17/05/2017 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland.

On today's programme, we'll be bringing you the latest

And the price of fish - after years of wrangling

between fishermen and Brussels, stocks are finally

But will the fishery be sustainable after Brexit?

With me throughout the programme today is political

And joining us both for the top of the programme, having

deserted his usual weather-beaten spot on College Green for the warmth

and dry of the studio, is our Westminster correspondent

I think a lot of people are thinking, when is this campaign

going to kick off? We are waiting for the manifesto, and then three or

four start coming along all at once. We are getting them in quick

succession. Labour yesterday, the Liberal Democrats today. The

Conservatives tomorrow. And then we will get the Scottish ones as well

and we will really find out what the parties are planning and what

they're trying to sell to the electorate. Everyone says this

election is about Brexit, but in what meaningful sense is it about

Brexit? I think it is about Brexit if your south of the border. Up here

it has obviously got a very different feel to it. It is a

referendum on a second independence referendum. But even in England, do

you think it really is about Brexit? I think it is, and about who the

voters think is best going to be positioned to achieve that. I think,

when you talk to the poor south of the border, they say, we may not

have voted for Brexit but we now accept that it is going to happen,

and they are then now looking for who they think is the best person to

deliver that. Now, the Conservatives are very much trying to frame that

as a Brexit election, whereby also they asked the question, who is

going to be the best leader, potentially Theresa May or Jeremy

Corbyn? Jimmy Corbyn and the Labour Party are trying to frame it on, it

is more than that, it is about the type of United Kingdom that you want

a mother rolled you want for the state... Well, it is a little bit

about Brexit, but not very much, from Labour's point of view? From

Labour's point of view, they want to keep it off Brexit as they do not

see that as a strong point. Brexit is an issue which divides the Labour

Party, certainly in England. You only have to look at the number of

people who left Labour to go to Ukip, and if the local elections are

to be believed, those Ukip voters are now not going back to Labour,

they are going to the Conservatives. That is a problem for Labour, they

like to keep away from Brexit. And what is going to give this a

much-needed kick to get it going? We could do with a fantastic gaffe or

something like that, where a politician goes off message will get

into a row with a constituent. But what you are finding now is, the

campaigns, as they go on, more and more they are trying to be

controlled. Very rarely are the politicians getting out as they used

to, on the stump, to speak to voters. That just doesn't happen, it

is all far more controlled. Is that true with Jeremy Corbyn as well as

Theresa May? Well, Corbyn is tending to go to areas where he is

surrounded by core supporters. Very red Leeward usage Jeremy Corbyn on a

street where you might find people who would not like him. So, in that

respect, it is being controlled. -- very rarely would you find Jeremy

Corbyn... His own supporters are very impressed with him, but his

visits are not completely open, in the old-fashioned sense of the

world. Gerry, in Scotland, Behrami have the SNP as well, which is

different, but are they going to have anything interesting? To me,

general elections there is like World Cups. If you take that

analogy, it is a competition which has not yet begun. As David is

saying, the politicians are in a bubble, we do not have that lady

having that conversation with Gordon Brown, or in 2001, when John

Prescott thumped voter. We need something, if not that kind of

magnitude, something which cuts through. People watch elections,

they see images passing them on the TV screen, they see the beginning of

the news and the end of the news... I was going to say, is it about

impressions, rather than...? David, for example, Diane Abbott's now

famous interview, I'm not sure it's famous because people go and watch

the interview, or is it just that it sticks, it gives the general

impression that Labour don't know what they're talking about? Because

it was out of the ordinary. Normally, when politicians go on the

media, they know they will get questions about the policy, how much

is it going to cost, is it going to be deliverable? They should be

prepped on those questions and they should be able to answer them. When

you get a politician who comes on the programme and says, actually,

it's going to be ?30 a year, and then has a couple of goes, and keeps

getting it wrong, it is the type of thing which people are going to

remember. But I think you're right... In a broad brush? Yes, it

feeds into the oppression that this politician may or may not know what

they're talking about. It might reinforce people's impressions. Dr

Gerry Hassan, we will be speaking to you more in a moment. But first...

