08/02/2017 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland.

MPs vote later on the Article 50 bill - a day after Holyrood rejected

triggering the process to leave the EU.

And the proposed Jobcentre closures in Scotland go under the spotlight.

And, here at Westminster, after the debate,

MPs will have their final vote on UK Government legislation

MPs will vote again later on the bill that could see

the formal start of the UK's exit from the EU.

They'll consider a number of changes, including protecting

the rights of EU citizens living in Britain.

The bill will then pass to the House of Lords.

It follows a vote at Holyrood yesterday where MSPs voted

overwhelmingly to reject the triggering of Article 50.

Today, Scotland's Brexit minister, Mike Russell, has held talks

with his UK counterpart, David Davis.

Let's talk now to our Westminster Correspondent, David Porter,

and our Political Editor, Brian Taylor.

David, first, just bring us up-to-date on the contortions of

this. The bill being voted through today, are there any concessions by

the government in it? It depends who you talk to. Yesterday, the Brexit

minister, David Jones, got up in the House of Commons and said that MPs

would be given a vote on the deal that had been agreed, when it is

agreed, that the House of Commons and the Lords would get to vote on

it before it goes to the European Parliament for them to say yes or

no. Some people saw that as a concession, and then they thought a

little harder about it and they thought, well, that was what Theresa

May was saying anyway. Because what became evident was that MPs will get

a vote on the final deal that is done, but if they reject that vote,

then the UK will leave the European Union without any deal and will fall

back on what is known as the World Trade Organisation rules, which

basically would be worse probably than any deal that had been struck.

In effect, what Theresa May is doing, rather than conceding, is

metaphorically putting a gun to some MPs' heads and saying, of course you

can have a vote on the deal but, if you reject it, we are still leaving

the EU and they will not be any deal on the table, we will have to be out

in the cold, so to speak, with the heart, cliff edge Brexit. -- hard.

So I don't think you can regard that as a concession. To make it clear,

some MPs wanted a vote that meant that, should they vote against the

final deal, that meant the British government had to go back to

Brussels and say, they don't like that, we'll have to negotiate

something else. That is what is not going to happen? Yes, also the UK

Government says at the moment. They explicitly say, if MPs reject the

deal, that deal will not go ahead, but there will be no deal. She will

not be going back for a second set of negotiations saying, look,

frankly, the guys and girls don't agree with that, can we have another

go? She says that will not be the case. A number of amendments and

changes have been put forward in the House of Commons in the three days

they have been debating this bill in committee, going through the

nitty-gritty. So far, none of the changes or amendments have been

backed. I think Theresa May and her ministers are fairly confident they

will get it through tonight with a large majority and, so far, they do

not think they have to compromise too much on this. Much talk again

today, Brian, about the independence referendum 2, as it's called. The

revelation that the British government might be thinking there

might be won is hardly a revelation, is it? No, they have been thoughts

that the government is preparing for the possibility of a second

independence referendum. Well, of course they are, it is what

governments do, preparing for every potential process that might impact

upon them. So of course the UK Government are preparing. Are they

preparing for the eventuality of independence? No, they are not. Just

as it is fairly evident they didn't prepare for the eventuality of

Britain leaving the EU. But they are preparing for the process. In

Scotland, things have been choreographed. There is choreography

going to match the developments at Westminster. The Scottish cup would

have put forward what they regard as compromise proposals on Scottish

membership of the EU single market by the EEA. You have a succession of

votes at Holyrood, including the one last night, in which, by 3-1, MSPs

said, don't go ahead with the trigger of Article 50. It is a

series of challenges. Brian, I'm interested on your take on this.

There is clearly a debate going on in the SNP or the broader Yes

campaign about what they say if they have another referendum. Some people

would say, what they should say is not Scotland in Europe but an

independent Scotland which would join Efta but not be in the customs

union, so there wouldn't have to be a border with England. Alex Salmond

seems to be saying that isn't it. What is your take? Bearing in mind

what is happening, Britain withdrawing from the European Union

and, according to the Prime Minister, the single market, the

proposal from the Scottish Government is that Scotland stays in

the single market via the EA with the agreement in support of the UK.

