but did

he? So the rhetoric was great, but the test will be in a few years'

time, has she delivered? Dev. Away, we will come back to you.

Well, what kind of reaction did that get from Westminster's

Our Westminster correspondent David Porter is with a couple of them.

The clearing up operation is under way. Most representatives have left.

It is just her Majesty'sfourth estate who are still working hard

when everyone else has gone home. How are they going to write the

story tomorrow morning? Let's find out from two of my colleagues in the

Scottish written press. Lindsay, two speeches from two leaders today.

From a Scottish context, how did they do? They were both strong

speeches, but there was clear water between the two of them,

particularly on immigration. We have seen this row building up over the

week, with interventions from Amber Rudd, Liam Fox. Four Ruth Davidson,

the thing that stood out from her speech was deeply from the

Conservative Party and to voters to remember the families behind the

numbers when it comes to immigration. In contrast, Theresa

May came across as hard line on immigration, as she did on Sunday

when she gave her Brexit speech. So there is clear water between them.

Ruth Davidson invoked the name of John Major about people coming into

communities and making a contribution. Looking down the road,

can you see that being a problem between London and Edinburgh as far

as the Conservatives are concerned because of the difference in tone on

immigration? Yeah. Migration is the new dividing line in Britain now,

certainly when it comes to relations between Scotland and the UK or the

Scottish Government and the UK. Obviously, Ruth did not get the

anti-immigrant memo. She took her own line on it. That was a huge

criticism from other ministers, whose anti-immigrant rhetoric was

shocking. Ruth stood her ground and said migrants are welcome and

foreign families and people who work here are welcome to stay. That is in

contrast to what other ministers and Theresa May said. Both speeches were

good. Ruth's speech was possibly the speech of the conference. Not if you

are a nationalist, of course. But Theresa May had a friend of the

working people, vicar's daughter image of a Britain that works for

all. She will get that at a price. She has to make a deal with the

snarling right-wing of the Tory party, who want hard Brexit and

controls on migration and they want to play to the fears that were

expressed in the Brexit vote, rather than confront the truth of

migration, which is that migrants benefit the economy and Scotland

would certainly be better off with more migrants. So May has done a

deal, and Ruth has been the conscience of the party. The

strength of the reaction on politicians in Scotland has been

noticeable. Yes, immediate reaction almost as Theresa May was stepping

off the stage. We got strong reaction from the First Minister.

She branded it an ugly vision for Brexit. Kezia Dugdale picked up on

another story about Diane James quitting as Ukip leader, saying that

Theresa May is taking up that Ukip vacancy. So strong stuff from the

Liberal Democrats as well. Strong criticism all round from the SNP,

Lib Dems and Labour. I'm not surprised that Nicola Sturgeon has

come out as strongly as she has, because it is another opportunity

for her to distinguish Scotland, which voted Remain across the board

in the EU referendum, from other parts of the UK, particularly

England, saying that Scotland is different and we need a different

solution in Scotland. She was banging the drum loudly today.

Torcuil Crichton, it does set up a clear dividing line politically.

Absolutely. Sturgeon has used the independence vote -- in the

referendum vote to leave the independence case. And now there is

another leave when it comes to opening up to migrants and closing

down the anti-immigration rhetoric of Tory ministers. People in

Scotland have concerns about migration as well, but politicians

sometimes have to lead people on issues and not just become an echo

chamber for their fears and concerns. People have concerns about

immigration, their kids getting work and about competition for jobs and

services, but sometimes leaders have to take people by the hand and

explain. The Tory party have shown no sign of doing that apart from the

mention Ruth Davidson made in her speech. They are playing to the

Brexit drum. Theresa May has proved that they are all Brexiteers now in

the Tory party. She has really embraced Brexit this week. There has

been quite a sea change. Someone who was a reluctant Remainer Na seems to

have thought, Brexit is going to happen, I am going to ride his

horse. She has made the decision to grab the bull by the horns. She has

looked at ease with the rhetoric this week. Perhaps that is all she

can do. She has got the three Brexiteers probably pushing from one

side, so she is playing into their hands. What did you make of Ruth

Davidson's tactics to say very directly to Nicola Sturgeon, forget

all this talk about independence - you concentrate on making sure you

run Scotland properly? With the Brexit vote, it has obviously raised

the prospect of a second independence referendum, Nicola

Sturgeon saying after the result that another one was highly likely.

