15/11/2017 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon and welcome aboard.

On today's programme: Scotland

will probably become the first

country in the world to introduce

a minimum price for alcohol.

Yellow mark this as an example of

Scotland leading the world. It will

continue to have its critics, but

this is the kind of bold and

necessary policy that we need to

tackle our public health challenges.

Scottish Labour becomes a rudderless

ship as its interim leader stands

aside amid misconduct claims

and a former leader calls for him

to be suspended from the party.

And here at Westminster,

Brexit and the budget -

MPs have no shortage of things

to get their teeth into.

Hello and welcome

to Politics Scotland.

We've a slightly shorter programme

today because of the tennis over

on BBC Two, but we'll pack as much

in as we can.

With me throughout will be

the journalist and former

SNP MP George Kerevan.

Let's just talk for a minute about

minimum pricing. This saga has been

going on for years.

Since 2012, six

or seven years. The original

legislation only allows the

Legislature to be on the statute

Legislature to be on the statute

book for six years, so we could

almost have done it by now and got

the results of the experiment.

Yes,

there is a sunset in the bill, that

is an interesting development,

because that has been talked about a

lot both in America and here. Have

there been any other legislation

with that? It is an interesting

idea.

Occasionally it has been used,

but this was a major effort to get

the original alcohol pricing

legislation accepted by all of the

Scottish Parliament.

So the idea of

a sunset clause, just to explain it,

if there is no evidence it is

working, the end of five or six

years...

It stops anyway, you have

to start again to get it back.

Or

you could just forget about it. Take

your SNP hat off for a moment, and

put on your economist hat. Does it

make sense?

Absolutely. The

frightening statistic for me as a

Scot is that Scots on average 2020%

more alcohol than people in England

and Wales, and that's not just

people who have a serious alcohol

problem, it is ordinary middle-class

people. This isn't just political

correctness.

The point I was saying

as an economist, is altering the

price as a mechanism, will that

achieve the effect they want?

Yes,

there is a whole new branch of

economics called psychological

economics which looks at peoples

behaviour, how people behave, and if

you give them a little incentive,

they stop doing things.

Nudges. They

got a Nobel prize for it. Let's

leave it there for now, and talk

more about this, actually.

Its detractors said it was yet

another tax on the poor,

but the Scottish Government insisted

it was essential to tackle

Scotland's unhealthy

relationship with alcohol.

Today the Supreme Court ruled

that Scotland can set

a minimum price for alcohol,

rejecting a challenge

by the Scotch Whisky Association

and finally paving the way

for legislation that

was originally passed

by the Scottish Parliament

five years ago.

The whiskey industry has fought

minimum unit pricing hard, arguing

that it is against EU trade law. But

judges at the UK Supreme Court have

rejected that argument.

The Supreme

Court unanimously dismisses the

appeal, Lord Myners gives the

judgment with which the remaining

six justices agree, the 2012 act

does not breach EU law, minimum

pricing is a proportionate means of

achieving a legitimate aim.

The aim

is to reduce excessive drinking and

alcohol related deaths, and

ministers believe setting a basic

price per unit of alcohol will help

achieve that.

I'm delighted at this

unanimous ruling by the UK Supreme

Court. It is a landmark moment for

public health in Scotland, and it

will help to change our relationship

with alcohol and save lives. It will

reduce harm, and we look forward to

getting on and implementing it as

soon as possible.

The preferred

Price, 50p per unit, will push up

the cost of cheap, strong drink,

while leaving premium products

unaffected. There is no further

legal route to challenge the

measure.

We accept the Supreme

Court's ruling, and the industry

will continue to work in partnership

with the Government in promoting

responsible drinking, it is of

paramount importance. But we will

also be looking to the UK and

Scottish Governments to support the

industry against any negative impact

of trade barriers that are raised

against us overseas as a consequence

of minimum pricing.

It is eight

years since Nicola Sturgeon first

raised an alcohol free toast to the

idea of minimum pricing when she was

Health Secretary. After much

controversy and delay, it can now

happen.

That was Glenn Campbell reporting.

