10/02/2016 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up in the

programme... Child abuse survivors accuse the Education Secretary of

the coming complicit in the cover-up of offences for refusing to change

the terms of the government inquiry. And Holyrood MSPsdebate labour calls

to protect education spending over the next five years. As the clock is

ticking here at Westminster at the Prime Minister agrees that he wants

an agreement on the financial deal that will underpin more Scottish

devolution. Survivors of child abuse have accused the Scottish Government

of becoming complicit in the cover-up of offences. Able demand

ministers change the remit of the inquiry established to investigate

allegations but also social affairs correspondent reports the government

says it's already done that and Allegations of abuse at the former

border gust is Abbey School are among the high-profile being

considered in the Independent inquiry announced by the Scottish

Government. Ministers said Scotland's widest ever inquiry and

the report in four years. But campaigners including this catholic

priest say it's not wide enough. Many allegations include abuse in

parishes will not be covered. It doesn't include people who were

abused within care homes and needs to be broadened because the inquiry

needs to listen to everybody. And it can't be selective. Abuse survivors

like Andy Lavery said the government must listen to those who have been

calling for the inquiry to be widened. We had no consent what

happened as children, we have no consent now, they are ignoring us

now and they did when we were children. I they complicit? I

couldn't offer an opinion either way but what has happened is full and

discriminatory and its effect on us is devastating. Ministers say by

restricting the inquiry to residential care it will be able to

report more quickly and that is important. Survivors want to see

inquiry get on with its job, come with meaningful resolutions in a

timescale and they don't want to be disheartened by having to wait an

excessive amount of time. Before there is an outcome. But even some

in the Catholic Church now say by excluding its activities the inquiry

will not be shining a light on all of Scotland's dark corners of the

government claimed. Regal Alderson joins me now. Where

has this allegation of complicity come from? It's coming from a group

called in care survivors in Scotland. What they say is and other

groups say similar things... By not looking at, for instance, the

Catholic Church and the abuse which is widely accepted to have taken

place within the Catholic Church by priests, in parishes and churches

and parish missions and so forth... The government is effectively

closing those investigations down and therefore it is being claimed,

that they are complicit in hiding that abuse in a way that has been

hidden for many decades. Just to be clear, the distinction here is that

in say a catholic school... Or some sort of educational institution that

was staffed by priests... That will be covered. No, it won't. Remit of

the inquiry is simply to look at allegations of abuse in residential

institutions. Residential schools, boarding schools, that's the thing,

whether operated by the state, private organisations are by the

church. And also, children who were fostered or sent away from perhaps

the central Gulf of Scotland to be fostered elsewhere in Scotland, that

is what will include. It include allegations of abuse may have taken

place in a day school, for instance, if someone abused children while in

the care of a primary or secondary school in the state sector, it won't

include allegations of abuse in parishes or indeed organisations

like the Scouts, Army cadets are the Salvation Army. Why does the

government not extended? It is not obvious why they would not want

everything to come out? They say it's because everyone wants this

inquiry to report as quickly as possible. It has a four Europe time

period to do so, until October 2019 and by widening the remit the

government argues it would take longer and that would be detrimental

to the hopes of survivors who want to see a line drawn under the

swansong all. But, I have to say, that is what is happening in England

and Wales and other enquiries around the world and survivors say why

don't we look at what they are doing because we would like the same?