But Ruth's woods today were probably two people in England, Wales and

Northern Ireland more than people in Scotland. In Scotland, you can't get

away from the prospect of a second independence referendum. Ruth could

have made that speech any day of the week in Scotland. But this was her

speaking to a UK audience, sending a message to the rest of Britain that

there was more than one voice coming from Scotland, not just Nicola

Sturgeon's. She set herself up by being the strong opposition, and

here she was very shrewdly not just speaking to England about Scotland,

but framing herself as a UK patriot, making herself look bigger on a

British stage. Knew what Ruth Davidson. Watch where she will end

up. She's the new Boris of the Tory party. They love her. She can say

and do anything. Thank you for joining me. I will let you go and

write your copy. Gordon, back to you.

Now, plans to raise the council tax for the four highest bands

MSPs on Holyrood's Local Government Committee voted to back

Our Political Correspondent Andrew Kerr has more.

This is a sort of rubber stamp for what we knew before. But a loss of

MSPs would like more to be done. That's right. There is controversy

about what the Scottish Government are proposing to do with the council

tax. The SNP had been in favour of a local income tax and the Labour

Party on the Scottish Greens favour more radical reform. But now the

SNP, the Scottish Government, are saying they are going to increase

the four highest bands. The finance secretary came before the local

government committee Parliament today and this was rubber-stamped by

them. It was voted through 4-2. But his opponents characterised this as

a clever wheeze, because along with getting that money, ?500 million

over the course of the Parliament, by raising those four bands, there

will be ?100 million from an attainment fund that will be

targeted at the poorest pupils and going directly to headteachers,

using the free school meals as the determining factor. So the councils

still get to keep all the money they raise, but the Scottish Government

will decide through the revenue support grant how much money they

received essentially. So those well of councils like East Renfrewshire

or East Dunbartonshire will get less money through their support grant,

but they are raising more money through their council tax. It is an

interesting one. Some opposition have been opposed to this. The

Conservatives say that is breaking local accountability. Others like

the Greens and Labour want Scotland to do more with council tax.

The Finance Secretary has promised to give MSPs more details

on Holyrood's budget in an attempt to stave off a political row.

Derek Mackay took part in a parliamentary debate

led by the Finance Committee yesterday, and told MSPs

he would provide additional "strategic information" to help them

And I will committee supporter move towards a more flexible approach to

financial security and scrutiny that might be carried out throughout the

year? This should not be viewed as a replacement for scrutiny of the

Government's actual spending proposals. The committee recognises

that this year is different given the unique set of circumstances that

currently exist as a consequence of Brexit is imminent -- and the

imminent devolution for the tax powers, the committee sought to work

with the Cabinet Secretary and considering what level information

could reasonably be provided to support scrutiny top prior to the

budget draft being published. The Cabinet Secretary informed the

committee on the 7th of September that he would be willing to produce

as much scenario planning information as possible. There

followed an exchange of letters between the Cabinet Secretary and

finance committee. Let me make it clear today as we did in our letter

on the 21st of September that the committee would find it unacceptable

if he confronts he is not prepared to publish any such information in

advance of the draft budget being published. I reiterate my

willingness to to provide the committee with additional Tijuca

information to assist committees in preparing for the Autumn Statement

and draft budget. It on the 7th of September I offered to provide

further work and updated economic financial modelling that could

provide analysis that demonstrates the impact in changes of economic

performance would have on the Scottish budget. I can go further

about the detail that the finance committee was requested but I

certainly intend to the commitment made to the finance committee about

providing further information, what I can't do is provide a draft

spending plan and budget, that would be a draft budget. I will hold true

to what I promised the finance committee and a happy to take

intervention. I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for giving way. He