Well, alcohol isn't the only big

story coming out of Holyrood today,

because the interim leader

of the Scottish Labour Party

has stepped aside amid

allegations of misconduct -

allegations he has denied.

Our political editor Brian Taylor

joins me now from Edinburgh

What is this all about?

It's as if

the Labour Party has become a swift

turmoil. Kezia Dugdale stood down as

leader towards the end of August,

and Alec Crowley, being the deputy,

stepped up as she stepped down. He

was accused of recorded supporting

one of the

one of the contenders to the top

job, and this has surfaced in the

sun newspaper this morning, former

girlfriend, accusing him of sending

her abusive text messages. It should

be stressed that Alex Rowley

strenuously denied these

allegations, but has stepped down

from these leadership roles pending

an investigation by the Labour

Party.

But that is not enough for

some in the party?

Kezia Dugdale

says that Mr

says that Mr Rowley should be

suspended from the party, and she

said had she still been leader, that

would have been the case, and

another candidate, Anas Sarwar, has

said that there needs to be a full

and thorough investigation,

stressing zero tolerance for abusive

behaviour, stressing of course that

everyone must also be given a chance

to clear their name.

I've got a

sense of deja vu, because a week ago

today, we were having the same

conversation except it was about

mark McDonald, the government

minister, and we were talking about

why it is more difficult to force

someone out as an MSP. The

difference with Labour is they seem

to be saying he can stay as an MSP,

but not about a Labour MSP.

This

isn't about him being an SNP, in a

statement earlier mark McDonald said

it would be up to his constituents

to decide if he should stay. This is

about his colours. He has been

absent from Parliament for two weeks

with a chest infection, Jackie

Baillie has stood in for him in that

period in question is to the First

Minister, which I guess makes her

the interim interim leader.

There

are allegations made about Alex

Rowley which will be denied, and we

will put them into a separate

category for later investigation. Is

the reaction to this entirely

divorced from the politicking going

on in the Labour Party at the

moment?

It is not, but it is also

not divorced from the atmosphere

here at Holyrood. It was only last

week that Parliament agreed, the

leaders agreed a new strategy, a

hotline to allow people perhaps more

access to make the complaints, there

are notices up in the lift and

elsewhere in Parliament saying that

there is zero tolerance of abusive

or harassment behaviour here in

Parliament, so it is in that

context, and it should be said that

in the sun report this morning, the

Lady Mickey the complaint said that

she has felt emboldened to do so

against that background. -- the lady

making the complaint. We must stress

that Alex Rowley is adamant he has

done nothing wrong and will try to

clear his name.

We should make it

quite clear that while Anas Sarwar

and Kezia Dugdale are calling for

Alex Rowley to be suspended from the

Labour Party, that is not the case

as it stands, but they are calling

for a different

way of handling this.

Indeed, what

we are seeing is almost a perfect

car crash for Labour. The debate

about the poisonous atmosphere of

the leadership election campaign,

which we all know about, has now

intersected with the whole debate

about harassment for the

about harassment for the. Alex

Rowley doesn't feel that he has done

anything that he needs to resign

for, but clearly the two issues have

now merged.

Do you think the SNP

were right to handle it the way they

did?

I think the SNP government were

quite swift in dealing with the

problem, parking it, Parliament has

moved on in setting up...

Was by not

suspending him from the SNP, that is

what is being argued that should

happen to Alex Rowley.

It is horses

for courses, it depends on the

nature of each particular

allegation. But certainly, looking

at it from the outside in, the

inference would have to be for most

people that calls by particular

people in the Sarwar camp for Alex

Rowley to have to go seem to be more

about bickering within the Labour

camp.

And is that what Anas Sarwar

has called for?

Indeed it is.

Let's go over to Westminster Green,

this has been quite a week the

government, no one has resigned, no

fresh scandals.

