18/11/2015 Politics Scotland

Good afternoon and welcome to Politics Scotland.

Is Labour facing a revolt over Trident in the Commons next week?

And at Holyrood, MSPs are debating whether housing can promote

The SNP is planning to table a Commons motion on Trident

for debate next Tuesday, which is likely to call for the scrapping

It's understood Labour MPs are being instructed to abstain

but some are set to defy Mr Corbyn and vote against the SNP.

Our Westminster correspondent David Porter joins us now

David, whatever the SNP up to? There is a lot of politics taking place

here. It is an article phase with the SNP that they want to see the

nuclear weapons and the submarines that carried them, removed from

Scotland. These see it as such an important issue that it should be

debated here frequently here in Westminster and at great length.

Because they are the third largest party here in Westminster, they can

choose the business. Next week they have chosen they will choose trident

and tax and revenue offices. The controversial thing will be that

decision to discuss trident once again. Supporters of trident say it

is the ultimate deterrent and a country like Britain needs to have

that ultimate deterrent. Those who are against Trident say it will be a

spectacular waste of money to update the system because no Prime Minister

is ever going to press the button, is going to use that ultimate

section of using the weapons. Next year the House of Commons will have

to make a decision on whether it will upgrade the Trident system. The

SNP say that is wrong in principle and think it is wrong for Scotland.

That plays very well with their core vote. When I spoke to the

Westminster leader, Angus Robertson this morning, he would not tell me

what the wording of that motion would be. His argument is that this

is such an important issue that the public and MPs should have a chance

to discuss that. The wording of motions is published closer to the

time but it will be in opposition to trident. We believe ?167 billion

should be spent better. The SNP is clear in its opposition to trident.

Hopefully Labour will join us. This thing about this is that the SNP

motion, should it go ahead, it is likely to be more of a problem for

the Labour Party than the government? The government are clear

on where they stand on this, they want a replacement to trident and

they believe they have the votes in the House of Commons to do that. The

problem is for the Labour Party. We have a leader of the UK Labour Party

who does not believe in nuclear weapons and would like to see

who does not believe in nuclear trident scrapped. The official

policy of the UK Labour Party is to go ahead and have a replacement for

trident, add to that that the recent decision by the Scottish Labour

Party said they want to renew Trident. You get a sense of the

splits and divisions within the Labour Party. The leadership of the

Labour Party is our its MPs to abstain from this. There will be

some who believe nuclear weapons are important to me vote against the

SNP. The way that Labour will trying get around this is by saying that

this is going to be a 1 line Whip on Tuesday that MPs do not have to turn

up for the debate. They will hope that many Labour MPs will have other

imported engagements and this is debated next week. -- important. I

think you will be back with us later in the programme.

Joining me for the programme is the political strategist Andy MacIver.

The politics of this are straight forward. Both the SNP and

conservatives would like to have debates about trident forever. It is

fine for them. Labour have had a horrible week and I think they will

have another one next week. With trident you have a situation in the

UK where the leader of the party is against it but the party is for it.

What does a revolt look like in the Commons next week? No one knows what

the policy is anyway. In a funny kind of way, it might not go as

badly for them, because no matter what the voters, no one knows what

the policy is. It might not look that bad. Why do you say that? If

you go back to the leadership contest with Jeremy Corbyn,

everything that was going on with his views on foreign policy, some of

the interactions he had with the extremists before, which were

publicised during the election, what you start to see when there are

major policy events like Paris last week, you see the effects of that.

It is a disastrous week when it comes to the shoot to kill policy.

He had rubble start. To be fair to Jeremy Corbyn, I think he would say

that he never said what he was taken to say. -- horrible start. I except

in his position maybe he should not leave any room for ambiguity. He

still speaks on camera as if he is a backbencher, so he pontificates and

surmises and speaks in a kind of town on television that does not

indicate what is particularly knows. -- kind of town. Then he has to

clarify what he says. To play devils advocate, is there not a market for

opening some of these debates out, for rather than saying that in the

reek of the Paris attacks, everyone is horrified by it, but rather than

saying we need to do X. To have someone like Jeremy Corbyn who says,

let stand back from this for the moment and have a discussion about

it. I think there is a market, but I do not think he can fill that

market. So if you take what is the next stage of action on Syria, there

is a lot of different valid opinions on it. His opinion is a valid one.

