Nicola Sturgeon Trump Farage Independence and Trans rights

Nicholas Sturgeon, you're here in Belfast discussing the challenges involved in making devolution work. Many people believe Scotland has benefited from devolution, while Northern Ireland is struggling in terms of delivering good quality services for people here. Do you think there are lessons our politicians in Belfast can learn from the experience of their counterparts in Edinburgh? Inevitably, yes. I think we've done lots of things in Scotland that others can learn from, but I'm a great believer in the fact that we can learn lots from others as well. It's often helpful to see a country through the eyes of somebody from the outside. In the final period of my time as First Minister, Scotland was hugely successful in attracting foreign investment. In that final period, I started to see Northern Ireland as potentially a key challenger, partly because of the Brexit protocol and the particular relationship with the single market. So I think there's lots in Northern Ireland that people from the outside see as real advantages. Belfast is widely perceived as a city in the up. So I think mutual learning is important. One of the things I feel really strongly about just now when we think about global turmoil and turbulence and challenge, and some of the upending of the world order and free trade, all of that, that's been driven, I think, by a rising wave of populism, which is being fuelled by a sense that democracy, democratic governments, are not capable of delivering the change people need. So I think this is actually a moment for democratic governments everywhere, whether devolved or sovereign, to actually prove the worth of democracy, and I think we can learn from each other in that. I know you ultimately want independence for Scotland, but do you say that devolution has been a good thing for the country since 1999? I think Scotland is better with its own parliament than it was without it, and I think having a measure of self-government has been good for Scotland. I think the frustrations that often come, and there are many, many examples I could illustrate this point with, the frustration that often comes from having some powers over an issue but others being left with Westminster, and therefore the ability to do things being constrained, it is, I think, a downside, which is why greater self-government, we've done a lot with a limited degree of self-government, I think completing that process through independence would be of even greater benefit. But as you've just said yourself, we are living in an increasingly uncertain world. Donald Trump seems to dominate the global news agenda every hour of every day. Does that make independence a more difficult sell? No, I don't think it does. I think it's a normal human reaction in times of great uncertainty, when the world feels as scary as it does right now, for people to hunker down and play it safe and think, well, we'd better not have big change. I get that human instinct. But actually, on the counter to that, I think in a time when the world is as uncertain, I think the more control and direction you have as a country over your own destiny, the better. Scotland's geo-strategic position is incredibly important. A lot of the debate in recent weeks around Greenland, the Arctic, we've just had a Russian oil tanker, part of the Russian Shadow Fleet, seized off the coast of Scotland. Scotland is in a very important position geographically, strategically. It's unthinkable that an independent Scotland would not play, in my view, would not play a very full part in NATO. I hope an independent Scotland would be back in the European Union, collaborating with others to promote security and prosperity. But from a position of independence and being able to promote our own values and our own interests internationally. But your political opponents would say, I suspect, that independence isn't the issue that it was a few short years ago. Polling in Scotland suggests voters are more concerned about public services than Scottish independence. Do you accept that it is an issue which has fallen down the agenda? I don't, actually. But I think that's a really fair question. You would say that, of course, wouldn't you? Of course I would. But I want to try and answer the question a bit more fully. So if you take opinion polls on the binary question, should Scotland be independent or not, then support for independence is higher today than it was on referendum day in 2014. Roughly 50-50. Underneath the headline, if you look at support for independence in the younger age groups, it's 60%, 65%, 70%. So I don't accept that support for independence is lower. I think the counter is true. I think your question to me, though, is an interesting one. When you ask people to rank the issues of importance, issues like public services, the National Health Service, the economy, will come ahead of independence. But in a sense, that is because independence is not just another standalone issue. Independence is crucial to all of these issues. Our ability to influence these issues comes from the range of powers and access to resources that we have. So the debate about independence is really relevant to how do we build better public services? How do we strengthen our economy? It really spans all of these issues rather than sits alone in its own little silo. One last question on this just briefly. You weren't, of course, able to deliver an independence referendum during your time as First Minister. Your successor has set the bar pretty high for doing that. John Swinney says an SNP majority in this May Scottish election would be enough to demand a fresh vote. Are you concerned, I wonder, about that strategy? Because a failure to hit that high bar could effectively kill off independence for the foreseeable future, could it not? I mean, independence is not going to be killed off as long as a substantial proportion of the Scottish population, around half of the