Remember we are only

on Wednesday! An awful lot can

happen in a week in politics, and

last week an awful lot happens. The

Conservatives are feeling perhaps a

little more confident and happy with

themselves because as you say, no

further Cabinet resignations, no

more scandal so far, and what was

evident in the demeanour of the

Prime Minister at Prime Minister's

Questions time today, she seemed

more confident than she had done in

the past and that was probably

helped by the tactics of Jeremy

Corbyn, instead of focusing on one

issue, he went on a number of

issues. You might think it is

strange that in this week when MPs

are beginning detailed discussion of

the Brexit bill that Jeremy Corbyn

did not want to go on that issue to

try and exploit Conservative

divisions. I think the reason he

didn't is because he will know and

he will be well aware that there are

divisions within his own party, and

that could well have been thrown

back to him, that his party is split

on the issue of Brexit as well. But

it was an interesting Prime

Minister's Questions time, it was a

marathon one, and it went on for 50

minutes, ostensibly it should be

from 12 till 12 30p each week, but

each week it is creeping, it is

getting longer, you get the

impression that the Speaker is

trying to get it to go up to the one

o'clock News. A week today we will

also be discussing the budget, and

that is going to be vitally

important for the Conservative

Party. Many Conservative MPs see it

as an opportunity for them to try

and press the reset button, and

actually get on the front foot again

in politics with all the problems

they have had over to Brexit, the

conference that didn't go the way

they wanted it to, and they will use

this as an opportunity to try and

get back on the front foot and put

forward policy so that there is an

awful lot rested on the shoulders of

Philip Hammond. The problem for him

is he doesn't have a lot of money to

throw around. The reason I mention

the budget is that when Jeremy

Corbyn came to Prime Minister's

Questions time today, it was pretty

obvious that he wanted to raise a

number of issues which he feels

should be taken account of and

addressed in the budget a week

today.

Mr Speaker, crime is up, violence

crime is up and police numbers are

down by 20,000. Will the Prime

Minister urged her Chancellor, who I

noted this week is sitting right

next to her, to provide the funding

our police needs to make communities

safer?

He raised the issue of crime

and policing. Crime is traditionally

measured by the independent crime

survey are down by well over a third

since 2010. We have been protecting

police budgets. We have protected

police budgets and we are putting

more money into counterterrorism

policing. But what matters is what

the police do and how they deliver,

and as I say, the crime survey shows

that crime is down by nearly a third

since 2010.

since 2010.

Scottish police are the

only forces in the United Kingdom to

be charged VAT, depriving front-line

services of £140 million since 2013.

The SNP has now raised this issue 30

times in this chamber. Will the UK

Government now give Scotland's

emergency services back our 140

million and scrapped the VAT? This

is been a long-standing SNP

campaign. We will not give up.

The

Chief Secretary has made clear that

officials in HMT will look at this

issue, and they will report on it in

due course. I am pleased to say that

very constructive representations

have been made by my Scottish

colleagues on this particular issue,

but let's just be clear, because The

right honourable gentleman knows

this, that before the Scottish

Government made the decision to make

Scotland's police and Fire Services

National rather than regional

bodies, they were told that this

would mean that they would become

ineligible for VAT refunds, and they

pressed ahead despite knowing that.

pressed ahead despite knowing that.

The Prime Minister is aware that a

firm that supplies the energy

sector, it would put 1400 jobs in

Fife, Lewis and elsewhere in

Scotland under threat. Canellas the

Prime Minister work with this firm,

and five cancel to do all they can?

I am happy to give the honourable

gentleman that assurance. I was able

to discuss this matter very briefly

with the First Minister Scotland

yesterday when I met her, and I am

pleased to say that my honourable

friend, the member for Devizes, is a

minister in bays, spoke to the

relevant minister in the Scottish

Government, Paul Williamson,

yesterday about this issue, and we

stand ready. Bays, HMT and the

government stand ready to work with

the Scottish Government and others

to try to ensure the best result can

be achieved.

Prime Minister's Question Time for

the little earlier at Westminster.

Without further ado, my guess this

week, we have a lot to talk about,

so we will push on festival from the

SNP, Stephen Gethins, from Labour,

Ross Thomson from the Scottish

Conservatives.