knows very well the committee looked at that letter from him at the

beginning of September and sent what it amounted to was unacceptable. He

also goes before he gets to speak today that a majority of this

Parliament have already formally recorded a for him to put scenario

planning information indicative figures into the public domain by

the end of the October recess. We could have pushed this and so

dramatic headlines at the end of the day and a vote at five o'clock but

we bent over backwards I think of the committee has, to give the

Cabinet Secretary alternatives to producing a draft budgets because we

understand the difficulty he is in. Is he not going to say anything

following the position he offered at the beginning of September to go

further than he has gone so far and allow Parliament to do it job in

budget scrutiny? What I have said to the chamber is that I will honour

the commitment given to the finance committee around sharing as much

information as I possibly can. But I cannot produce a scenario plan that

is a spending draft budget without having all of the information that

will come from the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. The finance

secretary had a choice when he came into the chamber 's afternoon to

either listen to the Parliament which has expressed a number of

signature is for the motion and offer concessions to meet Parliament

and the finance committee halfway or can and brazen it out, I regret very

much he decided to take the latter path in that debates afternoon and

brazen it out. By refusing to publish as much information as

possible in advance of the publication of the draft budget

later this year Derek Mackay is treating this Parliament with

contempt. Particularly since he is going back on a promise he has

previously made to this Parliament. The late publication of the

Chancellor's Autumn Statement has consequences for the budgets, of

course, but it isn't sufficient justification for Derek Mackay's

refusal to publish indicative figures and budget scenario planning

information. As we have heard the Scottish Government has delayed its

draft budget until December, leaving Holyrood's it is just a few weeks

for scrutiny. Earlier this book to Derek Mackay and asked for his

response to criticism he showed contempt for Parliament over his

handling of the timetable. Finance committee itself recognised that I

had a justifiable case to delay publishing the Scottish draft budget

and until on to the Chancellor's autumn 's timid with a of Brexit

adding uncertainty into the system. Finance committee said that the

Niger likely to have a justifiable case that has been widely accepted.

A recognised some members of Parliament were more information,

they ask for most of scenario planning and have said I will

provide that and have always tried to provide as much information as I

possibly can but the crux of this issue is the Chancellor's Autumn

Statement will be opportunity for UK Government to reset economic and

fiscal policy, that is what they have said they would do. Or reason

be the Chancellor said in this Tory party conference speech that the

economy would face a roller-coaster ride. I expect some significant

announcements in the Chancellor Bosma Autumn Statement which clearly

impact the Scottish budget and is also closer to the forecast of the

OBR that will drive the title's decisions and I think it is right

and proper that three weeks after the Chancellor's Autumn Statement,

which is a very significant in the chat calendar of decision-making for

the UK Government and respect the Scottish Government so profoundly

that I deliver a budget three weeks after that. What a variation are we

talking bout roughly? When we take to get the new measures coming to

the Scottish Parliament plus the fact that Philip Hammond has said he

will not stick by George Osborne's austerity measures, what kind of

magnitude of change are we speaking about? We don't know, which is why

it is called uncertainty. The title and the Chief Secretary of the

Church as Ray has not give me an indication of what it means for

Scotland in the barn spending or for tax policy, revenue or capital. We

don't really know what is coming in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement so

I don't know what impact is about to be in Scotland but based on

everything said publicly is likely to be significant of what we also

know is all economic consensus is that of Brexit, the vote and

outcome, will have a profound impact and a range of different scenarios

on the UK and Scottish economy which will have to be taken into account

in the Chancellor's decisions in October. Presumably when you and the

officials are planning, are you assuming your budget will be cut in

either cash or real terms or are you assuming you will have cash for

real-time increases? There is already proposed by the UK

Government terms reduction cash increase and there has been real

terms reduction is to Scotland's budget and that is likely to

continue. Are they abandoning their plans? The UK Government has said

they are abandoning their targets on fiscal surplus, which is one bid of

information but they don't say how they will achieve that what the

current skills would be and we can only guess what that means for

revenue and capital and really importantly on tax, whatever we do

with these new powers coming to the Scottish Parliament on tax, what

they do and we do is relative and I might not be able to generate more

spending power or resources for Scotland if I don't know what the UK

Government is about to do and we have no idea if Philip Hammond will

follow the budget. When do you expect to be able to produce a draft

budget? I have outlined the Parliament that I would, and this is

a challenging timescale but I've committed to it, produce a Scottish

draft budget three weeks after the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, which