That might be, if the Scottish Government get their way, where we

are just prior to a referendum on independence. That is confusing that

with the ultimate objective, which would still be Scottish membership

of the EU. David, we will be back with you later. I was going to say

that I hope it doesn't start raining, but that means that it

will! I'm joined by the Daily Record's

Political Editor, David Clegg. What do you make of all this? As we

were saying, it's hardly surprising. It would be more amazing if the

British government was not aware there might be another referendum.

Nicola Sturgeon said every day that she is on the cusp of another

referendum. If they were not considering that, it would be

surprising. I think we are getting to a level of rhetoric now where we

are almost passed the point of no return. The SNP conference is on

March 17. All of the assembled SNP grassroots supporters will be there

and they will want to hear something significant from Nicola Sturgeon

about independence, and she won't be able to get out of conference

without giving them something. She has already said not this year. The

most obvious thing she could do is, as we know, it requires the

permission of the UK Government for the Scottish Parliament to hold a

referendum through a section 30 order, so I would expect at some

point in the next few weeks Nicola Sturgeon will specifically ask for

that. That does not commit heard anything. The referendum bill would

still have to pass and set it down the road. There has been some

suggestion from Michael Fallon, among others, that the British

government might say, look, you have the right to have a referendum, just

not while we are negotiating Brexit. You had one, you have decided. They

could actually stop the SNP holding one before the final Brexit steel

was done and the British government would presumably say,, the polls

show that people don't want a referendum. Politically, would that

be suicide? That would be difficult. The discussions going on between the

SNP and the UK Government are about how they respond. On the one hand,

among Conservative voters in Scotland, it would probably be

pretty popular to block a referendum, but how does it leave

the general mood of the country? Clearly, at some point, if Nicola

Sturgeon continues to be the most popular politician with the most

popular party, at some point you will have to quit her. I think we

all have great experience of referendums. -- you will have to

give it to her. A mood is important. Comments by David Mundell and

Theresa May, they are floating this one, rather than taking a hard line?

There was an idea that Michael Fallon when he had shot his mouth

off when he said, you're not going to get it. I think there was

probably tactics, sending him out to fly a kite and see what the response

was. What they have decided about that is probably another question.

Yes, seeing it full of bullet holes! The UK Government have an equally

difficult decision about how to deal with it if she pulls the trigger.

Plans to close a number of Jobcentres across Scotland

are being scrutinised by politicians at both Holyrood and Westminster.

Unions say the proposals will see around 10% of centres

Opponents say those searching for work will suffer,

but the UK government argues more people are finding help

Joining me now to discuss the implications of the move

is Martin Bright from the employment charity The Creative Society.

Martin, can you hear me? Hello, Martin Bright? Hello? No, I'm... I'm

afraid he can't hear me. We will come back to that interview, if we

manage to get Martin Bright in sound as well as vision. In the meantime,

what we were talking about there, do you think it would be... As I say, I

can see the British government saying, OK, you can have a

referendum, we don't want to stand, but just not while we are doing the

negotiations. Would that be seem up here, do you think, as common sense

or a great infringement on our right to do this? Like everything else, I

suspect it would split opinion. Clearly, it makes logistical sense,

given the nature of the difficulty and complications that the UK

Government are going to have negotiating a deal, to also be

trying to wage a referendum campaign in Scotland would be an absolute

nightmare, so they would be very keen to avoid it. Whether that gets

them into a position where they say, you can't have this referendum now,

but let us get the deal sorted, let the people in Scotland know what the

Brexit offer looks like and then you can have one, and they could maybe

do that. Generally hostile to independence, but do you think the

British government is playing this correctly? There is a perception

that they are a bit tin eared. They could have come and said, look, this

is a marvellous opportunity, Brexit. We can't wait, we are setting up

committees with the Scottish Government to discuss agriculture,

tax rates, rather than just saying, oh, we will consult with you and

then leaving the Scottish Government too, as far as we can see, not

reasonably say, you haven't done any of the things you said you would.