Brexit, Ross Thomson

is someone who wants to get out of

the European Union. This detailed

discussion about the withdrawal must

be meat and drink to you?

This is a

necessary step and an historic

moment as this Parliament now will

go to the process of scrutinising

the European withdrawal bill to make

sure we have a working statute book

for the day really the European

Union cover giving 72 hour

businesses, employers, communities.

Also to start paving the way for new

trade deals which we can strike the

rest of the world, so I figured is a

really exciting time to be in

Parliament.

Christine Jardine, no

secret that the Liberal Democrats

don't want to be in this position.

But now it is only right surely that

MPs start dealing with the net

gritty of what will be a -- the

nitty-gritty of what will be a

convex issue?

We all want what is

best, what would be ideal is to

withdraw the withdrawal bill, for

us. Receiver UK's future at the

heart of Europe is the best we could

have covered the deal we have of the

Bebb at. But the Conservatives still

have not given us a clear picture,

we don't know what the deal will be

come if there is a deal, and we have

to persuade them that no deal is not

an option.

Paul Sweeney, from a

newcomer's point of view, this

detailed discussion where it seems

MPs are talking at great length and

it is not always structured, how

does that strike you, as a new MP?

Is it the right way to go about

things? Weeden it is key that

Parliament must have a good will

role in determining future of our

country.

Essentially the government

wants to use it as power grab to go

for a perfunctory, ultimately it is

all about seizing power from the

legislature. The real deals will be

done via back deal through cabinet,

power brokers and the executive, and

Parliament will have no real

influence in it. That is why

Labour's amendments will ensure that

our democratic legislature has that

role in ensuring the future of our

country is safeguarded through the

Brexit process.

Labour use of the

late which power group, other using

your language?

Paul is absolutely

right to highlight not only do the

UK Government wants take-back in

full from Brussels but from Cardiff,

Belfast and Edinburgh as well. This

withdrawal bill is a mess. The

government less than 24 hours before

we started chatting in last-minute

amendments the head of rebellions.

We are over 500 days on from the EU

referendum and we still don't have a

clear idea. That is really damaging

the business. Ross mentioned all

these trade deals. Well, it was over

a year ago that David Davis said

that by September 2017 we would be

rolling out all sorts of trade

deals, they would be good to go, and

we have seen nothing. It is time for

the government to go back to the

drawing board on this one. It has

too big an effect on all of our

constituents to be this kind of

mess.

I will put the issue of Brexit

one side for a moment. A week today

we will be discussing the budget,

Stephen Gethins, as far as Scotland

is concerned, but should that budget

had in it?

There should be a number

of things, first of all and end to

austerity, the devastating impact

that has on our public service is.

It has been going on for far too

long. We also of Yearsley want to

CNN and the charging our emergency

services for VAT, something the SNP

raised to 30 times in the chamber

and something in Blackwood raised

again today, 140 million quid that

could go direct into a police and

Fire Services. That needs to be a

priority as well and the investment

in our public service is.

Police and

Fire Service VAT, Paul Sweeney, the

Prime Minister seemed to drop a very

heavy hint today that something

would be done on this. Presumably,

it is something you would welcome,

but then the argument will begin as

to who takes the credit for it.

At

I

think it is a combined effort, there

is unity of purpose, but ultimately

it was one that could have been

avoided if we knew this was coming,

if we went for the centralisation of

police and fire. It could have been

avoided in the first place but now

they have to minimise the harm it

has caused an inch over yet this VAT

liability removed and we can invest

that money in public service is to

ensure maximum efficiency, so we are

all behind it.

Christine Jardine, if

the UK Government has a gift to give

on VAT for the Scottish police and

Fire Service, must the money be ring

fenced for those services, it can't

go into a bigger pot for the

Scottish Government?

The problem is

there is a £200 million black hole

in the public services, and if the

money is to be given to Scotland, it

must be ring fenced and go to public

services. As Paul has said it is a

problem that was completely

avoidable. We were the only party

that was actually against

centralisation of the police and

Fire Service and this is one of the

reasons. The SNP government were

warned it was a danger and it is a

problem which we are all facing now

in Scotland, which we could have

avoided so easily.