Scottish population, want it. So it's not going to live or die on the decisions of politicians. This is a debate that will only be settled when the people get the chance to decide and have their say. On John's strategy, I'm 100% behind him. I think he's right to target a majority. He would say if he was sitting here, what I'm going to say now is that a very, very difficult thing to do in the PR system that we have in Scotland. The SNP has done it before. So it's not impossible. But he's right to set that bar high. And I'm right behind him. And I think, you know, he has every chance of delivering that, difficult though it will be. But if he doesn't clear that bar, he's painted himself into a corner. In democratic politics, you have to try to win. If you don't try to win, you won't win. And you don't get to do what you want to do if you don't win. So I think being ambitious and setting that bar, I support that. I do think, though, at some point, the debate about what has to happen to enable a Scottish independence referendum to happen has to shift round a little bit. You know, the SNP has won election after election after election on a commitment to a second Scottish independence referendum. We've got mandate after mandate after mandate. The blockage on that is a Westminster government that is behaving entirely undemocratically, refusing to accept what people in Scotland are voting for. The question should be less to John Swinney or previously to me, what are you going to do about it? And the question should be to a Westminster government prime minister, what do you think has to happen to allow people in Scotland to have their say? You know, in Ireland, there is a process set out for the triggering of a referendum on reunification. In Scotland at the moment, it's just down to whether a Westminster prime minister wants to grant it or not. That's not democratic. And so I think Westminster politicians should come under a lot more pressure on that question. Well, the situation here on this side of the IRC is anything but clear. I didn't say it was clear. I said there was a process, at least in theory, set down. You talk there about Westminster and the importance of Westminster's position on this issue. And of course, who knows what's going to happen in Westminster in the years to come. In terms of political parties, there is, of course, a new kid on the block. Reform, whether some people like it or not, is increasingly becoming a force to be reckoned with in England and Wales and in Scotland. Now, you're no fan of Nigel Farage. You describe him as odious in your book. Do you think there's a real prospect of him becoming prime minister after the next general election, which is scheduled to be in 2029? Unfortunately, yes, I do. If I'd been asked that question a few months ago, I was asked that question, including here in Ireland a few months ago. I would have said then, if there was a general election, then I think he was odds on to be prime minister. I think he's starting to be seen a little bit more for who and what he is. Lots of revelations about his racist views in his younger days. I think he's making a big strategic mistake. Which he, of course, says is a misrepresentation. Well, I'll let him speak for himself. But he's making, I think, and it's only my view, a big strategic mistake in taking in so many failed Tories. So it's hard to pretend to people that you're this breath of fresh air when your party is filling up with the politicians that you claim made such a mess of the country. But I still think fundamentally, Farage will only be properly defeated if progressive politicians stand up and counter his narrative. People are opening their ears to his message in a way that they wouldn't have done before, because things are really tough for people. So politicians of the progressive left have to accept that people are really struggling right now, come up with better answers and offer an alternative to Farage. My big criticism of Keir Starmer on this front is that instead of doing that, he has spent a lot of time legitimising Farage, trying to out-reform reform on immigration, demonising immigrants as much as Nigel Farage does. You're not going to beat Nigel Farage by trying to be more like him. You beat Nigel Farage by offering a progressive principled alternative to him. Do you agree with those, though, who maintain Nigel Farage is potentially a friend to Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists, because he himself, above anything else, is an English nationalist? No, I don't put it that way. I mean, I used to get asked, isn't Boris Johnson the best thing that's happened to the Scottish independence movement? I'm not, I'm just not Machiavellian enough as a human being. But I think politicians like Nigel Farage are bad news. I think if Nigel Farage finds its way into a position of power, I mean, he's wielding far too much influence in the political debate in the UK than I would like to see. But if he ever gets into a position of influence, that's bad news for everybody, because his brand of politics, his brand of scapegoating immigrants, his divisive othering of people, you know, he's a member of the elite that he claims to want to take on. I think it's bad. So I don't want to see Nigel Farage in any position of power. But he struck a chord, obviously, with a lot of voters. Of course, and including, well, as I said earlier on, he's striking a chord with people because people, you know, they've lived through years of austerity, you know, public services are struggling, living standards in the UK are stagnant at best. So he's, in a sense, he's coming up with, you know, the diagnosis, the prescription he's given is wrong. And people are listening to him because they're not hearing strongly enough. They are in Scotland because of the SNP, but UK-wide, they're not hearing strongly enough the counter to Nigel Farage. And that's what's got to happen. And just briefly, do you think he could change the face of