In recent years, the North Sea's fish bounty has been

After the boom years of the '60s and early '70s,

stocks declined to critical levels in many species.

Not any more - cod catches are at levels many younger skippers

have never seen before, and there has been a dramatic

It's come after years of bitter wrangling between the EU

and fishermen over quotas and fish discards.

However, the recovery certainly suggests the EU fisheries

policy has been a success, but there are now fears

about the continued sustainability of the fishery after Brexit.

Well, I'm joined now on the phone from Shetland by Simon Collins

from the Scottish Fishermen's Association.

Simon Collins, there are some fears that once the Common Fisheries

Policy is taken away, there could be something of a free for all? That's

right. What the fishing industry here wants is control over our

waters, and to manage them. The reaction might be, it's going to be

these guys grabbing all they can, free from EU. That however is

completely wrong. From where I'm sitting in Shetland, for example, a

fisheries dependent community, our future depends on healthy fisheries.

Have no choice but to be responsible, and we intend to be

that. And that is true for the whole of the Scottish industry. Just to be

clear, it is quite complicated area, even after Brexit, there will have

to be some agreement, treaty or something, between Britain and not

just EU countries but all other countries, including countries like

Norway, to regulate what happens in the North Sea? Absolutely. And it is

critical that those decisions, how much can be taken out, are based on

science. That will not change. There will not be one more fish taken out

of the sea than there is at the moment. What we hope with Brexit is

that we will be in a position to obtain a fairer share of that

sustainable catch. That is the issue. So there will still be some

kind of international treaty, it is just that you hope the share which

goes to the UK stroke Scotland is bigger. Now, there's all of this

talk about the powers over fisheries being devolved to Scotland or not.

What is your perspective on that, do you want all the powers devolved to

Scotland or are there matters which have to be in the hands of the

British Government? Something is constitutionally have to be by the

way things are negotiated internationally. One would hope

however that the Scottish and UK governments would organise

themselves before any such talks to make sure that the right negotiating

points are understood by all different parts of the UK. When the

guys are out at sea, looking at very productive fisheries, they want it

to work. Constitutional arrangements at UK level and Scottish level are a

long way away, they are looking at the result, and that result is their

quotas and sustainable fishing. There are a lot of people who think

the best way of running fisheries is when they're soft controlled and the

fishermen themselves have a stake in fishing sustainably, even if it

means they have to forego catches in the short to medium-term. Is it any

more likely that you could get a locally managed system like that

after Brexit than it was before? Yes, it is, absolutely. One of the

big problems of the Common Fisheries Policy was the inability to direct

things from a regional perspective, or a Scottish perspective, and it

was very blunt, for that reason. We would absolutely look for management

decisions to be closer to the fishing grounds, with input from

those who are seeing what is happening on the ground every single

day. Simon Collins, thank you very much for that. It is one of these

hugely complicated areas, fisheries, Gerry, but if you seems to be, from

the little I know, that the more local management you have, the

better. So you can see why it is odd, it is perhaps one of the few

communities in Scotland where there was big support for leaving the EU?

Definitely, an Aberdeen university study found around 90% of fishermen

is trusting the Common Fisheries Policy. But you can see, in some

sense, it has delivered, because stocks are rising in the North Sea

with all sorts of fish. There is this issue of sustainability, not

just for the fish but for the communities. An awful lot of those

jobs are very, very low-paid jobs, jobs which require all sorts of

benefits and a high percentage of those jobs are also not British. 28%

of all fishing jobs are not a British-born. It is the people who

come to Scotland, on low wages. So there is lots of ways in which we

need to think about fishing differently. The worry would be a

free-for-all, as Simon acknowledged, that the point is that once the CFP

goes, everyone's got an interesting grabbing as much as they can. And

there are going to be disputes over whether Britain has a 200-mile

limit, whether even if it is accepted that it has, that should

stop other countries coming into fish within it, and what Britain is

going to do about it if they do. All of this will have to be resolved. .

