18/01/2017 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon and welcome to the programme.

The SNP's deputy leader, Angus Robertson, has branded

the Prime Ministers plans as "a little Britain Brexit".

And unemployment rises in Scotland as it drops across the UK.

And here at Westminster, away from the public rhetoric,

just how useful can the talks between the UK and Scottish

governments be on the process of leaving the EU?

MSPs will today debate calls for the government

the board of Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Ministers want to create a Scotland-wide board

for enterprise and skills, prompting fears

Our Political Correspondent, Andrew Kerr, has more on the story.

We will be having a debate in a short time in a chamber. They want

to scrap the enterprise and have won overall Scottish board. I suppose

the aim is very clear, to try to improve growth here in Scotland, to

try and have one overarching board that can oversee that and really

boost growth instead of having this separate body. The new boards would

oversee Scottish enterprise, Highlands enterprise, the Scottish

funding Council and skills development in Scotland. But the

great concern in the Highlands is that this is a centralisation and

that decisions will be made down here in the central belt, it would

take away that local accountability and, of course, the Scottish

Government has been accused of centralising services with Police

Scotland and one central Fire Service too. We are probably looking

at a defeat may be on the government today inflicted by the opposition,

maybe by just one MSP. The Conservatives say it will be close

but it does look like a defeat. The government will have to listen to

Parliament and it will be interesting to hear what they might

be coming up with after that. Defeat is something we haven't been used to

for a long time. We have had a few defeats in Holyrood. The SNP is now

a minority government, since the May election. They were in when --

majority. We are getting a bit more used that here but you are right, it

is a very different scenario from the all-powerful government of

2011-2016. But they are still very powerful in terms of the party. And

it is quite complicated today because there are a number of MSPs

off sick. Some are unable to give evidence on the rural connectivity

committee. So it is a little bit tricky to work out the numbers. It

is very tight but we may be looking at a defeat by one, perhaps. That is

the thinking at Holyrood this afternoon. Thank you.

Well, to discuss the day's stories, I'm joined by Andy Maciver,

director of the PR agency Message Matters

and former head of communications for the Scottish Conservatives.

There is no rebellion ever on the SNP benches so all 63 SNP 's are

always assured to vote with the government. But Andrew is right, it

has been a bit closer in recent times. You remember the occasion a

couple of weeks ago when a couple voted the wrong way and that would

have been a defeat as well. It is a problem but not something they are

accustomed to. Brexit will dominate everything this afternoon and for

the next two years, four years. What did you make of Theresa May's

speech? I think there was an overreaction on both sides. It was

entirely predictable. There was never any signal that we were going

to retain membership of the single market. I don't think anyone in

Europe wanted that. That entails free movement of Labour and it was

quite clear that was never going to happen. I think the reaction to it

has been quite informative because we see the tones being set for

different campaigns. It is unhelpful for Theresa May that the hard Brexit

faction has adopted this beach and received it very well so you get

Nadine Dorries and people like that standing up in Parliament and saying

how wonderful it was. That is not helpful because it allows those on

the other side to put -- painted as a hard Brexit. I thought it was very

predictable. So she could have done without people saying they were

disappointed? Yes, or on the other side. I think it was predictable. I

think everybody on the conservative side will be pretty satisfied

because it was always going to happen. Do you think that what you

see says was as black and white as it has been portrayed? She did seem

to leave various options, we will be out of the single market but various

options on access. The problem with this debate has always been that

people have sometimes accidentally and sometimes deliberately skewed

the meaning of membership and access and they are completely different

things. I don't think membership was ever on the table. Government

ministers have said many times in the past that we will not be members

of the single market. It was always about access and that is the thing

that remains unknown until the negotiations start. It is what level

of access and on what terms we will have it. But I don't think yesterday

was quite the change that everybody today is portraying it as. I suspect

the Scottish Government would disagree. Absolutely. But will they

succeed in doing that? It doesn't make a difference to them because

the Scottish Government knew this was happening. They knew we were not

going to be members of the single market. On the Brexit paper, option

one was keeping the UK in the single market and option two was keeping

Scotland in the single market in the UK state. We might talk about that

later. I think it is very difficult to see how that can possibly happen

politically both on the continent and here. That then gets us to the

point that there is a very big decision to make. We will discuss

that more later. Our Westminster correspondent,

David Porter, is outside We are starting 2017 as we finished

2016, everything dominated by Brexit. In that place behind me and

also a couple of hundred yards over there, the Supreme Court. As far as

the legal action is concerned, some of the mist is now starting to lift.

