25/01/2017 Politics Scotland

At Holyrood, the Brexit minister Mike Russell will be giving

a statement on the Supreme Court ruling on Article 50.

And Scotland's exports to both the UK and EU continue to rise,

with renewables pushing up the figures.

And here at Westminster attention is now turning to the legislation

Theresa May has told the Commons that the UK Government will publish

The Prime Minister had been under pressure from Labour MPs

and a number of Conservatives to take the step, after

the Supreme Court ruled that MPs need to give approval

The announcement on a white paper came after a question

from the Conservative MP Chris Philp.

The Prime Minister laid out a clear and bold plan for Brexit in her

speech last week. Honourable members, honourable members, quite

rightly, want an opportunity to scrutinise that plan. Does the Prime

Minister agree that the best way of facilitating better scrutiny would

be a government White Paper, laying out our vision for a global Britain,

based on free trade in goods and services that will be to the benefit

of us and other European countries? My honourable friend raises the

question of Parliamentary scrutiny. I have been clear, as have senior

ministers, that we will ensure that Parliament has every opportunity to

provide scrutiny on this issue as we go through this process. But I

recognise I set out that bold plan for a global Britain last week and I

recognise there is an appetite in this house to see that plan set out

in a White Paper. The question from my honourable friend, the member for

Brookstone, last week in the same vein, and I can confirm that our

plan will be set out in a White Paper.

Let's talk to our Westminster correspondent, David Porter.

Was this a surprise? I think it was one of those surprises that people

had a fair idea might come. I say that because yes, to some extent it

was a bit of a climb-down by the UK Government, probably in an ideal

world they would have said, no, we don't want a White Paper, but all

treaties and negotiations with Europe before have been subject to a

White Paper, so I think it was something that Theresa May thought

she would have give ground on, and that's exactly what she did. When

you listen to that question, it did seem like it was a planted question

that had taken root on those green benches. What it did do, to some

extent, as we will probably see later PMQs, it did to some extent

wrong-foot the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who had some questions

prepared on the need for a White Paper, and to Weezer May was able to

say that she had announced there would be gone. -- Theresa May was

able to say she knows that would be one. Important to say that this is a

White Paper on UK Government's overall stance on Brexit and the

negotiations that will go on, not the legislation to trigger Article

50. That legislation will be introduced into the Commons

tomorrow. Being a White Paper, it is the government's intention for their

Brexit negotiations, but it will not give the detail many MPs would have

wanted. You make an important point, that this isn't the same as the bill

to trigger Article 50. That will be a very short possibly one liner, we

know, two or three lines. But, if the White Paper is not supposed to

give away Theresa May's negotiating stance, yet it is a White Paper,

what is it supposed to do? What it can do is sort of say to the

government's own backbench MPs and opposition MPs, these are the areas,

this is the general stance we will be taking, this is what we are

hoping to achieve. But I think anybody who would expect a document

basically giving away state secrets is going to be very much

disappointed. What she can say is, I have listened to what MPs have been

saying, a number of MPs this morning were calling for a White Paper on

the negotiations. They have not got that. So she can go to the house and

say, look, I've listened to what you have said, I have acted on and you

will get a White Paper, but quite powerful that White Paper will be,

we will only find out when it is published. We will be back with you

later and you have to give us some time to digest the news that there

may be planted questions in the house!

Scotland's trade with the rest of the UK continues to be worth four

times more than its exports to the EU, according

Renewable electricity through cables going south of the border has helped

drive the value of Scottish sales to the rest of the UK close

International exports were also up around 4% during 2015.

But there is a political battle over which markets are most

Our business and economy editor, Douglas Fraser, reports.

This is a wind factory in central Glasgow making small-scale wind

turbines. They have just made their 1000th wind turbine in six years.

They now mainly export what they produce. In fact, wind power is one

of the reasons why there has been an increase in sales of goods and

services from Scotland into the rest of the UK. That total value is ?50

billion, for these 2015 figures. Exports to the whole of the rest of

the world came to around ?29 billion that year, and to the EU, within the

European Union, ?12 billion of sales. From the point of view of the

UK Government, that suggests that the UK market is four times more

important as the EU market but, from the Scottish Government point of

view, arguing that Scotland ought to stay within the European single

market, they are saying that the potential of the whole EU market is

eight times bigger than the British one.

Now, later this week, Theresa May will be talking trade

with the new US President Donald Trump.

But, while those talks go on, the post of the Scottish Government's

official representative to the United States lies empty

after the last incumbent stood down suddenly in November.

John McManus looks at the diplomatic and economic challenges ahead.

Typically high-powered entrants for one of Scotland's 's most famous and

controversial investors. When he dropped in on his Turnberry golf

course, Donald Trump was still a presidential contender. Now he is

the most powerful man on earth. No longer the butt of jokes. I'm not

sure he will be wanting to phone me. In the highly unlikely event that he

becomes president. What would your message be? I am on the other line,

sorry for the now leaders will definitely take his calls. The First

Minister congratulated Mr Trump on his win and issued a warning. That

doesn't mean I don't respect the fact that America had elected him as

their president is therefore I hope we can have a constructive

relationship and I hope that Donald Trump the president turned out to be

a very different person to Donald Trump the candidate. Strong

relations between Scotland and the US are vital, not least for trade.

