31/05/2017 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland.

Coming up on the programme this afternoon...

The Scottish child abuse inquiry holds its first hearings

And, there is a return to campaigning on core

issues as parties prepare for a head-to-head TV debate.

A far-reaching inquiry into allegations of historical abuse

of children in care in Scotland will begin hearing evidence today.

With me throughout today's programme to discuss this and other news

is the political commentator Alf Young.

But first let's find out more about those

Here's Morag Kinniburgh with the story.

Of vigil in memory of children who died after abuse. Survivors are

fighting for justice and for action to protect children now. I reported

the abuse in 1998 and I was ignored. Over the years I met and heard of

many survivors who were the same. Things have changed. Scotland has

changed. Child abuse has changed. Reporting and recognising child

abuse has changed. Many many people have come forward to tell us about

having been abused in care. This inquiry gives investigative abuse

against children in care in Scotland. Many children in Scotland

have, over the years, been abused whilst in residential care. They

suffered some terrible treatment, inflicted by those to whom their

care was entrusted. That is a matter of grave concern. So far, 69

institutions, boarding schools, hospitals, Kristin cancel and

Charity ghettos have been investigated and it is thought

thousands of children suffered sexual, physical and emotional abuse

as well as neglect by the very people who were meant to look after

them. Kate was seven when she was taken to a home in Northern Ireland

and repeatedly sexually and physically abused and she has come

back to support survivors and has traced her own family. I was called

out of class on many occasions when I hadn't put my hand up. I was

stretching and that nuns were telling me to hurry up. It has cost

?6 million so far and the inquiry could last years as more survivors

are expected to come forward and record the abuse they enjoyed. --

endured. Morag Kinniburgh ending that

report about the hearing Let's speak to Alf Young

and our Home Affairs Give us some background, it has been

a pretty long saga already. It has been, it was announced in December

2014 by the then education Secretary Angela Constance and it began its

work in October 2015. We already 18 months down the line and this is the

public session that it has held. Hitherto there have been a lot of

work done behind the scenes setting up the inquiry, working up the

framework of how the evidence will be given and the various chapters of

evidence and who will be giving evidence and in what form. As we

heard in the report, that has cost around ?6 million so far. What we

will now have it a succession of statements from organisation such as

the Care Abuse Survivors group. There is a whole list of church

bodies and charities that dealt with children, way back into the 1950s,

because they are trying to look at abuse which has been carried out in

the living memory of people. That goes back 50 or 60 years, and right

up to 2015. It is a wide-ranging inquiry but it is fair to say that

some of the survivors say it is not wide-ranging enough. And what

results... Obviously the survivors are very keen for this and it might

help them deal with what they have been through, but in terms of

outcomes, other than that, what can happen as a result of this? Nothing

will happen, nobody is a result of this inquiry will be charged unless

the evidence that is given is sufficient to then go into the

formal criminal justice process. What is happening, John Scott QC,

who represents beads in Care Abuse Survivors group, said that they want

justice, acknowledgement of the abuse they suffered and recognition

that they are survivors but also they want some sort of redress,

financial compensation, and many are very old and a number have died in

the past 18 months while the inquiry has been getting underweight and he

argues that what is required is some sort of interim financial payment to

help people because their lives have been wrecked and many cannot get

work. They are struggling financially and some sort of

official recognition with some financial compensation is what I

want want. They are not in it for the money, they want recognition.

And money means recognition in the way, some people might be struggling

but it is an acceptance by the state that they have been wrong. My sense

is that it is also about getting public recognition that this

happened and on a scale of really quite horrifying significance. It

has lain secret for so long and I think a lot of it is about getting

public recognition. It is not just happened here, I met a Canadian from

the native tribes in Canada a few years ago and it is happening there

as well and Justin Trudeau has just said to the Pope that he has to come

to Canada and apologise for the way in which those people, and I met

this guy's mother, who had had her language beaten out of her in a

school run by nuns in the western side of Canada. And therein might

this is an inquiry solely into sexual abuse. I'm curious, you said

there could be financial compensation, how does that work?