But he is the wrong messenger forehead. What happened before on

what he said about shoot to kill and what he said in the leadership

campaign, he does not have a credible message that the British

public CSL double. When he gives a reasonable message on something like

trident or Syrian action, it is not seen as credible, so it does damage

to that side of the argument. So the message may be right, but the man

may not be? He is not the man. Well, a short while ago,

MSPs began that debate on housing Let's hear from the Scottish

Government. I am delighted to tell the chamber

today that the Scottish Government has now not only met but exceeded

our target to deliver all 30,000 affordable homes. And included

within that is our 20,000 social rented homes target which includes

5000 council houses. They afford all of targets have been met. The

target... This Presiding Officer is based on a live admin of data. I

will take an intervention when I have finished this part. This is

based on a live administrative data as at the end of October. Formal

confirmation of meeting the targets and by how much they have exceeded

will follow in the regular quarterly publications of official statistics.

But I am sure that everyone in the chamber can agree that this is good

news. I will now take the intervention. The Minister is

pleased she has meeting the target. Does she feel she has met housing

needs in Scotland? I think we have met housing needs better than the

previous legislation who built less houses with rising budgets. We have

met this target on falling budgets. So in terms of that, yes we have met

the target. Housing is a challenge and we are not denying that

challenge. I will carry on by saying that housing, however the 30,000 is

not the full extent of this government's ambition for Scotland.

Our ambition is greater than that as it always is for our country. If the

Scottish Government is returned in May, one of key commitments is to

increase the supply of affordable homes further, as announced by the

First Minister in May, we will deliver 50,000 affordable homes in

the next five years. That has been warmly welcomed by the sector's

representative bodies. I want to make some progress now because this

is our ambitious housing programme and I want member state unit. This

is a 67% planned increase in affordable housing supply. Within

that we plan to minting our existing commitment to social housing, with

70% of the new target for social rent. Our undertaking is bold, it is

credible and it is backed with the provision of over ?3 billion of

funds. This will not only deliver more affordable homes, but it will

also support on average around 20,000 jobs a year and generate in

excess of 10 million activity over the course of this Parliament.

Housing is fundamental to tackling inequalities and this government is

determined to ensure that we deliver the high quality have affordable

homes that people and communities need. In the last seven years we

have contained support for social rented provision with over 25,000

new build RSL affordable completion still avert and we will continue to

work jointly with the sector to maintain their strong contribution

to meeting our new ambitious target. By continuing to work with

local authority partners, we will build on our commitment to cancel

housing commitment. -- council housing. This will prevent the loss

of up to 15 and a half thousand homes over a 10-year period, helping

safeguard the supply of social rented homes for future generations

to come. This is an important policy point for this government, we want

to protect social housing stock for the future. Presiding Officer,

housing options and choices are critical. That is why we have funded

a range of housing to offer that choice, both for those wanting to

rent or for those who want to own their own home. Just recently we

announced a ?10 million increase in budget for the open market shared

equity scheme. Bringing our funding to that scheme this year to ?18

million. We also made sure that the scheme gives priority to social

renters, disabled people, members of the Armed Forces and veterans who

have left the Armed Forces within the last two years. Other routes to

home ownership have also been provided through our funding to Help

To Buy. The First Minister says Scotland's

response to the Paris terror attacks must be one of "defiance and

solidarity, not fear and division." Nicola Sturgeon was leading

a motion of condolence at Holyrood yesterday, after

at least 129 people were killed in gun and bomb attacks across

the French capital on Friday night. Opposition parties unanimously

backed her motion, calling on Scots to unite against terrorism

and make clear that it could not succeed in destroying peoples'