The government's business agency, Scottish developers International,

says the US is Scotland's's biggest source of foreign inward investment.

Over six years, it secured more than 13,000 jobs from US companies with a

combined investment of ?1 billion, and there could be further

opportunities, but only if the right support is there. The US is

Scotland's's biggest export market. We have great Scottish companies

selling into that market, for example in the drinks sector, brew

dog, a young brewing company. They are expanding into the US market was

well established links such as salmon and whiskey. It's a big

market. We have high-tech companies that we are looking to expand their,

such as people selling software and the US hospital market. The Scottish

Government as an office in the British Embassy in Washington,

dedicated to selling brand Scotland, but there has been nobody in the

driving seat since November when the last head moved on. And in 2010 the

government published its plan for engagement with the United States,

detailing the steps it would take to promote across the Atlantic. It

promised annual updates, but the last comprehensive review detailing

numbers of jobs created and links forged was in 2013. So, as the

government dropped the ball? The Scottish Government has released

a statement saying the US is an important market for Scotland

and interim arrangements are in place in the Washington

office after Daniel Jack returned Former Labour MP Tom Harris

is in the studio with me today. And, I should say, the man who ran

the Brexit campaign in Scotland. Is this turning out the way that you

wanted or expected it to turn out? It's... It is a solid a shape at the

moment as I probably expected it to be. There is a not longer bit

between now and when we finally leave the EU before we see any solid

shape of what the deal is going to look like. But the emerging view of

the British government, that they want to be out of the single market

and possibly, they are not quite solid, but possibly if not probably

out of the customs union, is that what you would have wanted? Pretty

much. Even some of the more moderate Labour MPs who have finally worked

out that freedom of movement has to change in some way, even they are

saying that is more important now than having membership of the single

market. If Theresa May can get what she says she wants, she can get

tariff free access to the single market, allowing Britain to control

its borders, of course, that is something that nobody would

criticise and everybody would welcome. But can she achieved that

in negotiations? We will find out in the next two years. The Scottish

Government would say that isn't enough, they don't just want tariff

free access, because that would mean giving up the single market it,

which means the regulations are the same across Europe. It isn't the

same. To all intents and purposes, it is the only difference is we no

longer have to pay all that money to the EU and we wouldn't have to abide

by the European Court of Justice. Collect your thoughts, because we

are going to to the chamber, where the Scottish pigment's Brexit

minister, Mike Russell, is making a statement about the judgment from

the Supreme Court about triggering Article 50.

That comes as a stinging rebuke to the UK Government and its stubborn

refusal to accept the previous unanimous court ruling that an act

of Poland was required before formal notification of the decision to

leave the EU. -- act of Parliament. Instead, it tried to plough on

towards a hard Brexit. Effective UK Parliamentary scrutiny is now

enabled. The parties and members at Westminster will have to rise to

that challenge. The SNP is more than ready to do that. Once the UK

Government publishes its Article 50 Bill, 50 SNP MPs in the House of

Commons will bring forward a range of amendments... I am sorry, to

understate the number. There are of course more than that. Far more than

the one Tory MP from Scotland in the House of Commons.

APPLAUSE SNP MPs in the House of Commons will

bring forward amendments to Claire Baker UK Government's approach to

drug ring Article 50. Some of those will seek to amend the bill so that

the UK Government must first secured unanimous agreement from the

joint... In July last year, the Prime Minister assured the First

Minister that Article 50 would not be triggered and still we had a UK

approach for negotiations, in line with Theresa May's clear and

unambiguous view of how the UK should operate, saying that it

should be a country in which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