Does the government step in? Is there a process? That is the point,

there is no process and John Swinney has made it plain on a number of

occasions that there is to be no open station. -- no compensation. I

think pressure will build and the government might have to change its

mind. But in other enquiries, in Ireland for instance, the question

of redress was put on the table and survivors did get money. It is a no

fault compensation as it worth it helps people come and it gives some

official recognition that something terrible happened and these people

can have a bit of financial comfort. Thank you.

Now there's just a week and a day to go before the general election

takes place and tonight we'll have the first TV debate

of the campaign which will feature all the main parties.

Our Westminster correspondent is eagerly waiting for the stars

We should explain, it is the first TV debate with all the parties

because there was a previous want but the Conservatives and Labour did

not turn up and we were expecting this evening that Jeremy Corbyn and

Theresa May would not turn up but that would be standings from the

other parties but now the big news is that Jeremy Corbyn is coming

along? Indeed he is going to join the six other party representatives

from the Senate house which you can see behind me, part of the

University of Cambridge which is normally used for university

graduations. Tonight it will be the venue for the only seven way debate.

We thought until lunchtime it would be a debate which would have neither

Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn in but this morning he decided he would

take part and issued the challenge to Theresa May to join him, debating

the various issues in the general election which is just over a week

away. Conservative party sources have made it plain that despite what

they regard as a kind offer, she will not be joining them. There is

going to be someone there from the Conservative party, who will it be?

It will be the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. She is representing the

Conservatives. Theresa May has always made it plain since the

beginning of the campaign that she would not be taking part in any face

to face debates with Jeremy Corbyn. She will appear on the same

programme as him but as we saw the other night, she will be interviewed

separately. It will be Amber Rudd for the Conservatives, Tim Darren

for the Lib Dems, for the SNP it will be Angus Robertson -- Tim

Farron. As far as I can work out, this is the first time he will have

taken part in a national debate. I have seen him a few minutes ago

arriving in Cambridge looking very relaxed. Taking in the sights of

Cambridge as a lot of people are. It will be an interesting debate but it

is -- because it is the only debate with all the major parties taking

part. They know some of what has happened, they have drawn lots as to

who will speak and in what order and where the Legzdins will be. They

will each be allowed to make an opening statement -- the lecterns.

There will have questions from the floor of which they will have no

knowledge, not the exact questions, and at the end they will all get a

chance to sum up why voters should vote for their party. Thank you.

Your usual sunshine does not seem to have followed you from London! It

doesn't! We have some television lights here which makes it look a

little bit sunnier than it is. I'm not going to tempt fate but so far

the weather has been very kind to us but let's not talk about it too much

because I know what happens when you talk about sunshine, it usually ends

up with me getting very wet! Thank you. Obviously Labour have thought

this is a good wheeze to try this but will it work for them? I think

it is part of the rehabilitation of Jeremy Corbyn in the wider sense...