The record towards independence is still an issue to be as peshmerga

still to be decided maybe. In terms of the UK Government, I think there

is a feeling in a suspicion that I certainly share that the advice and

the way that the UK Government is directing the Scottish question in

the aftermath of Brexit has not been particularly well advised. It has

seemed that, almost every point, Scotland's interests have been

pretty far down the pecking order, and that obviously leads to

resentment, and that can be a problem. You wouldn't need to be the

most brilliant special adviser in the world to tell them how to do it

better, would you? No. In their defence, they have had it not to

deal with, taking over the mess left by the Brexit administration. --

Brexit referendum. The news about the discussions that are happening

is maybe that they are trying to get on top of it but they have a lot of

work to do. I think we can now talk to Martin Bright from The Creative

Society, who is interested in the question of Jobcentres. You can now

hear me, can you? I can. Do you think Jobcentres are past their sell

by date? Do you call them silos of despair or something like that? Yes,

I think Jobcentres were a good 20th century solution to the 20th century

problem. They are pretty good at providing large numbers of jobs in

retail or manufacturing in periods of very high unemployment. The

problem now is that they are essentially benefits offices and the

function of actually creating jobs is no longer really there. These are

places that people do not want to go to, they are unpleasant places and

they are not suited to job creation in the 21st century. It isn't all

that long ago since the Jobcentre bit was separate from the benefits

of this bit, isn't it? Was it not new Labour who merged them? There

has been a whole history of back and forward between these functions

being merged and separated. It has always been a problem when they've

been separate because, if it's just the benefits of this, it's a really

unpleasant place to be, and best some logic in attaching a job

creation element. -- if it's just the benefits office. The moment you

do that, the Jobcentre element becomes poisoned by the benefits

office. We just need to rethink it. If someone is genuinely perhaps not

even claiming benefits, just genuinely getting a job, does it

make it the kind of place you don't want to go into? Yes, particularly

in recent years when benefit sanctions have become so severe,

NIMBY attempt to stop people becoming part of the benefits

culture, -- in the attempt. These are places that people associate

with punishment. Could you give us an example. I know that Europe --

your organisation is involved in and some councils have effectively been

trying to bypass the system and do something else. What are they trying

to do? They have been a number of different approaches from local

authorities and small charities like us to take the functions of job

creation element of the Jobcentres out of the physical buildings

themselves and place them elsewhere. You either go to places where young

people are, youth centres or further education colleges, or indeed, in

our case, we work with the creative sector, so you trying to take these

functions into arts institutions. You make a very important point,

which I want to make you to make the game, which is that your view is

that, in this day and getting a job isn't about going into a government

office and sitting behind a desk. If you are a young person, you need

informal skills. That is what you are trying to encourage? Our point

is that the sort of jobs you want to get in this day and age are not

industrialised jobs. These are jobs where you need to use initiative,

you need soft skills and you will not pick these up in effectively

benefit offices and Jobcentres. Let's cross now to the chamber

at Holyrood for the start of that debate on the proposed Jobcentre

closures in Scotland. The Employability and Training

Minister, Jamie Hepburn, Indeed this is a UK Government who

seems not even to know where Glasgow is, and the House of Commons when

asked about the close euros in Glasgow, one MP said the Minister

for employment, the UK Minister for employment, was in muscle Borough

two weeks ago, that in itself was one example of how far removed the

UK Government is from local communities in Scotland. If these

proposals were not bad enough, on 26th January it was again with no

consultation, there was announced a further raft of closures across the

UK and across Scotland. This lack of forewarning came despite myself

having raised directly the fear to have provided such previously with

Glasgow when I met in January. I wrote to him before that meeting. I

have to say by some miraculous coincidence with this being the day

of the debate he has replied to that letter today. What stands out at

first glance in that letter is that there is not particularly much

additional information, there is no commitment to consulting on all the

closures and particularly disappointing is the failure by

MrHinds to commit to visit the communities and the people who we

impacted on the ground to truly understand the real concerns and I

would continue to urge him to come and visit those communities. These

proposals, these further proposals that were revealed on 26th January,

and a further 16 sites on other parts of Scotland, nine Jobcentres

six, back offices in one centre for health and disability assessment. It

could mean the closure of a further six Jobcentres. We also learned from

the press that a Jobcentre not even listed on the planned closure list

is planned to move to Falkirk. We continue to find out details from

the media rather than directly from the UK Government is a continuing

demonstration of the failure to properly communicate these

decisions. We know staff and services will move from the current

Jobcentre before March 2018, that's a move that involves a distance of

2. 9 miles. Had this been judged to be 0. 1 of a mile more a

consultation on closure would have been required. It is my view that

any proposal for closure should be open to consultation. The UK

Government can't just make decisions based on lines of circles on a map

which it seems very clear is formed how much of the decisions about

sites to be closed has been made. I want to highlight my concerns about

these plans, concerns echoed by the First Minister in this chamber last

week and concerns I have heard directly from people who will be

affected. The fact... Let's speak to some MSPs now.