and England continued to flourish side-by-side as equal partners. Of

course, that is a sentiment expressed by all of the Better

Together partners during the referendum. Taking the Prime

Minister at her word, which I'm sure will be welcomed by cheering from

the Tory benches, when it is brought forward, we will seek to enforce

that. Presiding officer, there was another aspect of the judgment,

which has made one thing crystal clear, because this whole process,

the determination of the UK Government to pursue a disastrous

hard Brexit, is revealing much about the way power is exercised in the UK

and who exercises that power. Yesterday, the Supreme Court

considered the arguments put forward in interventions to the Lord

advocate and Welsh council general on the devolution implications of

triggering Article 50 was that we are obviously disappointed with the

ruling about the legal enforceability of this, but let's be

clear about what the judgment said. Notifying the intention to leave the

EU will have significant consequences for devolved matters

and the powers of the Scottish Government, and the court explicitly

accepted that. In so doing, it's obvious that the convention is

triggered by a UK bill authorising the Article 50 notice. What the

court has ruled is that the operation of the convention is a

political, not a legal matter, and therefore outside the remit of the

court, a position urged on the court by the UK Government. It also

resisted any and all efforts to give real teeth to the Scotland act

provisions on the school convention. The UK Government has at least been

consistent. Under no circumstances, it has said, should its action be

questioned by judicial authority. The Tories may wish to reflect on

the wisdom of gloating on this point. Rather than a defeat for the

Scottish Government, the ruling exposed the inadequacy of the Smith

commission process and, for those who believe that writing Sewell into

law would represent a new status for the Scottish Parliament. It is in

fact a deceit for the Tory architects of the Scotland Bill

2016, architects including the Tory constitutional spokesman. But it is

a wider defeat. As one community commentator has noted, yesterday's

ruling is a disappointment on the rights of Holyrood is that was an

opportunity, said Kenny Farquharson of the Times, to recognise the new

reality of a changed UK. This is, he said, a depressing moment for those

of us who have consistently backed home rule for Scotland within a

reformed UK. Yesterday's ruling demonstrates how empty work the

assurances of being a partnership of equals and that the Scotland act

would represent a new settlement. The UK Government merely reinforces

the old view, the supremacy of Westminster, its immunity from

constraint by law courts or respect for this parliament.

Now, earlier this week, MSPs travelled to Brussels to rally

One them was David McAllister, who only yesterday was appointed

the chair of the European Parliament's foreign

David McAllister, can you hear me? Have you joined us? Yes, good

afternoon from Brussels. I can see you now! First of all, what is the

mood amongst MEPs towards Brexit at the moment? Is it to try to do a

friendly deal with the UK which might involve some access,

tariff-free access for Britain to the single market or is it a fear

that if that were done, it might encourage other people to do the

same? Of course I can't speak for all MEPs in Brussels and Strasbourg.

In general, I would say a huge majority deeply regrets what

happened on 23rd June in the UK. After the speech of the Prime

Minister, we know the UK is facing a hard Brexit. That means the EU will

not only leave the European Union but also have to leave the single

market. So, we're now all waiting for the Government in London to

actually trigger the Article 50 procedure and we'll go into the

details. Before that, we can't begin the negotiations as long as there's

no notification. I think a lot of my colleagues are interested in finding

a sensible deal with the British. But, as Jean-Claude Juncker put it,

the negotiations are going to be very, very difficult. When you say a

sensible deal, do you mean one where there's a bit of give and take on

both sides? It seems to be accepted Britain will be outside the single

market. Is that, in your view, quite as black and white as it seems?

Well, the Prime Minister has ruled out the Norwegian or Swiss model.

She also wants to leave the customs union so the Turkish model is also

not an option. This really only leaves, in the end, that we will

negotiate free trade agreement, a trade agreement with the UK and one

thing is clear, if the UK wants to continue to export goods into the EU

single market without tariffs and trade barriers, they will have to

respect our rules in the internal market. So, it's going to be not

easy but once again, whatever happens, the UK remains a friend,

ally and partner of the European Union. It is just so sad that this

country is leaving our family of nations. There has been some

suggestion here that there might be different deals for different parts

of industry. Something I would think you personally might take an

interest in. At one point, you were on the supervisory board of

Volkswagen through running the lower state of Saxony. Are people in

Germany concerned about what this deal the British Government seems to

have done with Nissan amounts to? Is there concern there to find out

exactly what's going on? Especially in Germany, lots of people were

disappointed after the referendum because we believe that the UK's

such a valuable and important partner for us in the European

Union. The European Union will be a different one without the British.

However, we have to respect the politics of the Government in

London. Germans in general are following very closely what's

happening in the United Kingdom. No other country's getting such media

attention when it comes to national politics as the UK is getting. We

also understand that there are big divides in your country, especially

between the four nations. I thought the 62% in favour of EU membership

in favour of Scotland was an impressive vote from the Scottish

people. When you say that, do you think there's any possibility... The

Scottish Government is arguing Scotland should be allowed to stay

in the single market perhaps by joining E FT A while remaining part

of the UK. Is that something you can see has any possibility of success?

I read the report coming from the Scottish Government with great

interest and in detail. I think it's an interesting approach to try and

find out if a part of the UK could join EFTA. This is a complicated

legal question which, at the moment, I can't comment on. You'll have to

find expertise and get an answer if E FT A will be billing willing to do

so or not. Can you see the European Union, including Germany, being

prepared to entertain such a state of affairs? This is a domestic,

British political question. Sorry, no, it's not. If Scotland were to do

that, the rest of the European Union would have to agree to Scotland

doing this. It's not just a Scottish domestic question. Yes, but the

question if Scotland could be able to join an international

organisation like E FT A would probably have to be sorted out with

London. This is a domestic political question. That's why I beg your

pardon, as a German politician, I prefer not to get dragged into these

kind of details. What is the view in Germany about this? You said people

want some sort of amicable settlement. The Brexiteers in

Britain like to say countries of the European Union, including Germany,

are so dependent on Britain for exports, they'll have to do a deal.