They have caught Theresa May because if she did turn up it would look

like she was caving in to him and if she doesn't, she risks looking

petulant. And the fact that it is Amber Rudd and not her will not play

that well because people will ask why she is not there, why she is not

engaging in the issues of the moment as a leader of one of the parties

that wants to be in power. Obviously it only works for Jeremy Corbyn if

he can pull off a good performance but it is not that difficult in a

one plus six. The interesting thing is this campaign has gone is that he

has made mistakes, he made one yesterday about the cost of

childcare proposals, not knowing the number, a big number and he had

forgotten it, but by the evening he was handing out a jar of jam to the

hosts of The One Show. I forgot my jar of jam for you today! But it

obviously worked. He comes across increasingly as somebody who most

people did not know much about that who is increasingly comfortable in

his own skin. That is maybe a little bit of why Labour is appearing... Is

it that? John Curtis Good who knows about these things, described the

Labour performance in the polls is remarkable. It has gone from... It

could be 12 points that the Tories are ahead or five depending on which

poll you look at but still it is a turnaround. Not so much that it is

big, that the orthodoxy in the media was that it would not happen. He was

finished and burned, toast. But he's not yet toast. But the caveat is,

are the pollsters able to actually get some real handle on what people

are thinking? And there is a gap in the polls, way outside any margin of

error so something is not right. And they are even prior learning as you

could have been doing this huge Super Bowl that will interview 7000

people a day from now until the election -- super pole. They think

it might give a better result. Recent evidence from the pollsters

in recent elections, notably in That is probably why they are trying

something different. Now, in the Scottish Parliament

today, Jamie Hepburn, the Minister for Employability

and Training, is leading I very much welcome that. I look

forward to Mr Lockhart doing that in a moment or so. But I would have

thought Mr Lockhart would have welcomed a business pledge making a

difference to 80,000 workers across Scotland. At beaten in that regard

to Jackie Baillie's Amendment. -- let me turn in that regard. Let me

say, in terms of her specific wording of the amendment, I thought

it was perhaps a bit more critical than it might have necessarily been.

I've just made the point about a business pledge, the living wage,

the hundreds... I will in a moment. We see the living wage accreditation

scheme, 800, carers positive skin, covering over 200,000 workers in

Scotland. I think that is progress, and of course I will give way. The

Minister is well aware that we support the Scottish Government in

the Scottish business pledge. We just wish you would be more

ambitious in promoting it so more people would benefit. Indeed, that

is a shared agenda, so it's a perfectly good intervention for me

to go on to say but I think the wording is a bit more critical than

it needed to be. I don't want to split hairs, and I would absolutely

recognise that, yes, whilst progress has been made, we need to make

further progress. I recognise what I think is the implicit

recommendation, that the Scottish parliament should have control over

employment law. I see the ambition she set out in relation to the

amendment. I think it's vital that we have the ability to see an

engagement of dialogue between employers, unions and government to

better in bed fair work in law here in Scotland. That reflects the fair

work convention also strategic Labour Martic group has been

established as part of the Labour market strategy. If we can see a

control of these areas here in this Parliament, we can ensure we have

fair work embedded in our legal framework. I recognise, and I hope

it is recognised that progress has been made, but we must never be

complacent. Too many people are still in low paid or insecure work.

The importance of government working with partners, including trade

unions, the third sector in business, to protect the rights of

all workers, has never been more important. We published our first

Labour market strategy that I refer to a few moments ago, in recognition

of current and future challenges and to set out how fair work contributes

to future economic growth. We will continue to work with the fair work

convention to support the continued delivery of security, opportunity

and effective fulfilment. That independent fair work convention is

central to making the current about their work and creating more

energetic and productive workplaces supported by stronger industrial

relations. The vision which I share, for the fair work remarks to be

embedded throughout workplaces by 2025, and protecting the rights of

workers is at the core of the framework and the principles which

underpin it. This is an odd debate about workers'

rights, because it is all predicated on what happens once Britain leaves

the EU, and whether one can believe Theresa May's pledges to maintain

workers' rights in the UK. That is really what underpins it. It's one

relatively tiny example of a huge number of issues like that, where

Europe's interventions has put in some of the superstructure of

support of that kind. When we leave, what replaces it? I think I saw the

FT saying today that 759 treaties need to be renegotiated to --

renegotiated. On things like workers' rights, the status quo and

he will become British law until the British Parliament decides, or the

Scottish parliament, decides to change it, so that is what Theresa

May has said, that basically what if they're under Europe becomes their

in Britain. So we might change things. Of course, the other

dynamic, which was clear at Holyrood there, is that Scotland and the rest

of the UK might want to simply do it differently, have the power being

doubled to do it. It's an interesting one for Labour. I notice

Ian Murray has been saying that he wants devolution of Labour's rights.

Workers' rights. You can see the logic, but you also think that that

is the last thing socialists should campaign for. Is difficult to run a

relatively integrated economy if we are still part of the UK, and

workers, as we now know, we know from our families and friends and

acquaintances, people move across the board of the time and work in

different places difficult to do. We talking about this as a Brexit issue

by the back door. This whole election, we were supposed to be

talking about nothing else but Brexit. We have hardly talked about

it at all. What happened? My sense is that it was really called for

opportunistic reasons, to establish a kind of majority that would enable

tough talking and strong talking, strong and stable and all of those

words that we get thrown at us on a daily basis. So what Theresa May

meant was, I want an election to give me a mandate to do what I want

that Brexit, not so we can have a discussion about it. We are not

Willie having that discussion, and I suspect we won't have that

discussion once the election over and we know who is in power.