freedoms and way of life. Today we mourn the innocent victims

at least 129 of them who lost their lives. We hope for the recovery of

all those who were injured and we send our thoughts, our prayers and

condolences to all of those affected. In doing so, this chamber

and indeed all of the people of Scotland, say unequivocally that we

stand in solidarity with France and with the French people. The overall

threat level in the UK is classified as severe. However people in

Scotland are safe to go about their day to day business and they should

continue to do so. Police Scotland advise people to be vigilant and

alert but not alarmed. Working closely with Police Scotland and the

UK Government colleagues, we will continue to reflect carefully on the

security possession and take all steps to ensure people and

communities here at home are safe and is well protected as possible.

One important part of doing that is to reaffirm this Parliament's

commitment to a diverse and multicultural society. I observed

the minute silence yesterday at Glasgow's Central Mosque. John

Winnie attended another ceremony. The evil actions of these terrorists

do not speak for Islam, instead they are a perversion of that faith and a

deep insult to the millions across the world who adhere peacefully to

its values. We must also together as a society restricts the instinct to

turn on each other. If we are determined as we are away that the

terrorists will not prevail, then difficult and challenging as it is,

our response must be of one of solidarity and fines, not of fear

and division. The actions of the few must not be allowed to undermine the

freedoms and way of life of the many. I thank the First Minister for

her words. I would also like to send my condolences, thoughts and prayers

to those caught in the attacks in Paris and to the people of France.

The death and destruction, the senseless acts of terror and

violence, they have won ultimate goal and that is to fundamentally

change our society, to transformers from a society that values

tolerance, integration, solidarity and freedom, into one that rejects

all of those things. We are nation that considers all people to be born

equal and deserving of respect, regardless of sexuality, gender,

race, faith or disability. So when the first of the refugees of Syria

arrived today in Glasgow, let's welcome them with loving arms.

May I extend my condolences to the families of those who died or were

injured on Friday? This motion today calls on us to unite in the wake of

these attacks. That is the vital task we face in the coming weeks.

Not just in Scotland but across the civilised world. As the Prime

Minister said last night, military power and counterterrorism will only

ever get us so far, vital as they are. More important is to understand

and address their hatred underpinning the attacks. We should

not kid ourselves or worse blame ourselves for what is behind the new

threat. It is simple. It is an ideology driven to crush the values

of freedom, liberty and equality which we all in this chamber hold

dear. The motion today which I am proud to support calls on us to

ensure acts of terrorism will not succeed in providing us or

destroying those freedoms. We must confront those who seek to embed its

poison in our society and encourage moderate Muslim voices to show the

world it is not these extremists who have ownership of their faith but

them. The city of love is wounded by hate, today to Paris we send our

love to help it heal. We must nurture our progressive liberal free

society. From the bottom of my heart, from all citizens, living in

Scotland, thank you. Joining me now is the

SNP MSP, Mark McDonald, Mark McDonald, could I ask you a

factual question? Nicola Sturgeon talking about the challenges in the

wake of the Paris attacks. Do you know whether as a matter of fact the

Scottish for a matter of fact the Scottish forest to do with security

as a result? -- the Scottish authority. I personally do not. What

Nicola Sturgeon said clearly yesterday was the Scottish for it is

remain in contact regularly with the UK intelligence agencies -- Scottish

authorities. The threat level has not changed in the aftermath of the

Paris attacks. Also, very clear advice is that people should be

alert but not alarmed and I think that is the basis on which we should

operate in society and we should continue our daily business but

remaining, as we have been encouraged to remain for some time,

vigilant and aware of possible threats. Sarah Boyack, rather sharp

change of gear, your big issue has been air quality, a motion on that.