Is that the mood in Germany or we'll try to do a deal but if the British

just leave, it's not the end of the world? First of all, we have to get

the withdrawal agreement done. This will take two years. It will be very

ambitious. We have to get it down before the next European elections

in May 2019. Afterwards, we'll definitely need a longer period of

time, several years, to negotiate a new trade agreement. In the

meantime, the UK will have to operate in a transitional period

with the relationship with the European Union. Of course Germany

and other countries are interested in good trade relations with the UK.

It is an important market for our goods and services. But, on the

other hand, the UK is heavily dependent on the European single

market. We, as 27 member states, are in a better negotiating position

than the UK which asked for this divorce. We didn't ask for this. If

it's a soft or hard Brexit, the will's make sure it is not a nasty

or dirty Brexit. Thank you for joining us this afternoon.

Former Labour MP Tom Harris is still with me.

They don't want this but they seem quite prepared to do a deal? If

would be the implication of that. If David is representative of the kind

of approach that the EU's taking to Brexit negotiations, that's a good

sign. That's someone who's thought deeply about all of the issues,

doesn't want thereby any kind of major fisture between us and the EU

and wants to do a reasonable deal. Anyone looking at this will say the

UK's Government is not going to get all its own way nor the EU. There

will be compromise. What about the Scottish Government's approach? It's

interesting. To an extent I sympathise with the approach Nicola

Sturgeon's taking on this. As you say earlier on, it's not the choice

but if it were the choice that Scotland had to clues the EU single

market or the UK single market in the event of independence within the

EU, clearly the UK market's four times as important to the Scottish

economy as the single market in the EU is. Can I point out, Brexiteers

say, when they is brought up with regard to Britain and the importance

of trade with Europe, they say, that doesn't matter. The growth in trade

is all coming from outside the European Union. It doesn't meater

40% of our tried is with Europe, the biggest growth is outside. The same

argument could be made with Scotland relative to the UK. You can't have

your cake and eat it? Well you can according to the Foreign Secretary.

Let's look at it in purely practical economic terms. The Scottish

nationalists are saying England won't deal with an independent

Scotland. The point is, an independent Scotland, the EU will

have no control over its trade. It will be decided by the EU. If the

rest of the UK he is paying tariffs into the single market, that means

tariffs to get into the Scottish market. We need to think seriously

about the practical implications of that. In terms of politics, do you

think the British Government is playing its hand with regard to the

Scottish Government sensibly? They are giving the impression, every

time Nicola Sturgeon says something, no. Wouldn't it be more sensible to

say look, they are exciting opportunities. Let's start talks on

that rather than appearing to be saying, go away? I totally agree.

The worst thing that Conservative ministers can do is come up to

Scotland, pretend to listen. Immediately dismisit. That riles up

Scots completely understandably. What's important, yesterday's

Supreme Court ruling was a real slam dung for the UK Government. For --

dunk. For the first time, the Supreme Court reminded that the EU

is nothing to do with the Holyrood Parliament. What we heard Mike

Russell appear to be suggestioning, the join committee would have to

unanimously approve. Would it be aye right? That would be my view.

Now to this week's Prime Minister's Questions,

where Theresa May announced that a white paper on the Government's

plan to leave the EU would be laid before the Westminster parliament.

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, pressed her on why she had taken

so long to announce the move, and asked when she intended

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has wasted 80 days between the time of

the original judgment and the appeal and is now finally admitted today,

after pressure from all sides, that there's going to be a White Paper.

Could we know when this White Paper is going to be available to us? And

why, and why it's taken so long to get it? Can I say to the right

honourable gentleman, he asked for debates. I was clear there would

always be debates in this House. There have been and will continue to

be. He asked for votes. There have been. The House voted overwhelmingly

for the Government to trigger Article 50 before the end of March

this year. He asked for a plan. I set out as my honourable friend for

Croydon South said, a clear plan for a bold future for Britain. He and

others asked for a white many. I've been clear there will be a White

Paper. What I'm also clear about is that the right honourable gentleman

always asks about process, about the means to the end. I and this

Government are focusing on the outcomes. We are focusing... We're

focusing on a truly global Britain, building a stronger future for this

country, the right deal for Britain out of the European Union.

Yesterday, the Government lost in the Supreme Court. Today, we have a

very welcome U-turn on a White Paper in regards to Brexit. So, in the

spirit of progress for Parliament, in advance of meeting President

Trump, will the Prime Minister tell Parliament what she wants to achieve

in a UK/US trade deal? Can I join the right honourable gentleman in

his good wishes for a happy Burns Day. And in recognising the

bi-Centenary of the Scotsman. What do we want to achieve in terms of

our arrangements with United States? It is simple. We want to ensure the

interests of the UK are there that are put first. That's what I will be

doing. That we see trade arrangements with the United States

as we'll look for in other parts of the world, that can increase our

trade, Brigg prosperity and growth to the UK. My aim is to ensure that

economy works for everyone in every part of the United Kingdom. When she

meets with the First Minister, will she confirm whether she, the Prime

Minister, supports the principle of the Scotland Act whatever is not

reserved is deinvolved. What powers will come to the Scottish Parliament

in the event of Brexit? Can she confirm it will not be the great

power grab? I've been clear. It was ex-owed by the Secretary of State

for exiting the European Union, no powers that are currently devolved

will be suddenly taken back to the UK Government. What we will be

looking at and discussing with the devolved administrations is how we

deal with those powers which are currently in Brussels when they come

back to the UK. We want to ensure is that those powers are dealt with so

we can maintain the important single market of the UK.

to our Westminster Correspondent David Porter.