That's right. As you were saying in the package, the Scottish input,

which has been very small until now. Nearly all the fish that we fish by

our seas and our coastlines, 80% of it we export elsewhere. The fish we

eat has got very little relationship with that, we import 70% of that. So

we need to think of ways not only do we fish more locally, but the way we

consume as well. Well, it's time now

to cross live to Holyrood for the Scottish Conservative-led

debate on the fisheries. Backed by the United Nations

Convention. This does mean that foreign boats will never fish our

waters against, but it does mean that they will fish under our rules

and regulation is and that we will be in control, and that is a huge

prize. That is a sea of opportunity our fishermen welcome. At the

moment, 62% of the fish caught in UK waters are caught by foreign

vessels. In comparison are boats only catch

fish worth a mere ?100 million. Between 2012 and 2014 EU boats

caught half the commercial fish, two thirds of the pelagic fish and

almost all of the industrial fish in our exclusive zone. Nobody can argue

this is fair. The other strand of the disaster story that the SNP try

to spin is that we will lose the EU market for fish. Yes the EU market

is important and we want to keep it, but I have spoken with numerous fish

processors who are very relaxed about keeping their markets. They

argue quite rightly that are fish are in great demand in Europe,

buyers are queueing up to get the top fish we supply and is often

unavailable elsewhere. It's also a fact that our stands in the Brexit

negotiations is to get a comprehensive free trade deal so why

should we get such a deal given a free trade deal is as much to the

European benefit as ours? I will finish with a quote from Iceland's

Minister for fisheries, Iceland applied to join the EU in 2009 but

withdrew their application in 2015 mainly because they would have to

join the CFB and did not like what they saw. In June 2016, there are

fisheries minister said, "I would never join the EU, there is a life

outside it as we have proven. We have one of the biggest and

strongest fisheries in the world that is sustainable without any

subsidies from the state. We don't have two share this decision-making

with anyone else. It would be difficult for Icelanders to control

the economic and fisheries sector is having to discuss it with 27 or 28

other countries". Residing officer, that is the kind of future which

awaits our fishing industry once we leave the outdated, bureaucratic and

unreformable European Common fisheries policy and I for one

welcome that future and move this motion in my name. Thank you. I

don't like banging on desks. So we can just stop doing that.

When we joined the EU Scottish office paper was written, this

Scottish office paper remained hidden, it remained hidden for 30

years. Under the UK official secrets act. What that paper said was, and I

quote" in the wider UK context they, the fishermen, must be regarded as

expendable". This was first quoted in Parliament in Westminster by Alex

Salmond in 2001. And I am quoting from hand Sade. I will give way in a

moment once I make my point. That was the true view of the UK

Government at that time. That the interests of Scotland's fishermen

wear expendable and indeed it was never intended that that real view

would be made public because it was an official secret document and it

only became public 30 years... I will give way to Mr Chapman but will

he apologise now under half of the Scottish Tories for that betrayal

when we were taken into the EU? Peter Chapman? We hear about

something that happened 47 years ago and it wasn't even a government

minister that said that. It was far more effective to look at what is

going on just now, the letter from Andrea Leadsom right now says we

will take back control of our waters to 200 miles, that is much more

significant than quoting something from 47 years ago said by a junior

official. Cabinet secretary? Presiding officer I will move on to

what happened after that, let's move forward shall we? And let's move

into the 80s when under Margaret Thatcher... Excuse me, set down a

minute secretary, I have people be quiet for Mr Chapman and people will

be quiet for the Cabinet Secretary and they do not want to hear banging

on desks, you can applaud if you wish, that is much more reasonable.

They can bang on the desk but they cannot undo history and do not have

the guts to apologise for something they must know that was wrong,

that's the interesting thing. But let's move forward and write a bit

of rudimentary education. Under Margaret Thatcher in the 80s the UK

Government signed us up, signed us up to the original doomed Common

fisheries policy. It use your heroine that took us into the Common

fisheries policy. If she is not your heroine let me know... She is? OK,

we have got that clear. That was the first thing. Then in the history

lesson, John Major's Tories signed us up to a revised CFB in the 1990s.

What was at the heart of that? Scrapping vessels and the decimation

of livelihoods. Destroying the economy and well-being in many of

our coastal communities. This is fact and this is why feeling is so

strong about the CFP, it is what has been happening for decades. Was Mrs

Thatcher wrong when she took us in and was John Major wrong when he

took us into a revised policy? It another chance to apologise, a

second opportunity. You are making the point very well that we want to

be out of the CFP, it is the SNP that want to keep us in there.