Scottish politics this May? Because at the minute, I was just looking at the latest opinion polls, which suggest that the SNP is running at about 35% reform is about 18%, which, you know, is half of what your party is polling, but it's still ahead of Labour and the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. Absolutely. So if partly a feature of our electoral system, but not just that, as things stand right now, reform are going to have a not insignificant number of MSPs, potentially, in the Scottish Parliament in May. What will that do to Scottish politics? I think it will introduce a rather unpleasant element. But that, in a sense, the election is still a few months away. It's incumbent on those who don't want to see that happen to make the case. I think in Scotland, we can see in Wales, and I think this is really positive. At least it's suggested in the polls, let's see if it bears out. But there's a coalescing of people who don't want to see reform succeed behind Plaid Cymru. In Scotland, if that happens behind the SNP, then we can stop that, you know, progress of reform. If reform ends up in the Scottish Parliament in any kind of numbers, you know, they will try to undermine that institution from within, there is no doubt about it. The future of the Scottish Parliament, the powers of the Scottish Parliament, the influence of the Scottish Parliament will be much more fragile than it's ever been before, because you'll have a significant body of opinion within it. You don't actually want the place to exist and want to see it undermined. Towards the end of your term in office, you focused on delivering trans rights, but you later admitted you hadn't been inclusive enough, and you should have hit the pause button after realising just how divisive that issue was. I think it's fair to say in Northern Ireland that conversation is in a different place, and it is clear that it is a divisive subject here. What advice would you have for those on both sides of that conversation in this place? You know, you quoted something I wrote in my book last autumn there, which I meant when I read it, when I wrote it. I guess my opinion has changed even more since then, because I don't know that there is a way of just finding the common ground. You either have to decide whether you are a supporter of minority rights and dignity for people to live their lives the way they want to and be prepared to stand up for that. Yes, I thought maybe if I pressed pause, we could all have got around the table and found a different way. The kind of torrents of abuse I got from certain quarters when I wrote that suggests that maybe I was being a little bit naive. I think we're living in a time in history where the level of pushback against progress on LGBT rights, women's rights, you know, one of the greatest ironies of the trans debate is that not everybody, of course, but some of the loudest voices in the trans debate who claim that they are speaking up for women's rights are also people who would take away women's rights in a heartbeat, you know, who would take away abortion rights. So I think this is a moment in time where you have to decide whether you believe in progress and human rights and dignity for people or not. But is it fair to say, do you think that culture wars are a difficult place electorally for parties of the left? Yeah, I do. I think, and I, you know, bear some of the scars of that. And that's why, you know, there are forces, and again, I get, you know, sort of pelters every time I speak on this issue, because people, you know, say I'm tainting everybody who disagrees with me on trans issues as being part of what I'm about to talk about. I'm not. I know that many, the majority of people on the other side of this, to me, you know, their views are sincerely held. But there are forces out there that are deliberately trying to set up culture wars that are, you know, for them, the trans issue is the thin edge of a wedge. If we allow trans people to be chucked under the bus today, it will be, you know, gay people tomorrow or whatever. I think that's the moment in history we are living in right now. So culture wars are difficult for the party, for parties of the left. But sometimes in these moments, you just have to accept that it's difficult, because the alternative to actually continuing to stand up on these issues is giving in and allowing minority communities to be treated in ways that they shouldn't be treated. What I'm interested in just hearing from you is whether you think your views have changed at all on this issue, given the experience you have had, or are they the same? And are you simply saying you might have handled it better? Yeah, I might have handled it better, although whether it would have made any difference, I don't know. I think... But your fundamental position hasn't changed? My fundamental position hasn't changed. And, you know, maybe I've just got to the point where I'm no longer prepared to be apologetic for that. I believe in human rights. I believe that people should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. Trans people are a tiny, tiny number in our society, one of the most stigmatised groups in our society. You know, within any group in society, you'll find bad people. But you deal with the bad people, you don't taint the whole group. So my views are my views, and I won't shy away from standing up for equality and progress. I think on the trans debate, we, you know, many people in many countries got a bit, you know, sort of caught up in language and, you know, being scared to sort of use the wrong words or whatever. And I think there's some of that we probably should have done differently. But on that fundamental issue, I'm a feminist, and I believe I've championed women's rights all my life, and I always will. I will not accept, I will never accept that that is inconsistent with standing up for the rights of trans people. Since you're in Belfast, I think I have to ask you something about