Balmy weather there, and hopefully some MPs, too. Balmy weather if you

are used to the Arctic Circle! Let me introduce my panel. Stephen

Gethins, the SNP MP, Frank McCallan from Labour, Alistair Carmichael

from the Liberal Democrats and Ian Stewart from the Conservatives, who

has the rare treat, I suppose, of having this constituency celebrating

his 50th birthday. Happy birthday to Milton Keynes! Alistair Carmichael,

the Prime Minister, Theresa May, has announced that there will be a White

Paper on Brexit. Is it a concession or was it good politics? Bowing to

the inevitable, and the fact there is going to be a White Paper doesn't

tell you much. We will judge the substance of the approach when we

see what is in the White Paper, because every time we get promised

some more information, come the day, it's always rather thinner, more

disappointing than we had been led to expect. It might be a White Paper

with quite a few blank pages in it. We certainly contribute all of the

details of our negotiating stance in advance. That isn't in the national

interest. I think it's unfair to say the Prime Minister hasn't been clear

about what her ambition is. Her speech last week was a bold and

visionary prospect of the opportunities that this country can

take advantage of. We have been coming to Parliament, we will be

coming to Parliament, there is the great repeal bill still to come,

there will be plenty of Parliamentary scrutiny, but we

cannot in any negotiations, you do not reveal your negotiating hand in

advance. I think it's fair to say that perhaps the announcement

slightly wrong-footed your party leader. Are we perhaps looking at

this through the wrong end of the telescope, saying, there will be a

White Paper, but actually the real concern should be good deal and what

comes out at the end? That is my view. In a sense, I don't think the

interesting question is whether or not there is a White Paper. I think

there will be a sizeable majority to trigger Article 50 when the votes

come. And I think that attention will then turn on the nature of the

deal. That ultimately is the most important part of this, what is our

future outside the EU going to be like? The Prime Minister set some

bars for herself last week, promising not just tariff free

access but barrier free access for our goods and services and

agriculture, and she now needs to make sure that she delivers on that

come because we are promised a vote at the end of this as well, and I

think that vote is becoming much more important. Stephen Gethins,

your party is minded to vote against Article 50. You said you would table

50 amendments on it. Article 50 is going to be triggered, so why does

the SNP not accept that? This is a job of scrutiny. This has a big

impact on everybody. Let's take the White Paper, look, I'm pleased that

Theresa May has caved in on this, but I also raised an important point

earlier, we need some substance here, so we want to see a

substantive White Paper with a bit of detail in it, and it needs to be

produced before the committee stage of any bill triggering Article 50.

We need to be able to scrutinise this properly, it is part of our job

and we have a responsibility to that. When does a substantial White

Paper veer into giving our negotiating position away? The

Scottish Government managed to produce a 670 page White Paper. We

are not asking for that number of pages, but we are asking for a bit

more detail. What happens to university funding, the food and

drink sector, EU nationals who have made the UK and Scotland their home?

These are areas we need answers on. Stephen Gethins mentioned, the

Scottish Government produced a comprehensive document on the EU and

Brexit. Would you be looking for something similar from the UK

Government? I'm not sure everyone would regard that document

necessarily as the model of what has to happen, but what I would say is

that we are involved in a lot of process here, and I think what

matters most to the viewers, to our constituents around the country is,

what is the content on this? We had a speech last week. We had major

industrial sectors here in Parliament yesterday, automotive,

aerospace, pharmaceuticals, all expressing severe concern about

where the Prime Minister's direction would lead us, and ultimately that

is what matters and what does this all do to our trading position, to

investment, to prosperity? Those things are not clear yet but I

think, as we go through this process, that is where the focus

will rightly be. I suppose, however much information the government is

able to give, the Westminster government, it is not going to be

enough for everybody, is it? There are some people who want to thwart

the whole process and imagine that the referendum never happen. Article

50 is the start of a process, not the end of it, and we will go into

these negotiations trying to get the best deal for this country. The

Prime Minister has been quite clear on some issues, like the rights of

EU residents in the UK. She wants that to be an early agreement, as

long as we can then secured the rights of UK citizens living abroad.

She has given details on this. And the person who could make that

happen today, if she chose to, is Theresa May, but still she refuses

to deal with that and to show a bit of initiative. And they are right,

negotiations will happen, the deal will then be judged. Theresa May has

conceded the principle that the government will not have the last

word on that, that Parliament will have a vote on it. I think that's

the wrong way around and, if we are to have somebody outside government

giving the final verdict on that, it shouldn't be Parliament. The process

should be finished by the people, in the same way it was started by the

people and they should be a referendum on the deal.