We know that the Supreme Court will give its decision, its judgment on

the 24th of January, that is next Tuesday, on whether Theresa May is

going to have to introduce legislation into the House of

Commons and the House of Lords before she can go ahead and trigger

article 50 or whether they will agree with the UK Government and

say, no, that is not needed. So it is an important decision for the

House of Commons behind me. The Scottish Government were party to

that legal action and they are hoping that Holyrood will have a say

in whether article 50 will be triggered. Next week will not just

be a dry judgment, it will be very important in legal terms and it will

be very, very important in political terms. We have just been talking

about Theresa May's speech yesterday. What is the reaction to

it there? Just over 24 hours on since Theresa May delivered her

speech, as you would expect, because it is about Brexit and because what

she said about the single market and essentially saying to Europe, either

give us a good deal or we could walk away, the reverberations are still

being felt in this place and I suspect they are being felt in

Holyrood as well. All the proceedings in the House of Commons

today, Scottish questions and then later by ministers questions, were

dominated by that issue of Brexit and leaving the single market. In

response to Theresa May's speech yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon said she

now believes that a second Scottish independence referendum is closer

and at Prime Minister's Questions I'm today, the SNP went on the

attack and they accused Theresa May and the UK Government of wanting a

little Britain Brexit. It is thousands of people who may

lose their jobs in Scotland as a result of the hard Tory Brexit plan

of the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister believe that this is

a price worth paying for her little Britain Brexit? I repeat what I said

earlier, we will be working to ensure that we get the best possible

deal in terms of access to the single market and continuing to

cooperate in partnership with the member states of the remaining 27

member states of the European Union but the Right honourable gentleman

once again talks about the possibility of negative impact on

Scotland if Scotland were not part of the single market. His party is

dedicated to taking Scotland out of the single market by taking it out

of the United Kingdom. Amidst all the rhetoric, can I ask

you a boring question? What happens next? Nothing until the negotiations

start? What happens next is that the talking continues, particularly in a

Scottish and UK Government context, despite all the public rhetoric. We

know in politics that as far as public rhetoric is concerned, it is

not always what is being said in private. There is a meeting tomorrow

of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which is made up of the UK

Government and the devolved administrations. Whitehall have set

it a specific committee to look at exiting the European Union. There is

a meeting of that tomorrow down here in which the Scottish Government and

the other devolved administrations will be present, but crucially they

will be discussing the Scottish Government's plan for Brexit. How

those discussions will go, we don't know. They will be in private so

they can probably be a bit more candid. But whatever is going to

happen, these negotiations at an intergovernment level and the

negotiations when they finally happen on the triggering of article

50 are probably going to be pretty long, tortuous, and at times pretty

bumpy. What I thought was quite interesting from Theresa May at

Prime Minister's Questions was the way that she seemed very confident.

She has in effect thrown the gauntlet down not only to Nicola

Sturgeon and the Scottish Government by saying we are going to be leaving

the single market but also to Europe as well by basically saying to

Europe, the other 27 countries, if you don't give us a deal, and we do

want some kind of trade deal, we are willing to walk away, we are willing

to play hardball. It is going to be very interesting in the days, weeks

and months ahead to see what Europe says to that. Thank you. You will be

back later. I am not even going to mention the beautiful sunshine

bathing the houses of parliament. That would be tempting fate. Say no

more. This The Health Secretary is due to make

a statement to parliament on the delay to plans for a network

of trauma centres It was announced last week

that the centres will not be up and running for at least three

years, because of the scale Let's hear from Shona Robison

in the chamber now. it has a dedicated trauma ward which

is led by specialist trauma consultant is supported by doctors,

nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other

health professionals on a 24-7 basis. The last vital component of

trauma units. They deal with the vast majority of trauma, those who

are not as seriously injured as trauma patients. A trauma centre

cannot succeed without these vital components in place. It should

therefore come as no surprise that trauma networks require significant

planning and investment in order to resource them appropriately and give

seriously injured patients the best care possible. There has been a

rigorous debate in the clinical community as to what the optimum

model for Scotland would be. I am grateful to them and the Chief

Medical Officer for shaping the plans that we are now taking

forward. In September 2013, the National planning forum's major

trauma subgroup released a report with a number of recommendations for

the development of a network. They said it should be a four Centre

model. But they also recognise that there was no clear consensus among

clinicians of what the optimum number of centres was. In April

2014, my predecessor asked for the suggested four centre model to be

taken forward as a practical first step but in line with the 2013

National planning forum report, we knew that the findings of the

evaluation of systems of trauma care should be taken into account when

considering future configurations of a trauma network in Scotland.

Including whether the number of trauma centres can and should be

reduced further. The field work of the study was

conducted in 2014 and the report was compiled thereafter. The study was

noted on a number of occasions by the national planning forum major

trauma oversight group as they took forward their work. In 2015 the

study cast doubt on the four centre model and instead suggested two

trauma centres was the optimal configuration for Scotland. I had a

choice whether to ignore the report, accept it or ask that further work

was done to assess the relative benefits and risks of this

alternative model. I judged this report had to be fully considered to

ensure the right model for Scotland was being developed and to try to

address clinical concerns. Clinicians and other NHS staff

worked tirelessly then with the study group to assess the risks of

having just two centres and in The Spring of last year it became clear

from that further work that those risks outweighed the notional

benefits. The views and concerns of clinicians and the Scottish

ambulance service on a two-centre model were critical at this stage.