APPLAUSE Cabinet secretary?

Well, I'm afraid time waits for no man -

or fish, for that matter, and we have to leave

Now, amid all the general election hoo-haa, you'd be forgiven

The results left many Scottish councils without any party winning

enough seats for a majority, so almost immediately,

the wheeler-dealing to form coalitions got underway.

Joining us now is our local government

We might not have any exciting general election news but you have

exciting local authority news? Quite a saga unfolding in Aberdeen,

basically a deal between Labour and the Conservatives was announced but

there was a problem with it to put it mildly, basically the Labour

National Executive Committee said no deal and essentially, if the Labour

councillors involved... The Scottish executive of the Labour Party has

basically said no deal. The Labour councillors in Aberdeen have gone

ahead anyway and if they do not pull out by 5pm this afternoon they could

face suspension from the party. A fascinating scenario there with the

Labour Party, one that if the deal in Aberdeen goes ahead it could beg

questions of the authority of the party leader Kezia Dugdale. This is

one of these that you could not make up so let's go through it slowly.

Are you saying that when Labour agreed to do the deal with the

Tories in Aberdeen they knew the Scottish executive were saying we

should not do it? Certainly it would have been a surprise if they didn't

factor that into the equation. Before the council elections Labour

did not give a 100% no deals with the Tories line in the way the SNP

did but they did talk down the possibility of deals with the

Tories. Kezia Dugdale would talk about how their councillors would

fight austerity and find it difficult in a practical sense to do

deals with the Conservatives and made that point about how the

National Executive Committee would not agree to any deals... They are

told in no uncertain terms no deal and they have to pull out of it by

5pm this evening? Yes. And what happens if they don't? Two possible

scenarios, they don't pull out, the councillors might be suspended by

the party but could continue as independents. The interment of is

that hours after the deal was formed it falls apart -- the alternative is

that hours after the deal was formed it falls apart and it is the SNP for

the single largest party on the council and they would be put into

opposition. I would repeat that you cannot make this up. I think there

was a TV series based on this, deal or no deal? You have this issue

about how do you do deals when parties have said such profound

things about each other. You have the local factors and the wider

political traction of how it plays in the country. Do you think

Labour's newly discovered ban on coalitions with the Conservatives

might soft and somewhat after the general election or am I being

cynical? I think you are facing a wider political picture where you

think how anti-Tory Scotland is is slowly weakening related to the

rising number of Scots that vote Tory. If the Tories do well in the

popular vote may be the SNP narrative will continue ad nauseam

but it delivers less political traction and there is a way in which

Labour and the Lib Dems, some element of soft coalescing at least

in terms of votes with the Tories. Great drama in Aberdeen, elsewhere,

Angus has seen a deal which keeps the SNP out? Indeed, an SNP majority

counsel not so long ago but this deal keeps the SNP out, independents

and Conservatives leading the administration there. It's all a bit

swings and roundabouts, in south Ayrshire of the Conservatives are

the largest party but the local deal keeps them out of power. We are

expecting to hear words from a couple more powers... So who is in

power in South Ayrshire? The SNP of the top of my head leading the

administration. With Labour? Off the top of my head I think it's SNP and

Labour that are forming the new administration in South Ayrshire but

that's still to be absolutely confirmed but it was a possible deal

announced last week. Later this afternoon we should get news from

North Ayrshire which is interesting, the SNP and Labour with an identical

number of councillors and it would be hard to form an administration

without at the very least tacit support from the Conservatives,

maybe not ideal but at least that tacit support where they would be

happy to see one of those parties in a minority administration. Thank you

so much for all of that, very exciting and interesting.

It's time to cross over to Holyrood now for our live line-up of lovelies

They are SNP's Richard Lochhead, Liam Kerr from the Conservatives,

James Kelly from Labour, Mark Ruskell from the Greens

and Tavish Scott from the Liberal Democrats.