Thank you. My guest for today is the daily record's political editor

David Clegg. Briefly... What do you make of this? Clearly a sort of

clash, right against right, speed... It's a difficult situation for the

Scottish Government because, I mean, there is no political aspect to

this, they want to get this inquiry to be as effective and speedy as

possible but it's a very difficult, sensitive situation. If they are in

a situation where enquiries elsewhere in England and around the

world or broader... That is potentially... It could put them in

difficulty and survivors groups say they are becoming complicit or they

are letting the Catholic Church off the hook. It is very emotive

language and the Scottish Government will be very keen to ward off any

allegations like that. But equally, it's already taken four years to do

it under that remit, the inquiry has said they are going to take elderly

people and people who are ill, prioritise their evidence so they

can get that done as quickly as possible. But it is such a wide

remit already, there is such an extensive kind of brief to cover, I

think it's pretty difficult. We are about to watch a bit of

Parliamentary debate, which is ostensibly about education, I will

just clarify or could you clarify... This is all becoming a proxy for we

will put your taxi up by 1p, no, we won't. -- put your taxes up. I

suspect the lot of the debate this afternoon will focus on the use is

not what they are discussing his priorities, that is what the Labour

Party in particular, they brought this debate, it's what they are

trying to frame this upcoming Holyrood election on, which is they

have said they will put income tax up to invest in public services,

specifically education. Today they are citing figures from the

Parliament's mutual information centre, saying they think education

could be facing a 16% cut of the next five years under the SNP plans.

I'm sure the Scottish Government will deny that. Presumably that is

based on an old set of assumptions? Because this money is largely

diverted through local authorities, most local authority spending is.

Just to make clear, it's very confusing, education is to some

extent, a large extent, at the discretion of local authorities,

they can decide if they have a lump of money that may have been cut,

they will say we can prioritise education and put the money into

that. In some regards their hands are tied, it's difficult, the

central question we will get to today is should we be taxing more to

spend more? Particularly because the Scottish Parliament has the power to

do that and depending on the fiscal framework negotiations which are

ongoing, they could have more powers to do so in the years ahead. David,

don't go away. Let's go to the chamber. Labourer leading ad debate

on the future prosperity of Scotland calling for education spending to be

protected in real terms over the next five years. I'm not quite sure

who is speaking... Let's go and see. The terms of the motion are

substantially more narrowly drawn to refer to education. Can you advise

me whether... Or do please, let's hear the point of order. Which

constitutes the title of the debate and the terms of the motion, stand

equally in determining what we may consider to be the subject of the

debate. In particular... Not because I envisage this will be what will

happen, for future reference, we did he in order for someone to make a

speech that referred to Scotland's future prosperity but made no

reference to education? And, presiding officer, it's of course a

very debate on education we are about to have and I don't intend to

diminish the importance of that subject. Many thanks, order, please.

The member is correct that I can stop a member speaking if they

depart from the subject of the debate. Stop in fact, most members

in this chamber was no on occasion I have been known to do so. The

subject of the debate is determined by the terms of the motion and the

amendment and not the title of the motion. I judge whether then our

contribution is relevant in each case. And in this case, Mr

Stephenson asks about, I would advise the member to refer to

education in his contribution given the terms of the motion and the

amendments. Thank you. We now turn to the next item of business. The

debate on motion number 15,588, in the name of Iain Gray. The future

prosperity of Scotland. Could those members who wish to contribute

please press the request to speak buttons now... And by Colin Kezia

Dugdale to speak to and move the motion in the name of Iain Gray, 14

minutes please. Thank you, presiding officer. Education is my passion. I

was raised by teachers, I learned from them all education can enrich

lives and overcome any predetermined destiny. Education offers a first

chance for individuals to blossom into the people they are capable of

becoming. And a second chance to start again. To choose a new life.

Our schools and nurseries or where we place our children's future into

the trust of the government's hands, our colleges and universities or

where we seek the future prosperity of our very nation. Education is

both an anti-poverty policy and our most important economic policy.

Education is everything. I nurseries, schools, colleges and

universities either stay away out of disadvantage, they either map which

shows us where to locate our potential. Ask any of the big

thinkers on the left, joseph Stiglitz tells us if we do not

invest in education we are transmitting advantages and

disadvantages across generations. Thomas Picardy tells us the best way

to increase wages and two red juice wage inequality in the long run is

to invest in education and in skill. But the sad truth is that investing

in education has not been the priority of this SNP government.