As a result, I asked the Chief Medical Officer to lead an

implementation group that would look at how a new trauma network based

around the original model of four centres in Aberdeen, Dundee,

Edinburgh and Glasgow could be made to work in practice, taking note of

the lessons learned from the report, the concerns of the Scottish

ambulance service and Scotland's unique geography. In June last year

the Scottish Government announced they would have the necessary

preparatory work for an enhanced trauma network completed by December

2016. A commitment... The number of people in Scotland

seeking work rose over the autumn by 11,000,

according to the latest figures. It means the Scottish

unemployment rate is 5.1% - It is still an uncertain time for

the economy in Scotland. This latest data shows the job market lagging

behind the rest of the UK. The Office for National Statistics says

11,000 more people were seeking work between September and November. That

means a total of 139,000 people were unemployed. The overall rate of

unemployment is 5. 1%, compared to 4. 8% for the whole of the UK. A

number of factors could be at play. The down turn in oil and gas and

Brexit fears. Some parts of the economy are trying

to manage that uncertainty. This Paisley company is thriving,

offering flexible storages for business and even office space. We

try to take away that uncertainty surrounding it so we hope the

business come in, can take the space for a month, they can grow the

business, bring it back down in size again. We try to make it work for

them. There is other good news, the

Scottish Government says youth unemployment dropped last year. But

it is also published data today showing very slow growth in economic

output in the year to last September.

Our business editor is here. There are also, just to cheer us up even

more, awful figures for GDP growth. Just mentioned there at the end, the

figure come out every three months and take a while to compile so the

figures we are looking at today cover the third quarter last year,

July to September. We already knew the UK figures for that period. That

was growth of 0. 6%, it's kind of on trend, it's what you can expect with

the economy functioning as typically, for both the UK and for

Scotland. Not a bad rate. The Scottish rate is a third of that.

That is really two years of very low rates, particularly the last four

quart they'res we have seen have been very low indeed. Growth of only

0. 7% growth, with 2. 2% across the UK as a whole. The point about this,

they're not awful in an absolute sense, neither are the unemployment

figures, it's the fact there seems to be a gap growing between the

performance in Scotland and the rest of the UK. They're certainly not

good either. You are right the divergence is worrying. Even if the

UK figures came way down, we should still be worrying about growth rates

of only 0. 2%, a fifth of 1% in one quarter and the previous quarter

revised downwards so that's the same, 0. 2%. The quarter before

that, at the start of last year, no growth in the economy at all. So

last year was a very poor year in terms of output from the economy. In

terms of that divergence it matters particularly with these new income

tax powers because if your growth is heading off in a different direction

or at least is growing far less... And you are relying on revenues. It

feeds through income tax and revenues will fall below, over time

this will take place, you can handle a year or two of it, there may be

mechanisms for the Treasury, block grants to make up some of the

difference through the agreement they've got, but if you look forward

ten years, 15 years, you could see a significant gap between what would

happen if Holyrood did not have these income tax powers and what we

may face unless we can get the growth rate up again. OK. What's

going on, Brexit is as an explanation doesn't because that

doesn't explain the difference. The Scottish Government says

independence is a possibility of a another referendum has nothing to do

with it. Is it entirely oil? A lot has to do with oil and gas. The

slump in growth follows the point at which oil and gas sector really

began to suffer from much lower price of oil. But that doesn't look

like the only explanation that there can be. One of the things which has

helped the numbers stay up for quite a while, particularly 2014-2015, was

construction. That's partly because of public spending on big projects,

that is coming to an end, we are running out of money, big projects

are coming to an end, there is less spending on them. That has an

impact. When you take construction out and it's been contracting in the

past year, after a really substantial growth in the previous

couple of years, then the rest of the economy, you see what's really

happening underlining in the main part of the economy. The services

sector, three-quarters of the economy, has been on a growth path.