James Kelly, Labour seem to be producing the new story this

afternoon, what happens to your councillors in Aberdeen if they do

not obey you by 5pm? Going back to the local elections, Labour

candidates stood on a programme of opposing cuts and making sure the

local communities were not adversely affected by council budgets. So that

underpins any discussions that Labour groups are involved in

throughout the country and we have made it absolutely clear that the

deal proposed involving Conservatives in Aberdeen was not

acceptable because it was going to introduce more austerity and

therefore if that deal goes ahead we will take disciplinary action

against those councillors. Which means what? It means they will be

suspended from the Labour Party so their membership will be suspended

and therefore the need to take serious consideration of the

decisions they are about to take and also the programmes they stood on

and were elected on. We want councillors elected to stand up for

communities and oppose Tory and SNP cuts. Are you saying there is no

blanket ban on Labour doing deals with the Tories in particular

councils it's just that this individual deal you thought was

objectionable? We are saying we set out a process two days after the

local elections that any discussions the Labour groups took part in, if

they come up with a proposal it had to be examined by the executive

committee and the key criteria was did it stop austerity? Did it

benefit working families? I just want to get this clear, your policy

is no cuts, not now Tories? It is down to how it will affect working

families in their communities, not the political parties, people.

That's been made clear. Richard Lochhead what do you make of this,

the largest party in Aberdeen haven't you?

Listening to that, it sounds like a sketch. Firstly, I find it

absolutely astonishing that the Labour Party would be prepared to go

into coalition with the Conservatives in any part of

Scotland. I think that would go down like a lead balloon with the people

of Aberdeen. And what will also go down badly will the people would be

the biggest party, the SNP, getting frozen out of these negotiations by

the Labour Party. What is so good about on cello that you would

happily go into a coalition with him in a local authority but you would

not with the chap standing next to you? Well, no offence to Liam Kerr,

but the Tories are toxic in Scotland, they support austerity,

they have some really obnoxious social policies... They are

pro-austerity, we have had policies like the rape clause... Excuse me,

you spent years saying Labour were pro-posterity, so what is so bad

about the Tories? The Tory party is like a reinvented Ukip at the

moment, lurching to the right, and we don't want heading to do with

helping them get their hands on budgets and councils across

Scotland. I don't understand what any of that means. Explain in one

sentence why it is all right for the SNP to go into coalition with

Labour, but somehow it is toxic, to use your word, to do it with the

Conservatives? You are supposed to be opposed to both of them, what is

the difference? Councils do need administrations, that's why there

are negotiations going on across Scotland. But you have just said you

would not go into coalition with the fellow next to you, but you would

with James Kelly - why? Our position is that going in with the

Conservatives is a step too far, the idea of allowing you increasingly

right-wing Conservative Party get their hands on power is a step too

far. Are you happy to with anybody, James Kelly? First of all colour

this idea that in some way the Conservative Party are toxic, given

that we have just come off the back of council elections in which a

significant number of the Scottish population have said, as do we

rather like what the Conservatives are doing. How much disrespect can

Richard Lochhead, with respect, show to the Scottish electorate? Sorry to

interrupt you, he can show exactly the same amount of this respect as

he points out you are showing his councillors in Aberdeen by freezing

them out of power, despite the fact is more of them than either you or

Labour? No, I think what is most important when we are looking at

Aberdeen is to look at the chaos that Labour are visiting upon

themselves, with on the one hand their Scottish National Party, the

national party of Scotland, Labour saying, you can't do this, we're

going to suspend our entire counsellor base. The councillors in

Aberdeen, looking at the calibre of the Scottish Conservatives who have

been elected to the council, saying, yes, that is a good deal, we want to

be part of that. And frankly, on what is happening at a national

level, the voters are going to the polls in a few weeks to talk about

whether Jeremy Corbyn should be leading this country. Frankly, on

the evidence which Labour put forward now, that has to be no. I

want to speak to the other two, but first, a quick answer from you -

why'd you you more than the Tories? Because you would be quite happy to

do deals with the SNP, what is so great about Richard Lochhead? I made

it absolutely clear in my earlier answer, Gordon, it is to do with the

programmes that are proposed. South Ayrshire, the SNP have got a

brilliant programme, so are you prepared to go in? We are opposed to

any programmes that have cuts at the centre of it or are going to have an

adverse effect on families, and our executive committee will examine the

detail of any programme before approving any deals. So, it sounds

like Ayrshire, you're happy to go into coalition with a party which

you say acts as, what is the phrase, and yet escalator for Tory cuts, is

that your phrase you have used for the SNP? I reiterate, Gordon, any

programme, a programme of proposing cuts... Any programme... Tavish

Scott, where are the Liberal Democrats in all of this, are there

any places where you think you can actually have a hand in this?