Ross Thomson,

nothing is certain and obviously

people don't disclose what is a

budget, but to some extent your

party will be judged and you as a

Scottish Tory MP will be judged on

what you can say in a week's time.

We deliver that because we are

Scottish Conservatives. If the

Chancellor does not take account of

that, there will be a backlash from

the Scottish Conservatives, isn't

there?

Let's Birsa Lily clear, we

are in this situation because the

SNP were warned that there would be

liable for VAT and they railroaded

it through parliament anyway. This

is the consequence. There are 13

Scottish Conservative MPs working at

the heart of government. We will

achieve something and deliver for

Scotland, unlike the 35 SNP useless

MPs who sit on the backbenches who

is now an aesthetic that can't

deliver anything. We will deliver

for Scotland, not just on VAT but

much more.

While I'm sure we will

all appreciate it if the government

does recognise the VAT problem,

there are other areas where the

Conservatives could deliver, you

could do something about pensions,

fixed Universal Credit, you could

invest £1 billion in housing. There

are other areas where it is not good

enough to say we have done this one

thing, what about all the other

things that are creating austerity

in Scotland, which the Conservatives

are responsible for?

The key

objective is to Labour is the end

austerity in Scotland, which is why

we are opposed to any cut in

department all spending in Scotland.

More fundamentally, Social Security

for example, we want to see any cuts

to Universal Credit, and the

roll-out of Universal Credit paused.

That is where it would have the

maximum amount of harm through both

a welfare system and expenditure in

Scotland.

The money for our services

and the police, that is a decision

that rests with the Chancellor so I

hope he makes the right decision

this time after years and years. We

talk about the Tories, they are the

ones who should remain part of the

single market, big impact on jobs,

impact on our universities and other

sectors, Senator IS see if they are

true to their word. I doubt they

will be.

A bit of a gear change,

events in Zimbabwe. Ross Thomson, it

does seem as though something very

significant is happening, and

probably historic, and that African

state.

The people of Zimbabwe

themselves have suffered the decade

and a brutal Rhegium, which has had

no regards for the human rights of

its citizens. Now we have an

opportunity for the UK Government to

ensure it plays a proactive role in

securing a prosperous and democratic

future for the people of Zimbabwe.

We urged the Foreign Secretary to do

that today when it came to answering

an urgent question in the chamber,

and we need to all work together

across party and with both

governments in Scotland and the rest

of the UK to ensure that good and

proper prosperous future for

Zimbabwe.

Christine Jardine, because

of the historic associations the UK

has with Zimbabwe, do we have a

special responsibility if help is

needed?

I think we do have a special

responsibility, many of us in

Scotland have family who are either

in or have lived in Zimbabwe. Many

Scots came to Scotland from

Zimbabwe, we do have that historic

connection, and this is huge. The

thing we have to wait and see what

is happening, and we have to try our

best to make sure that whatever the

transition is, it is peaceful, and

we avoid descending into violence in

the bubbly.

I asked the question of

the Foreign Secretary earlier on in

the chamber about what is the nature

of this transition? Is it from one

strong man to another or will it be

a real transition involving the

opposition parties and a plural

system of free and fair elections?

That is what want to see a Zimbabwe.

Mugabe has been one of the longest

serving African dictators. We need

to make sure we get a free and fair

election next year.

The best way to

secure peace, stability and

development is through democracy and

respect for the rule of law. That is

why we need to invest in our NGOs,

where soft power becomes William in

Portland in this transition period,

it is not just about governments.

We

will draw it to a close. Thank you

very much. A note of agreement to

finish with. In a week's time, we

will be discussing the budget, and I

don't think this lot will be half as

well behaved them.

Going back to the beginning of that

conversation about Brexit and the

Brexit bill. There are all these

rumours of Conservative MPs who are

going to rebel, and if they ally

with Labour and the SNP they could

defeat the government, but they

didn't yesterday. So I suppose a lot

of the public might be entitled to

say if they didn't do it yesterday,

will they do it next time?