It is a very slow growth path, it's consistent recently. Manufacturing

has been much more volatile and over the past few quarters it's been very

weak. Some figures suggest that manufacturing will be helped by a

weaker pound, exports will be helped, also you substitute imports

because of course imported goods become more expensive and local

producers are able to fill the gap there. So, a weaker pound may bake a

difference, there could be a positive Brexit effect. We can't

really see it's down to uncertainty about Brexit, because it really has

the same effect across the whole of the UK. But there is this question

in the background that you mentioned there, if Brexit and constitutional

uncertainty around Britain's place in Europe as a trading regime is one

of the reasons for business investment being down, then like

wise uncertainty about Scotland's position within its major market,

far bigger than the EU and the rest of the UK, that may be weighing on

business investment and confidence, as well. When it turns around next

month and we are doing wonderfully you can tell us about it! And a few

politicians will be here, as well! MSPs have backed a Scottish

Government motion, amended by Labour, welcoming the options

for Scotland's future relationship with Europe,

as set out in the Government paper A Conservative amendment calling

on ministers to stop using the EU Referendum result as a reason

to campaign for Scottish Almost seven months since the EU

referendum in which Scotland voted emphatically to remain in the

European Union, whilst England and Wales voted to leave, the Prime

Minister has today announced as ending the UK involvement in the

European project in the hardest and most complete way possible. We think

this is the wrong decision for the UK as a whole and indicates that the

type of country the Conservatives want is a race to the bottom,

sacrificing consumer, environmental and workers' rights for the price of

deregulation, low wages and low taxes. But the Scottish Government

and the Scottish people as indicated in poll after poll have a different

view. We have to find a way forward, that honours the democratic demand

of the nation to maintain our relationship with our European

friends and neighbours. Scotland's place in Europe was published on

20th December t delivered the mandate that we were required to do

by this parliament. It is the first detailed plan to be published by any

Government in any part of the UK to deal with the implications of the UK

leaving the European Union. Today's debate gives us as a parliament

speaking for our nation to take those plans a step further. On

Thursday the Scottish Government will make a presentation about these

plans to the JMC European negotiating committee and it is of

course proper that this parliament should give its view to them in

advance of that discussion in London. The Prime Minister was

explicit today in stressing this paper is still to be considered by

the UK Government. We have also highlighted ways we can keep

Scotland in the single market while continuing to protect free trade

from across the rest of the UK as well as safeguarding the existing

powers of this parliament and significantly ex-pappeding

revolution in order to mitigate the damage that will be done by Brexit.

Our amendment to the Government motion today calls on the SNP to act

in the best interests of the people of Scotland as a whole and to stop

using the outcome of the EU referendum to campaign for

independence. In the foreword to this paper, supposedly about Europe,

there are 11 separate references to independence. As well as the First

Minister repeated reference to Scotland being independent within

Europe as being the preferred option. Yet again the SNP continues

to defy economic logic by constantly campaigning to leave our domestic UK

trading market represented 65% of our business, to maintain membership

of a European single market that accounts for only 15%. She appeared

to say three things. No to the single market, yes to transitional

arrangements, and on the customs union, don't know. Her Government

has still not reached a clear position on that critical matter.

There was little evidence of a willingness to consider different

outcomes on the single market for different parts of the UK but the

Prime Minister has given undertakings to consider proposals

from the Scottish Government and that pledge should be honoured. Our

place in future as we argued last time we debated the single market

has to mean the most unfetterred access to that market that can be

achieved in the context of the decisions of the United Kingdom as a

whole. But in that context ministers can and should continue to seek ways

to protect Scotland's vital interests, working with others

across the United Kingdom who are also seeking to make the best of the

current circumstances. This afternoon's speech from the Prime

Minister I think confirms that the Conservatives are hellbent on a hard

Brexit, regardless of what the impact will be on millions of people

through higher prices, greater instability, hitting jobs and

hurting our economy, withdrawing from the single market and the

customs union is not in our country's interests, nor was it what

people voted for on the 23rd June. The Tories are turning Brexit into a

democratic stitch-up and it shows how vital it is that the public be

given a say in a Brexit deal referendum. This is exactly the hard

Brexit we had feared and despite the single line acknowledging the

Scottish Government's proposals the plans set out today are entirely

incompatible with the Scotland's place in Europe paper. The

previously mentioned report estimates that a Norway-style deal,

all continue for all the UK, would in the best scenario see Scottish

GDP drop by three million, wages drop by an average of ?800 per

person and still lose over 30,000 jobs. This is quite a compromise.