relies on the most up-to-date forecasts and all the information

coming from the Chancellor and that would lead to a Scottish draft

budget is being published on Thursday the 15th of December. We

have to leave it there. Thank you. You think he has been perfectly

reasonable? I do have sympathy with Derek Mackay on this. It is pretty

difficult if you are down in the end of the line as he is. If Philip

Hammond pairing -- preparing his Autumn Statement, he doesn't really

think that all about what the Scottish position is and yet Derek

Mackay has to wait until the Autumn Statement is delivered and then he

has to put his budget together and put it to parliament, it must get

put to all sorts of committees and eventually get past and put into law

by April. That window is pretty tight. I think Derek Mackay is a

difficult position because he cannot plan. Because nobody has any idea

except those hobbled away the Treasury exactly what Philip Hammond

is going to do. If he produces these indicative figures or whatever he

has agreed to, they will be meaningless? The committee has asked

for scenario planning which presumably means Derek Mackay says,

if the Chancellor cuts this, we can do that but if he gives us more

money we will do this. In terms of planning ahead, that is pretty

useless because until we get the figures and see exactly what Philip

Hammond will do and how he will change things around the net

scenario planning is basically useless. I actually only spotted

looking back at that interview that his away, one of the things he seems

to be saying is it is not just the budget figures I've got to worry

about, I've got to get the economic forecast the Treasury make in the

budget because we will have to raise taxes and how much of those taxes

will amount to be have to take into account the economic forces the

Treasury and OBR are making? I think that is very significant in part it

has to be seen in the context that the SNP are very keen there at all

possible not to raise taxes, particularly in contacts. They will

put up the higher rate and they will not bring forward the cuts the UK

Government will do to the higher rate but the rest of it they

desperately want to keep where it is. Derek Mackay was saying he might

have to look at raising taxes but what he will try and do is look at

the figures and find any way he possibly can not to raise taxes. You

also have to give the SNP hats off to their ability to execute U-turns.

On the council tax, there you are, rubber-stamping it away, this was

the hated council tax they were willing to abolish. What has

happened is you've had after nine years of council tax freeze the

complaints from local Government have got louder and louder until the

SNP have realised they cannot resist them any more and they have to give

councils the ability tourist council tax, which they have done. That was

a cornerstone of SNP local Government policy for the past

decade and it is gone. Given that have changed these bands and made a

song and dance about it, that is a change, OK, but presumably it locks

the council tax system in place? It does, there is one more significant

change that it creates a fund that could be used for schools around the

country, effectively although not officially taking it from the

councils that raise the most money. In that sense that is beginning to

break the link of local accountability for the money that is

raised locally and spent locally. I think as that starts to go through

your get more complaints. Democratic complaints about the breaking of

that link. Looking at the bigger picture, Derek Mackay is saying you

think sensibly, please, I cannot, with DPL figures because I don't

know what had Philip Hammond will do, part of this new we are on the

side of this working people is the given up the fiscal surplus targets

that George Osborne had. Labour are committed to an enormous programme

of public spending. Due think it is possible that people like the IMF

are more in favour of saying fiscal expansion should have gone together

with quantitative easing? There is a shift going on. Yes, and what the

Scottish Government are probably expecting is for the UK Government

to let them spend much more in capital projects, there is hence in

the week that infrastructure is the new big thing to spend money on.