When this parliament was established in 1999, we spent ?204 more per

person than the UK average and education. Today that difference has

fallen to just ?18. We still have higher public spending than the rest

of the UK, we just don't spend it on education. Education must be our

national priority, the very first call for resources, the very last

place that we choose to cut. Yet, the SNP cut and cut and cut...

Teacher numbers are added ten year low after local councils have been

cut and cut. The amount spent on primary schools has been spent by

?560, primary school pupils, cut... Secondary spent per pupil cut ?285,

even nurseries, supposedly the signature policy of this First

Minister cut by ?290 per person. Audit Scotland found every local

authority has cut spending and almost every council has had to cut

teacher numbers. This is a government who came to power

promising to cut primary one to three class sizes to 18 or less yet

today, just one in eight are in classes under 18. And one in four of

five to seven-year-olds are taught in classes of more than 25. Yet the

SNP just keep on cutting, more cuts to childcare, ?130 million less for

education in the current budget, hundreds of millions of pounds more

cuts to the local authorities that run our local schools.

That was Kezia Dugdale speaking. We will be back in the chamber for the

government response. Right now I am joined from the Garden Lobby by

Murdo Fraser, Jackie Baillie, Tammy Scott and Kevin Stewart. Kevin,

let's get to the fact we had a litany of accusations from Kezia

Dugdale that education budgets are cut but will they be cut? I think

maybe what we heard, would have been better heard in an English

literature class. What we had is a work of fiction. We are spending

seven point to billion pounds in education, some ?208 million more

than was spent under the last administration. We have invested

heavily in early years, and increase the amount of nursery... Sorry...

You are about to debate the budget but will you spend more on education

in the coming financial year when you spend this financial year? The

budget will rise by 1% when you strip the technicalities, that is a

fact, rather than the fiction that Kezia Dugdale has just spun in the

chamber. Jackie Baillie, if that's the case, the education budget will

rise by 1%, I presume, Kevin Stewart means in real terms. What is all the

fuss about? I'm afraid Kevin Stewart is wrong and to describe the work of

Audit Scotland as a piece of fiction or the independent experts in the

Scottish Parliament Information Centre as somehow pulling the ball

over people's eyes is not true. The facts are, 4000 fewer teachers in

the classroom in Scotland today than when the SNP came to power. Hang

on... Just the sake of clarity, let's forget about that. The

question I asked Kevin Stewart is Will there be less spending on

education in the coming financial year under the budget John Swinney

has laid out there was in this financial year? I am afraid there

will be. Look at the education budget itself, 130 million stripped

from that, if you cut hundreds of millions of pounds from local

authorities who are principally responsible for schools and

teachers, then inevitably, you will have cuts there as well. I cannot

squeeze the budget any further. Without cutting into one of the

biggest parts of the budget, the education budget. If what you have

said is true, why not abandon the squeeze on council tax rather than

say you want to put income tax up then local authorities could charge

as much as they like and they could spend on education. The reality is a

1% increase in the council tax would only deliver ?19 million of

additional resources, they are facing local government, a cutup

hundreds of millions of pounds and it's a cut to the core budget from

central government that cannot be made up by simply abandoning the

council tax freeze. All right, Tavish Scott, we are in danger of

getting toward some clarity, it's not that the education budget will

necessarily be cut, Jackie Baillie seems to argue that the cut to local

authorities are such that they won't have a choice but to cut education.

Why not... You might have to put council tax up a lot, why not just

say to councils, you decide? The councils can't decide anything

now because they don't have that ability. What I am suggesting is why

not say to councils, we will lift capital tax-free is. But the

Scottish Government, as you know when not doing that. For the reason

Jackie correctly gave, I would have to raise council tax across each

authority, it would be so significant and would make so much

difference to the ?500 million SNP cuts that are now being imposed on

local government. And local councils are the bodies that run our schools

and will face these agonising decisions. In the weeks to come when

they have to set their budgets, you will see SNP cuts right across

Scotland. I think it is a very sad day for the investments we should

have an education which is a proposal for the Liberal Democrats.