From the SNP, we have Ben Macpherson,

Maurice Golden is from the Scottish Conservatives,

and, from the Scottish Greens, Alison Johnstone.

Well, my apologies, you won't have heard him, we were talking to

someone from the Creativity Society talking about alternatives for

Jobcentres, making the point that they're entirely 20th century and

that not only is there no need for the ones that are going to be

closed, arguably we need to think of some alternative to Jobcentres as a

whole. Well, as you said I have not been able to hear the conversation

you had earlier but the journey of the move from Jobcentres to

Jobcentre Plus was obviously something that happened over the

Labour Government in Westminster. I think at the moment the way that our

benefits system works and the accessibility issues there are

around making sure that there are physical assets in communities where

people can go and make the claims to social security that they have

rights to, that in the here and now in today in the communities that I

represent and I am sure many others on the panel will agree, that

Jobcentres are absolutely crucial. We do live in an age where there is

more digital access but I think some people don't have that capacity. You

are concerned about people claiming benefits having to travel. You don't

seem to be mentioning somebody looking for a job. Well, of course

Jobcentre Plus and that's the distinction combines both those

services. So the support that there is in a Jobcentre, I am a member of

the social security committee, we visited a Jobcentre recently, I have

done so in my own constituency. Provided in terms of supporting

individuals to apply for jobs, the work coaches who are there which are

new initiatives of universal credit and there is still work to make sure

that's delivered more effectively and more compassionately and

supportively are essential. So I think as we move into the times

ahead, absolutely Jobcentres are crucial, both for helping people to

access the benefits that they have an absolute right to under law and

in terms of the society that we believe in where we People's Quiz

when they're in difficulty and to help them -- where people are in

difficulty and to help them into work and the work schemes that the

Scottish Government are going to change and implement without the

conditionality within that and that will help provide a more supportive

environment. Colin Smith, there you are, yes, we are getting to you. We

have got to you. I can see there might be issues for people on some

types of benefit but all this row about it's unfair people have to

travel three miles, if you are looking for a job and you can't

travel three miles to a Jobcentre you are not going to have much

chance of getting a job. I live in a rural area and there aren't

Jobcentres three miles apart in that particular region, people do have to

travel and will have to travel bigger distances as a result of

these changes. There are 139,000 skts currently out of work this

Scotland. We need to be providing more help to get people into help,

not providing less help. The Tory argument... Aren't you missing the

point. The argument from the Government and others, including the

chap we were talking about the Creative Society, they're not saying

they don't want to help people get jobs, they're saying that Jobcentres

are a completely 20th century way of doing that. If you want to get a job

you can do it on the internet, it's more important particularly with

young people to encourage them to use word of mouth and to develop

their social skills. The whole idea you get a job by walking into a

Government office and sitting behind a desk is outdated. I don't agree

that the support provided through Jobcentres is not useful to people.