Firstly, can I apologise for introducing the single transferable

vote all those years ago, and ending the thing which you must want more,

Gordon, then anything else, first-past-the-post, so that we can

have clarity in these local elections! It is a good thing that

these political parties have to confront the verdict of the

electorate and work out what the electorate said, and then they have

to come to an agreement, or as we have just seen, not, about... The

problem was they didn't like your party very much, so are you in a

position to negotiate any of these deals? You're right, I am not

because I am an NSP. I think it a really important principle. My

national executive would not get involved in it taking to my local

councillors what they should do at local level. 1.I agree with James on

is, in all of your analysis, there was nothing about policy, it was all

about deals between parties. James is right, this should be about

policies at the local level. That is what the Liberal Democrats will be

talking about. If you were in a position to do deals with other

parties, you wouldn't rule out doing a deal with anyone, Tories, SNP,

anyone, it would be, as James Kelly says, about the contents of the

deal? Just as we discussed properly with the SNP government here in

Edinburgh about the budget, we will do that at a local level, where

people have said, do that. I think that is the responsible way we

should proceed in politics and I think it is what other parties

should be doing fuzzy Mark Ruskell, you are not in a position, either,

to be influential in these discussions, are you? Well, we are

in some. We have big council groups in Edinburgh and Glasgow. I think

there are still discussions which are under way. But I think the

really sad thing... Still discussions taking place, a lot of

councils are having their first inaugural meetings this week and we

will see what emerges from that. But the real tragedy of Scottish

politics, you have the SNP and Labour fighting each other in

council chambers across the country, where if they actually looked at the

policies and manifestos, they would realise there is a lot to bind them

together. I think progressive coalitions could start to emerge in

a lot of Scottish local authorities between SNP, Labour, possibly

Liberal Democrats, possibly Greens as well. Let's see what emerges in

the next week. Is there any prospect belay between vanishingly small and

small, of the Greens not doing a deal to be part of the Glasgow

administration? Well, I can't comment on that, that is down to our

counsellor group in Glasgow. That's where the decision-making has to

like fish but certainly, we don't need to look at formal coalitions to

get the job done. Greens have been in constructive negotiations with

the SNP at Holyrood to deliver 160 million for the local authorities,

that is with a group of six MSPs. We can do the same with the local

councils, being constructive in fighting for education and local

services through our influence. Let's change the subject, the

Liberal Democrats, to the great joy of the nation, have produced a

manifesto today. You are so cynical, Gordon, you really are, what is

wrong, be positive! I meant it literally! Your flagship see as

announced today is another referendum on the final terms of

Brexit, so we'll give you a chance to answer the question - why is it

vital to have another referendum on Brexit but absolutely forbidden to

have another referendum on independence? Because as you and

other broadcasters know, you interviewed Boris Johnson and many

other leading lights on the get out campaign, and they all said, we will

stay in the single market, we will stay in the Commons for economic

matters, we will stay very much part of everything which is important in

Europe, and the minute the thing was passed, it has all gone. Were told

we were going to see ?350 million a week ago where does that go now? I

get the argument. The argument actually matters here, Gordon. The

point is, the people did not know what they were voting for, and now

the Tories are saying something completely different. It is right

that the people of our country get the chance to vote on whatever comes

out of those negotiations in two or three years' time, because they

certainly did not know what they were voting for last year. The

argument would be slightly more impressive if it was not the case

that during the referendum campaign on independence, you and others

spent your entire time saying, Alex Salmond is profiting that we'll keep

the pound, he can't promise that, everyone in the UK Government is

saying, that's not possible, he can't be trusted, there's no clarity

in what the SNP are proposing, he says he can join the European Union,

look what Barroso is saying, there is no certainty... I don't really

see what the difference is? I think you do, don't Gordon, I think that

is a dancing on the head of the Pinotti mint. The point was, the

argument was that, we will be independent. You cannot compare that

in that bold sense with what we now have on Brexit. It is changing every

day, we have and yet active negotiation with 27 member states.