So that is only argument for a second vote on Europe. And on the

deal. But you would say that, when she comes back with a Brexit deal,

it should not be up to you four individuals as part of 650, it

should be up to the UK to vote again? What Theresa May is offering

Parliament is a meaningless gesture, because you know the context of that

vote in parliament, when it comes, and it will be that they dare not

thwart the will of the people as has been expressed in a referendum. That

is what you are already hearing, and I have some sympathy for that. If

there is to be a meaningful decision on this, it should be taken by the

same people who took the first decision, the people of the country

as a whole in a referendum. It is the politically consistent and

logical thing to do. The electorate at large is sovereign. If it is such

an important decision, there is some logic in saying that they should

have another say? The country has given an instruction that it is

Parliament's job to deliver on it. It seems a bit early to be talking

about a second referendum, just months after the first one, but I

asked the Prime Minister in PMQs today about the nature of this final

vote. Would it mean an alternative deal, is Parliament says no to it,

or would it mean us falling back on the world trade organisation rules

in a disorganised manner, some very high tariffs in there for particular

sectors, 10% on car exports, for example, 20% on food and drink. This

could have huge implications. So I think this point about the deal and

how it assessed at the end is going to become more important. Scotland

voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the EU, so I think we need to see

a bit of compromise from the government here. The Scottish

Government have produced plans on what could be the least worst

option. This is about protecting jobs and the economy. We need some

movement from the UK Government. The Prime Minister is about to go to

America to meet President Trump. What should she be saying? Clearly

she is closing up to the United States. It is an important partner

in trade. But it worries me broadly that we seem to be getting closer to

Trump's United States and to our like-minded European partners.

Should she be building bridges or saying, on certain things, we

disagree and I will speak out? I think the tone of what she says is

very important. I think it's a shame that President Trump chose his

inauguration speech to emphasise some of the more divisive themes in

his campaign, than doing what new presidents have traditionally done,

bringing people together, and I think she has some important

messages to deliver, about Nato not being obsolete but a cornerstone of

collective western defence and not putting Chancellor Merkel and

President Putin in the same bracket, as he recently did in a newspaper

interview. This is quite a feather in Theresa May's cap, but it is also

important for setting the tone between the new president and the

international community. We have a special relationship with the US,

and we have had it for many decades. As a close friend of America,

sometimes close friends say harsh truths. I think the Prime Minister

has been clear on things like climate change, which came up today,

that she will not be afraid to take a different line. The special

relationship is between the two peoples of Britain and the US.

Sometimes the administrations have a more special relationship and

others. This is an important point for setting the tone of that

relationship. Donald Trump said some worrying things during the campaign

and, to my mind, one of the most worrying is his intention to

reinstate the American torture programme. There are significant

strategic issues for the UK. We have always shared intelligence with the

United States. We cannot share intelligence with a country that

openly uses torture. Thank you very much. The clock has beaten us. But I

am sure next week we will be discussing Brexit and maybe that

visit to Washington. Tom Harris, Trump. Are you a fan? Good grief,

no! I was hugely upset and disappointed on the morning after

the election but, as I wrote a number of times before and, the

democrats, Trump didn't win, the Democrats lost, deliberately

choosing a candidate that they knew had incredibly huge negative ratings

and many people in America distrusted, but they thought she

could beat Trump easily, let's put her up, and it was a disaster. They

have to learn from that. Would you think that there is something

similar going on as happened in Britain? Hillary Clinton was the

representative par excellence of the elites, basically giving lectures to

people about economics, in the same way that arguably the Remain people

won the referendum, and that rhetoric has failed to connect?

There was a huge arrogance, and it wasn't just economics. Most of her

messages were right, but she was giving lectures, not just about

economics but an identity politics. She made an arrogant assumption

that, if you were black, Latino, a woman, she automatically deserved

that support, irrespective of how she ran her campaign, irrespective

of her own record in government. That kind of entitlement and

arrogance is always going to lose, and I hope the Democrats remember

that in four years' time. Trade deals. It all sounds great though,

I'll go to America and make deal with Donald Trump, well, you can't

make a trade deal with the United States until you are outside the EU,

but the difficulty of trade deals is in the detail. Just because you can

go and negotiate with other countries, which the Brexiteers

making out is a great triumph, doesn't mean the deal you will end

up with is any good, especially with countries like the States, which are

in a powerful position. I think that's right, but the one advantage

we would have negotiating a great deal outside the EU is that, when we

are members of the EU, every trade deal has to be agreed by all 28

nations, which is why it takes many years for the negotiations to

finish. We hope that, if there is a bilateral trade deal between the UK

and US, it will be much quicker, but obviously I would recommend that we

don't sign anything unless it is of direct benefit to the whole UK.