Another

seven days to go of the Brexit bill.

There are 186 pages of amendments,

room for lots of catastrophe between

now and next week. The big one will

be whether the government can get

the motion through to actually set

the specific hate and time to come

out.

It is that where apparently 15

Tory MPs are said to be considering

a rebellion.

Because obviously if

you set a date than the other side

of the negotiations will sit tight

until the last possible second, so

there is a certain logic to you in

setting that date. In the end I

would suspect that Labour will fail

Theresa May out, because labour is

committed as much to get through

Brexit as the Conservative Party,

what we are arguing about is detail.

So you think that Labour will vote

for a specific thing? From what you

are saying...

In the end, in the

end, the Brexit legislation will be

delivered because Labour is

committed to Brexit as well as the

Conservatives.

Otherwise nothing

will happen.

I personally would go

the other way because if you set the

date can be like giving more power

to the person you are negotiating

with the wait until the very end,

whereas because they know you can

fall over the cliff edge...

This is

the European union negotiation, we

all know it will go right to the

end.

That is par for the course in

any European negotiation, as you

say, so you could try at that way.

In many ways I think setting the

date, there are much more detailed

aspects of the transfer of powers,

particularly to the devolved

administrations, which are much more

serious, when it comes to impacting

people's lives.

And the issue of

what exactly it means to say MPs can

have a vote in the process at the

end.

The most important thing about

today's PMQs, afterwards the reason

they went to the holiest of holy is,

the tearoom, to talk to her MPs. In

two years at Westminster I never saw

her in the tearoom, that means she

is desperate kind to shore up

support.

You heard it here first.

Now it is time to cross live to the

Scottish Parliament, our line-up of

SNP 's, Joe McColgan from the SNP,

Miles breaks from the Conservatives,

Rhoda Grant from Labour and Alison

Johnson from the Greens. Firstly,

let's List A talk about minimum

pricing. John McAlpine, presumably

you are delighted, it has been five

or six years?

It has been a long

time and a vindication for the

government, they have stuck with

this bold policy and may have been

vindicated.

I was going to ask you,

what happens now? Is there

legislation in place that

automatically a minimum price cuts

in Scotland or does it have to be

taken through Parliament?

There will

be a statement on Tuesday by the

minister that will outline the next

steps, but my understanding is they

are going to consult on further

aspect of it before it actually

becomes law.

But you are pretty

confident it will go ahead and there

will be minimum pricing?

Yes, and

what this means is I think a lot of

other governments, from what I am

the stand, a lot of other

governments and subnational

governments are looking at this,

because the World Health

Organisation recommended a long time

ago that pricing was an important

way of cutting alcohol related

deaths. I think Scotland is leading

the world on this. There are other

countries that will follow.

Miles Briggs, as I understand it,

the Conservatives are not against

this?

We have said that we will

support this, because we need to

address Scotland's problem with

alcohol. Just recently we have seen

the Government move to cut alcohol

partnership funding. It was

Conservative pressure that made them

reverse that, and we need to look at

how to address this issue in

Scotland, and this policy could save

up to 120 lives, so that is why we

have supported it.

So you don't buy

the arguments of the opponents who

say it worked in fact save lives in

the way it is advertised, and who

say that you would be better off

using taxation as a way of

controlling alcohol consumption and

not using pricing?

This is why we

have said that as part of

legislation we can see how this

works and part of when it was going

through Parliament originally before

it faced the legal challenges it

has, we said it should have a sunset

clause so that in five years' time

we can review it and see if it is

delivering the outcome we to see.

Rhoda Grant, what is Labour's

position on this? You are quite

happy with this?

We need to see

more, we will wait to see what

happens on Tuesday, hopefully they

will put more policies in place to

back this up, one of those will be

how do we make sure that the

additional money raised from this

doesn't just go into the pockets of

the big supermarkets, but actually

is used in Scotland to counteract

the effects of alcohol abuse.

But

the money would go into the pockets

of retailers. As I understand it,

there is no suggestion that this is

a tax increase, simply an order to

put the prices up, so whoever put

the prices up keeps the money?