What exactly is the problem you are trying to address? Over 2000 people

die every year from the impact of air pollution that is primarily

caused by diesel vehicles and I am calling on the Scottish Government

to act faster than they are planning to do to put in lower emissions zone

is in the cities. 32 areas across Scotland are failing the air quality

tests. Five in Edinburgh alone. It is a big problem. Failing which

tests? The test of emissions standards. The level of pollution

required. That is partly because... Required by EU law, British law? EU

law. That is why the Scottish Government needs to act along with

the UK Government. In Scotland, it is low emissions zones and

particularly starting with the 32 areas where we are failing to meet

the tests. If it is caused mainly by diesel and presumably these are

areas of busy traffic junctions? A key thing we need to start doing is

changing the fuel our vehicles use. Moving to electric vehicles,

hopefully being able to... But we are not going to do that in two or

three years, what is it you want the Scottish Government to do about busy

traffic areas that they are not doing already? It is exactly that,

working at the local level to identify the key problems now rather

than waiting to do three years. I hope the Scottish Government will

work with the local authority to make sure we do not ignore this

problem. It is 2000 people a year and these are preventable deaths. It

is something that is a social justice issue. In our towns and

cities, we need action. Dundee has got action in terms of low emissions

and we need to do it across the whole of Scotland. Mark McDonald, I

presume you do not particularly disagree with that? I do not believe

there is a huge amount of distance between the Labour Party and

ourselves. We have said we are going to bring forward pilots of low

emissions zones. What we are trying to do with that trance book policy

is to encourage the shifts Sarah Boyack talked about -- the trance

bought policy. We have powered hydrogen buses helping in terms of

reducing emissions in my home city. Investment in infrastructure

designed to reduce congestion, move vehicles away from population

centres. Again, looking at my area of the world, the Aberdeen route, it

is designed to take traffic away from within the city and divert it

around the city, reducing congestion and reducing the idle running

engines at junctions and busy hotspots contributing to the high

emission levels. The one thing is that it is very easy for Sarah

Boyack to say it must happen now. A lot of these things are going to

need time to bed in, time for projects to be realised, but there

has been work done. I would hope Sarah Boyack would agree there is

work being done and good work has been done to bring the emission

levels down. Still more to be done and the report reveals that. The

work is under way to reduce the emission levels and make the air in

our cities much cleaner. We will have to leave it there. Thank you

both very much indeed. Everyone is shocked obviously by

what happened in Paris. It is not clear at any level whether we really

know what to do about it. No, it is a difficult issue for the Scottish

Parliament to discuss. It is not in their remit. It is foreign affairs

and defence. There is not much they can do about it at Holyrood. What

was interesting was that you did not get a lot of meat in yesterday's

comments. It was perfectly well mannered and they said the right

things but what we did not get is what you're saying, we did not get

anyone putting a solution. I am not sure even at the UK or international

level we have had that. I do not think we have. Paris is a turning

point. I sense a change in the national mood now since Paris

because it seems that although this has been happening in other places,

it coming so close to home, it looks like the rules of the game have

changed and people are altering their views a bit. The reality is I

think there are short-term and long-term answers. When you say you

think people are altering their views, in what sense? If you looked

at polling on taking military action in Syria right now, it would be to

substantially different to what it was over the last few months. Far

more in favour of action. They see the barbarism on their doorstep. Be

one part of the solution. I think what you will see is a much more

concerted to look at short-term issues like brown strikes and

military action in Syria and long-term issues. The reality is the

only way to solve this is too instilled Chrissy and effectively

capitalism -- to instil democracy. MSPS are continuing that debate on

housing in the chamber at Holyrood. Let's hear what Labour

and the Conservatives had to say. I would like to begin this afternoon

by making a plea to the Government. I welcome the fact they have

scheduled this debate to allow us to debate the important issue of

housing. Will they finally recognise the housing situation in Scotland

finds itself in a crisis? It would appear not. In September this year,

Labour called a debate on housing so that Parliament could recognise this

very predicament and we remain bitterly disappointed that the

Government will not recognise the housing situation as being a crisis.