Can you explain why the statistics show that only 36% of the people who

go to Jobcentres get a job? 36% is a substantial number of people. The

reality is the argument the Tories are putting forward is that the

reason for these Jobcentre closures is that unemployment has fallen. The

reality is it is 14% higher than it was during the financial crisis. We

need to be providing more support for people to get into work, not

less. What's important people are losing their jobs as a result of

these closures, several hundred people will be out of work in

Scotland because they won't have a job to go to in a Jobcentre. There

is an area... You are not seriously suggesting keeping Jobcentres open

as a job creation programme? One of the proposals in my own

constituency, a town with one of the highest levels of unemployment in

Scotland, yet they're proposing to move a call centre to somewhere else

in Scotland. It's a wrong-headed decision that will take jobs away

from that local community and is unrealistic to expect those people

to travel across Scotland for that employment. Alison Johnson, can we

try you on this, because both the previous people are basically saying

we need to help people get jobs. The people who want to close the

Jobcentres are not saying they don't want to have people find jobs,

they're saying if only a third of people ever go to a Jobcentre

actually get a job, there is clearly a problem so we should start

thinking about doing this in a different way. Well, I would agree

with Colin in that a third of people is a significant number. That's

pathetic for a Government agency that's supposed to be getting people

jobs. They can always do better, I agree wholeheartedly. Would we

consider removing a GP surgery from a heart of a community? This is one

of the most important services that we as a society can offer. The lack

of consultation is quite, frankly, frightening. You simply can't go

about closing Jobcentres willy-nilly. On the social security

committee we have been taking evidence from a lot of people who

have significant difficulties engaging with technology. We have

been hearing from citizens advice and others about how much time

they're spending getting people an e-mail account, showing them how to

use the internet. So one size will never fit all. I wouldn't suggest

for a second that we have too many Jobcentres, I think we should be

investing in this if we are serious about having a working participant

of society. Even from the way you have described the problem, the this

you are suggesting investing in doesn't sound to me very much like a

Jobcentre. No one is saying we shouldn't invest money in helping

people who can't use e-mail because they're not going to get a job

unless they can do that, but you don't need Jobcentres for that. I

think we do. We have staff there who are trained and expert at helping

find out what would best suit the client and ensuring that the client

has a pathway into that work. Do you know the statistics? The statistics

may be worse if we remove Jobcentres from our communities. Inclusion

Scotland are really concerned about the impact on disabled, those using

the service who have disabilities. Three miles might be nothing if you

are able-bodied and in good health but it can be a significant barrier

to those who don't enjoy good health. Maurice Golden, that's a

point, if you are disabled it is easy, you might say people who are

able-bodied and looking for work as I said earlier, if they can't go

three miles to a Jobcentre what's the point of trying to get them a

job, but if you are disabled that might be a serious issue. Well, yes,

and that's why we need further consultation on any of the proposed

closures but I think one thing that you may not have picked up from some

of my colleagues is that down in Westminster, both the Labour and SNP

have supported a modernisation of the Jobcentres. There is a

recognition that, for example, the claimant count in Glasgow has gone

down by 44% since 2010. More and more people are accessing Jobcentres

online. So that's something that we should all be working towards. Do

you think there is a case, again, as I apologise to Colin, I know you

didn't hear Martin Bright, the chap from the Creative Society, but one

of the points he makes is that while the New Labour's merger of the

Benefits Agency with the jobs agency might have been well intentioned,

actually the way it's turned out is it makes these places really dismal

and there might be an argument for separating the two out again? Well,

I know when I have been unemployed in the past I have used Jobcentres,

I find them helpful in helping people to find work. They did it for

me and I know they're doing it for others. They made you an MSP? They

didn't get me this job. Tell us which Jobcentre that is then! Well,

I am sure I can point you to it once we finish this conversation, if you

are looking for a change in career! All right, we will have to leave it

there. Thank you all very much indeed. A quick shot of all you

standing looking marvellous, thank you.

And now to this week's Prime Minister's Questions,

where the subject of health and, especially,

Jeremy Corbyn accused the UK Government of arranging

a "sweetheart deal" with a Tory-led council to stop a controversial

The Labour leader asked Theresa May to "come clean" on how much

money had been offered to Surrey County Council.

I wonder if it's to do with the fact they both represent Surrey

constituencies. MrSpeaker, there was a second text from Surrey County

Council leader to Nick and in the second text it says the numbers you

indicated are the numbers that I understand are acceptable for me to

accept and call off the R. Now I have been reading a bit of John Le

Carre and apparently R means referendum. It's very subtle all

this. And he goes on to say in his text to Nick, if it is possible for

that info to be sent to myself I can then revert back soonest, really

want to kill this off. So, how much did the Government offer Surrey to

kill this off? And is the same sweetheart deal on offer to every

council facing the social care crisis created by her Government? I

have made clear to the right honourable gentleman what has been

made available to every council, which is the ability to raise the

preset. Yet again what we get from Labour are alternative facts. What

they really need is an alternative leader. When the Prime Minister was

in Edinburgh on 15th July last year she pledged that she would and I

quote, not trigger Article 50 until she had an agreed UK-wide approach.

So given that the Scottish parliament has voted overwhelmingly

against her approach and all bar one MP representing a Scottish

constituency in this House of Commons has voted against her

approach, she does not have an agreed UK-wide approach.