You cannot possibly compare the two. I am going to ask our cameraman or

woman to dance on the head of a pin and get right over to Richard

Lochhead so he can say why he agrees with you... Why do you agree with

him, Tavish Scott, is he right? I agree on some of the issues, in

terms of the false premise on which voted to leave Europe. But of course

in Scotland, 62% of Scots... But what about another referendum on

Brexit but not on independence? I do not agree with him on that point. If

you are a Democrat and a member of the Scottish Parliament, we believe

the people of Scotland should have the right to choose a different

future. Quick word on that, Liam Kerr? I find it rather patronising

to say that the British people didn't know what they were voting

for, when the British people voted to leave the EU. What we have to

focus on is getting the best deal for the UK and for the British

people. Those NHS posters? James Kelly, you agree with Liam Kerr on

that, don't you? I hope the... I hope you are not agreeing on that in

Aberdeenshire I hope that Richard Lochhead is saying that you can't

rerun the EU referendum, you know, and we would then accept the result

of the independence referendum from 2014 should be accepted, and we

don't need another one for a generation. Mark Ruskell, do you

want another European referendum? Well, I want a referendum which can

finally reconcile the 2014 and the 2016 votes. We are in a very

different place to last year. We have to bring these two questions

together, when we have understood the nature of the hard Brexit which

Theresa May is going to negotiate, and then we can finally put that

question to the people. Let's pull back on the shot. This is what the

viewers have been waiting for. Fantastic! Thank you all very much

indigenous we can get some final thoughts from Dr Gerry Hassan now.

This Aberdeen business is a bit strange? I think what he was saying

was that basically, the local Labour groups do not have discretion to

make deals, they have to be approved by the central organs of Labour,

which is quite a bit of micromanagement. It is also a bit

ambiguous, isn't it? If the argument is that the problem is not the

Tories, tell me if I am getting it wrong, he seemed to be saying that

it is not a blanket ban on Tories, it is that this particular deal

would mean more cuts in Aberdeen. Yes. So, does that mean in South

Ayrshire, where they have done the deal with the SNP, there would be no

cuts in South Ayrshire? That was the logic of what he was saying. When

you take the bigger picture, in terms of local government

contraction and contraction in public spending, how you manage to

make less cuts or in a wider environment is difficult to see. It

is impossible. You've got a little bit of flexibility with the council

charge... That's right. But the local authorities cannot themselves

stop the cuts, can they? And so you get the mantra of austerity. But

voters do not really understand what it means. Toxic Tories, when 25% of

Scots voted two weeks ago Tory, about 7% less than the SNP. That

kind of rhetoric is not really cut through. I think it is what Tavish

Scott was suggesting, when you have the electoral system which gives you

the result of all these parties being political minorities, they

then have to active in a bit more of a grown-up way than they sometimes

otherwise would. When there is a general election? You have got

campaigning on top of that, which means... Do you not think it might

be a good idea to have a new rule, just for now, let's just forget

about coalitions and local authorities until after the general

election, and then maybe everyone can sit down and talk sensibly? Yes,

because they are in campaigning mode. That Aberdeen issue will be

used for national political capital, that's just the nature of politics.

After the 8th of June, there might be a bit more realism coming into

town halls. Do you think the general election campaign is going to get as

exciting as Aberdeen council or is that too high a standard? I think we

can hope for that hydrogen we have a problem in the general election

campaign, everyone has basically already assumed the result, which is

whether Theresa May's landslide is large or even larger. That takes

away some of the excitement. My colleague Brian Taylor

is on BBC Two tomorrow at midday with First Minister's Questions

and I'll be back this weekend with Sunday Politics Scotland

on BBC One from 11:35am. With the general election

approaching, with the leaders from six

Scottish political parties going head-to-head before you, the voters,

in the Scottish Leaders' Debate.