Instead what we have is a self congratulatory motion with the

Scottish Government praising themselves for bringing forward a

commitment which in itself falls far short of the demands of the housing

sector and it also claims to be leading innovation in housing policy

which stands little scrutiny when a proper comparison is made with what

is happening elsewhere in Britain. As I made clear in the last debate,

it was and still is Labour's position that every person and

family in Scotland should have access to a safe affordable home.

This is a stepping stone to social and economic equality for all.

Simply put, there is an imperative that housing construction targets

are raised to accommodate the growing need for reasonably priced

homes in Scotland. In while there is no question that this will make a

contribution to reducing overcrowding and supporting

communities, that number is nowhere near enough. As I said in September,

we have to accept that for some time that house-building numbers in

Scotland have fallen far too short. That figure of 2014 is the lowest

level of construction since 1947. That is at a time when over 150,000

families in Scotland are waiting for a home to live in. I congratulate

the Scottish Government on achieving its downgraded commitment on the

building of affordable homes, but they might not notice me making that

clear because they will be busy patting themselves on the back. We

need more affordable homes than the Scottish Government have built and

much more than they are now committing to. We need them

yesterday. We must act swiftly and effectively as the stakes are simply

too high. It has been said already in this debate that the

Government's claimed to have achieved its objective of building

30,000 affordable homes is a misrepresentation of the truth. The

manifesto commitment was to build 30,000 socially rented homes. It was

an early action of this government to revise that total to 30,000

affordable homes, a much easier target to achieve, 20,000 of which

will be socially rented. That means if they achieve their objective, as

they describe it today, they will have missed their target by a full

third. Let us also remember that there is more than that sleight of

hand going on. When the earlier, the current administration very shrewdly

switched from counting starts to completions which will mean at the

end of this five-year period when they count the total, they will

actually be counting houses built in a period longer than five years.

There is a great deal of sleight of hand going on. The next clause is

that we apparently acknowledge the achievement being made despite the

drastic reduction in capital budgets as a result of the UK Government's

spending cuts. That is always the next line, blame the UK Government.

The problem is that this government in Scotland, through successive

budgets, singled out the housing budget for disproportionate cuts. If

that is a demonstration of what they treat us I'd for it to, I do not

know how they define priorities -- they treat as a priority. This

government has been doing all it can to in courage house-building but

without taking responsibility for it itself. For example, it slashed the

hard grant and so a vast reduction in the amount of houses being built

within our housing associations. In order to prevent that number

dropping, our housing associations borrowed up to their limits,

stretching their assets in order to keep building. What do they do with

local authorities? They find ways to encourage councils to build houses

but almost invariably it was councils left to borrow the money to

fulfil this Government's targets. The great claims that have been made

about the number of council houses built under this government may be

accurate in terms of numbers but to suggest this government is paying

for them is to misrepresent the truth.

And now to Prime Minister's Questions where the Paris attacks

David Cameron told MPs that he would not outsource the security

of the British people to a Russian veto at the United Nations.

Pressed by the SNP's Angus Robertson on whether he'd seek authorisation

for any UK military action in Syria from the UN Security Council,

Mr Cameron said UN backing was always preferable,

but he wouldn't be beholden to Moscow

I want to start by expressing the horror of the events in Paris on

Friday evening and continued solidarity of those affected.

Nothing can justify targeting innocent civilians by anyone. We

know that one British National has been killed and many more injured.