You are not in favour of putting taxes up? Do you accept... Let me

ask you the question I asked Jackie Baillie and Kevin Stewart, in your

assessment, will education spending next year the greater or smaller

than in the current financial year? These decisions are essentially ones

for local authorities to take. I still think local authorities can

spend their overall budget smarter and make sure we are protecting

front-line services. Then give you two examples. If a school attainment

fund that the Scottish Government currently overseas to help

disadvantaged pupils, we don't think the current means to deliver that is

getting to the right pupils and we want to change that system to make

sure it goes direct to schools and headteachers to distribute rather

through local authorities. The second problem is within the

authority, there are still authorities who have their

priorities wrong. My local council is spending nearly ?900,000 on

relocating their council chambers from the fifth floor to the ground

floor of the headquarters building. When money is short, and schools are

short of money, that is not a priority. Let's do a quick wide

swing round to Kevin Stewart again. There he is, yes. Kevin Stewart,

what is your response to the point that both Jackie Baillie and Tavish

Scott made which is that technically there may not be a cut in education

budget but that is because it is at the discretion of local authorities?

And they will not have any choice if you cut their budgets, except to

pass that on to some extent, no matter how much they try not to, to

education. So you're just being hypocritical. First off, I think

they are being hypocritical because what none of them have said is about

the cut to the Scottish block budget from Westminster. We are spending

?7.2 billion on education, that is up from the previous administration

by ?208 million. Local authorities have decisions to make that I would

say that local authorities have the ability to look at other areas,

shared services and various other things and make any savings there

rather than front-line services and education. Beyond that, in terms of

local authorities, major investment is going into social care... What

you are effectively saying is local authorities should preserve spending

on education and absolutely hammer everything else. No, what I am

saying is local authorities should preserve front-line services and

what they should do is look at things like shared services. In

Aberdeen city when I would be cancelled there, we entered into a

deal with Aberdeen chart joint procurement unit and save several

hundred thousand pounds. That is not happening right across the country

and councils need to look at these things and to deal with these first.

Jackie Baillie, Kevin Stewart have the point. We had the chairman of

Koestler on the Sunday politics a few weeks ago and he accepted this

cuts since 2010 had not had a particular effect on local services.

Both Kevin Stewart and Murdo Fraser say this is pressuring local

authorities to do things more efficiently. Clearly there was a lot

of fat to be cut. Local authorities have for years been making

efficiency savings, trying to do things smarter, working with each

other to cut down on cost. And that is good. We would expect that to

happen as a matter of course but the scale of these cuts, hundreds of

millions of pounds, demonstrate that not only has education already been

cut despite what is being said to you here, we know education is being

cut. We know people are contemplating cuts to education in

future because they have nowhere else to go. Let me say to you, these

are John Swinney's cuts. Tory, Westminster cuts. Tavish Scott, the

point being made about efficiency, there is financial pressure, no one

likes to see local authority employees either losing their jobs

not been replaced, but the fact is there was plenty you could without

cutting front-line services so there is no need to do what you want to

do, which is to raise everybody's income tax to pay for services that

could be paid for anyway. Absolute nonsense! What Kevin

Stewart just said, and I think that is illustrative of this government,

there is nothing they will not interfere in. There is nothing they

will tell local government not to do. On schools, the Scottish

Government are imposing teacher numbers deal and they are

imposing... Good for education. Briefly, Murdo Fraser... What we see

here is a combination of Labour and Liberal Democrats hammering

hard-working families across Scotland by putting up their taxes.

We note people across Scotland are still there are already feeling the

tax. I am glad that the SNP are taking... It gladdens my Tory hard

to see these people take a Tory line! Back to the chamber were now

Labour are calling today for education spending to be protected

in real terms over the next five years. The Education Secretary

Angela Constance is responding for the government now. Last year record

number of young people left school, record numbers of people attaining

age qualifications from colleagues and record numbers of Scottish

domiciled students are applying to go to university in Scotland this

year. We are also making progress in closing the attainment gap with an

increase in the number of school leavers from the 20% most deprived

communities achieve three or more... No, go to make some progress first.