the encounters, the relationships you had with Northern Irish politicians over the years. And you attended many British-Irish events, of course, in your time as Scotland's First Minister. In your book, you mentioned that you noticed simmering tensions between Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness when they were serving as Northern Ireland's First and Deputy First Ministers. How did those tensions present themselves to you at the time? I mean, I was in a really privileged position. As Deputy First Minister in Scotland, I got to see up close Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness and the relationship they had. I then saw Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness interact, not quite the same, but still a really good relationship. And then when Arlene Foster became First Minister, something changed. And, you know, at first I was reluctant to think that was necessarily Arlene. You know, Northern Irish politics, I'm sure, can be as macho as Scotland, so maybe a bit of sexism at play or whatever. But that continued. And Brexit, I think, accelerated that. But I remember a British-Irish council. I remember one in Glasgow the week before Brexit, which I think was the first Arlene would have been at as First Minister, and just noticing a real difference. And I remember thinking, you know, I feel a bit concerned for, you know, the executive and the future. And then, six months later, the last time I think I saw Martin at a British-Irish council, it was clear that things were really, really frosty. And of course, it was very soon after that, that the executive went into abeyance. So I definitely think Arlene becoming First Minister and just bringing, you know, I'm not being particularly pejorative in this, bringing a different style, a different tone, a different demeanour to those relationships changed the overall sense of things. And it's pretty clear in the book that you warmed to Martin McGuinness, and you did not warm to Arlene Foster. I find Arlene more difficult to think... I mean, I've worked with, interacted with lots of Northern Irish politicians. I had a very strong personal rapport with Martin McGuinness, and he was always very kind to me. He was... and we got on well, obviously, politically. In some ways, we were quite aligned. So I held him in very high regard. I got criticism from some quarters in Scotland for that, but I held him in high regard. I'm a great admirer of Michelle O'Neill. I think she is a fine First Minister. But, you know, equally, I got on very well with Peter Robinson. I thought he, you know, in many ways was a fine First Minister too. Arlene, I just find more difficult to get on with. But I think she would, to be fair to her, she would possibly say the same about me. There was maybe just a personality clash there. Service delivery is a huge issue here at the moment. We seem to debate it week after week in Northern Ireland on our programmes. When you were in office, you took a lot of big decisions, including on increased levels of taxation to provide better public services. Now the big debate here is about the collapse of services and why our politicians have so far steadfastly refused to take those big decisions that could change the financial landscape here. What's your message to our politicians as they continue to wrestle with that huge issue? It will come up, I have no doubt, at the conference you're speaking at today. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I didn't deliver everything I wanted to deliver in Scotland, although there are lots of things I'm proud of. I think the longer I was in office, and actually even more so now that I kind of look from the outside into government, you have to be prepared to be very clear on what you're wanting to do, why you want to do it, and to make the case to people and to take people with you, even if it's that difficult. I think in modern politics there's a tendency to shy away from things that are controversial or that might lose you, or you might perceive will lose your support. I think you've got to make the case. When I raised income tax in Scotland in a very progressive way, I was told it was electoral suicide. I won a landslide election not long after that. If you make the case for something and you explain and articulate why you're doing it and what the purpose of it is, even if not everybody agrees with you, you can deliver things that otherwise, if you shy away from it and sort of tiptoe around it, you will find very difficult to do. So I don't want to put words into your mouth, but effectively what you're saying, if I understand correctly, is that politicians need to be brave, they need to hold their nerve, and sometimes they need to be prepared to be unpopular. Okay, because that's clearly not a thing here. There are some politicians who say we should increase revenue raising, because that's what we need to do. But most of them don't want to go down that road. And that will affect services. There is a direct correlation. It's not for me to say what the right and wrong thing to do in Northern Ireland is, but I think generally politicians, I think I get really frustrated. I'm beginning to sound like an old person sort of reminiscing about the good old days. I don't mean to sound like that. But I get frustrated listening to modern politicians. There are some honourable exceptions. They speak without saying anything. It's almost like, how do you sort of avoid controversy? And they shy away from difficult but necessary decisions instead of saying, standing up and saying, look, you might not like this, but this is why we've got to do it. Here's the downsides, but here's the benefits. And I'm going to make the case and try to take you with me. And yeah, you don't always win. You don't always succeed. But a bit more straight talking and a few more backbones in politics, and I think the world might slowly start to be a better place again. Nicola Sturgeon, thanks very much. Thank you.