It's probably the Westminster Government's last chance to ensure

Scotland continues to be part of the UK. Yet for all Theresa May spoke

about wanting the UK to be more united than ever before, she has

refused to compromise. I believe now that a vote on our own future is all

but impossible to avoid. Let's speak to some MSPs at

Holyrood. Dan jel Johnson, let's start with

you. Working out Labour policy these days is like doing a tricky

crossword. Can we judge from what Lewis McDonald was saying there that

Labour supports Nicola Sturgeon's ambitions to keep Scotland in the

single market and within the UK and supports what was said in the paper

that the Scottish Government produced? What Labour are saying is

that the Scottish Government is right to the extent that it is

absolutely right to look at what options are available to protect

Scotland's interests in access to the single market. But what I have

to say and what Scottish Labour are saying is that if you are starting

point of the issues around Brexit are about uncertainty, about the

economic consequences and your solution is independence, we have to

absolutely reject that because independence will compound those, if

not by a factor of When you say you support the

proposals, what is it you support? Are you saying you would back

Scotland staying in the single market and the UK, even if the UK

leaves the single market? We are saying that we were look at options

that are realistic that are brought forward. But the options have been

brought forward. You still haven't answered my question. Are you saying

that Labour in Scotland supports the contents of the paper that the

Scottish Government produced, which suggested they should be some way

found to allow Scotland to say in the single market even when Britain

exits the European Union? There are lots of things in that paper worthy

of consideration and given that we are only at the start of the Brexit

process, I think it is important that we explore all of those

options, but above all else we have to recognise, and the government's

own paper recognises that we have to protect the UK single market, but we

also need to engage properly, fully and adequately with this process. To

be straightforward question, would you support the Scottish

Government's efforts to keep Scotland in the single market, your

answer would be yes? As long as that doesn't jeopardise the UK. Liam

McArthur, the big problem for your line on Europe is that, admittedly

almost to everyone's surprise, all the economic evidence is running

against you. It was supposed to be a disaster if we left the EU. I think

the pound went up by the biggest amount since 2008 after Theresa

May's speech yesterday. The Bank of England has said Brexit is no longer

the main economic issue facing the UK. And even business investment is

going up. I think your point about the jump in the pound, what we have

seen is the pound plummeting and yesterday we saw it recovering some

of the lost value over recent months. At the same time, the FTSE

was going in the other direction. Let's not lose sight of the fact

that Brexit hasn't happened yet. Yesterday we had more of the detail

of what the UK Government are proposing but still a wide range of

uncertainty that will need to be filled. But if you are right, why

does the governor of the Bank of England say Brexit is no longer the

main economic issue facing the UK? You would have too asked the

governor of the Bank of England. Explain to me why you think he is

wrong. What we are looking at in terms of access to markets is a

complete departure of what we were told throughout the referendum

campaign from the leadership of Leave, when we were assured by

senior representatives and by Ruth Davidson in this Parliament is that

the maintenance of our full access to the single market, and that has

been cast aside yesterday. I can't see how that is in the interest of

any business sector across not just Scotland but the UK. How that will

play out in the months and years to come, I think is going to be

difficult to predict, but anyone who suggests it is going to be easier,

it is going to be a business advantage to have access to the

single market unless favourable terms than we have at the moment is

I think naive. It's Adam Tomkins, a single market deal is in

the bin now, isn't it? Absolutely not. The Prime Minister said

yesterday she wants the freest possible trade with the EU, she

wants a new, bold, Conrad Smith free-trade agreement between the UK

and the rest of the EU, she wants the greatest possible access to the

single market. I'm sure China or India would tell you the same thing,

that's not the same thing as being part of the single market. Having

the fullest possible access to the single market is not the same as

Canada, India and China. Do tell us what the difference is. China has no

free-trade agreement with the European Union. You said it is

different from Canada. There is no free-trade agreement between Canada

and the EU. You know there is one on the table. We can't play games with

this, it is far too important. What the Prime Minister said yesterday

was that we will be members of the European Union. We want a full,

compressive free-trade agreement with the European Union that will

give us the greatest possible access to the single market. I first argued

for that in this Parliament in September. It is perfectly

consistent with what the Scottish Conservatives have been saying for

five months. Has anything changed? The SNP knew perfectly well that

Theresa May wasn't going to say that Britain would stay in the single

market and she wasn't going to say Britain would stay in the customs

union. The indications over the last three months have been that that is

the direction the Conservatives have been heading in. I'm actually having

-- the fact we have produced this compressive paper outlining the

various options available to Scotland and the UK Government and

asking for them to consider them is the right way forward. We have been

the first partly, the only party to have a consistent message since the

day after the EU referendum. Consistently wrong. Wales are

following suit as well. They are putting something together which is

going to outline their position as well. What is wrong with the British

government saying, we have had a look at that, we don't think it is

realistic. They have got a right to do that but we were told we were an

equal partner in this United Kingdom and they have to look at our

document and take it seriously. Gordon, there seems to be a bit of a

disconnect between what Theresa May... They have got to do

everything you say? No, we have got to work together. But there is a

disconnect between what Theresa May said yesterday and the rhetoric of

the Scottish Conservatives. Theresa May says she was going to look at

that paper and we are looking for her to do that. They has to be a

negotiation. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that