This year, UCAS figures showed a 50% increase in university applications

from 18-year-olds in the most disadvantaged areas of Scotland

since 2006. Perhaps later. Others have acknowledged this progress. All

available measures of educational outcome have improved, including

performance of children from the most deprived areas of Scotland. The

though ECD review identified upward trends in attainment and

destinations. Sadly, you would not know any of this if you only ever

listen to Scottish Labour. I will later. There is more to do... My

prerogative. There is more to do, so we are all also investing in

specific priorities to improve all children's literacy and numerous the

skills while also closing the attainment gap between children from

most and least deprived communities. Perhaps later. The campaign for all

China Murdo Fraser families with -- all primary one children have been

given additional counting and writing materials. Acts have been

given to every library in Scotland and a national campaign has achieved

a remarkable 100,000 wrap page views. Perhaps Scottish Labour

should pay more attention to the read, write, Count campaign. They

clearly are having a little problem and need to do a little bit more

work on their new Morrissey. How else -- work on their new Morrissey.

How else do you explain the fiction concocted by Labour about spending

over the next four years? It is based on a full spring is. We

haven't set any tax or spending plans beyond next year. That was the

Education Secretary speaking there. Now two prime ministers questions

where the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn attacked the government on

its housing policies. He pressed David Cameron on the problems the

young and vulnerable were having on getting onto the housing ladder by

highlighting the case of a 20-year-old girl, Rosie, who lives

in London. Rosie says, I work incredibly hard at my job, yet I am

still having to live at home with my parents. The lack of housing options

are forcing her to consider moving. Even leaving the country. She asked

the Prime Minister what action he is going to take to help young people

and families suffering from unrealistic House prices and

uncapped rates to get somewhere safe and secure to live. What I would say

to Rosie, the Rosie who wrote to him, we want to do everything we can

to help young people get on the housing ladder. That is why we have

these help to save isomers and I hope she is looking at that. We're

cutting Rosie's taxes so this year which she will be able to earn

?11,000 before she pays tax. She will be able to buy, through the

right to buy extension. Through right to buy that -- crew helped to

buy, we are helping people buy their own places with our assistance. Why

is the UK Treasury proposing plans that may be detrimental towards

Scotland to the June of ?3 billion? Festival, we accept the Smith

principles of no detriment. There are two principles. No detriment to

Scotland at the time when this Chancellor is made in terms of

Scotland having these new tax-raising powers and then no

detriment to Scottish taxpayers but also to the rest of the UK taxpayers

who we have to bear in mind as we take into account this important

negotiation post-op I have had good conversations with the First

Minister, negotiations are underway. I want to successfully complete this

important piece of devolution in a fair and reasonable way and these

negotiations should continue. Let me remind the Right Honourable

gentleman, if we had full fiscal devolution with oil revenues having

collapsed by 94%, the right honourable gentleman and his party

would be just weeks away from a financial calamity for Scotland. In

the context of the referendum, in EU membership, don't voters have a

right to know that what is promised by the UK Government can be trusted

and will be delivered in full? Will be premised tell the Treasury that

time is running out on delivering a fair fiscal framework and they must

agree a deal that is their best to be people of Scotland and fair to

the rest of the United Kingdom. I can tell him everything that has

been committed to by this government will be delivered. We committed to

this huge act of devolution to Scotland and we have delivered it.

All the things we said we would, including vital Smith principles.