Now, Holyrood is to be given control over 11 benefits under

the Scotland Bill and yesterday Social Security Secretary Angela

Constance set out the details of the first benefit payments to be

Let me start with our plans for the best start grant and funeral

expenses assistance. These are early benefits, and they will make an

immediate difference to people of the full commitments set out in our

manifesto. We will start delivering Scotland's first new benefit by

summer 2019, and this replacement to the sure start maternity grant is a

substantial investment in a child's early years. As part of our wider

work aimed at giving each child a best start in life, it will

contribute to tackling poverty, improving health and raising

attainment in the current UK Government's sure start grant, it is

a single payment of ?500 to families on low incomes. We will increase it

to ?600 for the first child, recognising that the UK rate hasn't

increased in over a decade. We will also reintroduce payments of ?300

for second and subsequent children, a cut made by the UK Government in

2011. I will make no judgment on the number of children people decide to

have, and we will place no limit on the number of children we help in

any qualifying family. We will also provide to payments of ?250 during a

child's early years, around the time they start nursery and before

starting school. This means qualified families received ?1100

over the course of the early years of their first child's life,

compared to just ?500 at present. Plus further support for additional

children. For a two child means an additional ?1400. Take-up of the

sure start maternity grant is low, around 50%, so improving take-up and

increasing the support provided will make an immediate impact on low

income families in Scotland. We will also deliver the new funeral

expenses assistance by 2019, providing critical support to people

at a difficult time. We heard through our consultation about the

stress caused by the complexity of the application process and time

taken to make payments. We have already committed that we will aim

to process applications within ten working days of receipt of a

completed application. I want to turn to carers allowance. We are all

agreed on the vital contribution that carers make to Scotland, and it

isn't right that people with caring responsibilities receive less

support than others. That's why the First Minister committed in October

2015 to increasing the level of carers allowance to that of

jobseeker's allowance. We have been working hard with the DWP to

investigate how to increase the support as quickly as we can, and I

thank them for the constructive and collaborative support and helping us

achieve that commitment as early as possible. I can announce to the

chamber that we will do so from next summer. As an interim arrangement to

get this done as early as possible, people in Scotland will continue

receiving carers allowance from DWP, but they will receive the increase

from our Social Security agency and they will receive that support twice

a year. Whilst first payments will be in the summer of 2018, they will

cover from April 2018, so carers can be assured they will get funding

that covers all of the 2018-19 financial year. We will invest over

?30 million a year in increasing the support. I am delighted this policy

will now be delivered by the Scottish Government. Our plans for

the first wave of benefits show the difference we can make to the people

of Scotland through our new Social Security powers, ensuring they are

treated with dignity and respect. That was Angela Constance setting

out the first priorities To dig into the detail we're joined

by Professor Paul Spicker - a writer and commentator

on social policy. First of all, can I ask you an

obvious question? Are any of these changes going to make a difference

to people that they will really notice in their everyday lives? They

are going to make a change certainly do people. When you say in their

everyday lives, that suggests that people go through these procedures

frequently, and from what you just heard, you will gather that the

benefits that are being dealt with first are not those benefits. They

are the benefits which typically are paid as a one-off. The funeral

payments, which is a particularly difficult and complex and obscure

procedure, is obviously not something that people get practice

at going through, and there are lots of potential problems in the way it

will be done. The government has made a deliberate decision to start

off, certainly in two cases, with the best start grant and the funeral

payments, with things that can be dealt with as one-offs, so they can

then get procedures in place and get things to work. The carers allowance

is interesting. They approached that in a different way. Instead of

trying to deal with that as a regular benefit paid in the way that

other benefits have been paid, weekly, fortnightly or monthly,

they've gone five twice a year payment. They've gone -- that will

greatly simplify the administration. But that is a top up. It is. They

had the option of taking over carers allowance, and there was indeed a

certain amount of controversy at the time at the powers being put in,

that they seemed in the Scotland act to be tying the much too closely to

the existing carers allowance. Now, by taking this option and going for

a top up, Angela Constance just called it a supplement, effectively

that means that it piggybacks on the existing rules for carers allowance.