Again, it's about power. To take one example, I think I'm right in saying

that the UK still won't import American beef that's been treated

with hormones. -- the EU. Donald Trump comes along and says, hey, I

want my beef exported to Britain and, if you don't do this, you're

not getting that. They are in a more powerful position to do that with

Britain that they would with the European Union. Absolutely, but here

is the difference. If a British governance signed a trade deal that

the people are not happy with, we can get rid of that government. If

the EU signed a deal that we are not happy with, there is nothing we can

do to get rid of that. But, because this is a power relationship, it

doesn't matter, so the next element goes to Donald Trump and says,

almost treated cows, and America say, get lost. It is a power

relationship, but we are not going to be forced into signing it, and I

think, looking back to last year when President Obama, of whom I am a

huge time, he came over and he riled a lot of people by saying we would

be at the back of the -- the back of the queue for trade deals. If

Theresa May can for a good relationship with the Trump

administration and we benefit from that, I don't see why anybody should

complain. The First Minister has

accused Scottish Labour of being "destructive" as the party

calls for Holyrood not to support the government's budget

in a debate this afternoon. Labour claim it's an austerity

budget which cuts ?327 million where the Deputy Leader Alex Rowley

is now speaking. THE SPEAKER: I call on he will

ex-roly to move the motion. Up to 13 minutes. Thank you, in moving this

motion today and bringing forward this debate we want to encourage a

wider discussion in this Parliament and across the country to build a

consensus about the kind of public services we want in Scotland and how

they are to be paid for. Whilst we will make the case today for using

the powers of this Parliament to invest in public services, we also

make the case for using the resources we have in the most

effective and efficient way to tackle the big challenges we face of

deep-rooted povertiy and deprivation in our communities through a

comprehensive anti-poverty strategy for Scotland and for a more direct

Government action to grow our economy increasing the resources

available for investment. So, in a time where too many of our public

services are struggling to cope and some veer towards crisis, we say

Government should increase the tax take by asking those who can pay a

bit more, to do so. But alongside this, we also say we must be more

ambition in driving our economy in increasing the tax take in the

medium term by supporting more people into decent jobs. The budget

has is stands does not and will not achieve these aims. Let me begin

with local government. I want to make the point, if we are to succeed

in tackling poverty, closing the attainment gap, developing high

quality local services and growing the economy across Scotland, we node

to do Government differently. The fact is that Scotland is one of the

most centralised country in the Western World. The creation of the

Scottish Parliament in 1999 did not lead to a continuing devolution of

power closer to the people. Instead, we have seen politicians in Holyrood

trying to control more and more of the power and decision making away

from the local level. This centralist approach has led to a

much weaker relationship between local and Central Government in

Scotland and all too often, a lower quality of service has been

delivered as a result. I wonder if the member would accept the

relationship between central and local government was extremely poor

under the last Labour/Liberal Democrat administration because of

ring-fencing? It is a fact it is extremely broken down, the

relationship between central and local government right now. This

failure to build on that relationship has also resulted in

the failure to bring together the key people and organisations needed

to plan and drive our economy at the local, regional and national level.

One size fits all central control is not best for Scotland.

its Dean Lockhart, James Kelly from Scottish Labour, and Ross Greer

Now let's speak to some MSPs at Holyrood.

I'm joined by Ash Denham for the SNP, For the Conservatives

its Dean Lockhart, James Kelly from Scottish Labour, and Ross Greer

On the budget, Ross Greer, have the Greens given up? Are you not going

to do a deal on the budget? We're style trying to negotiate with the

Scottish Government. The negotiations are pretty difficult.

We're coming from two different places on tax policy in particular.

We're trying to come to a deal at this point. You won't do a deal

unless they change their tax proposals, is that correct?

Fundamentally what it's about. We can more likely come to an agreement

on spending priorities. Tax is critical here. That's how we avoid

making unnecessary cuts. Therefore, they're more likely to do a deal

with the Liberal Democrats? They're not insisting they change their tax

policies? The spending proposals the Liberal Democrats have proposed are

theirs to deend if. I don't #125e thinkle Scottish Government will

agree with that. An agreement with us would require a shift from the

Government to a fairer and more progressive taxation system. James

Kelly, why are you ruling out any agreement? Will you vote against the

Scottish budget under any circumstances? The SNP have made is

quite clear they're putting forward a budget which entails ?327 million

of cuts to local councils. That means jobs will be lost, libraries

could be closed and care packages under threat. That's completely

unacceptable to us. As an alternative... What should they cut

instead given much of their budget still comes from London? Are you

saying they should ignore the Barnet settlement or what would you suggest

cutting instead? The important thing about this budget is the Government

have much more in terms of tax raising powers. It is completely

unacceptable those on the top rate earning over ?150,000 aren't being

asked to pay a bit more to protect local communities and support local

councils. Dean Lockhart, are there any circumstances imaginable in

which you would support the Scottish budget? We've said we don't want

Scotland to be the highest tax part of the UK. That's because we really

need to boss the economy in Scotland. Economic growth here is

the third of rest of the UK. We're saying keep Scotland competitive

with the rest of the UK in tax. Going forward, the Scottish budget

will depend on growth in Scotland and the growth of tax revenues

coming from the Scottish workforce. It is really important that our

fundamental priority is increasing the economy. If we're the highest

tax part of the UK that's not a budget we can support. Ash Denham,

one imagines the Scottish Government, the SNP will be very

reluctant to change their proposals in tax? So does that mean you're

more likely to find some agreement with the Liberal Democrats than the

Greens? What we've put forward is a budget for growth. A budget for

investment into infrastruck fewer and a budget that protects local

services and prioritises things which are important to local people.