There is an ongoing negotiation to reach a fair settlement and I would

say to the Scottish First Minister and Finance Minister, they have to

recognise there must be fairness across the rest of the UK to that

with goodwill, I can tell you no one is keener on agreement than me. I

want the Scottish National Party here and in Holyrood to have to

start making decisions. Which taxes are you going to raise? What will

you do with benefits? I want to get rid of this grievance agenda and let

you get on with the governing agenda and then we can see what you're made

of. David Porter is on College Green

insomuch sunshine I am surprised he is not in shorts and sandals. What

an appalling prospect. Firstly, I start off with an apology, we have a

protest by London taxi drivers, you wait ages for a taxi to come and

then 500 turned up at once and we have a police helicopter as well so

we will try and battled through it. If it's noisy, apologies in advance.

The panel this afternoon, Nicola Stephen, Marion Fellows and Alberto

Costa. Let's deal with one subject. The fiscal framework, its technical

but important. Alberto, the UK Government according to the SNP is

trying to pull a fast one on the Scottish Government? It's the

complete reverse. The UK Parliament transferring enormous powers to the

Scottish parliament, all that this fiscal framework. There's goodwill

amongst the parties here in Westminster with the exception of

the SNP and I understand that John Swinney has made some headway. What

I don't understand is that Nicola Sturgeon isn't agreeing to the

reasonable deal on the table, I fear for the people of Scotland and most

importantly, it's they are for all of the United Kingdom. Marion, the

SNP, it is the fault of the Scottish Government? No, it's not the fault

of the Scottish Government, I think Alberto is on the flyer of his own.

The First Minister Road to the prime ministers said we were anxious to

get the fiscal agreement in place but in the Smith Commission, as you

saw, it's no detriment and that's the important sticking point. Ian

Murray, you're going to say something like a plague on both

their houses. At an international climate change agreement in December

it was put together in less time, this but the agreement was put

together by five political parties in less time and the G20 came

together for $1 trillion deal in less time. I think both parties need

to stop playing games, stay at the negotiating table, no one will thank

them for walking away, come to an agreement on how this can go forward

even on a temp rebased as to get the powers through and they can come

back and look at it again in the future but the important thing here

is a deal needs to be done. These are significant powers in terms of

the Scottish Parliament, one of the most powerful devolved parliaments

in the world and to walk away from any negotiations would do a

disservice to the Scottish people and what we saw in Scottish

questions and PMQs today was an unwillingness on both sides, I think

there's good faith on both sides but we need to stay at the table until

all this is done. Jim Gallaher has said and others... Eddie Leie is not

impossible, it's a straightforward exercise, we need political will.

You've been in government and party to negotiations similar to this in

the past, can you understand why it's taken so long? I understand the

challenge. It's a big devolution of more challenge to the Scottish

Parliament. -- devolution of more power. The federal structure in

Scotland... It brings with this the possibility that we have to find a

different way of resolving disagreements because they might

stumble to an agreement. The SNP must surely accept the new Paris,

they are substantial and to turn their backs and that would be a

disaster for them and frankly, the UK Government, conservatives, or

want shot of this, they don't want it hanging over a future Parliament

or the EU referendum. There is a lot of good sense and reaching an

agreement at double B squabbles in the future and if you have a federal

structure like Australia and Canada, you have some sort of body to

resolve these disputes because a party like the right-wing

conservatives in London and the SNP in Edinburgh, they will always

followed up issues and we need a sensible and mature way of resolving

squabbles. Alberto, from an English point of view, I know you represent

an English seat, de Leeuw finders resistance from your English

colleagues, to put it crudely, you say to the Chancellor don't give

them too much? Not at all, I represent a British constituency in

the British Parliament, let me be clear. What there is, a tremendous

amount of goodwill, not from a right-wing party but a central and

balanced Conservative government and let's not forget, we have to live

helicopters flying over us, let's not forget, that were not for the

Conservative Party there wouldn't have in the Scotland Bill but we

presented to the Parliament and that we got through from the Parliament.