What's Derek Mackay is hoping that the UK Government will spend more

capital projects and you'll get the Biard consequentialist but what he

doesn't know is whether the rest of the revenue money is going to go up

and that is the balance that has to be done, it is fine getting billions

of pounds extra to build new roads and hospitals, but if there isn't

extra money to go into the NHS or teachers that has to be found

elsewhere. Again, don't go away. New powers are being devolved

to Holyrood that will mean from April 2017, MSPs

will for the first time have the ability to design

employment services for disabled people and those at risk

of long-term unemployment. The Minister for employability and

training Jimmy Hepburn is leading the debate for the Scottish

Government. We come to the significant point career move to

designing services to deliver importantly this Government could

potentially deliver new powers for Scotland in interest of the people

of Scotland and with dignity and respect central to our thinking. I

would like to set out the way forward for the smooth and seamless

delivery of new devolved services and how those services will support

people into employment. Today I will also set out where will use the

powers differently in Scotland, including on how devolved deployment

programme will interact with the systems of conditionality and the

sanctions that remain reserved to Westminster. Today is also the

opportunity for members to set out their views on these matters, I look

forward to the debate to be clear at the outset, is to always useful to

have clarity at the outset, today we will not be supporting the

Conservative amendment but we will be supporting Labour amendment had

it been accepted we would also happily it supported the Green

amendment. We have a significant and unique opportunity to deliver the

employment support in Scotland. I intend to take that opportunity to

deliver employment support services that will reflect fair work in

social economic conclusion and put emphasis on partnership delivery of

building on our strength and boasting public and private sector

and local authorities are third sector and specialist delivery and

treat service users with respect and have services that will take people

with us and encourage and support people into work rather than

cajoling them regardless of their individual circumstances.

Delivering new powers is not without its challenges. There are

limitations in the powers being devised by the UK Government.

The devolution committee of the last parliamentary session shared our

disappointment that the degree of devolution does not deliver on the

Smith commission's recommendation. A week after the publication of the

agreement, the UK Government, despite our strong case for swift

transfer of powers, announced that rather than devolved services on

expiry of the current commercial arrangement in March 2016 as had

been agreed, it would actually extend the contract to March 2000

17. Then in the UK 2015 autumn Budget Statement, the then

Chancellor announced the replacement of current programmes with a new

work and health programme in England and Wales. That programme is still

undefined, meaning disabled people and those who are long term

unemployed in England and Wales still do not know what support

services they will have. We are determined to give people in

Scotland certainty about the future support programme.

Now let's speak to some MSPs at Holyrood.

I'm joined by George Adam from the SNP, the Conservatives'

Graham Simpson, Daniel Johnson for Labour, and Ross Greer

Jawed Adam -- jawed Adam, on the business of helping long term

unemployed people get back to work, you have a chance to look at new

solutions, look at some of the Scandinavian systems that you claim

to admire so much and implement something completely different. What

is it? You make a great point. We are at the beginning of something

new and more powers that we can take something forward the people in

Scotland with. But one point underlined by the Cabinet Secretary

was that you have a position where we are getting these powers and the

Tory government are taking away 87% of the budget from the DWP at the

same time. They are effectively saying, there are your powers, but

they are taking away. That is the difference between and it is ?7

million. So yes, we are at a place where we can do something different

on as the minister said. We have the opportunity to do things

differently. We have the ability to treat people with respect. But what?

What are you going to do that is different? We will make sure it is

all people centred. We will make sure the individual is true to with

respect, not like currently, where they just feel like they are a

number. What is the new radical system? Actually, treating people

with respect is a radical system. That is a good start. We are dealing

with people's lives and how they go about them. It is important that

respect is at the heart of that. So if you are asking me what is

radical, that is a radical start. So you are not going to have a

different system, you are just going to be nice to people? I was not as

flippant as that, Gordon. I said we would give people an opportunity to

build something, but it will take time to see what we can do. Graham

Simpson. I was expecting you to appear with a donkey jacket and a

scarf and a copy of the morning star under your arm, given Theresa May's

speech. Do you have any radical ideas for what the Scottish

Government can do? Sorry, I don't own a donkey jacket, never have

done. George Adam has given you know answers to the questions, and they

never do. They always want to blame somebody else, blame Westminster.

Powers are transferring out to the Scottish Government. It is up to

them to come up with proposals. You come up with some. Why do I have to?

Because you are the main opposition. It is up to the SNP government to

tell us what to do with the powers. If you look at the Work Programme as

it has been operating, more than 47,000 Scots are now in work, next

to the Work Programme. It is up to people like George Adam and his pals

to say what has gone wrong with that. Daniel Johnson, let's try

third time lucky. Have you got any good ideas, or any ideas? Labour,

from the get go, have been talking about devolving and looking at how

decisions can be made locally. If the Work Programme is to be

effective, it has to respond to local need. So Labour has that

proposal. Sorry, I missed what the proposal was. Making it local,

making decisions about the Work Programme at a local level. What

does that mean? Rather than making centralised decisions, having a one

size fits all, we are looking at localised employment issues. We know

what is happening in the north-east and we have seen other issues in the

steel industry. By making those decisions locally, we can have a

more responsive system. Ross Greer, this is your big chance. We have had

been nice to people, it is not up to the Tories to come up with ideas,

and be local. Have you got anything to be that? Yes. The Greens have

done the research and found out that we can stop sanctions in Scotland.