That's not what I asked you. In any budget, I'm not criticising you for

making compromises. Any Government has to do that. It would be easier

for you to compromise on spending, would it not, than to compromise on

your tax proposals? The budget we've put forward is best on the manifesto

commitments we went to the public with. There's strong support for the

budget that we've put forward. Obviously, the Scottish Government

is listening. We're listening to the Parliament and also listening to

other stakeholders. Clearly, we will need to do a deal on this. So, I

believe there are negotiations that are ongoing. At the moment, we don't

know, watch this space. We don't think is this is a time to put up

taxes across the board. Families are struggling at the moment. We've all

the uncertainty coming at us because of the Tories seem determined to

drag Scotland off a Brexit cliff edge. This is a time to protect

families' budgets, investment in public services and keep the economy

going. Talking of Brexit clef edges, Mike Russell seemed to be suggesting

in Parliament, if I understood him correctly, he seemed to be

suggesting the joint ministerial committee, this meeting of the

devolved representatives of the devolved Governments, would have to

unanimously accept triggering Article 50 before it could go ahead?

Did he just make that up or is there any possible basis for saying that?

No-one has ever understood the joint ministerial committee is something

that has to come to unanimous decisions. That's no what it does?

What we're saying is whilst we welcome the decision made in the

Supreme Court ruling yesterday that the Sewell convention is not a legal

obligation, we think it is clearly a democratic obligation and Scotland's

voice must be heard. And if it isn't, it will be a defeat for

democracy. What we are saying is Scotland must be consulted.

Consultation must be consultation. Consultation is one thing, saying

that the joint ministerial committee has to approve the triggering of

Article 50 is completely different from what you've just said? The SNP

will put forward a number of amendments to the Act of

Parliament... That's a different issue. One of those will be about

the JMC. Dean Lockhart, do you see this as being... Well, Ash Denham,

she said this will be one of the amendments the SNP put forward to

the bill? The SNP are free to put forward amendments in terms of the

legislation put for for the EU. The Supreme Court judgment is clear this

is a reserve matter. The UK is an EU member state. It is the UK who will

decide the leaving, the terms upon which we leave the EU the judgment

was very clear. The SNP are using Brexit as a political football to

agitate for another referendum which will create more uncertainty. To be

fair to Ash Denham, she didn't mention another referendum. James

Kelly, I presume you agree with every word James Lockhart said,

would you? Sorry, Dean Lockhart. It is really regrettable we lost the

referendum. I campaigned strongly for remain. Brexit is a disaster.

The join ministerial committee would have to ewe none mousily approve

triggering Article 50? He needs to back up what he's saying with facts

and analysis to see if there's any accuracy. In one sentence, do you

like the idea or is it pure bluster? Decisions which have a huge impact

on the powers of the devolved Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland, should be issues we come to a collective agreement

on. The Government in Westminster isn't interested in do EU doing

that. They want to override us We'll have to leave it there.

This join ministerial committee, it's different if Ash Denham's

saying they can put that as an amendment to the bill and if

Parliament approved it, the joint ministerial committee would have to?

I've been in meetings of the joint ministerial committee, it's not

nearly as exiting as the Brexit Minister in Holyrood makes it sound.

If they pass the amendment, the meetings could get very exciting

indeed. Indeed. The SNPs have promised they'll put forward auto#50

amendments to the Government's bill even before they've seen a single

line of what the bill's going to say. They'll put forward 50

amendments which seems to me a peculiar round number. Ash said

Scotland's voice needs to be heard on this. People have been saying

knowingly over the past 24 hours, it depends on how they produce this

bill how many amendments are put forward which has left me and others

thinking, sorry, why? One theory is the Government will put forward a

one-liner bill. Why stop people putting amendments? It doesn't stop

them. The first thing to vote on is a programme motion discussings how

long the arm will discuss this in committee stage. Does that mean a

shorter time if one line? Maybe two days to pull a figure out of the

air. You then put in 50 amendments and they get talked out? No, not all

of the amendments will be called by the Deputy Speaker. He has to chose

which amendments he will select to be debated. Not everything that

tabled. The ones he likes you but with an eye to the fact as you've

suggested, there might only be two days? Yes. And he will try to get as

broad a subject matter as possible. Maybe 20 amend thes on the same

subject, he'll pick one of them. Thank you. That's cleared things up

a bit. Thank you. Join us for First Minister's

Questions tomorrow Robert Burns never travelled

to America. In America, Burns was

the 19th century Elvis. Many, from Lincoln to Dylan,

have identified with his works.