Those rules are complex. They are often arcane. They certainly confuse

people who, for example, will often received a note saying that they are

entitled but that no money comes along with it. That will remain the

case. There were suggestions, for example, that the Scottish

Government might want to do something about the position of

young carers or students, who are currently excluded. They will remain

excluded because, within the existing system run by the DWP, they

are not entitled, and that will continue to be the case. As you were

suggesting earlier, there will have to be a new agency to administer all

of this. You seem to be suggesting that, by focusing on one-off

payments, they can at least get the thing up and running and make sure

it works before they start to do anything more ambitious. Social

Security involves deals with huge numbers of people in a wide variety

of circumstances, and what successive administrations have had

to learn to live with is that anything that can go wrong will go

wrong. They have been working very hard to try and make sure that as

little goes wrong as possible, because we can be fairly sure that

people in the media, like yourself, will come back later and say, you

were going to take this over and make it better, look at the problem

is this or that person has been through. And I think they are very

sensitive to that. The danger is that, if you are trying to make sure

that the transition is as painless as possible, one way of doing that

is also to freeze things the way that they are, rather than trying to

look at how it might be done better. And there is a strong tendency in

this to be, let's say, unadventurous, sometimes

conservative, holding onto systems because they are there. As I have

already said about both the carers allowance and the funeral payments

in particular, there are rules in them which I think many people would

like to see changed. They would like things done differently.

Just to remind people, there are many benefits that have not been

devolved and will not change so many of the big ticket issues, like the

freeze in welfare payments, the cap on tax credits, Nunavut is effected

by this? None of it. The way it is usually represented and something

that Angela Constance repeated yesterday, is to say there is a

number of specific benefits being transferred and the most important

which have not yet been organised or provision made for disability living

allowance and attended allowance, but if we look at the rules, they

don't actually say Scotland will take over the administration of

these benefits. It says Scotland will have the power to make rules

and make benefits in these areas. Things don't have to stay the way

they are. But every change has to be done with care. Because of the

difficulty of doing this, because there is so much that overlaps with

so much else in the benefit system, clearly absolutely everything has to

be negotiated. For example, carer Pulse allowance is not paid if an

overlapping benefit is payable. For many people that means that if they

get pension credit, they will not get carer Pulse allowance as well

also they may claim it in order to get the carer Pulse premium. This is

about information going back and forth between the different parts of

the benefits system that will still be the case. Thank you very much for

joining us. The new benefits will be subject

to the scrutiny and agreement Joining me from the Garden Lobby

today, we have Ivan McKee of the SNP, Jamie Greene

from the Conservatives, Claudia Beamish for Labour,

John Finnie of the Greens, Claudia Beamish, what do you make of

these Social Security proposals? I feel reasonably positive about the

proposals, I think it will be very important that the Scottish

government and local authorities make sure that people know what the

possibilities are because I know at the moment there is not as broad an

uptake as there might be. I am a co-convenor of the cross-party group

for carers and I have been a young carer long ago and I fight hard for

carers' rights. It is disappointing that the SNP government has not

actually agreed yet, although I hope they will come to that, to backdate

the carer's allowed as well as doing with what they're doing with

matching jobseeker's allowance which Scottish Labour is also doing but

they could backdate it to win powers were. Presumably Labour would want

the Scottish government to say they would find some way of not

implementing the cap on tax credits to two children? I think that would

be an important issue and in our election pledges we are clear that

we are determined to support education in a way that the SNP

government has not. Liam McArthur, what do you make of these proposals?