We know that the sanctions regime that is part of the Work Programme

doesn't help people get into work. It really hurts the people it is

affecting. There are 13,000 people in Scotland at risk of being

sanctioned once we take full control over social security. We have

figured out how to stop those sanctions and it looks like the

Scottish Government has agreed. There is one specific proposal, to

end the sanctions regime and save dozens from the misery the Tories

have been inflicting. Are you saying that if you are on benefits in

Scotland, you can just not turn up to any meetings you are supposed to

turn up to, and there is no possibility of any consequences? But

we know the sanctions regime doesn't work. You are supposed to encourage

people into work. We know that punishment doesn't work. Even if

people feel it is the right thing to do, which I don't understand, but we

know from the evidence that it doesn't work, so why continue to do

it when all it is doing is hurting the people being sanctioned? I am

not sure what you would get in the Eurovision Song Contest for that,

because that is just an idea for not punishing people who do not abide by

the rules. You were asking for specific proposals. I have given you

one. You said the Scottish Government agree with that. Let's

see if George Adam is prepared to agree that people will have no

sanctions on them, no matter what they do. We need a balanced system.

Ross Greer says you have agreed with his idea of no sanctions. The

weather current system is, I constantly have to deal with

constituents coming in who have been recently sanctioned and they are

tragic cases. But there will always be a situation where we have to have

checks and balances. So it is not no sanctions, but different once? You

have misunderstood me again, Gordon. We are having a bad day! There will

always be a need to checks and balances, but the sanctions regime

we currently have is causing heartache throughout Scotland and

that has to go. Graham Simpson, as a conservative, you don't want to take

a position on any of this? Renaming sanctions, is that a good idea? If

you want. Call it incentives if you want. We have had more than half a

million people throughout the UK who have got into work through the Work

Programme. Your question to Ross Greer was right, and he didn't

really cover it. Should you have any sanctions? Of course you should. I

thought you didn't have any views on the matter, because you are not the

government. You ask me about sanctions. I am giving you an

opinion. You call sanctions incentives, but incentives shouldn't

drive people to suicide. Can you justify that? Hang on, give Daniel

Johnson a chance. So you want local sanctions, presumably? We need to

move away from talk about sanctions. Sanctions are not talk. But it is

all stick and no carrot, and that is the problem. Excluding people does

not work. We have to leave it there. Thank you all for joining us. Hamish

is still here. It is an opportunity, isn't it? We talk about Scandinavian

systems. They could reinvent the welfare system. Two points to make.

Firstly, they were trying to make their way through it. This is

extremely complicated. The whole benefits system is just a mire of

benefits and Saxons and it is very hard to unpick one part on its own

without affecting the other parts. The other part is that social

security is being devolved in part. The Scottish Government is not

getting complete control of everything the DWP does. So it is

limited in what it can do. If it had complete control of that and of the

tax system, perhaps it could bring in some Scandinavian changes. But

the scope for change is pretty limited. But there is also the point

you made there. For example, the Blair government didn't make any

serious changes to the welfare system, birth because they realised

that it is impossible. No matter what you do with the welfare system,

somebody suffers. You are only going to make changes to the welfare

system if you want to cut the money going to it. The Blair government

decided that if money was going to come in and go out, it would not

alter the way it dealt with the benefit system. The Conservative

view is different. There is an ideological drive to try and get

more people off benefits and to bring more sanctions in, which the

Scottish Government want to resist. But it is fiendishly difficult to

make the changes that do change the system. OK. And of conference, they

are all leaving. The SNP might object to that. But I mean today was

the end of the Tory party conference. Do we know anything more

about what the governance of Britain will be like over the next few

years? We know where Theresa May is coming from. She was a fairly blank

piece of paper until the start of this conference. Today, she has set

out where she once the party to go. She does want it to be the party of

blue collar Conservatism, working-class Conservatism, the

people who drifted to Ukip and some who drifted to Labour. She wants to

make a complete break with what she sees as the Bullingdon club elitism

of the Cameron years, the Chipping Norton set and all of that. And

grammar schools is part of it. The meritocracy part of it. We have to

leave it there. Join us for First Minister's

Questions tomorrow on