That

is how it looks on the face of it,

but I would hope that the Scottish

Government would look at ways we

could be met money from the big

supermarkets to make sure that it

was used to counteract the effects

of alcohol, and that is why in a way

taxation would be better. We don't

have the ability to put taxation on

alcohol and the Scottish Parliament,

but we need to find a way to make

sure that this funding doesn't just

boost profits but is used in the

places that need it most.

And the

Greens are in favour of this as

well?

The Greens have supported this

from the very beginning, we

absolutely have supported the

Government, and it has been decided

this is a proportionate means of

delivering a legitimate aim, to

improve Scotland's relationship with

alcohol. We know that too many

people drink too much, the medical

organisations and many other

organisations across Scotland will

be read pleased that today has

finally come and we can move on

this. We drink markedly more than

our neighbours in England even, and

I think this is an important step in

the right direction, but as

colleagues have said, it is part of

the solution, not all solution.

Joan

McAlpine, if we swing back to you.

I'm curious as to what you make of

Rhoda Grant's idea, on the face of

it it will be retailers who keep the

money. Do you think that's right? Or

do you think there should maybe be

examination given in some way to

which that could be changed.

The way

that it would be changed would be to

give the Scottish Parliament powers

over a wider range of taxation,

including the ability to tax

alcohol. But Rhoda Grant's party

opposed the full fiscal autonomy

that we put forward in the Smith

commission for a wider range of tax

powers.

But presumably you could

taxi from markets for example, all

retailers, in such a way that it

would draw the money back even

though they keep the money in the

first place?

I'm not sure that this

is the time and place to speculate

as to who you are going to tax and

those kind of details have to be

looked at very carefully. My

understanding is that the

fundamental point of this is to

reduce alcohol-related deaths which

rose in the last year, and identical

we should be distracted from that.

Rhoda Grant, let's swing background

to you. I wanted to ask you about

Alex

Alex Rowley, he has stood aside as

your leader in the interim. Anas

Sarwar and Kezia Dugdale think that

he should be removed as leader, what

do you think?

I will answer that,

but could I go back to the previous

question, we could have a social

responsibility levy, which will put

the money in the public offers to

deal with our call abuse, and I hope

very much that the Minister will say

that on Tuesday.

Before you talk

about Alex Rowley, is that like

attacks the supermarket?

Yes, on

those who sell alcohol, so those are

the people who are going to make the

money. It wouldn't be a tax because

they would be getting more money so

they would lose out, but that would

make sure that the money came back

to Scotland and could be spent on

rehabilitation partnerships and the

like to deal with the problems that

alcohol abuse causes. So that is

within the power of the Scottish

Government.

And an Alex Rowley?

I

have sympathy with that view. I

think those allegations that have

been made which he refuse are

extremely serious, and I think the

party and Alex need the time to

investigate those allegations, so I

think it would probably be sensible

to look at suspension from the

party.

So whoever, then, is there a

number three who would automatically

become in charge?

I believe the

party will be making an announcement

on that soon, so don't push me to

make that announcement on air right

here. It's not me.

But there is no

automatic number three?

No, but

there will be a leader put in place

very shortly.

Miles Briggs, I guess

not fair to ask you to comment in

detail about this, but do you think

it has happened in the right way?

I

think it will be a full police

investigation, and it is happening

in the right way, but I think as

Rhoda said, it has to take place on

the right way, and I don't want to

comment on the details.

I'm not

aware that anybody has said that it

would be a police investigation.

In

terms of these allegations where

they have now been sent is the point

I am making, as far as I know they

have been sent to newspapers, but I

don't know if they have also been

forwarded.

I just wanted to make

that clear. Joan McAlpine, the

interesting thing I guess for your

party is that Labour, Alex Rowley

has not been suspended from the

Labour Party, he hasn't he stood

aside as interim leader, but there

are calls from leading figures for

him to be suspended, and there were

calls for mark Mcdonald to be

suspended from the SNP. Which of

these approaches do you think is the

better, if there is a better?