Millions visit Paris and France every year. Can the Prime Minister

continue what he was saying earlier about the support given to British

National is affected by the attacks and what the government's latest

advices in travelling to France and need to show the best possible

normality with our relations with the French people? Can I thank the

Leader of the Opposition for his remarks and see what a pleasure it

was to be with them last night at the England -France football match

where I thought there was a show of solidarity. I think we did a good

job yesterday and I was proud to be there. I think he is right to seek

there is never any justification for terrorism. We should be clear about

that right across the house at all times. I think Peter Ricketts, are

ambassadors in France has done a brilliant job with his staff, I have

been keeping my eye closely on the situation and all that can be done

is being done. As far as travel advice, it is on the Foreign Office

website. But people should carry on with their lives, it is important

that flights continue to go and people continue to enjoy London and

Paris and we continue with our business. Yes we need enhanced

security and that is happening with the way the police acting here in

the UK and elsewhere but one of the ways to defeat terrorism is to show

that we will not be carried. In the reek of the Civil War in Syria, it

is welcome that there is significant diplomatic progress in trying to

find a solution to the Syrian crisis. The UK joint United States

and France and Russia and Iran wind talks in Vienna at the weekend and

all signed Achaemenid cake committing progress through the

United Nations. Will the Prime Minister confirmed that he will

support a UN resolution on this before seeking to intervene

militarily and Syria? Russia has different aims to us and they have

threatened to veto any such resolution. Of course it is always

preferable in the circumstances to have the full backing of the United

Nations Security Council, but I have to see what matters most of all is

that any action we would take would both be legal and would help protect

our country and people right here. You cannot, as I said yesterday,

outsourced to a Russian veto the decisions we need to keep our

country safe. The first survey of public opinion on Syrian attacks are

shown the following. 52% believe the UK should engage with all countries

to co-ordinated and appropriate response militarily or otherwise

backed by the United Nations resolution and only 15% believe the

UK should independently launching air strikes. Will the Prime Minister

give a commitment to secure a UN Security Council resolution which

the UK agreed to an Russian -- Russian agreed to as well cost Mark

it is always preferable to have a United Nations security resolution.

If they are vetoed over and over again, my job as Prime Minister is

not to read an opinion poll, but it is to do the right thing to keep

country safe. David Porter is back in the rain and

is joined by four wet MPs. It is a deluge. I am joined by Iain Murray

from Labour, Stephen Gethins from the SNP. Ian Stewart from the

Conservative Party. Ian Murphy, Prime Minister's Question Time. All

political discourse dominated by events in Paris. It does seem as if

the UK Government now wants to move towards military action against

Syria and in Syria. Is that wise? We have said we will wait to see what

the government brings forward. What the Prime Minister was clear to

yesterday in a statement, the Vienna talks are progressing with Russia

and all the other countries in the region, with France, US coming

together in the talks. Let's see what they come out with. He will go

back to the UN. The Security Council may not get a resolution given

Russia was my position in the region, in particular in Syria. We

have said wait and see what the government comes forward with. We

have seen the foreign affairs report. The Prime Minister has said

he will respond to that report personally. Let's see what he comes

back with. Everyone is in despair with what happened in Paris. We need

to take a step back, reflect on that and see where we go from there. Your

party has always been very sceptical about the effectiveness and the

morality of taking military action in Syria. I am a member of the

Foreign Affairs Committee. We looked at this bringing in experts. The

legal and military objectives that the case had been made. I am looking

forward to the Prime Minister boss might response. Angus Robertson

raised a good point today. The permanent members are edging towards

it. Let's see if we can reach that is the best basis for reaching a

long-term solution and the evil of Daesh. The Coalition Government

tried to get military intervention. The Coalition Government was very

bruised then. Do you think they will play safely the stone? I think the

circumstances now are significantly different. After the shock of what

happened in Paris on Friday is a real opportunity, not just inside

the United Kingdom, but inside the international committee to to get an

agreed decision. I think there will be movement from Russia. The place

to agree all that is in the United Nations. I really hope we can come

forward with something that is legal, responsible and is likely to

be effective. If we simply had a gut reaction to this and sent in the

bombers quickly without some sort of attempt of cooperation or attempt to

work together, that would be the wrong thing to do. I think this

ushers in a new aid of opportunity to bring some sort of peace and

stability to Syria and the Middle East. He and Stewart, it seems as if

David Cameron still wants to take military action against Syria. He

thinks it is the right thing to do emotionally and militarily. It is

part of a package of response. There is no one single solution to this

problem. Part of is based on intelligence, part of is tackling

the warped culture and ideology these people are propagating. But

military action has to be considered as an option. The border between

Iraq and Syria is irrelevant in this circumstance, so we have to look at

the option of going into Syria. But it has to be done in a measured way.