As Ian said, we are giving extensive powers to the Scottish Parliament

and the fact is we are at the negotiating table, it's the Scottish

Government and Nicola Sturgeon in particular that for some reason,

doesn't want to take up these opportunities. I think we can take

it that wasn't Nicola Sturgeon arriving! In the helicopter. Does

the Scottish Government really want a deal or are you willing to walk

away from it and say, we tried to get a deal for Scotland, it wasn't

good enough, were in the middle of an election campaign, tough. I think

Alberto has entirely the wrong idea, I don't think you read the letter

that the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister... He did not

understand that... Nicola Sturgeon was quite explicit that she wants

more powers for the Scottish Parliament and she wants stand-by

for the Smith Commission promised, it's no threat to the UK or Scotland

and we need per capita indexation for that. Ian Murray, with

hindsight, was the Smith Commission pulling a bit of a fast one, it

seemed quite innocuous at the time? But in effect, it's difficult. Lord

Smith himself said it's easy enough to resolve with the political will

to do so, everyone misquote squat Smith said, it's 95, three four...

No detriment to either party, with the decision that each party mix.

It's not difficult, it's been misquoted on a number of occasions

and slightly misquoted in Nicola Sturgeon's letter to the Prime

Minister but she asks for three things, transparency, as laid out

the principles she wants to negotiate on and she has extended

the negotiation time frame. I've been asking for that first six

months and I welcome it but let's get the deal done. As someone who's

been in government, do you think they will get a deal? On balance, I

think they probably will but I agree with Ian, transparency would have

helped a great deal, if we knew what was happening behind closed door is

then each of us would have been able to come to a much fairer judgement

on exactly what is happening and I think it would've been more likely

that the parties would have been towards an agreement. Behind closed

doors is not a good way to deal government, -- to do government, it

should be much more open. Thank you all very much. That's it from us for

the taxi drivers of London and the helicopter pilots of London as well.

Gordon, back to you. It sounds like world War three is about to break

out. You had better go and jump in a cab. David Clegg is here. Let's jump

back to the MSPswrote, and interested in your take on what

saying to people we are going to put taxes up as likely to be an election

winner. The political orthodoxy says it won't be an person opinion poll

saying only 30% of people would support and 1p increase in taxes

although that's higher than the Labour Party is currently polling so

perhaps there is solace and not for them. I think the central point here

is that Labour is not expect them to be in government to implement this

and it's more about a way of changing the discussion of

recalibrating the debate, they want to have a discussion about political

choices about taxation and spending, so they cannot talk about the

constitution, effectively... And you can see where they are trying to

position themselves, to say to some other supporter of orders --

supporters and voters, we are left wing. People who monitored the

Scottish Parliament said the SNP tugs left but act Centre, they are

trying to get the realisation out to a wider public, it has been the

idea... Occupying that... That Labour traditionally Saturn, that is

a way to move them away from that. But there's a problem... We heard in

that discussion, it's actually very ambiguous. These decisions will be

made by local government, if you put taxes up don't you need to make it

for something specific this will not happen on this we put a penny on

income tax, you wanted to happen, we will put a penny on income tax. They

are trying to focus it on schools and that's good ground because

anyone who has experience of schools in recent years knows there are less

teachers, less resources, more strained so if they can connect

those two points, we want to put tax up on the better off, if they can

explain the rebate idea for people earning under ?20,000, which was

quite conjugated to explain and also quite difficult in terms of

practicality and say, we will do to help schools, you can see is

political logic. One argument I've heard, people say 45% to voted yes

in a referendum were not going to be won over by Labour in the selection,

it's the 55% they need to win over and they make not be as inclined to

go for a rise in income tax, therefore the policy is

self-defeating. You could argue that because there is a general idea that

it was the middle classes that voted no and the less well off that voted

yes. If Labour's electoral strategy is to work within 35% they are never

going to get back into government. Want back into government they have

to stop that division, its Scottish politics is defined by yes or no for

the foreseeable future, Labour are done. We have to leave it there.

Thank you. That's all from us for this afternoon. We'll be back on

Sunday but until then, goodbye. Hello, and a very warm welcome to

Westminster for February's Scottish questions. No shortage of topics for

our MPs to get their teeth into, ranging from the financial

challenges of the