I

think in terms of being suspended

from the Labour Party, that is a

matter for the Labour Party. We have

clearly read these allegations, they

are very serious allegations, but

they are allegations, and I think

it's important that such allegations

are properly investigated before we

start talking about what the

repercussions should be.

OK, Alison

Johnstone, just a chance for you to

comment on that.

I think we are

discussing this issue as it affects

a parliamentarian at the moment, but

this is an issue that has broader

ramifications across society, and it

really is time that we make sure

that every pupil in every school in

Scotland has access to education

around consent and personal space.

We want to get to a real zero

tolerance of this issue so that none

of my colleagues or I ever come on

TV again to ask if we've experienced

sexual harassment in our workplace

or anywhere else.

Just be very

careful legally about this, we

should say that we don't know

whether the issue of consent for

example is at stake or any of these

issues, but we will take your

general point.

I wasn't suggesting

that, I was just saying we need

better education.

A very quick round

on Brexit. Rhoda Grant, will they be

a rebellion, and should there be?

I

think it really depends on the deal

that is going to be put forward. The

Government coming forward with eight

take it or leave it deal, either we

accept the deal that they negotiate

or we crash out, I don't think it is

tenable. There has to be discussions

about how that goes forward, and I

think Theresa May appeared this week

to be reaching out to Nicola

Sturgeon. I think she needs to reach

out a lot further than that to try

to build some consensus so that

there is a deal that everyone can

coalesce around.

Very quickly, Miles

Briggs. Are you a Remainer or a

Briggs. Are you a Remainer or a

Leave?

I welcome the fact that the

Prime Minister and Nicola Sturgeon

are now engaging positively. We now

need to move on from some of the

grievance and look to achieving the

best possible deal now for Scotland

and the United Kingdom, and to

respect devolution but also protect

the single market.

A very quick

comment from Joan McAlpine.

I think

it is worrying that the SNP

amendment in the event of no deal

fell this week. The choice is

between not between the status quo

and no deal, it is between no deal

and disaster, and that is very

worrying.

Sorry, Alison Johnstone,

you didn't get a chance to have your

say, should there be a rebellion,

what should happen?

We have to make

sure that Scotland's voice is heard

loud and clear, and that isn't

happening at the moment, and we will

be insisting that that is the case.

Thank you all very much indeed.

Let's come back to the minimum

pricing, because what you were

saying when you are talking about a

nudge, the whole way this is talked

about, putting prices up by a

certain amount will deter people

because it is so expensive, but you

suggested that that is not the

point.

Any government could do that,

the Scottish Government could have

raised, got the taxes raised on

alcohol. This is an attempt to

target alcopops and cider, cheap

forms of alcohol that kids drink,

people with alcohol problems. It is

an attempt to target very

specifically the prices of those

rather than hurt other forms of

alcohol, wine, whiskey, whatever.

And clearly even at 50p per shot

extra, it is not going to be a major

impact. But it is designed to

psychologically try and shift

behaviour. And I agree, it has to be

part of a wider package, but all the

behavioural investigations that are

done, because there have been lots

of experiments done, it does seem to

work. So why not try five years and

see where we are?

The thing about

the nudge economics, does it matter

what the nudges? You could say that

the smoking ban do the same thing

for smoking.

The experimentation

shows that positive nudges worked

better than negative ones, that if

you pay people, to get people to

attend classes to do this, or to

take their children to that, if you

just pay them a little bit, it acts

as a psychological incentive. Human

beings psychology seems to be much

more responsive to be given

something to help them along rather

than saying, you can't do it.

In

that sense, neither minimum pricing

or the smoking ban counts as a

positive?

It is a package, it is in

the round, and clearly there is an

issue with companies underpricing

alcohol, and for the cheap stuff in

there.

We will have to leave it

there, but the point is this as a

whole new scope economics.

Yes!

We

will leave it there.

That's all we've got time for today.

My colleague Brian Taylor's

back tomorrow at midday

with First Minister's Questions,

and I'll be back this weekend

with Sunday Politics Scotland.

Until then, goodbye.