Like Claudia, there is stuff to welcome. As has been suggested in

the earlier debate, the complexity of this area of policy should not be

underestimated and actually starting with allowances that are perhaps

more straightforward to administer, it does not seem to be an

unreasonable approach but nevertheless expectations are that

having argued so strenuously and for some time for devolution over

control of these benefits, we want to see the Scottish government

tailor the approach in Scotland to meet the needs and expectations of

people here. Alison Johnson, would you have done anything different? --

Alison Johnstone. We wanted to go further than the other parties with

the allowance because carers save our economy billions and we have

over 700,000 unpaid carers in Scotland and probably about 70,000

who are claiming the allowance. We would like the government to look at

how much they are paying. The jobseeker's allowance, that is

intended to replace income you are not earning but being a carer

carries other costs as well. I asked in the statement yesterday if the

Cabinet Secretary would look at increasing it for carers looking

after more than one person for example. There is more we can do and

we have to use all the powers we have to the max. Jamie Greene, are

the Conservatives against anything that the Scottish government is

proposing here or is it fair enough? What we are seeing is devolution in

action and it is worth pointing out that it was David Cameron's

Conservative government who ensured these powers were devolved to the

Scottish parliament and what was clear yesterday from the statement

is that they were lacking in detail as to how these benefits would be

delivered and the structure of the new agency in Scotland, how is it

could operate and be funded. But you are not against any of the proposals

we have been discussing the last few minutes? Again, that is the point of

devolution... I understand that the Scottish government can make them, I

am asking if the Conservative party is happy with these? Clearly they

have taken a different path from the party nationally and our government

in Westminster, and I would say that if they do want to spend more public

money they have to tell the voters directly and clearly where the money

is coming from. How much is this going to cost and where is it going

to come from? The number that the Cabinet secretary spoke about in the

debate I think was 150 million and the details of where... That is in

the overall Scottish budget, and that is already budgeted for in the

budget that was passed and we discussed earlier when the agency

was set up over the coming years. You are saying there is no

additional money? I'm saying that there is 150 million for the agency

which will be spent in due course as it is set up over the coming period

and the money for the benefit is already budgeted for. It has already

been identified in the budget you are past. Is that your

understanding, Jamie Greene? Again we are lacking transparency. It was

clear from the statement yesterday that many members across the chamber

are looking for specifics on both the cost of how this agency will

operate and any additional benefit that Scotland is introducing on wet

in the budget the money will come from and if it will affect any other

area of benefit or public spending in the budget. Election campaign,

Liam McArthur, if we can swing round to you, there you are, what are you

going to do in the remaining time? We are fairly positive, obviously in

the constituencies like East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West...

Overall... You don't seem to be breaking through in the way you

hoped to. We always made clear we would be focusing our efforts on

constituencies where we had the best chance of winning and in a number of

those... Let's forget the individual constituencies but you are still on

about eight to ten points in the poll. As I say, we are quite

confident that the momentum is with us in those constituencies. What

issues are you going to focus on, Alison Johnstone? We have been

focusing on our call for a universal Basic income pilot, as we are

discussing in Glasgow and Fife and we would like to see some action

there. We are emphasising the fact we could have 200,000 new jobs in

Scotland in the industries of the future. Obviously we are opposing

the Tories hard Brexit and our candid in Glasgow North just topped

a poll of Westminster and Holyrood leaders when it came to popularity.

You don't seem to talk about green issues any more, are you going to

change the name of the party to the used to be Green Party? Why would a

political party not want to have a position on all the issues devolved

this Parliament or Westminster? You are not be used to be Green Party!

It is time for Claudia Beamish to do is Jeremy Corbyn can win. He has a

terrific chance and the polls today have shown there is an opportunity

and I want to say that I was out with Ian Murray's campaign yesterday

and the people on the doorsteps in Edinburgh South... Hang on, I'm

going to interrupt you because you're all doing this, we can't talk

about individual constituencies. Just to explain, it's not because

I'm interrupting you, it is because legally we're not allowed to and you

know perfectly well it is not fair because it is only fair to talk

about particular constituencies when all the candidates standing in that

constituency are there to present themselves and that applies to

constituencies you would fight any Scottish election. Jamie Greene,

what are you going to major on? I will not talk about specific

constituencies because what is clear is that the Scottish Conservatives

are the only party making any significant gains in Scotland as we

saw with the recent local elections and a poll this might put us neck

and neck with Labour and the Lib Dems down at 5%. If you are looking

at polls and what will happen in the weeks' time, it is clear we will

make some gains. Have you been surprised, delighted or disappointed

at the U-turn that Theresa May has been engaging in over the past week?