As the Prime Minister knows, a lot of people in Scotland watch Prime

Minister's Questions, so will she killed those viewers in Scotland

whether she intends to keep her word to people in Scotland or not? --

will she tell. We are ensuring that we work closely with the Scottish

Government and the other devolved administrations as we take this

forward. I would remind the honourable gentleman that the

Supreme Court was very clear that the Scottish parliament does not

have a veto on the triggering of Article 50. The bill that is going

through the house obviously is giving the power to the government

to trigger Article 50. I would also remind him of this point, because he

constantly refers to the interests of Scotland inside the EU. An

independent Scotland would not be in the European Union. Does the Prime

Minister agree that, in a 21st century parliament, the rules should

not enable any member to speak the 58 minutes in a three-hour debate?

Does she agree that the rules should be changed to prevent filibustering

and ensure that members from all sides have their share of the time

available? I have to say I find that a curious question from the

honourable gentleman. Last night, I was out of the house between the two

votes. I switched on the BBC Parliamentary channel and I saw the

honourable gentleman speaking. I turned over to something else. I

switched back. I switched back to the Parliamentary channel. I saw the

honourable gentleman still speaking. I switched over to something else. I

switched back and the honourable gentleman was still speaking. He is

the last person to complain about in this house.

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

Hopefully still dry and with some MPs put yes, it still dry and I've

got MPs, but it is very cold. I've got Alistair Carmichael for the

Liberal Democrats, Ian Murray for Labour, Kirsten Oswald for the SNP

and Iain Stewart for the Conservatives. You have all said you

are desperate to talk about Brexit, and it is my wish to help you in

this, because you've been talking about it for five days in the House

of Commons. Five days in, the government has not been defeated.

You are probably quite glad about that. Is it all been worth it and

has anything changed since we started discussing Brexit? The court

decision in a few weeks ago were quite parliament to have a debate

so, if you are having a debate, you have full consideration of all the

issues and we have certainly at that. I am pleased we are keeping

the bill is simple. It's the start of the process, not the negotiation

itself. It's the authorisation for the government to start it. I hope

this goes through so we can get on with the negotiations about the deal

that works for the country. The court said it had to happen and

therefore it had to happen. Your party seems less than impressed with

the way it's gone. Is less than impressive. We have a one line bill,

a white Paper that arrived in the middle of the process which, from

looking at it, seems to mostly consist of blank space itself. There

are some difficulties in persuading me that we've had a full and

thorough discussion of it. In the midst of that, we've had a Scottish

parliament who have clearly had strong views, in my view is those of

the Scottish people, but we have had difficulty making that heard here

and are being persuaded that the government is taking that on board.

I think much more should be done to persuade people that the government

are really taking it on board. Very few issues link you and the SNP, but

this is one that does tonight presumably you will again vote

against triggering Article 50? I will, because the bill has not been

changed or altered. I don't know why the government had to be dragged by

the Supreme Court to bring this process because they are just

running it through. They could have done that last July and we would

have been much further ahead. They fought the process and now they are

fighting to be able to amend it. I have never seen as many amendments

to a bill as I have seen in this process, but they are all concerned

with the big issues about EU nationals, the effect on the

economy, parliament having a say, etc. We will not reverse the

arguments again. But none of that has been accepted. The key thing

here, and it would be interesting to get the government response, every

bill that goes through the House of Commons chamber has a report stage,

and that is a separate stage to report back to the house a bill that

has been amended. There is no report stage, so the government that had no

intention of accepting any amendments so the process is a sham

and it highlights the fact that Brexit doesn't mean Brexit if it

means a Tory Brexit. If it goes through unamended, that is a result

of the Parliamentary arithmetic, isn't it? It probably will go

through this evening but that doesn't change the politics of it.

We have got two years of this still to go and the future of EU nationals

living in the UK, for example, our nationals living in other parts of

the EU, these are problems that still have to be faced and dealt

with. Yes, it's an issue of Parliamentary arithmetic, but for

me, the issue is that the reason this bill is almost certain to go

through unamended is that the Labour Party has thrown in the towel on

just about every significant vote we have had. You know that it only

works, parliament only works when the official opposition does the job

it is there to do and offers meaningful opposition. When Jeremy

Corbyn marches into the division lobby shoulder to shoulder with

Theresa May... It is disingenuous to say that we have stopped this

bill... Tory rebels, adding them... Simon Petra -- you would have had a

chance of getting Tory rebels. Eight Tory rebels yesterday, that was it.