happening. So what do you do now? The people of Scotland's voices are

not being heard at all. We continue to engage with the UK Government as

we have done all along. But you are saying they are not engaging with

you. No, we are engaging with the UK Government. You were just saying

they weren't paying any attention to you. We are meeting tomorrow. But

certainly, when you look at things like the length of time it took

David Davies to get back to Michael Russell, when he said he had a

hotline to David Davies, it doesn't give me much cause for comfort. So

what do you do? Just saying we will have another independence referendum

unless you do something else, you can't just keep saying that for

years. Are you going to come up with another set of proposals? Have you

got a plan for encouraging the UK Government to listen to you? We have

always got plans for the UK Government and the fact you have had

to say that to me is indicative of the way this is viewed. We shouldn't

have to be pressing the UK Government to listen to the Scottish

Government, we are government in our own right and this should be an

equal partnership. I genuinely hope I will be proved... That the UK

Government will take on board what is in that paper and we can have a

constructive dialogue. Theresa May seems to be acting on the whims of

the centre-right part of her party, the Brexiteers. One of the things I

find really bizarre is that they were impassioned speeches from the

Conservative members before the EU referendum about staying in the

single market have evaporated. Because we respect the result of the

referendum. Let's have a lovely shot of all of you standing there saying

cheese. Now, two former First Ministers have

suggested major changes to the Scottish Parliament,

including an increase Both men suggested the electoral

list system currently used in Holyrood elections

should be re-evaluated. And, as Holyrood assumes more powers

and responsibilities for Scotland, Mr McLeish said the current total

of 129 of MSPs was The massive changes that have taken

place in politics everywhere and the massive change in politics in the UK

with the distribution of powers, I think we do need to look at the size

of the parliament in the future, we do need to look at the question of

capacity and how these members are elected. Jack McConnell was saying

he saw no need. Well, Professor Greg

Philo Research Director of the Glasgow University Media Unit

and Andy Maciver is here to discuss how the public might be convinced

that more politicians Greg, just on this issue of reform,

it is a tough one, because he argued for reforms and the way things were

done when he was First Minister and got nowhere. Tricia Marwick, when

she was Presiding Officer, said she was banging her head against a brick

wall. Why do you think MSPs are so resistant to making any changes?

There is always resistance because people have their own ways of doing

things. But if there is a fundamental change going on in the

sense of new powers being allocated and real work is moving from one,

from Westminster to Holyrood, there is busy a case to say that things

have to be done differently and you are going to need more personnel. If

you want to sell that to people, that is the way to do it, to the

population as a whole. One of the issues is whether people will accept

the need for more politicians or for more money on politics. But that

seems to me to be the clearest way of explaining it. If there is more

work, you need more people. On the other hand, just imagine going to

the streets of Glasgow and saying, we need more politicians. Imagine

the reaction you would get. If you expressed it in those woods, that is

the reaction you would get, but if you said there is a lot more work

happening now because of the devolved powers because all sort of

work is being moved from Westminster up to here so we need more people to

do it, nobody would think twice about it. The other point that they

seem to be getting on about was that they feel that the Holyrood

committees, which were advertised before devolution as being a great

new thing, so much better than London, they are not actually

holding ministers to account even in the way parliamentary committees in

London do to politicians at Westminster. If that's the case, you

need to argue about who is on those committees and what their capacity

is. That is really down to the quality of the people asking the

questions. I'm not being rude but realistically there is no reason...

You are being rude. If people aren't asking the right questions, you need

to ask why is that so. Look at the problems in Northern Ireland where

you have got the collapse of the whole Executive because of

effectively a scandal where huge amounts of public money was spent

without being held to account. You need to say, what was the oversight

procedure, who was supposed to be asking the questions and why would

they ask? Andy, what do you make of this? When Tricia Marwick left, I

did at least two interviews wishy talked about how frustrated she was.

She made all sorts of proposals. They got nowhere. Why is there such

resistance? Big political change is difficult in this country because it

is not generally received very well by the public. I think in this

instance, if you were to look at the proposal to have more MSPs because

of more work, I think that is completely reasonable, not least

because the committee system really struggles with the number of MSPs.

You can have two or three committees per MSP sometime and they can't do a

good job on a committee when you are that spread out. Tricia Marwick said

in London you have got select committees and then committees

overseeing, line by line, the government legislation. Yet they

have to do the functions of both. Our politicians are actually very

busy. Very hard-working. They are not all brilliant but they are very

busy. There is an easy way of getting around the public issue of

having more MSPs, you have the equivalent number of MPs reduced.

You reduce the number of Scottish MPs by the number of MSPs. From a

public perspective, that is a much easier sell. It doesn't answer the

question why politicians aren't popular. But in this instance, you

could quite easily have more MSPs. What do you think of that? To reduce

the number of MSPs? No, it includes MSPs, reduce MSPs -- reduce MPs. I

would say what will probably happen is that people in Westminster will

say they are overloaded to and if you reduce the MPs you will get less

oversight there. Given the costs to the nation, if you actually costed

this up and worked out how much it costs to have a few more MSPs, it's

really not a lot in terms of the vast sums. You have been doing focus

groups. What reaction to politicians are you getting less

There is a sense politicians aren't trustworthy because of the long

history of things like cash for questions. I didn't catch that, did

you say the sense is that politicians are not trustworthy?