And I think the Prime Minister has done that, by setting out his

considered response to the Foreign Affairs Committee. He says he was to

get a UN resolution Arafat possible. But we cannot rule anything out. --

resolution if at possible. If we can draw this to a close now. Thank you

very much for joining me. They were talking about something

you raised a moment ago. Let's try to talk about some of the screw. Is

this business about the UN going to be the next issue? -- this issue. I

think what you are seeing, interestingly, is the SNP on this

issue becoming the effective opposition. Labour are all over the

place. I mentioned earlier on that I do not think Jeremy Corbyn has

credibility because of his past association and because of what he

has said in the past week or so about drone strikes and shoot to

kill. I think you have seen a slight change in town since Paris from the

SNP. Angus Robertson Astute Rosie have spoken very eloquently on that.

They are providing a good balance and giving a valid argument and our

skiing do we need to have United Nations Security Council approval

for this? I think they are doing the right thing and I think they are

behaving like an appropriate opposition which I do not think

Labour are. He applied that you should try for a UN resolution, but

on the expectation that it would fail. This is the problem. You have

members of the permanent five in the UN Security Council who are not

friends. This issue is to difficult to deal with Putin, it makes a

complicated situation in Syria even more complicated. The Lib Dems seem

to be on the fence on that issue. Hang on, I am Julia is to explore

this. You see that it is difficult to cooperate with Putin because of

his relationship with a sad. It was the French above anyone else who put

Assad on a platform as the ISAs opposition. In the rhetoric of

President Hollande and the last few days, that has changed. There is

talk in Britain that maybe we should put up with Assad for a while. There

seems to be viewed in the United States may be getting rid of Assad

should be put on the back burner. It is just possible as the SNP are

suggesting, it did not happen before the Iraq war, it is possible the

Russians may be prepared to go along with some UN plan? They have had

their own tragedy as well which influences things. Isn't this just

an example. The West has not got the greatest fallen -- foreign policy

record in the last decade. The ones of the past are being questioned

now. It is much more complex. You are right to highly that in 2013

when they were looking at this in the Commons, it is a very different

situation to what it is now. Whose side would we have been on in 2013,

would it have any effect now. It failed based on attacks on Assad and

not Isis. There is clear support for some sort of military intervention,

other than from the Labour Party. The way it happens, the support you

get for it happening and what you do is really crucial to that debate. I

think the SNP are providing a very reasonable balance. On the other

side of that, what David Cameron said there was, I am happy to go

along and seek a UN resolution. What I am not happy is to do anything by

any one who would veto it. If he does go along and does not get a

resolution and says I am going to do it anyway. What does the SNP and

Labour do then? At that point, will the public be onside on that? We

running out of time. The Autumn Statement which will cover all the

answers to all this business about tax credits. Do you think is is

coming to have the significance that other Autumn Statement 's don't have

question marks I think the focus will be on tax credits. He will

mitigate on something that was a mistake from him in the next couple

of weeks. Do you think it was a big mistake to go back on in his

original plan or not? I think you made a serious strategic error by

taking tax credits away from people who were working. I think it was a

political and strategic error that he will see an time has been an

error. He will mitigate to that -- that to a degree but I do not think

it will go away. So you think, rather than saying, I got that

wrong. You think it will be we will raise the tax threshold. We will

bring in the living wage earlier? Something like that. What is evident

to me is that she is made an error in this in the way he has tackled

at. He will not stop tackling tax credits. They will tackle that. But

I think he will change the way he is going to do it.

Andy, thank you for joining us today.

We're back at the usual time of 2.30pm next Wednesday.

In the meantime, Sunday Politics Scotland is on at 11am on Sunday.