You have thrown in the towel at every turn. You are better than

that. We know that you like talking about Brexit at every turn. But

another idea is that of a second Scottish independence ever read on.

As we progress towards Brexit, are we moving towards one? I don't think

so. There is clear evidence that Scotland and the people of Scotland

don't want one. Frankly, I think the Scottish Government should engage

constructively in the Brexit process. Looking at the additional

powers that potentially could be devolved to Scotland, and working

with the government on this, rather than creating uncertainty for

everyone by keeping this threat of another referendum alive. Tell us

when the second referendum is going to be. I think it is these gentlemen

to look to to discover where we are with this. Some of the things that

Ian said were extraordinary. The Scottish Cabinet has been engaging

constructively with the UK Government throughout the process.

The missing link... So take the independence referendum of the

table. The missing link is that the UK Government seems unwilling to

engage in compromise. If I can finish, it is unacceptable to the

people that are watching all this, with some astonishment, I would

think, to see the way that the Scottish representatives are being

dealt with and to see that their government in Scotland is not being

listened to. In terms of the GMC, I think it's pretty clear that the

Scottish reference -- Scottish representatives are not being

listened to either. Are we moving towards Indyref 2? I don't think so,

because I don't think Nicola Sturgeon wants a second referendum,

and I think we should quickly get this off the table so it doesn't

confuse Brexit so we can work towards a Brexit that works for the

whole UK, including Scotland. The bill is going through tonight and we

are leaving the EU. We have to do all that we can to get the best

deal. And the best deal for Scotland. Alistair Carmichael, you

are a former Scottish secretary. We hear reports today that the Scottish

office of the UK Government is planning for a second independence

referendum. Does that ring true for you? I'm not going to second-guess

that. The difficulty for Chryston and the SNP is that they are using

this, the Brexit issue, as a lever to get Scotland out of the UK. Now,

really, what they should be doing if they are sincere in their commitment

to the EU, they should be working with other people in other parts of

the UK who share their views and focusing on that, rather than seeing

everything through the prism of Scottish independence. Much though

it pains me to agree with Ian on this occasion, it's right, you do

really need to take the Indyref off the table on this occasion. We'll

have to leave it there. They have to go back in the House of Commons.

They have some voting at 5pm. There are something like ten separate

votes, so they are going to go back and prepare for that, but at least

they will be in the warm. Big issues, Brexit, Indyref 2. Let's

narrow it down to Labour. Is there any sense of them getting it

together? What Ian Murray was arguing there flatly contradicts

what his party leader is arguing. I don't think there is, frankly. The

debate we are having that will there be another independence referendum,

what discussions are the government having, the Labour Party are nowhere

near that. The last independence referendum on the known site was

almost entirely a label one. Anything that... The Labour Party at

the moment doesn't seem to know what day it is. Or what, I mean, they

would say they had a line on independence, they are against a

referendum, but we have had varying suggestions they might not be

institutionally in favour of independence but some might campaign

for it and then they can't do that... They have learnt... What is

hoped this is the fact that, as I say, you have just had Ian Murray,

the only Labour MP in Scotland, and what he is saying is, he is

justifying voting against the way that his party leader is ordered

them to vote in a three line whip. While defending the approach his

party is taking, which is astonishing. Yesterday, at the

Scottish Parliament, we had a trio of rebels that are considered to be

Jeremy Corbyn supporters but then voted against the way Kezia Dugdale

was instructing her MSPs. They are completely at sea. The problem for

them is that all parties tend to have a field Mavericks. Jeremy

Corbyn was a maverick in the Labour Party. But this is right down the

middle. -- a feud mavericks. In the next essential problem with the SNP,

their sole purpose is to agitate for independence. The Labour has all

been -- always been about something else but in a political environment

across the UK entirely defined by constitutional attrition. It is

almost like the pop charts are sewn up and Labour are saying, actually,

we are into jazz. And nobody is listening to jazz right now. I have

a pet theory, which is that the party which stands to benefit most

from the second referendum is Labour, because it might end up for

them. Do you mean if it is a yes vote? Or a no vote.

FMQs is on BBC Two Scotland at midday tomorrow.

See how he turned his life around from being the Scottish bad boy...