That's right. It's a very, very deep distrust of politicians and

politics, which is not just in this country. That is I think in many

ways misplaced because I think very many MPs do work hard and are very

dedicated to what they do. But the sense that they are constantly under

attack does really wear them down and I advise them on issues like

climate change and a range of issues and how to get these sorts of

arguments across to the public. I go and talk to the committees. What are

people saying to you in the focus groups, is it that they trust MPs or

MSPs of their party they vote for but don't trust the others or do

they just not trust politicians in general? I think it's a general

distrust of politicians. But at the same time there is a sense that they

have a very important job to do and also I think there is a terrible

nervousness at the moment about what's going to happen next. People

are genuinely scared about the society they're in, in a way that

they weren't I think probably 50 years ago. There is much more fear

now about jobs, pensions, the future, health. There was a kind of

optimism 50 years ago that things were going to get better, I think.

Now I think people are generally scared. They're very worried that

politicians are not going to really protect them and I think that is I

think the biggest issue that we face, a sense that the political

structures that we have are not going to protect people and I think

politicians add to that by not being very clear on what is at stake or

what the offers are. There is a sense people are being lied to all

the time. You can see that over Brexit, you know, people just don't

believe the information they're being given half the time. Thank you

very much. Don't go away, Andy. You are back

later. And now it's time for this week's

Prime Minister's questions. The issue of Brexit dominated

proceedings, with the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn devoting

all of his six questions to it. He began by asking Theresa May,

why she was not allowing parliament Yesterday the Prime Minister snubbed

parliament and snubbed the Brexit committee's recommendations to bring

forward a White Paper whilst at the same time describing the referendum

as a vote to restore our parliamentary democracy. This is

about our jobs, living standards and future prosperity. Why will it not

be scrutinised by this House? Can I say to the right honourable

gentleman that what I did yesterday was set out a plan for a global

Britain. I set out a plan that will put the divisions of last year

behind us, that will show a vision... That shows a vision for a

stronger, fairer, more united, more outward looking, prosperous,

tolerant and independent truly global Britain. It was a vision

which will shape a stronger future and build a better Britain. Shortly

after the Prime Minister confirmed that she wants to take the UK out of

the single European market, the Scottish parliament voted by a large

cross-party majority to remain in the single European market, just as

a large majority of people in Scotland voted to remain in the

European Union. The Prime Minister has said that Scotland is an equal

partner in the United Kingdom. Does she still believe this is true or is

she just stringing the people of Scotland along? I gave - I might

refer the right honourable gentleman to my speech yesterday where I

reiterated my commitment to be working with the devolved

administrations to ensure their voice is heard, their interests are

taken into account as we proceed along this path of negotiating our

exit from the European Union. Also I specifically referenced the Scotland

plan, I understand the Welsh Government will be producing a plan

for Wales for to us look at too. That Scotland plan will be being

considered by the JMC on European negotiations tomorrow, I believe. We

will looking at is seriously and working with the Scottish Government

on the proes they bring forward. In the United Kingdom we have 14

regional markets for electricity distribution and high landers and

islanders are facing higher prices because of where we live.

Electricity distribution charges for the north of Scotland are an

eyewatering 84% high are than distribution charges for London. The

Prime Minister talks about fairness. Will she introduce a universal

market for electricity pricing and stop penalising Highlanders and

Islanders? Those of us that live in the coaliest windiest places are

discriminated against by her Government and it must end --

coldiest. Well, the honourable gentleman draws

attention to the fact that of course geography does have an impact on

these matters. He talks about living in the coldest and windiest place.

Obviously, one of the issues that's interesting to look at in relation

to Scotland is the whole question of renewables and the opportunities for

renewables that appear in Scotland. But I can tell him that we are

looking at the impact... We are looking at making sure that energy

markets in the UK are indeed working properly.

I didn't succeed in cursing the weather for David Porter! Here he is

with lots of MPs. Thank you very much, Gordon. Yes a

lot to talk about this afternoon. Without any further ado, let me

introduce you to my guests this afternoon, deer dree Rock for the

SNP, George Folks for Labour, Alistair Carmichael and Ian Stuart

for the Conservatives. Let's talk first of all and a brief answer from

all of us, Supreme Court will now report on Tuesday in its decision

about Article 50. This is a big one, isn't it? It is but we will see on

Tuesday whether the Supreme Court has agreed with the Government's

appeal. If it chooses not to, I don't think it will be that

significant in terms of what we do. The Government has a simple bill

ready to introduce to parliament which I hope will quickly get past

so we can get on with what the country wants to see and that is

start the negotiations with the EU. You are a former lawyer, what's your

take on this? I mean, you always know not to prejudge the judgment of

a court until you see it. We will know the significance when we see

it. In fact, I would say that it's already had a significant impact. It

has already taken Theresa May from a position where she was saying the

Government and only the Government will have a say on this, to one

where they seek to involve parliament. They've not yet gone as

far as they need to but have made a significant concession already.

George? Yes, the Government knows that the High Court was right that's

why the bill is ready to bring in straightaway. The Supreme Court will

certainly uphold the High Court's decision. The other good thing is in

the statement yesterday Theresa May has said that parliament will now

have a say on the final deal and that was the only good thing in it,

that is certainly a step forward. Of course spokespeople have said

quickly after that there will not be a vote on whether they stay or not.

We will get to hear whether the Scottish parliament has a say in

being dragged out of Europe against its will or not. That might be legal

Brexit, political Brexit very much in evidence. Your Government has

been accused today of wanting a Little Britain Brexit as far as

Scotland is concerned. No, the Prime Minister was very clear yesterday.

We want Britain post-Brexit to be outward facing, liberal, open to the

world, trading around the world. That's far from a Little Britain

mentality. What is important now, there is an opportunity, both to get

a good deal with the EU, and to open up our trading opportunities around

the globe. I work in international trade department, there is an

enormous appetite for the product of Scottish companies and UK companies

to sell more. That's the opportunity we have now got to seize. Should we

have been surprised when the Prime Minister actually ruled out we leave

Europe, we leave the single market, surely one follows the other? She

had given signals of that sort. In fact, it was remarkable that it has

taken us seven months to get to a position as simple and as

straightforward as that. But, yesterday's speech was a classic

example of the way she handles this. She talks the internationalist talk

but does not walk the walk. All the rest of the mood music in that

speech yesterday was about a country that was turning inwards, that was

drawing in from the rest of the world and ultimately that is going

to be bad for us and specifically bad for our economy. It was

noticeable that the Prime Minister said in her speech actually no deal

could be better than a bad deal. Implicitly saying to Europe if you

don't give us a good deal we will walk away. Yeah, well that's the

kind of irresponsible talk we have heard. You know, with the country

the way it is at the moment, the economy, we have just seen an

ambulance go by, the health service in disarray, all of these things,

the last thing we want is the kind of tax haven economy that is

foreseen by what Theresa May is suggesting at the moment. The only

thing that would make it worse would make the uncertainty worse, is the

prospect of a second independence referendum. To have this uncertainty

at the moment, for Scotland to have a second referendum would make it

really ten times worse because we would be out of Europe, we would

also be out of the United Kingdom. No country in Europe is going to

accept Scotland, an independent Scotland as a separate member of the

European Union. Total catastrophe. Your Government wants to make it ten

times worse. That's nonsense, George. We have put a plan through

to Theresa May and her Government proposing that - making a proposal

regarding Scotland staying in the single market and retaining free

movement of people. That gets discussed by a joint Ministerial

council tomorrow and we will wait and see what she has to say. We are

about protecting the people of Scotland's interests. 74% within my

constituency voted to stay within Europe. This is a very clear message

from the Scottish people and we will continue to protect their interests.

Sticking with the idea of independence and a second

referendum, a brief final question to you all, because of what we heard

yesterday and Nicola Sturgeon's response to that, do you think we

are now closer to a second Scottish independence referendum? No, I

don't. My message to the Scottish Government is to work with the UK

Government to get that best possible deal, that's what is in Scotland's

interests, take this idea off the table so we can have that certainty.

I feel we might be but we shouldn't be. You know, England is the biggest

export market for Scottish manufacturers, over two-thirds of

our goods are exported into England. 15% exported into the single market.

George, briefly. I don't think we will. Nicola Sturgeon is no fool,

she knows if she had one she would lose it, that would be the ind of

independents completely and the end of her leadership. Unfortunately we

would probably have Alex Salmond back again. Certainly Nicola

indicated yesterday it would be likely if Theresa May is not

prepared to look seriously at the proposals on the table and come back

to us with flexible, some flexibility regarding our proposals.

To aguests, thank you all very much. The clock has beaten us this

afternoon. Gordon, one prediction I will make, two in fact, the weather

won't remain as good here forever. Next week we are going to be talking

about Brexit. Thanks, David. Let's get final

thoughts from Andy. Do you think an independence referendum is any

closer? It's a little bit closer because one of the apparent options

has been ruled out. But we are always going to be getting to this

point of the journey, a referendum is always going to happen and George

is right about this, it's only going to happen when the Scottish

Government feel they've a good chance of winning it. Way back they

thought 60-40 was what they wanted the polls to look like before they

called one. They're in a little bit of a corner harks time might

evaporate and they might have to call one if they want to keep to

previous assurances and the big decision then from Nicola Sturgeon

is does she back down and come up with an excuse not to call one or

take a risk? She is not a gambler, not like her predecessor, so it's a

big decision, I am not sure he will go for it. Or hope there is a change

in opinion polls. It's not just the increase in yes, they need an

increase in people who want a referendum. There could be a big

change but they said that after the Brexit vote and it didn't happen. So

it's not certain. All right. Thank you, Andy: Join us tomorrow on BBC

Two Scotland at 12 noon. That's all from us for now, goodbye.

Robert Burns never travelled to America.

In America, Burns was the 19th century Elvis.

Many, from Lincoln to Dylan, have identified with his works.