I don't think she has been engaging in a U-turn. It is putting forward

our manifesto which is a true costed manifesto unlike some of the other

parties... It is the manifesto with different versions depending on

which day of the week it is? And I have not seen a single poll that

puts the Labour Party ahead. The choice is clear, it is Theresa May

or Jeremy Corbyn to be by Minister and who do you want to represent

this country at the Brexit negotiations? The SNP, you kind of

need to get on a map in this election and convince people in

Scotland it is not just about Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May but can you

do that? The last time I looked, the map of Scotland was pretty yellow

and we are focused on all constituencies because we have a

good chance of winning in every single seat and this battle is down

to Scotland standing up to the Tory government in Westminster and the

people of Scotland need to vote for the party and MPs who they think

have the best of doing that and in every one of the 59th constituencies

it is the SNP do our best placed to beat the Tories. What would you say

to people, and there has been this comment to this effect, to people

saying that the SNP were the big social Democratic party in Scotland

but your manifesto actually looks like a rather pale imitation of

Jeremy Corbyn's? I think you will find that we other party campaigning

for anti-austerity, if you look at our commitment, ?120 billion over

the lifetime of the Westminster Parliament to invest in public

services and infrastructure, we have a commitment that is very solid and

frankly, the policies that Jeremy Corbyn has got in his manifesto,

four example free tuition fees, are basically copying from SNP policies

and it is the other way round, it is asking the lead on this and the

Labour Party who is trying to catch up as best they can as they always

do. We will have to leave it there I'm afraid. That you all are looking

determined over the next couple of weeks, thank you very much.

Let's get some final thoughts from Alf Young.

What do they need to do for the next couple of weeks other than avoid

mentioning individual constituencies on programmes like this? I think

they need to get more people engaged. My sense is that people who

don't obsess about politics all the time are pretty disengaged from the

whole campaign so far. If they want people to actually come out and cast

their votes, they have to start talking. We are facing big,

significant developments in these islands... Perhaps you have alluded

to part of the problem earlier in the programme when we were talking

about when Theresa May was saying it is about Brexit, the referendum was

about Brexit, this is about giving her the power to negotiate a Brexit

she has not made clear what it is she wants to do so the debate is not

about Brexit. There are a whole set of issues, the issue of what this

process of coming out will look like and how it will affect us all in

terms of our material lives, our secure lives and the rest of it but

there are all these other things that have not really been addressed

about intergenerational equity, the state of the health service, I had

an experience of it myself and mine was terrific. But you can see the

pressure is on it in terms of the costs... We're not having that

debate. The SNP would say that we were against Brexit and they want

another independence vote and want to stay in the single market and

presumably they could argue that the reason there is no big debate on

Brexit is because although labour say things differently from the

Tories, they are not fundamentally challenging the Conservative

government on it. What with the debate be about? It seems to me you

don't get that kind of debate any more because the whole atmosphere,

the interparty atmosphere, is so intensely bitter. One side is going

to destroy us all, the other will make heaven tomorrow is none of that

is real or true. If only some of them would engage on how do you make

what we have got that bit better. We heard Angela Constance talking about

adding a bit too benefits but you don't make things better by calling

Sure Start best start and saying that something different. This is

hardly the first time this has happened, but politicians are

dealing in Apocalypse now, Brexit is going to be not a bit difficult and

difficult to negotiate but a disaster! Or the most fantastic

opportunity ever! Do people's eyes glaze over? I think so. The whole

thing about that side go it doesn't matter which party, blue, red or

yellow, that party will destroy you all, life as you know it. It is just

so disengaged from the kind of lives most people live and the issues they

face on a daily basis. I think politicians in general have become

so professionalised that they have become disengaged from the

electorate. On that thought, we believe that!

We're back at noon tomorrow with First Minister's Questions.

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson